NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so this guy on a game I play was posting a link to his webpage, and on that webpage is has some facts on there that I thought were startling. What do you all think? I don't think this includes planes, tanks and such...

Military Manpower as of 2005:

United States: 67,742,879 men
Britain: 14,607,724 men
France: 13,676,509 men
Russia: 35,247,049 men
Canada: 8,216,510 men
Germany: 18,917,537 men
Japan: 27,003,112 men

Britain United States and France: 96,027,112 men
Britain United States France and Canada: 104,243,622 men
Britain United States France Canada and Japan: 131,246,734 men
Britain United States France Canada Japan and Germany: 150,164,271 men
Britain United States France Canada Japan Germany and Russia: 195,755,089 men

Total Units - 195,755,089 men

China: 342,956,265 men
North Korea: 5,851,801 men

China and North Korea: 348,808,066 men

Total - 348,808,066 men

Facts:
China outnumbers Britain United States and France by - 246,929,153 men
China and North Korea outnumbers Britain United States and France by - 52,780,954 men
China outnumbers Britain United States France and Canada by - 238,712,643 men
China and North Korea outnumbers Britain United States France and Canada by - 244,564,444 men
China outnumbers Britain United States France Canada and Japan by - 211,709,531 men
China and North Korea outnumbers Britain United States France Canada and Japan by - 217,561,332 men
China outnumbers Britain United States France Canada Japan and Germany by - 192,791,994 men
China and North Korea outnumbers Britain United States France Canada Japan and Germany by - 198,643,795 men
China outnumbers all collective allies by - 147,201,176 men
China and North Korea outnumbers all collective allies by - 153,052,977 men

Source:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Military
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html#Military
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html#Military
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html#Military
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html#Military
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#Military
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html#Military
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html#Military

Canada: 8,216,510 men
Whoa! Thought we got way less than that.

And you know what? I would support China and North Korea if they didn't have concentration camps and tell their peopel to eat grass instead of rice.

How many guns does China have as compared to all the rest?

The vast majority of those men aren't fit for combat, either through poor eyesight, malnourishment/obesity, drug/alcohol abuse, other physical shortcomings, disregard for authority, etc etc.

You couldn't implement conscription in Europe even if you tried, because people would simply refuse. Even Russia, which has conscription and wars to fight, just can't make the system work because no-one shows up and there is nothing the authorities can do about it.

At the end of the day, the numbers are roughly even. And a confrontation is not going to happen, because no-one has the logistics to make it happen.

Okay, so this guy on a game I play was posting a link to his webpage, and on that webpage is has some facts on there that I thought were startling. What do you all think? I don't think this includes planes, tanks and such... I don't quite get your point. China has a big population, how is this news? You do realise that those manpower number are the potential size of their army, right? Besides, the West is vastly technologically superior to China militarily and would kick their asses.

I am assuming the men are equipt with a gun or two.... Maybe ;)

I'm not sure if the factbook means thats how big they COULD get or how big the military is already.

Whoa! Thought we got way less than that.

These figures just represent the "availability of males between 16 and 49 who could fight in a military".

I'm not sure if the factbook means thats how big they COULD get or how big the military is already. I think it's pretty obvious. The U.S.A. does NOT have a standing army of over 60 million. That's a little ridiculous.

Not true, China is actually quite more militarily sophisticated than many peoplle think.

The number for Canadian availability is 8,216,510, the Military manpower - fit for military service:6,740,490

I am assuming the men are equipt with a gun or two.... Maybe ;)

You assume that, but that means that China has 350-700 million guns for its military, along with enough ammunition for all of them. China could never afford to fight a war like that.

What that guy's website is attempting to demonstrate is called "godmod" on this website.

Not true, China is actually quite more militarily sophisticated than many peoplle think. But still, compared to most Western nations, they're about 10-15 years behind. Trust me, I've checked this out. If it came to war, the Chinese would be gutted.

Numbers vs technology?

I would also like to point out that Serbia, with a manpower of a few hundred thousand men (albeit with 7 years of combat experience), managed to hold out against NATO air strikes for two and a half months, with minimal casualties. The ground war would have been interesting.

It is absurd to suggest that there will ever be a 100m vs 100m land army confrontation, especially not one involving equivalent technology. It simply cannot be done.

Numbers vs technology?

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

Yeah, we'll gut them, just like we did to the vietcong and the north koreans.

The chinese can hold back a flood by lining up in ranks with buckets and BAILING THE FLOOD WATER BACK INTO THE RIVER.
and it has actually happened.

and the few years behind that they are will mean little compared to their sheer weight of numbers.

we would win, but it will be far from 'gutting' them.

What happens if China doesn't "bust" and keeps getting stronger, what happens in 50 years?

Numbers vs technology?
It wouldn't be numbers vs. technology.

The only people to have a technological advantage are the US and UK. Everyone else in the "West" would be fighting with technology equivalent to that of China, and would enjoy no advantage. They would also be entirely dependent on the US and UK to provide a heavy lift capability, and no such capacity exists.

To be completely blunt, only the US and UK would be able to show up to the war. And they wouldn't last long against a nuclear-armed power with a home advantage and 100:1 numerical superiority. The beachead would be turned to glass. :rolleyes:

It wouldn't be numbers vs. technology.

The only people to have a technological advantage are the US and UK. Everyone else in the "West" would be fighting with technology equivalent to that of China, and would enjoy no advantage. They would also be entirely dependent on the US and UK to provide a heavy lift capability, and no such capacity exists.

To be completely blunt, only the US and UK would be able to show up to the war. And they wouldn't last long against a nuclear-armed power with a home advantage and 100:1 numerical superiority. The beachead would be turned to glass. :rolleyes:

That presupposes that the US and the UK are the aggressors. Given the provocative nature of the website in question, I would assume that the author believes that China should be the aggressor.

also, nearly every factory in China is a military factory being used to make American consumer products. The profits from this production is then being spent TO BUILD AN ARMY TO COME AFTER US WITH.

And the moment that war breaks out, every factory in the country will be turning out tanks, or guns, or ammo, or missiles.

They will easily have all the supplies they need.

That presupposes that the US and the UK are the aggressors. Given the provocative nature of the website in question, I would assume that the author believes that China should be the aggressor.
OK, well I'll be the first to volunteer for the Home Guard. :sniper:

Just as soon as all the Chinese ocean-going hovercraft crash into the White Cliffs of Dover. My god, the Channel would be so clogged, I bet I'd be able to walk across the Calais. Hell, the guys in the International Space Station would have a hell of a view. They wouldn't even need binoculars! :rolleyes:

It's never going to happen. :p

and one more thing:
if war broke out, china would be the aggressor.

and of course, the issue: taiwan.

they attack taiwan
we side with the taiwanese
we declare war on eachother
we get the shit beaten out of us, for a while, but we win in the end.
probably.

OK, well I'll be the first to volunteer for the Home Guard. :sniper:

Just as soon as all the Chinese ocean-going hovercraft crash into the White Cliffs of Dover. My god, the Channel would be so clogged, I bet I'd be able to walk across the Calais. Hell, the guys in the International Space Station would have a hell of a view. They wouldn't even need binoculars! :rolleyes:

It's never going to happen. :p

Not for decades, anyway. Not while the US and British navies are tied for first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth best in the world.

Take away Walmart and such, they might pull a Japan and attack?

I would also like to point out that Serbia, with a manpower of a few hundred thousand men (albeit with 7 years of combat experience), managed to hold out against NATO air strikes for two and a half months, with minimal casualties. The ground war would have been interesting.

It is absurd to suggest that there will ever be a 100m vs 100m land army confrontation, especially not one involving equivalent technology. It simply cannot be done. This is the only thing which prevents the West, particularly the U.S. from annihilating their opposition immediately, restraint. Imagine the public furour if the West started carpet bombing and flattening entire countries who caused problems. Our sense of decency is the only thing which hold us, and I'm thankful for it.

Yeah, we'll gut them, just like we did to the vietcong and the north koreans.

The chinese can hold back a flood by lining up in ranks with buckets and BAILING THE FLOOD WATER BACK INTO THE RIVER.
and it has actually happened.

and the few years behind that they are will mean little compared to their sheer weight of numbers.

we would win, but it will be far from 'gutting' them. *sigh*, We won the war in Vietnam militarily, we just lost it terms of public relations, hence the stranglehold the military and the government has had on the press ever since. I am not saying it wouldn't be a costly war, but we'd win a lot easier than most people think.

What happens if China doesn't "bust" and keeps getting stronger, what happens in 50 years? Even if they don't "bust" economically, (which I doubt), they'll break up politically sooner or later. Already, there's a massive swelling of popular dissent against the corrupt, oppressive and lumbering government. The CCP tries to quel this sentiment with nationalistic fervour, like we saw at the protests against Japanese schoolbooks, but it can't last.

Those numbers are not actual military units, that is a statistic of military man power ie anyone given 8 weeks of training who could become a unit in the military, the actual military numbers of all those but chain are far far less.

Mind you, even if those numbers are real the western nations specifically the members of the OECD far outnumber those of china and NK. You explcuded the largest majority of OECD nation which in the hypothetical case we are talking about would most likely allie with the nations of the UK Canada and the US.

Not to mention that the OECD nations have a far greater capacity for war because of their weapons technology and market economies.

1. The numbers are refering to military man power of the countries, not the specific number of people who are activly in the military.
2. The number exclude those of all the OECD nations (western nations) which in such a acase would allie with those listed and create a force many times larger then that of china and nk
3. The capacity for war of the OCED nations which includes mobility technology and the support of a market economy far out-flanks thaat of nk and china. North Korea is all talk and no walk and are infact still in recovery from a decade long famine, china's army while huge is under supported, and ill equiped for anything then defence.

Many say that OECD nations have become fundamentally lazy, which is somehwta true, but it is a great underestimation of their strength and as WW1 and WW2 have shown, that given time OECD nations can and will overpower any enemy because of the adaptability of their economies and given that during the period of a war technology increases at a massive pace it is proven that from the example of the soviet union planned economies cannot keep up with those of market economies in times of peace nor war.

Hypothetically, it would be a statistical mess to move the armies of NK and China given their geology, mobility infrastructure and huge numbers. OECD nations on the other hand have smaller amier individually and thus more mobile and technologically advanced. If a war was to happen china and nk would move fast and OEC nations would suffer heavy casualities, but i hypothesis that as in ww2 as OECD nations begin to react the momentum of china and nk will slow and as more and more of the market economies of allied states begind to focus on the war effort, as was in ww2, the other powers would slowly, bu eventually be overwhelmed. Not to mention the face that china and nk would effectivly be counter attacked from every possible direction. They would make a noteable push, but would eventually be overwhemed by the sheer amount of momentum behind OECD nations.

Of course a war is increaseing hypothetical between OECD nations and china almost to the point of a joke because trade is not so imbeded in the mainly manufacturing economy of china that without the demand pull of western nations the economy of china would collapse. Not to mention that much of the infrastructure of china is investment from that of western business. One could go so far to say that although politically different china and the OECD nations have formed a symbiotic relationship based around trade.

But still, compared to most Western nations, they're about 10-15 years behind. Trust me, I've checked this out. If it came to war, the Chinese would be gutted.

I recently read an artical on the Washington Post which said that China was upgrading its military, possibly as a prelude to an invasion into tiwan. Chinas military *was* 10 years behind the times, a year ago. Now their more like 2 years behind the times, in a few months they might even be ahead of us. Remember, if your population is 10 times as large as someone elses, you have 10 times as many technological geniuses.

