NationStates Jolt Archive

Im Curious... Which side has an advantage in warfare...
needless to say, what if These two went head on into a stupid war.. and fought one another for a stupid reason... who do you think would has the vantage, and dis....

Ok be logical people.. I don't want no baise thoughts here... I just want plan and tatical thnking alright...

According to the "America wins" school of thought, America could quickly achieve air superiority, crushing the Chinese.
Personally, I don't think we'll go to war anytime soon...too mutually destructive.

Although it would not really be a likely outcome, the USA has nuclear power. China is densely populated. The USA could quickly eliminate most opposition. Plus, China's military spending is a fraction of the USA's.

China has no power projection (besides ICBM's).

The US could take the war to the Chinese. The Chinese could not take the war to America.

(I am speaking in military terms. Economics is something really different)

China has no ability to project its power. It's Navy is what is called a "brown-water Navy".

It would be the US attacking China. I'll assume no one uses Nukes, and I'll assume that it wouldn't immediately destroy both countries' economies, thus making prolonged war impossible (pretty big assumptions).

US would use bases in Korea, Japan and Taiwan as well as Air Craft Carriers. Big air battle...at the moment the US would win easily. China has some fancy new planes in the works, but they take time.
The US could not successfully invade China though - getting that many men on boats is just not practical, considering that the PLA has a billion and a bit men, and really isn't that badly trained (despite what some people say) plus very well motivated.

There were a few threads about this a while ago, you might want to look at those too:
Why do people underestimate China's military? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454612)
China goes high-tech military; matchup versus US. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454499)

Sure sure... Even China have nuclear capbality... don't underestimate that...
and the population don't matter, invading China won't even be a simple walk in the park, your facing the PLA, the PAP, and so forth...

Sure America can acheive Air supremecy, but don't be quick to judge... who knows... China might even ride superiorly on the ground.

So the Chinese Navy resemble that of the Old Qing Navy against the Brittish.... But still

take for example, Motivation has given China the strenght to face
both whtie and asian power, such as that of Imperial Japan, and the Brittish and french.

Using Nuclear weapons is a sure way to make sure no one wins.

Sure sure... Even China have nuclear capbality... don't underestimate that...
and the population don't matter, invading China won't even be a simple walk in the park, your facing the PLA, the PAP, and so forth...

Sure America can achieve Air supremacy, but don't be quick to judge... who knows... China might even ride superiorly on the ground.

Neither power has the shipping capacity to mount an invasion of one another.

we all would die....

we all would die....

Which is a bad thing.

Im Curious... Which side has an advantage in warfare...
needless to say, what if These two went head on into a stupid war.. and fought one another for a stupid reason... who do you think would has the vantage, and dis....

Ok be logical people.. I don't want no baise thoughts here... I just want plan and tatical thnking alright...

American would win. Its technology is still far greater than that of China, no matter how many men they can muster.

http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/8509/chinavsus6wa.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Sure sure... Even China have nuclear capbality... don't underestimate that...
and the population don't matter, invading China won't even be a simple walk in the park, your facing the PLA, the PAP, and so forth...

Sure America can acheive Air supremecy, but don't be quick to judge... who knows... China might even ride superiorly on the ground.

So the Chinese Navy resemble that of the Old Qing Navy against the Brittish.... But still

take for example, Motivation has given China the strenght to face
both whtie and asian power, such as that of Imperial Japan, and the Brittish and french.
You miss the point: with lesser naval AND air capabilities against the US, China could force a draw because of it's land defenses. China wouldn't really be able to prevent ariel bombardment. Imagine a blitz-style attack on a densly packed city like Shanghai or Beijing. Not pretty...

Neither power has the shipping capacity to mount an invasion of one another.

That is completely true. Though you don't have to mount an invasion to win the war - targeted bombing will do a lot.

http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/8509/chinavsus6wa.gif (http://imageshack.us)


I see they are not counting the thousands of J-5's, J-6's, J-7's, and J-8's.

Neither power has the shipping capacity to mount an invasion of one another.
You are correct. The logistics would be a nightmare.

You are correct. The logistics would be a nightmare.
Especially for the Chinese. The closest forward base would be Hawaii. At least the Americans have Japan.

(damn, I should have went to the Naval Academy!)

American would win. Its technology is still far greater than that of China, no matter how many men they can muster.


Here we go again with the number talk... dude quit talking bout how China
is only great for it's number...

Face the fact China too is becomming a modern army, the JF-17
and the Type-95 are all Chinese newly design, they too will lead Aid to China defense.

I see they are not counting the thousands of J-5's, J-6's, J-7's, and J-8's.

Though, just because China has an equivalent or greater number in any of the categories, doesn't mean they are equal.

10 Chinese submarines do not equal 10 American submarines.

American military technology is still ahead of China by a good deal.

Especially for the Chinese. The closest forward base would be Hawaii. At least the Americans have Japan.

(damn, I should have went to the Naval Academy!)
LOL! Yes, perhaps you should have. :)

The best option for a Chinese invasion of the US would be to sieze the Panama Canal, then move as large an army as they could put in place up through Mexico and take California.

The best option for an American invasion of China would be a two-pronged attack from both Korea and from Mongolia.

Wal Mart would see to it that an attack on China is quashed.

Here we go again with the number talk... dude quit talking bout how China
is only great for it's number...

Face the fact China too is becomming a modern army, the JF-17
and the Type-95 are all Chinese newly design, they too will lead Aid to China defense.
This true, which is just another reason for both the US and China to be pleased that there is so much ocean between us. :D

Wal Mart would see to it that an attack on China is quashed.
Not just WalMart. Why do you think the US trade deficit with China is so high?

Face the fact China too is becomming a modern army, the JF-17 and the Type-95 are all Chinese newly design, they too will lead Aid to China defense.
True, but at the same time the Americans are finishing the F-22 and the F-35 which will move the game on again.

And the French are meanwhile building a completely pilot-less fighter/bomber with stealth and all the other neat gimmicks (but not for another few years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Neuron

They have 20 ICBMs.
We have 500! BOO-YAH!

If we got in a nuclear war with China, there wouldn't be a China left to nuke if we launched everything. We'd be missing DC, Chicago, New York City, LA, San Fran, Sacremento, Boston, Detroit, Tokyo, Seoul, Seattle, Annapolis, Miami, and a list of other cities that we really don't need anyways.

True, but at the same time the Americans are finishing the F-22 and the F-35 which will move the game on again.

And the French are meanwhile building a completely pilot-less fighter/bomber with stealth and all the other neat gimmicks (but not for another few years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Neuron

wait a sec.... when did we get the french involve in this.


Originally Posted by Gauthier
Wal Mart would see to it that an attack on China is quashed.

Don't forget Target..

wait a sec.... when did we get the french involve in this.

The USA could purchase the aircraft. Also, in a war between the USA and China, France will either remain neutral or side with the lesser of the two evils, namely the USA.

wait a sec.... when did we get the french involve in this.
Just talking about the general advances in military technology. The Chinese may be modernising, but so are other nations.

Germany builds new U-Boats that make even less noise than a Nuclear Submarine, and GPS-directed Artillery Shells, the UK builds (hmmm...anyone know what the UK builds at the moment?), the French put together these new planes and so on.

Everyone's always working on something, and although Chinese progress is impressive, it would be a mistake to overestimate it.

Not to mention... eventually N.Korea, dislike Americans more then the Chinese... so who knows.

Not to mention... eventually N.Korea, dislike Americans more then the Chinese... so who knows.
Or Russia. And that is a frightening prospect. :eek:

Not to mention... eventually N.Korea, dislike Americans more then the Chinese... so who knows.

North Korea is a half dozen generations behind western military technology.

North Korea is a half dozen generations behind western military technology.


I was talking bout their Infantry.... Heard their troop was trained for gurriela warfare.

I was talking bout their Infantry.... Heard their troop was trained for gurriela warfare.
True, if the DPRK decided to attack South Korea at the same time, I don't think the Americans could hold on.
South Korea may have a relatively well-trained and well-equipped military, but without substantial US support I don't think they'd survive.

Well they couldnt win a conventional (sp?) war so they have to do hit-and-run, but any war with the Two Koreas would destroy the entire area.

I was talking bout their Infantry.... Heard their troop was trained for gurriela warfare.

So? What's the point of infantry if they can't move without a 2000lb laser guided bomb being stuck up their ass?