2nd, China has practiced, refined, and even loved war in the same way european nations have with poetry and music. Only they've been doing it since 3000 b.c. If the chinese know where to look, they could find a military genius capable of leading *any* army to victory. We have Donald Rumsfeld. Nuff Said.

3rd. Numbers and technology are meaningless anyway. Example: The battle of Bo Wang Po at around 200 a.d. In this battle a small army of a few thousand defeated a much larger, much beter equiped army simply by the use of strategy. To give a bunch of troops "good equipment" and throw them at each other like dogs is not only the height of stupidity, its also utter madness.

No, if all nuclear weapons were sumhow rendered harmless. And there were a war between the east and the west, we would all have to learn to speak Chinese very quickly. Our culture has become increasingly cowardly and lazy over the past 50 years, whereas China has started to regain some of its former glory, we simply are no longer a match for them.

Chinese are not Japanese.... Chinese are cowards, with poor fighting spirit that is further eroded by the decadent middle class lifestyle.

And you know what? I would support China and North Korea if they didn't have concentration camps and tell their peopel to eat grass instead of rice.

Uh... They don't? Seriously, where did you get these ideas. Very shady, and corrupt laws, yes. Concentration Camps?! Not exactly...

Chinese are not Japanese.... Chinese are cowards, with poor fighting spirit that is further eroded by the decadent middle class lifestyle.

Oh please read up on history my friend. It's not the Japanese that are being feared right now because of their past history of historical conquest. If anything, the Japanese are too arrogant. (Not overtly, but it's kind of a national mind set sort of thing...There are some nice Japanese people out there though.)

Chinese are not Japanese.... Chinese are cowards, with poor fighting spirit that is further eroded by the decadent middle class lifestyle.

Your right, the chinese arn't the Japanese. Instead of 100,000 samauri being the largest army Japan could muster in 1500. The chinese could muster 2million in 200 A.D. Instead of Mediocre military figures like Masamune Date and Shibata Katsue, they have legends like Zhuge Liang and Lu Bu to inspire them. Any "War" would go something like this: The Current government would get their hands bloody, cower because profits were down, and sue for peace. The US would become full of themselves, dancing in the streets, ect. 2 years later, not being able to bear the shame of defeat, China would revolt. Like in every revolt, the intellignet would come to power. In order to avenge themselves there would be another war, this time under better leadership. Overconfident and under poor leadership, the US would be creamed. Afterwhich Americia would become the biggest, bloodyist genocide ever.

Why invade Taiwan at a huge cost, when you could own a large slice of the world's economy? Looking forward 50 years, I see not a space-age China godmoding everyone, I see them owning stock in everything the same way the Japanese suddenly did in the 1990s. It makes a whole lot more sense. Remember the anti-Japanese paranoia back then? The Yen replacing the Dollar? Sound familiar?

It's not going to happen. Unlike North Korea, the Chinese are not idiots. They know they're onto an economic winner, if they can stave off social collapse and political upheaval a while longer.

I recently read an artical on the Washington Post which said that China was upgrading its military, possibly as a prelude to an invasion into tiwan. Chinas military *was* 10 years behind the times, a year ago. Now their more like 2 years behind the times, in a few months they might even be ahead of us. Remember, if your population is 10 times as large as someone elses, you have 10 times as many technological geniuses.

2nd, China has practiced, refined, and even loved war in the same way european nations have with poetry and music. Only they've been doing it since 3000 b.c. If the chinese know where to look, they could find a military genius capable of leading *any* army to victory. We have Donald Rumsfeld. Nuff Said.
For the past 2000 years China has had poor military due to the Confucian bias against soldiering. Chinese only love to fight other Chinese... the civil wars are endless, and Chinese armies always collapse when fighting against foreingners.


3rd. Numbers and technology are meaningless anyway. Example: The battle of Bo Wang Po at around 200 a.d. In this battle a small army of a few thousand defeated a much larger, much beter equiped army simply by the use of strategy. To give a bunch of troops "good equipment" and throw them at each other like dogs is not only the height of stupidity, its also utter madness.

No, if all nuclear weapons were sumhow rendered harmless. And there were a war between the east and the west, we would all have to learn to speak Chinese very quickly. Our culture has become increasingly cowardly and lazy over the past 50 years, whereas China has started to regain some of its former glory, we simply are no longer a match for them.
China's population is not at all interested in waging offensive war. Nowadays, with prosperity giving them something to live for, Chinese, who have never been known for great military exploits, are definitely not going to march out and die in foreign lands just because their government tells them too... but which in my opinion is preferrable and more peaceable than what the US has going on.

I recently read an artical on the Washington Post which said that China was upgrading its military, possibly as a prelude to an invasion into tiwan. Chinas military *was* 10 years behind the times, a year ago. Now their more like 2 years behind the times, in a few months they might even be ahead of us. Remember, if your population is 10 times as large as someone elses, you have 10 times as many technological geniuses.

They also have a system that doesn't exactly promote technical genius. And if you have a population ten times as large, you also have 10x the amount of people who don't want change.

2nd, China has practiced, refined, and even loved war in the same way european nations have with poetry and music Only they've been doing it since 3000 b.c.

Which is why gunpowder was invented in China, but not used militarily in great numbers until it reached Europe right? Europe has always been at the forefront of military technology because it had to with so many states grasping at power. Only until recently, with Europe first disenfranchised with the idea of war after WW2, then with the stability of the post-Cold War has it lost its edge. And the Chinese have hit a lot of stagnant times as well.

If the chinese know where to look, they could find a military genius capable of leading *any* army to victory. We have Donald Rumsfeld. Nuff Said.

If they knew where to look. Hell, if I knew where to look I could find the Ark Covenant, doesn't mean its going to happen. Any nation can find someone capable of leading an army to victory.

3rd. Numbers and technology are meaningless anyway. Example: The battle of Bo Wang Po at around 200 a.d. In this battle a small army of a few thousand defeated a much larger, much beter equiped army simply by the use of strategy. To give a bunch of troops "good equipment" and throw them at each other like dogs is not only the height of stupidity, its also utter madness.

Look at the Battle of Omdurman for a technology vs. numbers argument (it is also a much more recent battle). Numbers mean a lot when the technological ability are on the same level or near same level, but as the gap widens, thier significance becomes less and less. I don't see how you rexambple negates numbers and technology. Napoleon forced an Austrian Army to surrender simply by manuevering, he was European. It doesn't mean that had the armies come to battle, Napoleon would automatically win.

No, if all nuclear weapons were sumhow rendered harmless. And there were a war between the east and the west, we would all have to learn to speak Chinese very quickly. Our culture has become increasingly cowardly and lazy over the past 50 years, whereas China has started to regain some of its former glory, we simply are no longer a match for them.

Except for the whole Navy thing. They are behind by a lot to the West, and a Navy would be kinda important if all of your potential enemies are across the seas. And just having someone give you the tech isn't enough, China lacks the infrastructure required to build and maintain a large blue ocean Navy (they know this, which is why they are focusing on creating a green water navy). It takes years to build the shipyards, acquire significantly trained men to construct the ships, and build up a naval corps of trained officers and men to man them.

Your right, the chinese arn't the Japanese. Instead of 100,000 samauri being the largest army Japan could muster in 1500. The chinese could muster 2million in 200 A.D. Instead of Mediocre military figures like Masamune Date and Shibata Katsue, they have legends like Zhuge Liang and Lu Bu to inspire them. Any "War" would go something like this: The Current government would get their hands bloody, cower because profits were down, and sue for peace. The US would become full of themselves, dancing in the streets, ect. 2 years later, not being able to bear the shame of defeat, China would revolt. Like in every revolt, the intellignet would come to power. In order to avenge themselves there would be another war, this time under better leadership. Overconfident and under poor leadership, the US would be creamed. Afterwhich Americia would become the biggest, bloodyist genocide ever.

Yeah the Chinese sure kicked the Japanese's asses in World War II.

also, nearly every factory in China is a military factory being used to make American consumer products. The profits from this production is then being spent TO BUILD AN ARMY TO COME AFTER US WITH.

And the moment that war breaks out, every factory in the country will be turning out tanks, or guns, or ammo, or missiles.

They will easily have all the supplies they need.
There is a factory complex in one Chinese town, which makes 90% of the world's zips. Please explain how that production capacity can be instantly converted to military use.

It's not going to happen. Unlike North Korea, the Chinese are not idiots. They know they're onto an economic winner, if they can stave off social collapse and political upheaval a while longer.

Westerners mesure time in Years. The chinese, in centuries. As long as their are seperate governments, there are terrifs. That and they view themselves as the middle kingdom, and everyone else should pay them tribute, especially "Barbarians" like ourselves. No, there will be a war, because some idiot like bush pushes them to far.

Oh please read up on history my friend. It's not the Japanese that are being feared right now because of their past history of historical conquest. If anything, the Japanese are too arrogant. (Not overtly, but it's kind of a national mind set sort of thing...There are some nice Japanese people out there though.)
The Japanese are singleminded and devoutly loyal to their principles and nation, in the past few decades they worked hard as a people to incraease their nation's wealth and prestige through building cars and electronics, this is the same competitive spirit that is reflected in their zealousness in the field. The Chinese are notorious for bickering and infighting. Thankfully the Japanese aren't thinking about world conquest, but one thing is for certain... Japan is a hundred times more competent at militarism and imperialism than China.

Hey, maybe the Chinese will have the capability to put a man on the moon someday. Then they'll be as advanced as the West was in the 1960's.

China would make a great push, but eventually would loos momentum as the market economies adapted and gain momentum. Communist countries can simply not maintain momentum in an effort for terriortiral gain against market economies.

Those numbers are not actual military units, that is a statistic of military man power ie anyone given 8 weeks of training who could become a unit in the military, the actual military numbers of all those but chain are far far less.

Mind you, even if those numbers are real the western nations specifically the members of the OECD far outnumber those of china and NK. You explcuded the largest majority of OECD nation which in the hypothetical case we are talking about would most likely allie with the nations of the UK Canada and the US.

Not to mention that the OECD nations have a far greater capacity for war because of their weapons technology and market economies.

1. The numbers are refering to military man power of the countries, not the specific number of people who are activly in the military.
2. The number exclude those of all the OECD nations (western nations) which in such a acase would allie with those listed and create a force many times larger then that of china and nk
3. The capacity for war of the OCED nations which includes mobility technology and the support of a market economy far out-flanks thaat of nk and china. North Korea is all talk and no walk and are infact still in recovery from a decade long famine, china's army while huge is under supported, and ill equiped for anything then defence.

Many say that OECD nations have become fundamentally lazy, which is somehwta true, but it is a great underestimation of their strength and as WW1 and WW2 have shown, that given time OECD nations can and will overpower any enemy because of the adaptability of their economies and given that during the period of a war technology increases at a massive pace it is proven that from the example of the soviet union planned economies cannot keep up with those of market economies in times of peace nor war.

Hypothetically, it would be a statistical mess to move the armies of NK and China given their geology, mobility infrastructure and huge numbers. OECD nations on the other hand have smaller amier individually and thus more mobile and technologically advanced. If a war was to happen china and nk would move fast and OEC nations would suffer heavy casualities, but i hypothesis that as in ww2 as OECD nations begin to react the momentum of china and nk will slow and as more and more of the market economies of allied states begind to focus on the war effort, as was in ww2, the other powers would slowly, bu eventually be overwhelmed. Not to mention the face that china and nk would effectivly be counter attacked from every possible direction. They would make a noteable push, but would eventually be overwhemed by the sheer amount of momentum behind OECD nations.

Of course a war is increaseing hypothetical between OECD nations and china almost to the point of a joke because trade is not so imbeded in the mainly manufacturing economy of china that without the demand pull of western nations the economy of china would collapse. Not to mention that much of the infrastructure of china is investment from that of western business. One could go so far to say that although politically different china and the OECD nations have formed a symbiotic relationship based around trade.

A war between huge economies just isnt practicle or benificial these days. The fact that there have been no wars between democracies sonce their founding is a pre empt for that.

No, there will be a war, because some idiot like bush pushes them to far.
Pushes them into doing what, exactly? It's not as if either side can invade each other.

I recently read an artical on the Washington Post which said that China was upgrading its military, possibly as a prelude to an invasion into tiwan. Chinas military *was* 10 years behind the times, a year ago. Now their more like 2 years behind the times, in a few months they might even be ahead of us. Remember, if your population is 10 times as large as someone elses, you have 10 times as many technological geniuses. Nope, China is still roughly 10-12 years behind the West. They don't have the economic clout to upgrade themselves to a competitive level for at least a decade.

2nd, China has practiced, refined, and even loved war in the same way european nations have with poetry and music. Only they've been doing it since 3000 b.c. If the chinese know where to look, they could find a military genius capable of leading *any* army to victory. We have Donald Rumsfeld. Nuff Said. Umm, so could any army. Believe me, humanity on the whole has had a lot of experience with war and we've gotten very, very good at it. And Rumsfeld isn't a military genius. He's a hack and a political shiester.

3rd. Numbers and technology are meaningless anyway. Example: The battle of Bo Wang Po at around 200 a.d. In this battle a small army of a few thousand defeated a much larger, much beter equiped army simply by the use of strategy. To give a bunch of troops "good equipment" and throw them at each other like dogs is not only the height of stupidity, its also utter madness. That's why we're also very tactically advanced, the Australia alone has some of the best trained troops in the world, and we're not even a great military power. China has, on the whole, depended on human wave tactics for the last 50 years, it is only now that they are beginning to refine their strategy.

No, if all nuclear weapons were sumhow rendered harmless. And there were a war between the east and the west, we would all have to learn to speak Chinese very quickly. Our culture has become increasingly cowardly and lazy over the past 50 years, whereas China has started to regain some of its former glory, we simply are no longer a match for them. Sure we are. Our airand sea superiority alone would render their numbers useless.

Chinese are not Japanese.... Chinese are cowards, with poor fighting spirit that is further eroded by the decadent middle class lifestyle. Racist much?

Yeah the Chinese sure kicked the Japanese's asses in World War II.

Durring world war II, china had been under economic domination by the western powers for over 100 years, untill we hitailed our asses out like cowards when the Japanese invaded. Then add in the fact that Japan was a single, unified force, whereas China was buisy fighting a civil war (nationalists against Mao's communists). Chinese killed more Chinese in WWII then the Japanese Killed Chinese. Thats why they didnt win easily.

The US would become full of themselves, dancing in the streets, ect. 2 years later, not being able to bear the shame of defeat, China would revolt.

You mean like Germany did after World War II, you know, not able to bear the shame, or Britain after the American War of Independence, the Soviets after they ended the quarrel with Imperial Germany (don't say the Whites, they were already fighting). Finland after the end of the Continuation War, and of the states that fell to Napoleon, etc. etc.

Like in every revolt, the intellignet would come to power.

Every revolt? Since when did every revolt mean the intelligent come to power. Revolts just tend to bring the person who has the most charm to power. The Soviet Revolution did not bring the most intelligent to power, just the one who could get the most muscle. Did the Sepoy Mutiny bring the Intelligent to power, then why did they lose. Or how about the Spanish Civil War, was Franco really that more intelligent that Miaja.


In order to avenge themselves there would be another war, this time under better leadership. Overconfident and under poor leadership, the US would be creamed. Afterwhich Americia would become the biggest, bloodyist genocide ever.

I like how suddenly the US is overconfident and under poor leadership. Your scenario depends on a huge set of ifs to come to fruition, and I don't consider it likely.

Durring world war II, china had been under economic domination by the western powers for over 100 years, untill we hitailed our asses out like cowards when the Japanese invaded. Then add in the fact that Japan was a single, unified force, whereas China was buisy fighting a civil war (nationalists against Mao's communists). Chinese killed more Chinese in WWII then the Japanese Killed Chinese. Thats why they didnt win easily.

The Civil War was in truce when the Japanese invaded, and the Japanese were outnumbered in thier initial campaign against the KMT (The Communists were holed up in the north of the country, barely a threat to anyone). They soundly defeated and routed the Nationalist forces, and effectively had defeated them by 1938, since they lacked the forces to advance further securely. How about the Ichi-Go Offensive, the Japanese were again outnumbered by nationalist forces (not fighting Communists) yet still made huge gains against them?

and Chinese armies always collapse when fighting against foreingners.


They sure didn't collapse the last time they fought the US (1953, the Korean War). At that time, the Communists (which they still were back then, anybody who thinks the People's Republic of China is communist today should be laughed at, communists wouldn't deal with Wal-Mart), had just taken over after a bloody civil war.

We would have marched straight to the North Korean/Chinese border if China's troops hadn't entered the fray. They fought us to a two year stalemate then, and at that point, we could threaten the use of nuclear weapons, because they didn't have any yet.

So, I don't know where your obviously misinformed notion of Chinese armies collapsing against foreigners comes from. No, a war against the Chinese would be fairly bloody, I think.

Durring world war II, china had been under economic domination by the western powers for over 100 years, untill we hitailed our asses out like cowards when the Japanese invaded. Then add in the fact that Japan was a single, unified force, whereas China was buisy fighting a civil war (nationalists against Mao's communists). Chinese killed more Chinese in WWII then the Japanese Killed Chinese. Thats why they didnt win easily.

Those sounded an awful lot like excuses for Chinese military failure. They sort of force a few more questions to be asked, such as, "How did China come to fall under European economic domination for over 100 years?"

Your right, the chinese arn't the Japanese. Instead of 100,000 samauri being the largest army Japan could muster in 1500. The chinese could muster 2million in 200 A.D. Instead of Mediocre military figures like Masamune Date and Shibata Katsue, they have legends like Zhuge Liang and Lu Bu to inspire them. Any "War" would go something like this: The Current government would get their hands bloody, cower because profits were down, and sue for peace. The US would become full of themselves, dancing in the streets, ect. 2 years later, not being able to bear the shame of defeat, China would revolt. Like in every revolt, the intellignet would come to power. In order to avenge themselves there would be another war, this time under better leadership. Overconfident and under poor leadership, the US would be creamed. Afterwhich Americia would become the biggest, bloodyist genocide ever.
Your laughable and uninformed analysis of proves my point... Zhuge Liang and Lu Bu are just two figures in China's addiction with civil war and infighting. Furthermore Zhuge Liang is vastly overrated. Luo Guanzong is a Ming propagandist and not a skilled one at that... he fails to hide the fact that Zhuge Liang was unable to pursue Sima Yi in many battles. These errors are mentioned in Three Kingdoms... some genius is Zhuge! It is established fact that most of Zhuge Liang's ridiculous exploits, such as using sorcery to influence the wind, are utter lies and fabrications.

What good is 2 million soldiers in AD 200 if they are destroyed by Xiongnu and Uigurs in Western Han's disastrous invasions of Turkestan and Vietnam? What good is Ming Dynasty's million strong army sent into Korea during the Seven YEars War, but only a few hundred return home because the entire army is destroyed by the Japanese. Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, Nogi, Yamamoto, are far superior commanders to any Chinese historical commander with the possible exception of Peng Dehuai or Li Shimin. China's military record is poor, a reflection of Chinese society's mellowness (which is not a bad thing) compared to other countries' fanaticism.

They sure didn't collapse the last time they fought the US (1953, the Korean War). At that time, the Communists (which they still were back then, anybody who thinks the People's Republic of China is communist today should be laughed at, communists wouldn't deal with Wal-Mart), had just taken over after a bloody civil war.

We would have marched straight to the North Korean/Chinese border if China's troops hadn't entered the fray. They fought us to a two year stalemate then, and at that point, we could threaten the use of nuclear weapons, because they didn't have any yet.

So, I don't know where your obviously misinformed notion of Chinese armies collapsing against foreigners comes from. No, a war against the Chinese would be fairly bloody, I think.

Almost every example of a Chinese Army fighting a foreign one before Korea. And in Korea they had a massive numbers advantage, and a huge advantage in surprise. Further, the terrain the war stalemated at gave heavy advantage to the defender, and it is a tribute to the UN forces that they pushed the Chinese Army (not surprised like UN forces) back to the 38th Parrallel, where any further offensive would've been useless since no one thought of occupying North Korea again.

They also did not want to continue the war into China. So any further offensive action was just to secure a hill or something for better defense and observation. Make no mistake, the West was fighting with its hands tied behind its back in Korea. China has made huge inroads since then however, so thier exact performance cannot be gauranteed to be repeated.

I lived in China for four years, and let me tell you, they are no cowards. Oppressed yes, but they have national fervor and pride on par with the japanese.
and remember a little thing called WWII? Some of you self-obsessed americans or europeans (i'm american but at least i care about the outside world) may not remember this if you knew it at all, but the chinese fought off the japanese almost as well as we did. and dont give me some kind of crap about the flying tigers, america waaaaay overrepresents their role in the war.


and once again, the chinese have been slowly gearing for war for decades. the chinese are a veeeerrrry patient people... 'a mongol occupation? oh, it'll be over in a few centuries, its nothing.' they have been nurturing their geniouses, training their leaders, and preparing their armies for years and years.

and they would not try to do as japan did in the 90s and try to gain economic power. In Chinese, 'Zhong Guo' means China, and translates as middle kingdom or middle country. thousands of years ago they believed themselves to be the center of the universe, and as of 2005, that mentality remains. why would they care about economically controlling america? they already control china, why bother with anywhere else?

they arent interested in invading for more land, except for what they already think of as theirs. Taiwan, for instance. Notice the slight obsession about keeping tibet? the chinese are FIERCELY territorial and protective of what they believe is theirs.

Those sounded an awful lot like excuses for Chinese military failure. They sort of force a few more questions to be asked, such as, "How did China come to fall under European economic domination for over 100 years?"
Not even European economic domination. It was basically the Honourable East India Company having an interest in the opium trade, and arranging matters. Dominated not so much by the British Empire, but by a privately-owned corporate agent within it. :rolleyes:

Nope, China is still roughly 10-12 years behind the West. They don't have the economic clout to upgrade themselves to a competitive level for at least a decade.

No, their really just about equal with us now, really, they are.

Umm, so could any army. Believe me, humanity on the whole has had a lot of experience with war and we've gotten very, very good at it. And Rumsfeld isn't a military genius. He's a hack and a political shiester.