So? What's the point of infantry if they can't move without a 2000lb laser guided bomb being stuck up their ass?
I think the idea would be that that bomb is being used against the Chinese at that point.

Right now the US has less than 200,000 troops in Iraq, and already there are problems both in recruiting and in responding to other areas with proper force.

A war against China about Taiwan would bind a lot more assets, and those would be missing if the DPRK attacked too.

I think the idea would be that that bomb is being used against the Chinese at that point.

Right now the US has less than 200,000 troops in Iraq, and already there are problems both in recruiting and in responding to other areas with proper force.

A war against China about Taiwan would bind a lot more assets, and those would be missing if the DPRK attacked too.

This is America! We've got bombs up to wazzo!

And the French are meanwhile building a completely pilot-less fighter/bomber with stealth and all the other neat gimmicks (but not for another few years).
I'm not easily frightened, but I have to admit that the thought of a computer-guided bomber scares the crap outta me. :(

I'm not easily frightened, but I have to admit that the thought of a computer-guided bomber scares the crap outta me. :(

You know what scares me worse?

Crappy movies with Jaime Foxx about computer-guided bombers.

... although Chinese progress is impressive, it would be a mistake to overestimate it.
Worse to underestimate it.

Worse even yet to misunderestimate it! :)

You know what scares me worse?

Crappy movies with Jaime Foxx about computer-guided bombers.
LOL! No shit! That was wayyy bogus! Heh!

Worse to underestimate it.

Worse even yet to misunderestimate it! :)
Hear Hear :D 'tis a terrible mistake to underestimate (potential) enemies.

In my Naval Science class, the LT (a submariner) says that Chinese subs are the only subs he fears.

Not superior to ours, we have some kick ass subs (seawolf anyone?), but second place easily.

And it would totally be a sea war. What'll their troops do? Swim lol?

No carriers = pwnage

LOL! No shit! That was wayyy bogus! Heh!

You never know. All that lowest bidder rubbish is bound to result in some cut corners when the US decides unmanned fighter/bombers are the next cool thing to have. Maybe they'll even run them on Windows. Or if they don't want that, they'd go for linux. Just think. Thousands of AI fighters, all of them without a single standardized program base since they were customized by their squadron techs.

I can see the headlines already.

"AI FIGHTER BOMBS OWN CARRIER: Company claims software glitch"

Does anybody remember that old movie "Red Dawn" where the U.S was fighting off an invasion from Soviets and Cubans, and the colonel was forlorn because our only allies were "half-a-billion screaming Chinamen" (the rest got nuked)...

Frankly, maybe we could talk them into a pingpong game, basketball game, and chess. Best two out of three takes Taiwan.

Does anybody remember that old movie "Red Dawn" where the U.S was fighting off an invasion from Soviets and Cubans, and the colonel was forlorn because our only allies were "half-a-billion screaming Chinamen" (the rest got nuked)...

Frankly, maybe we could talk them into a pingpong game, basketball game, and chess. Best two out of three takes Taiwan.

That was one of the worst movies I had ever seen.

Ever.

North Korea's army is much smaller than the ROK Army at mobilisation, and is short of food.

(North Korea's army consists of 1 million men, ROK regulars number 700,000, with 5 million in reserve)

The ROK has twice the population, thirty times the economic power, massive industry, and huge foreign currency reserves. The North has little industry, and no money.

From g2mil.com (Source: http://g2mil.com/korea.htm )

If North Korea insanely attacked, the South Koreans would fight on mountainous and urban terrain which heavily favors defense, and complete air superiority would shoot up anything the North Koreans put on the road. Assuming the North Koreans could start up a thousand of their old tanks and armored vehicles, they cannot advance through the mountainous DMZ. The South Koreans have fortified, mined, and physically blocked all avenues through these mountains, and it would take North Korean infantry and engineers weeks to clear road paths while under fire.

The North Korean military could gain a few thousand meters with human wave assaults into minefields and concrete fortifications. However, these attacks would bog down from heavy casualties, and a lack of food and ammo resupply. Fighting would be bloody as thousands of South Korean and American troops and civilians suffer from North Korean artillery and commando attacks. Nevertheless, the North Korean army would be unable to breakthrough or move supplies forward. Even if North Korea magically broke through, all military analysts scoff at the idea that the North Koreans could bridge large rivers or move tons of supplies forward while under attack from American airpower.