Humanity, especialy westerners, havent had much experience with war *recently*. The last big one was world war II, and we realy havent won one since. Therfore any war would rely on the inate ability of the commanders comanding the army. China has kept their military traditions mostly in tact, by aplying them to buisness (I dare you to find a chinese CEO who hasnt read Sun Tzu's Art of War) The us has become, for lack of a better word, chicken. The war in iraq, while stupid and unessissary. Really isnt much at all to worry about, we just need new tactics that all.

That's why we're also very tactically advanced, the Australia alone has some of the best trained troops in the world, and we're not even a great military power. China has, on the whole, depended on human wave tactics for the last 50 years, it is only now that they are beginning to refine their strategy.

We're tacticaly advanced!?!? WOAH!!!!! Americia claims the strongest military in the world, and yet we lose 20 "elite special forces" in afganitan to an ambush consisting of a guy with a 30 year old russian Surface to Air missle and a semi automatic weapon? this is tacticaly advanced? Ah, I see, this is some strange new usage of the word "Advanced" I wasn't previously aware of

Sure we are. Our airand sea superiority alone would render their numbers useless.

The Chinese already have a jet with the combat capibalities of the most advanced US fighter in testing, in 2-3 years it will be ready for combat use, faster if they realy wanted it. As for sea superiority... *falls over laughing* sea superiority!! havent you heard of "The air". Theres nothing you can do in the sea that you can't do in the air any more. Fighting, Transporting troops, Scouting. Or did you not realize that Aircraft carriers are the most feared battleships ever developed?

Those sounded an awful lot like excuses for Chinese military failure. They sort of force a few more questions to be asked, such as, "How did China come to fall under European economic domination for over 100 years?" Personally, I believe it is because unlike Europe, China never fought much against external enemies and thus didn't have much incentive to focus on advancing it's weaponry, plus China's society, much like Islamic culture, seems to have applied the technological brakes at some point.

I lived in China for four years, and let me tell you, they are no cowards. Oppressed yes, but they have national fervor and pride on par with the japanese.
and remember a little thing called WWII? Some of you self-obsessed americans or europeans (i'm american but at least i care about the outside world) may not remember this if you knew it at all, but the chinese fought off the japanese almost as well as we did. and dont give me some kind of crap about the flying tigers, america waaaaay overrepresents their role in the war.



Not to jack the thread, but you are waaaay overrating China's role. After the effective defeat of the KMT in 1938, the Chinese didn't do anything against the Japanese until either the Americans pushed them (the campaign to reopen the Burma Road) or the Japanese did (The 1944 Ichi-Go Offensive). The Japanese didn't even put that many forces on the frontier with what was left of China because it posed almost no threat. Every once in a while they mounted a small force to launch a "Rice Offensive" then quickly returned to Japanese lines.

The Pacific War was won almost entirely by the United States, China simply tied up a lot of Japanese divisions garrisoning the country (a contribution made less impressive by the fact that the Allied blockade made almost any transfer of troops impracticable after 1942).

You know, something I feel has to be realised is, while knowing history is a good thing, we're not talking about the Ming Dynasty, the Tang, WWII, The Japanese Imperial Army of WWII, the Korean War, the Mongols, or any other point in history.

We're dealing with a rapidly modernising, and quickly improving (in quality.) army of a people with a modern drive to expand. Now that's a threat no matter what time period, or historically incompetent leadership you want to classify an entire race off of.

China simply tied up a lot of Japanese divisions garrisoning the country.
Around a million men who lasted two weeks against Soviet forces and managed to inflict less than 9,000 fatalities. :rolleyes:

Two weeks to do what China could not for 12 years.

As for sea superiority... *falls over laughing* sea superiority!! havent you heard of "The air". Theres nothing you can do in the sea that you can't do in the air any more. Fighting, Transporting troops, Scouting. Or did you not realize that Aircraft carriers are the most feared battleships ever developed?

You can transport troops through the air? In what? 747s?

You know, something I feel has to be realised is, while knowing history is a good thing, we're not talking about the Ming Dynasty, the Tang, WWII, The Japanese Imperial Army of WWII, the Korean War, the Mongols, or any other point in history.

We're dealing with a rapidly modernising, and quickly improving (in quality.) army of a people with a modern drive to expand. Now that's a threat no matter what time period, or historically incompetent leadership you want to classify an entire race off of.
The point is, China which has never been a militaristic people, will never become a militaristic people especially since the quality of life is rapidly improving in China. In the past the average Chinese serf were conscripted into the army to die (and still couldnt win wars) but today the Chinese have something to live for - a car, a house, a good life. The Chinese will pose and posture and build shiny gadgets but when war comes and human life is on the line, Chinese people will not be so enthusiastic about throwing away everything they've worked hard for. Europe and the US are the same way, Europeans and Americans are affluent people who won't simply kill themselves in a huge useless Vietnam-scale war conducted by leaders alienated from their people. There are exceptions of courese, such as Arabs and Israelis driven beyond the rational due to their religion, but we don't see this fanaticism in US, EUrope, or China.

You can transport troops through the air? In what? 747s?

Eh...no. IL-76's, Y-8's, Y-7/An-24/-26's, Y-5's...

Almost every example of a Chinese Army fighting a foreign one before Korea. And in Korea they had a massive numbers advantage, and a huge advantage in surprise. Further, the terrain the war stalemated at gave heavy advantage to the defender, and it is a tribute to the UN forces that they pushed the Chinese Army (not surprised like UN forces) back to the 38th Parrallel, where any further offensive would've been useless since no one thought of occupying North Korea again.

They also did not want to continue the war into China. So any further offensive action was just to secure a hill or something for better defense and observation. Make no mistake, the West was fighting with its hands tied behind its back in Korea. China has made huge inroads since then however, so thier exact performance cannot be gauranteed to be repeated.

They still have a massive numbers advantage. Sounds a lot like excuses to me, but whatever. Antebellum's statement that "Chinese armies always collapse" against foreigners is still incorrect. I think anybody that thinks that we would "gut" the Chinese if it came to war is simply delusional. We might win, sure, but it would probably be costly. China will not try to invade the US in the near future, because of their lack of a good navy, as has been said earlier. Therefore, the only way a war would be undertaken, short of nuclear attacks (which would suck mightily for all involved) would be a western invasion of China. They would be defending, and so would have the advantage. Too many people dismiss China's military capabilities, and that kind of careless arrogance frightens me.

The point is, China which has never been a militaristic people, will never become a militaristic people especially since the quality of life is rapidly improving in China. In the past the average Chinese serf were conscripted into the army to die (and still couldnt win wars) but today the Chinese have something to live for - a car, a house, a good life. The Chinese will pose and posture and build shiny gadgets but when war comes and human life is on the line, Chinese people will not be so enthusiastic about throwing away everything they've worked hard for. Europe and the US are the same way, Europeans and Americans are affluent people who won't simply kill themselves in a useless war conducted by leaders alienated from their people. There are exceptions of courese, such as Arabs and Israelis driven beyond the rational due to their religion, but we don't see this fanaticism in US, EUrope, or China.

I don't think that you're actually against the Chinese people. I also think that you agree with my opinion on what you've said above: That's not really a bad thing!

EDIT: Although, I sorta disagree with you on one of the points. That is, "China which has never been a militaristic people..."

EDIT: Although, I sorta disagree with you on one of the points. That is, "China which has never been a militaristic people..."
Chinese folks are only militaristic towards each other, and has never been a militaristic world power. China's military heroes - Liu Bei, Li Shimin, Zhao Kuanyin, etc. etc. ALL come from civil wars. Not one great Chinese general made his name fighting foreigners, except for Peng Dehuai in Korea. Chinese people have never had the interest in dying in a faraway land away from their home and their loved ones, and now that China is prosperous, Chinese poeple will have absolutely no incentive to die even in a civil war. Instability and chaos is the #1 enemy of China today, any shit that happens will ruin all the economic achievements China has shed blood and sweat for.

No, their really just about equal with us now, really, they are. Really, they're not. http://www.clw.org/archive/oldclw/pages/8_352.html

Humanity, especialy westerners, havent had much experience with war *recently*. The last big one was world war II, and we realy havent won one since. Therfore any war would rely on the inate ability of the commanders comanding the army. China has kept their military traditions mostly in tact, by aplying them to buisness (I dare you to find a chinese CEO who hasnt read Sun Tzu's Art of War) The us has become, for lack of a better word, chicken. The war in iraq, while stupid and unessissary. Really isnt much at all to worry about, we just need new tactics that all. It is really, very stupid to underrate the West's military capabilities. We have the best equipment, the best tactics, the best troops, the strongest economies and the most insane amount of technological expretise.

We're tacticaly advanced!?!? WOAH!!!!! Americia claims the strongest military in the world, and yet we lose 20 "elite special forces" in afganitan to an ambush consisting of a guy with a 30 year old russian Surface to Air missle and a semi automatic weapon? this is tacticaly advanced? Ah, I see, this is some strange new usage of the word "Advanced" I wasn't previously aware of Uh-huh. I'm not even going to bother responding to this. take a look at any war the U.S. has been in, over the last 100 years, and compare casualty rates with the enemy.

The Chinese already have a jet with the combat capibalities of the most advanced US fighter in testing, in 2-3 years it will be ready for combat use, faster if they realy wanted it. As for sea superiority... *falls over laughing* sea superiority!! havent you heard of "The air". Theres nothing you can do in the sea that you can't do in the air any more. Fighting, Transporting troops, Scouting. Or did you not realize that Aircraft carriers are the most feared battleships ever developed? Are you being sacastic here?

once again, the chinese have always been unconcerned with the rest of the world.

the reason they fought eachother is because each faction involved believed all of china to be his personal territory. before the 1900s the chinese could not care less about the outside world except for how they could help china, and really didnt take any serious nterest in anything outside china until korea.

they consider taiwan part of china.
they will go to war to make SURE that taiwan is part of china.
america will not like this very much.
america and china will most likely go to war.


and now i bid thee goodnight, because i need to get up very very early tomorrow and it is already 3.45 AM here.

Really, they're not. http://www.clw.org/archive/oldclw/pages/8_352.html


China Threat Update: July 2003

They still have a massive numbers advantage. Sounds a lot like excuses to me, but whatever. Antebellum's statement that "Chinese armies always collapse" against foreigners is still incorrect. I think anybody that thinks that we would "gut" the Chinese if it came to war is simply delusional. We might win, sure, but it would probably be costly. China will not try to invade the US in the near future, because of their lack of a good navy, as has been said earlier. Therefore, the only way a war would be undertaken, short of nuclear attacks (which would suck mightily for all involved) would be a western invasion of China. They would be defending, and so would have the advantage. Too many people dismiss China's military capabilities, and that kind of careless arrogance frightens me.

I have no doubt that any western force landed in China would be quickly annhilated. I have no illusions that we would "gut" the Chinese in a war. I believe it would be a very dull war, since the US is not stupid enough to invade China short of a revolution occuring there, and China cannot invade the US or any of its principal allies in the region (with the exception of South Korea with some DPRK cooperation) in the face of the overwhelming Naval and air superiorty (less overwhleming, in fact, probably marginal) of the West.

once again, the chinese have always been unconcerned with the rest of the world.

the reason they fought eachother is because each faction involved believed all of china to be his personal territory. before the 1900s the chinese could not care less about the outside world except for how they could help china, and really didnt take any serious nterest in anything outside china until korea.
The Chinese didn't have any interest in invading foreign lands, furthermore the Chinese couldn't even successfully defend China from foreign invasion... when the Muslims came in the 8th century, when the Huns and other barbarians attacked in the 5th to 11th centuries, when the Mongols invaded in the 12th century, when the Manchurians invaded in the 18th century Russians and Japs invaded in 18th,19th, and 20th centuries centuries... unfortunately not once did a great commander emerge to defeat the invaders. In every instance the invaders raped and pillaged and took huge chunks of land from China.

they consider taiwan part of china.
they will go to war to make SURE that taiwan is part of china.
america will not like this very much.
america and china will most likely go to war.
Impossible... China and the US are economically inseparable. A full scale war between the two nations would sink both countries, destroy the entire world's economy and cause poverty throughout the world. China and America are not that stupid. Taiwan isn't stupid either, that is why Taiwan has NEVER said it isn't part of China. Taiwan is not trying to provoke a ruinous war. For the forseeable future, Taiwan will be content with the current ambiguous situation: one China, two governments.

Impossible... China and the US are economically inseparable. A full scale war between the two nations would sink both countries, destroy the entire world's economy and cause poverty throughout the world. China and America are not that stupid. Taiwan isn't stupid either, that is why Taiwan has NEVER said it isn't part of China. Taiwan is not trying to provoke a ruinous war. For the forseeable future, Taiwan will be content with the current ambiguous situation: one China, two governments. I agree with this. I'm merely saying on a purely military level, China cannot compete, but yes war would be a stupid decision, as it so often is. I mean, look at my sig!

The Civil War was in truce when the Japanese invaded, and the Japanese were outnumbered in thier initial campaign against the KMT (The Communists were holed up in the north of the country, barely a threat to anyone). They soundly defeated and routed the Nationalist forces, and effectively had defeated them by 1938, since they lacked the forces to advance further securely. How about the Ichi-Go Offensive, the Japanese were again outnumbered by nationalist forces (not fighting Communists) yet still made huge gains against them?

You aparently dont know how liberaly Eastern culture uses the phrase "truce". 100 of your men were killed? how terrible! it must have been those roving bandits again!! I'll make sure not one of them escapes us.

China was badly equpied, and a "truce" is hardly a unified front. Japan had good timing, thats all.

Those sounded an awful lot like excuses for Chinese military failure. They sort of force a few more questions to be asked, such as, "How did China come to fall under European economic domination for over 100 years?"

China fell under European economic domintation for the same reasons the rest of the world did. Europe had its dark ages from 1000-1400. The rest of the world from 1500-1900. We cought china durring the last days of a dying dyansty. further more, it was a dyansty composed manchurians, who had conqured china from another dying dynasty before that. China works like this. they have 200-400 years in which they do not realy advance much under one dynasty, and when it can no longer care for the country, the country revolts, experiences 50 bloody years, followed by another 50 of rapid technological development in which they make the rest of the world look like cave men, and then it reapeats. China did this for 5000 years untill we came along. We just cought them at a bad time, again.

Your laughable and uninformed analysis of proves my point... Zhuge Liang and Lu Bu are just two figures in China's addiction with civil war and infighting. Furthermore Zhuge Liang is vastly overrated. Luo Guanzong is a Ming propagandist and not a skilled one at that... he fails to hide the fact that Zhuge Liang was unable to pursue Sima Yi in many battles. These errors are mentioned in Three Kingdoms... some genius is Zhuge! It is established fact that most of Zhuge Liang's ridiculous exploits, such as using sorcery to influence the wind, are utter lies and fabrications.

What good is 2 million soldiers in AD 200 if they are destroyed by Xiongnu and Uigurs in Western Han's disastrous invasions of Turkestan and Vietnam? What good is Ming Dynasty's million strong army sent into Korea during the Seven YEars War, but only a few hundred return home because the entire army is destroyed by the Japanese. Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, Nogi, Yamamoto, are far superior commanders to any Chinese historical commander with the possible exception of Peng Dehuai or Li Shimin. China's military record is poor, a reflection of Chinese society's mellowness (which is not a bad thing) compared to other countries' fanaticism.

Your blatint insults, along with your racisim, and your own uninformed views, demean you and your entire argument. Yes, Zhuge Liang is over rated by Mao Zonggang editor to the Three Kingdoms hundreds of years after the origional Lou Guanzhong edition. Yes I admit Zhuge Liang did not use sorcery to change the wind. However, even in the Mao eddition he admits he did not use sorcery, he actually asked a local elder, and as it turns out, the wind at Chi Bi changes direction violent once every 40 years. The whole sorcery thing was a ruse to scare Zhou Yu. That said, you cannot deny the historical evidance. Liu Bei pre Zhuge liang was a failing, running minor power. Zhuge Liang Manuvered them to establish his own state of Shu, which threatened Wei for 2 generations.

Zhuge liang Never persued Sima Yi because he never wanted to. He Knew that to battle an enemy in their own territory is dangerous. He also knew that Liu Chan was an idiot. He simply tried to preserve Shu untill, hopefully, Liu Chan would grow up. Unfortuently Liang Died first. His Strikes into Wei territory were more an effort to keep Sima Yi off balance, and keep Shu in tact. Furthermore, as to Nobunaga and Hideyoshi. Nobunaga was, on the battle, equal to Liang. However he was not able to persuade third partys as well, nor were his predicitions about enemies movements as valid. Example, Asai Nagamasa. Nuff Said. As for Hideyoshi, the very fact he invaded Korea, who had beter control of the seas, and the support of china, shows enough stupidity to negate any genius he ever would have had.

I lived in China for four years

I envy you and your experiences.

You can transport troops through the air? In what? 747s?

Yes, in 747s, helecopters, ect. For more information study the opening moves of the Us invasion into afganistan 2001-2002. Then, take everyone and all the equiptment from the navy, put them into the air force, tada! new troop transportation mode aquired!

Really, they're not. http://www.clw.org/archive/oldclw/pages/8_352.html

Did you even bother to read your own web page!! 2003!!!!!!!!!
Just FYI, its 2005!!!!!!!! some of your figures are even older than that.
The chinese begain upgradeing their military "recently".

It is really, very stupid to underrate the West's military capabilities. We have the best equipment, the best tactics, the best troops, the strongest economies and the most insane amount of technological expretise.

Your "technological expertise" bit ive already dealt with. our tactics suck: Iraq. The peope are blowing themselves up and were STILL losting against them!!!!! As for our economies, go through your house and collect every item that says "made in china" or even japan or tiwan on it. oh wait... you cant... their are too many of them. Without china our economy would be on its knees.

Uh-huh. I'm not even going to bother responding to this. take a look at any war the U.S. has been in, over the last 100 years, and compare casualty rates with the enemy.

But China can afford more losses!! they have more people!!!! And, out of every war in the past 100 years that the us has fought against china (korea and vietnam for those of you didnt know) the US has managed no beter that an truce. The actuall score is Us: 0 Draw: 1 China: 1... not good odds.

Are you being sacastic here? Not at all, the sea is as outdated as mussle loading muskets, the world just hasnt realized it yet.

Impossible... China and the US are economically inseparable. A full scale war between the two nations would sink both countries, destroy the entire world's economy and cause poverty throughout the world. China and America are not that stupid. Taiwan isn't stupid either, that is why Taiwan has NEVER said it isn't part of China. Taiwan is not trying to provoke a ruinous war. For the forseeable future, Taiwan will be content with the current ambiguous situation: one China, two governments.

I've always been careful of the economic excuse. First, certainly there are a lot of people in China who realize that the US would be hit hard by a war with China economically, and may think that this would cause the US to consider an invasion of Taiwan as a fait accompli and not intervene if it was done fast enough.

Let us not forget that in the year prior to the outbreak of the Great War, a book was published The Great Illusion which conclusively proved that any general European War would be ruinious to all the countries involved because of the deep economic intertwining between them. It proved that a Great War was impossible and if one did break out, would end in less then three months due to economic ruin. I think we all know how that one ended.

There's a set of fundamental errors in assuming the chinese have the capacity to undertake a war involving 300 million men.

1) FOOD - 300 Million human beings consume 360 billion calories of food per day, or assuming (rice) a staple diet, that translates into ~163 billion cups of food. (based on an assumed 1200 calorie diet, and primarily brown rice diet (220 calories per cup)

Problem: Chinese Agriculture does not produce enough excess food to feed an army of 300 million, when its currently dependent on imported food (from the West and South America) to meet special dietary needs, and the population involved in agriculture is being diverted into the military. (THey could redirect their non military population into agriculture, but then they run into problem 2)

2: Transportation: THe chinese can't handle the movement of 300 million men at any given time. Not just in overseas action (no one has the capacity.) THe chinese road and rail network doesn't have the capacity to move 300 million people (4 or 5 hundred if part of the civilian population is being moved into agriculture and critical industry)

3: Material, China does not have the material capacity to field 300 million men, the raw resources don't exist in sufficent quantities to arm, cloth, or shelter that many men. (And not just in china, a force that large is probably beyond the scope of a collective global effort) China is heavily dependent on foreign material (notably oil and cement, neither of which it produces internally in any great quantity)

4) Political Will: China doesn't have a sufficently strong central government to organize a nationwide mobilization. There's too many conflicts between rival elements of the CCP, and too much apathy towards the central government to organize or depend on those 300 million men to report for duty.

THe fact of the matter is, despite china's huge population, the chinese do not posses an overwhelming military force. It would be far more realistic to assume the chinese can field between 8and 16 million men beyond the standing army and people army units (more than that overwhelms their organizational capacity, fuel supplies, and transit networks.)

The US can probably field a commensurate force, (during WWII, the US military had several million men serving in both the pacific and european theatres, it can be assumed that an american population more than double the size of the body fighting WWII, provided with superior agriculture, transit, and comminication networks, can mobilize a larger force.)

Of course, this is all a bit moot. The chinese government is no more likely to start a war with the US than it is to voluntarily step down from power and reinstate an emperor.

You know what? You can have the smallest military in the world and still have a will to impose your imperialist ideas on others by invading. China may have a growing military, but we haven't the ideology to blow up some foreigners' butts and take their territory. All we want to do is to protect ourselves.

There's a set of fundamental errors in assuming the chinese have the capacity to undertake a war involving 300 million men.

1) FOOD - 300 Million human beings consume 360 billion calories of food per day, or assuming (rice) a staple diet, that translates into ~163 billion cups of food. (based on an assumed 1200 calorie diet, and primarily brown rice diet (220 calories per cup)

Problem: Chinese Agriculture does not produce enough excess food to feed an army of 300 million, when its currently dependent on imported food (from the West and South America) to meet special dietary needs, and the population involved in agriculture is being diverted into the military. (THey could redirect their non military population into agriculture, but then they run into problem 2)

2: Transportation: THe chinese can't handle the movement of 300 million men at any given time. Not just in overseas action (no one has the capacity.) THe chinese road and rail network doesn't have the capacity to move 300 million people (4 or 5 hundred if part of the civilian population is being moved into agriculture and critical industry)

3: Material, China does not have the material capacity to field 300 million men, the raw resources don't exist in sufficent quantities to arm, cloth, or shelter that many men. (And not just in china, a force that large is probably beyond the scope of a collective global effort) China is heavily dependent on foreign material (notably oil and cement, neither of which it produces internally in any great quantity)

4) Political Will: China doesn't have a sufficently strong central government to organize a nationwide mobilization. There's too many conflicts between rival elements of the CCP, and too much apathy towards the central government to organize or depend on those 300 million men to report for duty.