Even if North Korea employs a few crude nuclear weapons, using them would be suicidal since it would invite instant retaliation from the United States. North Korea lacks the technical know-how to build an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

The US military ignores this reality and retains old plans for the deployment of 450,000 GIs to help defend South Korea, even though the superior South Korean military can halt any North Korean offensive without help from a single American soldier. American forces are not even required for a counter-offensive. A North Korean attack would stall after a few intense days and South Korean forces would soon be in position to overrun North Korea. American air and naval power along with logistical and intelligence support would ensure the rapid collapse of the North Korean army.

Nobody is saying that the fighting between NK an SK would be anything short of a massacre, but I think NK artillery would be more than sufficient to turn most of the DMZ and Seoul into a sea of fire, not to mention closeby army bases.

That was one of the worst movies I had ever seen.

Ever.

C'mon, like Charlie Sheen and that other guy from Dirty Dancing would make a bad movie. It even had the sister from Ferris Bueller.

It even had some goober shooting a rocket propelled grenade a helicopter, and it just knocked the door gunner out the other side...

Okay, you're right, it sucked.

Back on topic, on the U.S. vs. China thing, would it matter who moved first, and how? (with house rules like no nukes, Russia neutral, Europe ambivalent, and so forth)

Does anybody remember that old movie "Red Dawn" where the U.S was fighting off an invasion from Soviets and Cubans, and the colonel was forlorn because our only allies were "half-a-billion screaming Chinamen" (the rest got nuked)...

Frankly, maybe we could talk them into a pingpong game, basketball game, and chess. Best two out of three takes Taiwan.
Not a bad idea, actually. Certainly better than going to war over some island just off the China coast, IMHO.

Not a bad idea, actually. Certainly better than going to war over some island just off the China coast, IMHO.

And somehow, the cubans managed to move their ENTIRE army to nicaragua, including tanks and supplies, without anyone knowing!

And somehow, the cubans managed to move their ENTIRE army to nicaragua, including tanks and supplies, without anyone knowing!

Heh, yeah...remember when they said that they disguised the paratrooper fleet as "commercial flights"...

The opening scene where the paratrooper guns down the high school principal...these days, the high schoolers would return fire...

Heh, yeah...remember when they said that they disguised the paratrooper fleet as "commercial flights"...

The opening scene where the paratrooper guns down the high school principal...these days, the high schoolers would return fire...

One good thing about gangs. They're fiercely patriotic!

One good thing about gangs. They're fiercely patriotic!

Hee hee...

"A new citation for valor was awarded by President Bush today. The "Silver Cap In Your Punk Ass with Clusters" was given to the 11 surviving members of the Six-Deuce Crips Light Irregulars, whose heroic defense of Five Points was lauded as critical to the liberation of the city.

Commanding officer, Brevit Major "Pimp Named Jones" Jones described the ceremony as tight, and thanked the administration for recognizing the contributions of straight hard motherfuckers everywhere."

ROFLMAO!

*Hands you a cookie with your name on it*

Hee hee...

"A new citation for valor was awarded by President Bush today. The "Silver Cap In Your Punk Ass with Clusters" was given to the 11 surviving members of the Six-Deuce Crips Light Irregulars, whose heroic defense of Five Points was lauded as critical to the liberation of the city.

Commanding officer, Brevet Major "Pimp Named Jones" Jones described the ceremony as tight, and thanked the administration for recognizing the contributions of straight hard motherfuckers everywhere."

I wish I had room in my sig for that!

:D

http://www.sinodefence.com/

Everyone go there and shut up already.

Anyways, true the Americans have a better navy. Though China is buying hundreds of equipment from Russia. They once thought about getting an Anti-Aircraft Carrier torpedo from them. They also received an Aircraft Carrier from Ukraine back in 2002.

As for air power, that's dangerous business. The United States isn't dealing with a country like Iraq which has outdated early Soviet AA defenses, we're talking about a country with AA defenses that actually shoot down planes and ICBMs. Systems like the S-300PMU Missile Air Defence System and the FT-2000 Anti-Radiation Surface to Air Missile system. These rival the American Patriot SAM. China has also purchased quite a few Russian Su-30MKK2's. Also like some of you said, the J series are under developement.