THe fact of the matter is, despite china's huge population, the chinese do not posses an overwhelming military force. It would be far more realistic to assume the chinese can field between 8and 16 million men beyond the standing army and people army units (more than that overwhelms their organizational capacity, fuel supplies, and transit networks.)

The US can probably field a commensurate force, (during WWII, the US military had several million men serving in both the pacific and european theatres, it can be assumed that an american population more than double the size of the body fighting WWII, provided with superior agriculture, transit, and comminication networks, can mobilize a larger force.)

Of course, this is all a bit moot. The chinese government is no more likely to start a war with the US than it is to voluntarily step down from power and reinstate an emperor.

Any remotly intellignet china wouldent attack the us directly first, theyed stay deffenceive, and work on allys. For instance, China has plenty of people, and not enough workable land to feed those people.

The philipenes on the other hand, while Us allied, grow a variaty of food, and dont have allot of people comparitavly. The same is true for the rest of that area. And most if it, including india, have a few grudges against the west. If china went to war it would go to war with allys, allys with food, and more man power.

They also wouldent be stupid enough try to field 300 million men, 50 million would do quite well I think...

You know what? You can have the smallest military in the world and still have a will to impose your imperialist ideas on others by invading. China may have a growing military, but we haven't the ideology to blow up some foreigners' butts and take their territory. All we want to do is to protect ourselves.

Yep, the same thing will kill us that killed rome. Christianity. Without someone to declare crusades left and right, christianity is a religion of pacifisim, China has always been China first, and religious second. they dont suffer from that problem. That said religious fantatics will still go get themselves wiped out "in the name of Jesus Christ", proving true the statement that "more people have died in the name of Jesus than any other human, including hitler.

You aparently dont know how liberaly Eastern culture uses the phrase "truce". 100 of your men were killed? how terrible! it must have been those roving bandits again!! I'll make sure not one of them escapes us.

China was badly equpied, and a "truce" is hardly a unified front. Japan had good timing, thats all.

Still, the vast majority of KMT troops after the Xiang incident were being repositioned to face Japan, leaving only a relatively small force to keep the Communists holed up and occupied.

Yes, in 747s, helecopters, ect. For more information study the opening moves of the Us invasion into afganistan 2001-2002. Then, take everyone and all the equiptment from the navy, put them into the air force, tada! new troop transportation mode aquired!

The only problem is that any airborne force is by definition extremely light in terms of weaponry. Any marginally equipped enemy can easily confront and rout an airborne force in combat, since heavy weaponry cannot be transported by air into combat. No modern airborne force would think of mounting an offensive operation by air (large formations like the US 82nd and 101st Airborne are no longer equipped or meant to undertake massive airborne operations like the ones in World War II).

As for the US invasion of Afghanistan, that was after the US Air Force had seriously put a dent in Taliban forces, and after the faction that had US support had done most of the groundwork. And the US troops landed were not facing major opposition.





But China can afford more losses!! they have more people!!!! And, out of every war in the past 100 years that the us has fought against china (korea and vietnam for those of you didnt know) the US has managed no beter that an truce. The actuall score is Us: 0 Draw: 1 China: 1... not good odds.

I wouldn't call Vietnam a Chinese victory anymore than I would call the Indian-Chinese "conflicts" an American victory. Not to mention Chinas own war with Vietnam shortly after was hardly a clear cut victory.

Yep, the same thing will kill us that killed rome. Christianity. Without someone to declare crusades left and right, christianity is a religion of pacifisim, China has always been China first, and religious second. they dont suffer from that problem. That said religious fantatics will still go get themselves wiped out "in the name of Jesus Christ", proving true the statement that "more people have died in the name of Jesus than any other human, including hitler.
What are you talking about? When did religion creep into this?

Not at all, the sea is as outdated as mussle loading muskets, the world just hasnt realized it yet.

That is fine and good, but when you need to get the effective troops and weapons to another continent, and your enemy has even a frigate in the way, I'll bet you'll be real sorry you sent those poor airborne guys in against heavy tanks and artillery.

The world probably hasn't realized the importance of the sea to control. If you can interdict your enemies ships, you can nuetralize his ability to project power beyond his lands, and with most major enemies being on opposite continents, this power is immeasurably important.

I've always been careful of the economic excuse. First, certainly there are a lot of people in China who realize that the US would be hit hard by a war with China economically, and may think that this would cause the US to consider an invasion of Taiwan as a fait accompli and not intervene if it was done fast enough.
The Chinese government has also said it will not invade Taiwan as long as Taiwan doesn't declare independence, and on this matter I believe that the Chinese government will keep its word... the unknowns for an arbitrary and preemptive invasion are just too great... Chicom does not want any possibility whatsoever of American or Japanese intervention, and Chicom is holding out for peaceful reunification. The China Taiwan issue will stay put for some time, and the recent historic meeting between KMT boss Lian Zhan and the Chinese President shows that all sides are working towards peace and reconciliation. Any violent alternative will be too disturbing to consider by all sides.

Let us not forget that in the year prior to the outbreak of the Great War, a book was published The Great Illusion which conclusively proved that any general European War would be ruinious to all the countries involved because of the deep economic intertwining between them. It proved that a Great War was impossible and if one did break out, would end in less then three months due to economic ruin. I think we all know how that one ended.
The European siutuation was unlike today's... today's economic interdependence is unparalleled. Whereas today manufacturing and output is frequnetly dominated by multinational corporations that have factories in all continents, back in the 1910s each great power had its own national companies, manufacturing, and assorted industries that competed against other nations'. Today's companies lose any physical ties to nations. The people back then can't even dream of the worldwide economic ruin possible today, and besides today people in the inudstrialized world are far less devout and less willing to die for a "cause." Back then people charge into machine gun fire for God and country but today's people are affluent, educated, and cynical. Nobody wants the nightmare of world war, and no government will find the support from their people for such large scale wars that impoverish and kill entire populations. As Tactical Grace mentioned earlier Europoeans would flat out refuse to serve in wars, so would most American and Chinese. People would revolt first rather than get involved in this horrific possbility of a great war. Modern humans are simply disillusioned with their governments and no amount flimsy propaganda will convince millinos of young people to give up their productive lives and get killed or maimed on a grand scale.

The Chinese government has also said it will not invade Taiwan as long as Taiwan doesn't declare independence, and on this matter I believe that the Chinese government will keep its word... the unknowns for an arbitrary and preemptive invasion are just too great... Chicom does not want any possibility whatsoever of American or Japanese intervention, and Chicom is holding out for peaceful reunification. The China Taiwan issue will stay put for some time, and the recent historic meeting between KMT boss Lian Zhan and the Chinese President shows that all sides are working towards peace and reconciliation. Any violent alternative will be too disturbing to consider by all sides.

Very well then.


The European siutuation was unlike today's... today's economic interdependence is unparalleled. Whereas today manufacturing and output is frequnetly dominated by multinational corporations that have factories in all continents, back in the 1910s each great power had its own national companies, manufacturing, and assorted industries that competed against other nations'. Today's companies lose any physical ties to nations. The people back then can't even dream of the worldwide economic ruin possible today, and besides today people in the inudstrialized world are far less devout and less willing to die for a "cause." Back then people charge into machine gun fire for God and country but today's people are affluent, educated, and cynical. Nobody wants the nightmare of world war, and no government will find the support from their people for such large scale wars that impoverish and kill entire populations. As Tactical Grace mentioned earlier Europoeans would flat out refuse to serve in wars, so would most American and Chinese. Modern humans are simply disillusioned with their governments and no amount flimsy propaganda will convince millinos of young people to give up their productive lives and get killed or maimed on a grand scale.

As I said, no matter how strong an argument you make, I would urge anyone to always be weary of an economic argument against war. Your choice of phrases like no one back then could imagine the interdependence of today, or today we are far more interdepenent than any time in the past sound almost exactly the same as some of the passages of The Great Illusion. In all likelihood you may be right, however I find your case against war on terms of China and Taiwan becoming closer a far more sound argument.

Was WWI not the "War to end all wars." because of the horrific events? Obviously it didn't despite being so terrible. I think people will continue to fight.

Any remotly intellignet china wouldent attack the us directly first, theyed stay deffenceive, and work on allys. For instance, China has plenty of people, and not enough workable land to feed those people.

The philipenes on the other hand, while Us allied, grow a variaty of food, and dont have allot of people comparitavly. The same is true for the rest of that area. And most if it, including india, have a few grudges against the west. If china went to war it would go to war with allys, allys with food, and more man power.

They also wouldent be stupid enough try to field 300 million men, 50 million would do quite well I think...

Ithink even 50 million is beyond their capacity, except in a purely static defensive deployment. As far as invading the Phillipines, the filipino's wouldn't need american help. China doesn't have the capacity to deploy more than a few thousand men oversea's. They don't have a long range naval troop transport, or the remote air deployment capacity to undertake an airborne operation. Heck, even invading Tiawan is believed to exceed their transport capacity. (For all their glamour, aircraft simply can't deliver the tonnage needed to be so the sole transport method of an invasion. Airplanes carry tens or hundreds of tons of material, it takes tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of material to field a modern army.)

Was WWI not the "War to end all wars." because of the horrific events? Obviously it didn't despite being so terrible. I think people will continue to fight.

It was more like the War to spark a Bigger War. But nonetheless, the wider the gap becomes between when that war happened and the next, the less and less the lessons learned from the horrors of the past are to be remembered

Still, the vast majority of KMT troops after the Xiang incident were being repositioned to face Japan, leaving only a relatively small force to keep the Communists holed up and occupied.

They were still fighting each other, and they still wernt under a single command, thats enough



The only problem is that any airborne force is by definition extremely light in terms of weaponry. Any marginally equipped enemy can easily confront and rout an airborne force in combat, since heavy weaponry cannot be transported by air into combat. No modern airborne force would think of mounting an offensive operation by air (large formations like the US 82nd and 101st Airborne are no longer equipped or meant to undertake massive airborne operations like the ones in World War II).

As for the US invasion of Afghanistan, that was after the US Air Force had seriously put a dent in Taliban forces, and after the faction that had US support had done most of the groundwork. And the US troops landed were not facing major opposition.

Thats how wars are fought nowadays, you cream their air force first, then you bomb them to bits with air power, then the ground forces get to work, thats how they all will be fought from now on, tragic isnt it?


I wouldn't call Vietnam a Chinese victory anymore than I would call the Indian-Chinese "conflicts" an American victory. Not to mention Chinas own war with Vietnam shortly after was hardly a clear cut victory.

China acheived their objectives, the US left, South vietnam fell, Vietnam became wholey communist, and Laos and Cambodia shortly thereafter. When all your objectives are acheived your are victorious.

What are you talking about? When did religion creep into this?

religion and ideology about expansion are intertwined, we dont want to expand because god tells us its wrong, and that rubs off on the rest of the culture.

That is fine and good, but when you need to get the effective troops and weapons to another continent, and your enemy has even a frigate in the way, I'll bet you'll be real sorry you sent those poor airborne guys in against heavy tanks and artillery.

The world probably hasn't realized the importance of the sea to control. If you can interdict your enemies ships, you can nuetralize his ability to project power beyond his lands, and with most major enemies being on opposite continents, this power is immeasurably important.

You dont send "the airbourne guys" in untill after the bombers, under fighter escort, have gone in, Infantry is around only for cleanup and ocupation buisness now, that and to take bullets...

The Chinese government has also said it will not invade Taiwan as long as Taiwan doesn't declare independence, and on this matter I believe that the Chinese government will keep its word... the unknowns for an arbitrary and preemptive invasion are just too great... Chicom does not want any possibility whatsoever of American or Japanese intervention, and Chicom is holding out for peaceful reunification. The China Taiwan issue will stay put for some time, and the recent historic meeting between KMT boss Lian Zhan and the Chinese President shows that all sides are working towards peace and reconciliation. Any violent alternative will be too disturbing to consider by all sides.

Exactly, untill we lose intrest and they can get away with it. then it will be quick and efficent


The European siutuation was unlike today's... today's economic interdependence is unparalleled. Whereas today manufacturing and output is frequnetly dominated by multinational corporations that have factories in all continents, back in the 1910s each great power had its own national companies, manufacturing, and assorted industries that competed against other nations'. Today's companies lose any physical ties to nations. The people back then can't even dream of the worldwide economic ruin possible today, and besides today people in the inudstrialized world are far less devout and less willing to die for a "cause." Back then people charge into machine gun fire for God and country but today's people are affluent, educated, and cynical. Nobody wants the nightmare of world war, and no government will find the support from their people for such large scale wars that impoverish and kill entire populations. As Tactical Grace mentioned earlier Europoeans would flat out refuse to serve in wars, so would most American and Chinese. People would revolt first rather than get involved in this horrific possbility of a great war. Modern humans are simply disillusioned with their governments and no amount flimsy propaganda will convince millinos of young people to give up their productive lives and get killed or maimed on a grand scale.

I agree completely, so far as westerners are concernet. The middle and far east however, are still capable that kind of self sacrafice.

Ithink even 50 million is beyond their capacity, except in a purely static defensive deployment. As far as invading the Phillipines, the filipino's wouldn't need american help. China doesn't have the capacity to deploy more than a few thousand men oversea's. They don't have a long range naval troop transport, or the remote air deployment capacity to undertake an airborne operation. Heck, even invading Tiawan is believed to exceed their transport capacity. (For all their glamour, aircraft simply can't deliver the tonnage needed to be so the sole transport method of an invasion. Airplanes carry tens or hundreds of tons of material, it takes tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of material to field a modern army.)

Yet. Give it a few years.

religion and ideology about expansion are intertwined, we dont want to expand because god tells us its wrong, and that rubs off on the rest of the culture.
I don't get what you mean. Heh.

Was WWI not the "War to end all wars." because of the horrific events? Obviously it didn't despite being so terrible. I think people will continue to fight.
People will fight and die in foreign wars only if they feel motivated by some ideology like religion or nationalism. I think after WWII nationalism was more or less eradicated in western Europe, and its on its way out here in the US. It's dying in China... you'll hear stories about nationalist Chinese mobs smashing Japanese embassies but in reality the ~20% unemployment, tremendous corruption, squelches any enthusiasm that the vast majority of Chinese have about their government and their government's nationalist projects. I think for Europe, the US, and countries in the far east, ordinary people are very very afraid of death, unlike back in 1940 when everyone was motivated by gods to get riddled with machine gun bullets.

They were still fighting each other, and they still wernt under a single command, thats enough

Given what a small fraction of the country the Communists controlled, and the size of the KMT army, I don't think the fact that a few people were not fighting the Japanese in early 1937 mattered much. The division doesn't come into play until after 1940 in force.


Thats how wars are fought nowadays, you cream their air force first, then you bomb them to bits with air power, then the ground forces get to work, thats how they all will be fought from now on, tragic isnt it?

You sound remarkably like Douhet, predicting that the Air Force will be the dominant force and make all others obsolete. Still not learning from history are we.

China acheived their objectives, the US left, South vietnam fell, Vietnam became wholey communist, and Laos and Cambodia shortly thereafter. When all your objectives are acheived your are victorious.

The Chinese never liked Vietnamese control of Cambodia, and in fact, this was a cause of thier punitive expedition against them. Another communist state, not in the Chinese sphere, and hostile to China, was created out of the war. If anything, they came out in a draw.


You dont send "the airbourne guys" in untill after the bombers, under fighter escort, have gone in, Infantry is around only for cleanup and ocupation buisness now, that and to take bullets...

Of course, because bombers hit and destroy everything. Worked remarkably well for the US in Vietnam with its huge superiority in the air right? In Desert Storm, what was the point of even having a ground campaign against Saddam if such a strategy would've worked. Hell, what was the point of the push up the Tigris and Euphrates in Gulf War II, since the US easily has the best Air Force in the world, and the largest Airborne forces.

Exactly, untill we lose intrest and they can get away with it. then it will be quick and efficent

No one's losing any interest in Taiwan. China is the most feared nation in far east Asia, and Japan, Korea, and other neighbors will keep a close watch on China's actions, and so will the US. After China recently refused to respect South Korea's renaming of their capital, everyone got even more afraid of China's arrogance, so there will always be an incentive for China's neighbors to be alert.

The PRC likely won't last more than 70 years. The Chinese government is hated by millions of Chinese peasants oppressed by robber capitalism, and reforms are necessary. It is likely that China will peacefully become a democratic nation, and Taiwan will then reunify on equal and just terms with China.

I agree completely, so far as westerners are concernet. The middle and far east however, are still capable that kind of self sacrafice.
Not really, Chinese have never been capable of that sort of self sacrifice. Look at WWII, when the Chinese surrendered in droves to the Japanese in 1937, the Japanese were appalled by their cowardice and massacred them which resulted in the Massacre of Nanking. China's Confucian culture simply has no place for suicidal rashness on the battlefield. And nowadays Japanese people are even pacifist and would rather live in and enjoy the fruits of this world. The only populations who are still fanatical are the extremist religious groups in the Middle East, including India.

Let's not forget that all the tanks and planes in the world don't mean squat without oil. And guess who's in the perfect position to cut China off? Yep, the U.S.A. Evil? Call us what ya want, but you gotta admit, we think ahead!

I don't get what you mean. Heh.

Let me elaborate then from its founding untill christianity became its official religion, rome was, to put it bluntly, bloody. They had no inhibitions against killing people, provided they wernt roman, and actually kind of enjoyed it (gladiator games were spawned from this) Then along comes christianity and "thou shalt not kill" (which is actually a poor translation of "thou shalt not murder" and has quite a lot of confusion over the years). rome, within a few generations, loses almost all intrest in bloodshed, their more concerned about their souls then their glory. Roman expansion grinds to a halt, then starts to reverse, the condition of the army degrades, within a few hundred years, rome is no more, only byzantium.

The same will happen with us eventually. China on the other hand, worrys about China first, and then everything else. thats how budism took root there, thats how comunism was able to flourish.


Given what a small fraction of the country the Communists controlled, and the size of the KMT army, I don't think the fact that a few people were not fighting the Japanese in early 1937 mattered much. The division doesn't come into play until after 1940 in force.

The fact that the two sides spent so much time mistrusting each other instead of fighting mattered more than the two sides combined. A unified front can mobilize a country, two seperate fronts can never even agree. But even that doesent matter, China was weekened by Civil war before Japan invaded, whereas Japan had been building up its military. China never had that oportunity


You sound remarkably like Douhet, predicting that the Air Force will be the dominant force and make all others obsolete. Still not learning from history are we.

Actually I know quite allot of history, your just being impatient. for instance when gunpowder first came out in Europe durring the renisance, armies still used swords for another 100 years, cavalry for another 400, we've had respectable aircraft for 50 years, give it a little time and it will happen.


The Chinese never liked Vietnamese control of Cambodia, and in fact, this was a cause of thier punitive expedition against them. Another communist state, not in the Chinese sphere, and hostile to China, was created out of the war. If anything, they came out in a draw.

As upposed to fiercly Anti-communist state, realy run by americia, full of Mcarthys, nuclear weapons, and an unmatched military. given the choice, id take an unfrendly Communist vietnam if I were china


Of course, because bombers hit and destroy everything. Worked remarkably well for the US in Vietnam with its huge superiority in the air right? In Desert Storm, what was the point of even having a ground campaign against Saddam if such a strategy would've worked. Hell, what was the point of the push up the Tigris and Euphrates in Gulf War II, since the US easily has the best Air Force in the world, and the largest Airborne forces.

Your making the mistake that every us tactition has made since WWII. NOT ALL WARS CAN BE FOUGHT THE SAME WAY!!!!! In open field battles, bomb the crap out of everything!!! Vietnam, however, was not an open field battle, it was a standing army fighting a hopeless fight against a determined, geurillia enemy. Carpet bombing didnt work in vietnam because the vietnamese were safe underground in their catacombs. Geurillas must be fought with propaganda, standing armys with bombs, bombs with Geurillias.

No one's losing any interest in Taiwan. China is the most feared nation in far east Asia, and Japan, Korea, and other neighbors will keep a close watch on China's actions, and so will the US. After China recently refused to respect South Korea's renaming of their capital, everyone got even more afraid of China's arrogance, so there will always be an incentive for China's neighbors to be alert.

really? go out on the street and ask 10 people if they care about tiwan.

The PRC likely won't last more than 70 years. The Chinese government is hated by millions of Chinese peasants oppressed by robber capitalism, and reforms are necessary. It is likely that China will peacefully become a democratic nation, and Taiwan will then reunify on equal and just terms with China.

No nation in history has EVER peacfully become a democracy.


Not really, Chinese have never been capable of that sort of self sacrifice. Look at WWII, when the Chinese surrendered in droves to the Japanese in 1937, the Japanese were appalled by their cowardice and massacred them which resulted in the Massacre of Nanking. China's Confucian culture simply has no place for suicidal rashness on the battlefield. And nowadays Japanese people are even pacifist and would rather live in and enjoy the fruits of this world. The only populations who are still fanatical are the extremist religious groups in the Middle East, including India.

read your chinese history. They wont sacrafice themselves for their ideology, but they will for their family. If they think that their family can gain from their death, then they will gladly die.

Let's not forget that all the tanks and planes in the world don't mean squat without oil. And guess who's in the perfect position to cut China off? Yep, the U.S.A. Evil? Call us what ya want, but you gotta admit, we think ahead!

Oil will only last 20-40 more years, and 40 is realy pushing it. China will be ready for it, because theyve had to be pretty much oil free since the car was born. Americia wont, because people like bush will never see it untill it is upon us. And then not only will our economy die, so will our military. Then even canada could take us over! :eek:

That said siberia has some of the largest oil reserves on the planet. and its only one Mongolia away.... Then all they have to do is dig through the permafrost...

Its 5:00 am, I'm geting some sleep, I'll come back tomorrow though so be sure give me plenty of ammo!! ;)

Now for one last thought. Were led by bush, in the last eletion the best the country could manage was bush and kerry. Do you realy think were capable of electing a decent government.

Sun Tzus art of war says that without prudent council at home, armies abroad are of little value.

Sun Tzu is always right.

Actually I know quite allot of history, your just being impatient. for instance when gunpowder first came out in Europe durring the renisance, armies still used swords for another 100 years, cavalry for another 400, we've had respectable aircraft for 50 years, give it a little time and it will happen.

Apples to oranges, but I doubt anything I say will get you to move.