As for ground forces, I'm worried about their tanks. They may have A LOT of them, but most of these might be Type 79's, and Type 88's. Though I have seen large amounts of Type 90's, Type 96's, and Type 98's.

Also Chine has quite a few allies and sources. But anyways,
this argument is stupid. Such a war will never happen. There might be a dispute over Taiwan, though I doubt there will be an invasion of any kind. Does the US really want to go to war with a close ally who has ties with Russia and India? Should cheaply made products from China disappear? I'd cry if you guys went to war with China. I want affordable toilet paper please.

[url]. But anyways,
this argument is stupid. Such a war will never happen. .

I don't agree that discussing an implausible situation is stupid, a priori. Some (myself included), just enjoy discussing hypotheticals.

Like, what if Lex Luthor had been given the Green Lantern Ring...

The Chinese have the power of the Communisim, they get to lie without anyone questioning what they say or what they do. Couple that with how they can work on a Free Market world, China is one bad ass country.

China would much rather crush the Free World economicly then with there military.


However if China feels a need to go to War, you will see there equipment and #s raise big time. Right now...they have no need to have all the fancy gadgets and what not the United States has...right now...

http://www.sinodefence.com/
Also Chine has quite a few allies and sources. But anyways,
this argument is stupid. Such a war will never happen. There might be a dispute over Taiwan, though I doubt there will be an invasion of any kind. Does the US really want to go to war with a close ally who has ties with Russia and India? Should cheaply made products from China disappear? I'd cry if you guys went to war with China. I want affordable toilet paper please.

Please tell me you werent serious with that last line...but I digress...

It depends realy, if China wishes to do anything to South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan I would expect nothing less then US intervention.

Im Curious... Which side has an advantage in warfare...
needless to say, what if These two went head on into a stupid war.. and fought one another for a stupid reason... who do you think would has the vantage, and dis....

Depends how loyal to the motherland the Chinese in the States are. If they are all on Chinas side, the USA has already been invaded.

In any case China should not fight a convential "line up and fight" war, unless they didn't learn from Saddams foolishness. On the countries own soil it would be purely defensive; with lots of hit and run attacks and as little use of technology like radio as possible (which Iraq should have done). On American soil there would be targeted terrorist and guerilla attacks; aimed to kill as many as possible.

Why do all of you folks actually bother to discuss such things as the outcome of a war between China and the US?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conflict between between any nations will mean absolutely nothing good for us, the "workers and peasants" within these nations.

Our so-called leaders, in both state and business, could be the only ones to possibly benefit in any way. As has been the case throughout history, we would be the ones to die for them in such wars, while they make a profit and increase their own powers over us.

Regarding the nukes... Who would ever want to experience another Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That is what would happen if any state ever again made the infernal decision to use nuclear weapons on people.

The quoted text below, from an article by Noam Chomsky, left somewhat of an impression on me about the whole situation we have now with nukes and other weapons of mass destruction.

"The probability of apocalypse soon cannot be realistically estimated, but it is surely too high for any sane person to contemplate with equanimity. While speculation is pointless, reaction to the threat of another Hiroshima is definitely not."

This text was taken from We Must Act Now to Prevent Another Hiroshima -- or Worse, which one can read in its entirety at:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20050807.htm

The precarious nature of these times may inspire people with fear, but it will also inspire people to struggle and create change.

JUSTIN

Using Nuclear weapons is a sure way to make sure no one wins.

amen to that.
15 years ago the us could have won a tactical nuclear war against the chicoms,in so much as we had very accurate(for the time)guidance systems.

we could have easily attacked preemptively at their missile bases and their capitol.
this would have crippled there command and control heirarchy,and eliminated a retaliatory strike mostly.
and there missiles guidance systems were akin to the german v2 bombs of ww2.
they were as likely to hit korea or themselves as us,not to mention the rudimentary guidance they had was aimed at russia(cccp)and a first strike would destroy any ability to retaliate.