As upposed to fiercly Anti-communist state, realy run by americia, full of Mcarthys, nuclear weapons, and an unmatched military. given the choice, id take an unfrendly Communist vietnam if I were china

Yet still one they had innumerable quarrells with. As I said, a draw for China, it got better than what could've happened, but definitely not what it would've wanted.


Your making the mistake that every us tactition has made since WWII. NOT ALL WARS CAN BE FOUGHT THE SAME WAY!!!!! In open field battles, bomb the crap out of everything!!! Vietnam, however, was not an open field battle, it was a standing army fighting a hopeless fight against a determined, geurillia enemy. Carpet bombing didnt work in vietnam because the vietnamese were safe underground in their catacombs. Geurillas must be fought with propaganda, standing armys with bombs, bombs with Geurillias.

And you are making the mistake the other generals have made, assuming that one force now has the ability (or will have in the future) to decide wars independent of any other. It proved disastrously wrong for the British and Americans, but that doesn't phase you. And if you think wars are fought the same way today as they were in WWII, you are vastly mistaken. An entire new field in intelligence and communication (C4I rather than C3I) has been added to the equation and firepower, range, weapons, and tactics have all changed considerably.

No nation in history has EVER peacfully become a democracy.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain (depending on when you want to count from, and no matter from where they have made huge strides towards representational power since the 1700s), Spain (the SCW isn't counted, and a lot depends on whether or not you consider a constitutional monarchy a democracy).






That said siberia has some of the largest oil reserves on the planet. and its only one Mongolia away.... Then all they have to do is dig through the permafrost...

And Russia, which will be just as oil starved, is gonna just sit back and let the Chinese dig.

really? go out on the street and ask 10 people if they care about tiwan.

They care about China, more precisely, ordinary Koreans and Japanese, and many other Asians, care about China not bullying neighbors and being arrogant toward the whole region. The recent examples of Chinese arrogance, which are the Seoul renaming controversy and the Koguryo historical controvesry, enraged ordinary Koreans, and no one in Asia wants to see this arrogance replicated anywhere. If China gets away with bullying Taiwan, other East Asians will fear that they will be next, so everyone is looking out for each other. Besides, Taiwan's independent economy benefits Hong Kong and other middlemen in Japan and Korea who skim off business done between mainland and Taiwan through an intermediary. There are many motives for being concerned about Taiwan.


No nation in history has EVER peacfully become a democracy.

Taiwan did. China can't afford not to. The problems with incompetence and corruption resulting from overcentralization of authority is alienating hundreds of millions of Chinese people who are pissed that the central government of Beijing has no idea what is going on in the faraway places and rural backwaters it presumes to govern. If all these injustices are suppressed then there will be a revolution that will throw China, and therfore the world economy, into ruin. The only way to solve the problem is to peaceflly and gradually bring the government closer to ordinary people.


read your chinese history. They wont sacrafice themselves for their ideology, but they will for their family. If they think that their family can gain from their death, then they will gladly die.

Chinese soldiers didn't even die to defend Nanking from the Japs' massacre of several hundred thousand Chinese civilians. Life is valued rather highly in China, and people aren't willing to die that easily. Besides, Chinese people are not stupid. You won't be able to convince them that their family will be benefitted by invading other countries, making war with the US, or invading Taiwan, none of which threatens a farm family in Sichuan. What does threaten families are the monstrous corruption of the central government, which steals from the poor to feed the well-connected, the cracks in the Three Gorges Dam due to shoddy construction and poor oversight, and ruthless robber baron exploitation throughout the country.


Oil will only last 20-40 more years, and 40 is realy pushing it. China will be ready for it, because theyve had to be pretty much oil free since the car was born.

Americia wont, because people like bush will never see it untill it is upon us. And then not only will our economy die, so will our military. Then even canada could take us over! :eek:

That said siberia has some of the largest oil reserves on the planet. and its only one Mongolia away.... Then all they have to do is dig through the permafrost...
If we truly run out of oil and no energy is found, China will be screwed too. The whole world will be screwed, since industrial nations' have all become quite dependent on oil no matter where you go. China is heavily dependent on automobile transport and diesel trains to keep its strong economy going and transporting manufactured goods from the inland to seaports for export. The only reason why the Communist Party is still in power in China is because ordinary people are making money by manufacturing and selling to other nations. If China's infrastructure collapses and industrial output collapses, then the ordinary people will become impoverished again and immediately revolt against the government as has always happened in history when Chinese peasants' lives take a turn for the worse. But I'm sure people will find alternate energy sources. Fusion power looks optimistic, and there are lots of other possibilities.

How many guns does China have as compared to all the rest?

3, but everyone else has those groovy ninja spikes.

Let's not forget that all the tanks and planes in the world don't mean squat without oil. And guess who's in the perfect position to cut China off? Yep, the U.S.A. Evil? Call us what ya want, but you gotta admit, we think ahead!
You do realise that China cannot be deliberately cut off without provoking an oil embargo from the rest of the world? There are simply too many interests involved.

You do realise that China cannot be deliberately cut off without provoking an oil embargo from the rest of the world? There are simply too many interests involved.

An let's not forget that oil is also used to make plastics, metals and fertilisers. A total oil embargo today would mean a complete breakdown of society. And if China stops producing, who is going to fuel your American consumer spending?

The Indians? Do they trust Americans completely? Bhopal, anyone?

And you know what? I would support China and North Korea if they didn't have concentration camps and tell their peopel to eat grass instead of rice.

We do that?

We do that?
Some Americans think that China in 2005 is still the China in 1965. Yeah. At about the same time Martin Luther King was fighting for the basic human rights for Negro Americans and dogs were set loose on protesting children. :rolleyes:

Some Americans think that China in 2005 is still the China in 1965. Yeah. At about the same time Martin Luther King was fighting for the basic human rights for Negro Americans and dogs were set loose on protesting children. :rolleyes:

Isn't it beautiful?

I've already been accused of eating children. Heh.

And something else that wasn't so cool...

The stealing jobs thing is fine, because I mean, we don't steal, we get them because we're willing to work more for less.

Hm..

The stealing jobs thing is fine, because I mean, we don't steal, we get them because we're willing to work more for less.

Hm.. :)

Will you take Economics?

:)

Will you take Economics?

History.

I'm not too sure if that's some form of compliment of anything, but i found economics (in yr 9 though) quite obvious and boring.

History.

I'm not too sure if that's some form of compliment of anything, but i found economics (in yr 9 though) quite obvious and boring.

That's fine. Econ is quite self explanatory, but rather interesting if you're interested in comtemporary issues. You don't have to make the choice yet, anyway. Explore.

The only war I see China getting involved in is an attempting to invade Taiwan... Which would utterly fail and turn into a long stalemated air and sea war between both sides. You see, the Taiwanese have access to some pretty high tech missiles and ships. The Chinese lack the logistics capability to get the troops there in the first place. If they tried air drops, Taiwanese Fighters and SAMs would turn it into a duck hunt. If they tried a seaborne invasion... well, the Taiwanese have Anti-Ship Missiles as well as their own very good warships(They are an island after all). The USA would definantly get involved on the Taiwaneses side. The 7th fleet could turn the Chinese air and naval into husks or ruins easily. As long as we dont land troops on their mainland... we would do just fine. A Chinese intervention of an 2nd Korean war is unlikely. China has had a falling out with North Korea and wouldnt risk its #1 trading partner over THAT.

India is beginning to get pretty good Russian equipmenrt to arm their army(which is the 3rd or 4th largest in the world) plus they have nukes, so that option is out.

Then there is Russia. China has long coveted Siberia, both for its land, resources, and territorial claims that the Chinese have. The Russian Army is a shadow of its former self and could not stand up to a Chinese invasion even though their equipment is pretty much on an even footing( Russian T-80UMs to counter the Chinese Typ-85s, Type-90s, and Type-96s. Russian T-90s to counter Chinese Typ-98s). Most of the Russian Airforce in Siberia is grounded so the Chinese could get airsuperiority. But the Russians ace of spades is their numerous nuclear ballistic and cruise weaponry. Although some of it is out of date and in disrepair, the Russians could still obliterate almost all of China. The Chinese on the other hand have only 12 ICBMs and a single boomer with 6 missiles. The ICBMs can be countered by the ABMs around Moscow, and the Chinese Boomer can easily be detected and sunk even by Russias rather poor sonar.

In a war against the west, China would simply use what I call the 'Zombie Approach.' The soldiers without guns stumble forward until the enemy runs out of bullets and they overwehelm them, or they die in droves until there is eventually a huge wall of dead Chinese solders that the soldiers with guns can shoot from.

Braaaaaaaains!

When you have ten guys, and your enemy has nine, you don't outnumber him. you may have more men htan he does, but that one guy can be lost real quick. when you're fighting a war, you can't rely on numbers to help you. because, even if you have a hundred and your enemy has fifty, if each of his men kill two of your men, you lose. Remember, it's lethality and survivability, not qualtity, that makes an army great.


The posted data assumes that N. Korea and China would actually work together. which they won't.

Also, in order for China to be able to utilise their manpower, they have to be able to project it. Japan isn't going to send it's Defense force to china to fight, nor is the Republic of China. China has to send it's forces to both nations. and we won't let that happen. Those gagillion men won't do China much good at the bottom of the ocean. why did you suppose out Navy is so big?

A war with China would go roughly like so;

China invades the Republic of china.

US cuts off all trade with China and declares war.

China makes some Kruschev-esqe treat.

Pacific Fleet moves into the theater, and fucks the Chinese fleet's shit up before blockading Taiwan(The republic of China).

Marines move in to assist the Taiwan military in removing the filthy communist infestation.

rest of the US Navy shows up and blocades China with the support of the UK, and maybe a few other allies.

Blocade continues and China eventually has to capitulate or risk starving to death.

Everyone laughs at China's stupid ambitions and goes home after China promises not to fuck with the allies again.

Uh... They don't? Seriously, where did you get these ideas. Very shady, and corrupt laws, yes. Concentration Camps?! Not exactly...



No. The Chinese call it "re-education" camps, instead.

Same stuff, new name.

When you have ten guys, and your enemy has nine, you don't outnumber him. you may have more men htan he does, but that one guy can be lost real quick. when you're fighting a war, you can't rely on numbers to help you. because, even if you have a hundred and your enemy has fifty, if each of his men kill two of your men, you lose. Remember, it's lethality and survivability, not qualtity, that makes an army great.


The posted data assumes that N. Korea and China would actually work together. which they won't.

Also, in order for China to be able to utilise their manpower, they have to be able to project it. Japan isn't going to send it's Defense force to china to fight, nor is the Republic of China. China has to send it's forces to both nations. and we won't let that happen. Those gagillion men won't do China much good at the bottom of the ocean. why did you suppose out Navy is so big?

A war with China would go roughly like so;

China invades the Republic of china.

US cuts off all trade with China and declares war.

China makes some Kruschev-esqe treat.

Pacific Fleet moves into the theater, and fucks the Chinese fleet's shit up before blockading Taiwan(The republic of China).

Marines move in to assist the Taiwan military in removing the filthy communist infestation.

rest of the US Navy shows up and blocades China with the support of the UK, and maybe a few other allies.

Blocade continues and China eventually has to capitulate or risk starving to death.

Everyone laughs at China's stupid ambitions and goes home after China promises not to fuck with the allies again.

You don't seriously think that North Korea and Russia wouldn't get involved, do you? I'm pretty sure that Kim Jong Il would jump at any chance to Nuke Americans.

bumpage.