fast forward to today...thanks to clinton giving them restricted gps and computer guidance systems in exchange for campaign contributions thru strawman donations(no flames please..i also despise bush) they now have sophistacated guidance systems.(and we got to have our streets flooded with ak-47's from the head of norinco as a side deal..illegally imported as well..dont ask for a link,do your own research..google norinco)

but i digress...now know one wins in a nuclear exchange(although i think we have a substantial edge)but the outcome would be horrific for both sides.

that leaves conventional battle...they have no blue water fleet,no airforce logistic supply line capable of any sustained supply lines to the us(what with our air defence fighters plinking them out of the sky)and they cant walk across the pacific.

we have a blue water fleet of no compare,an airforce that is capable of sustained logistic support(with fighter support)and forward operating bases in japan/korea/and guam..to name a few.

let no one mistake the farce in iraq for americas true military strength...if we went into..ww2 mode..took the kid gloves off(you know ..not wanting to kill noncoms from carpet bombing..like dresden/tokyo and the like)we could easily bomb the hell out of anyone,without for the need for one boot on the ground,with the technology we have now.
but alas,we are the great satan...we are despicable warmongers..yet if we wanted,we could basically blast iraq off the map(with zero...zero american casualties)as we could probably do to china or anyone.

the biggest mistake a country like china could do is declare war or attack us,right now we arent in a bar fight,kinda like smacking down your kid brother(but to my dismay,getting our boys killed being half assed..well not exactly,but trying to be nice while we are at war..confusing concept to me)

not to sound arrogant,really,but if america was truly imperialistic or warmongering(like germany in the forties)we could basically go medevil on anyone if we went on a ww2 type war footing(total war)

i'm glad we are not like that,i hate death and destruction,yet people seem to think we are one way(imperialists or warmongers) when in reality..we could be so freakin nasty it would sicken everyone but the devil himself.

china wouldn't have a chance if we were on a true war footing.

thats why it will never happen..ever.

if they want to destroy us,they will do it economically...and we will look the other way until it is too late.
or we could be great trading partners,which is my hope.

i just wish they had a little more respect(no alot more)for human rights and dignity..but it is not my culture,so i wont presume to judge them on their attitudes,like i dont want to be judged on mine.

i just wish as well,that people realize that america could be far worse then it is now,we could really be a bully and get our way if those in charge chose too.

me i want my beer,my kids to be happy and to be left alone...i want to walk around nekid..shooting my guns on my property(safely)and to not be bothered unless i am infringing on someone elses rights.

rant off....no way anyone beats the u.s. conventionally,and atomic ends it all for everyone:sniper:

Ok im tire and sick of faggots comming in here and complanning "OH why do you have to make such a thread with China and America." well Firck off if you don't like my thread... you Hermaphrodite.

But people let's stick to the subject.

WHat I'm tired of is the fact that everyone thinks that china is hell-bent on conquering the world, my god, shut the hell up about these "hypothetical situations" and your "assumptions that this nation does nothing, and that these guys are neutral" because war isn't like that. Do you people honestly think that the nearby nations of russia, india, korea (both)< iran, etc. would do absoulutly nothing? And whats all this shit about "technological superiority and better training!" shit, we tried that shit in, what, afghanistan, iraq, vietnam. all caused more problems maybe cept for afghanistsan, then again, noone really bothers with that country much anymore anywyas, it's all iraq nowadays in america) and if your going to rely on air superiority you'll end up like the russians did when THEY invaded afghanistan. Listen, all these factors needed to be taken into careful consideration, more so than anyone (who has some form of life, or actually does this for a career) here, that has a computer, a few years knowledge of the subject, and some websites can offer.

Why are we so damn adament about makeing some war strategy anyway? Let's have something called trade, and peace, and just let china devolp. Because that way, I make money and don't lose my future sons! or daughters with the way things are in the military, anyways... My god you people frustrate me with your constant warmongering talk. worry about iraq (to all those americans out there, myself included) because that country never stood a chance and look at the shit it's giving us! so trus me, we'dbute off a little more than we can chew if we tried china anytime soon, what with our shitty econemy and all, not to mention wars have been rather porly planned as of late.


w/e rant over.

WHat I'm tired of is the fact that everyone thinks that china is hell-bent on conquering the world, my god, shut the hell up about these "hypothetical situations" and your "assumptions that this nation does nothing, and that these guys are neutral" because war isn't like that. Do you people honestly think that the nearby nations of russia, india, korea (both)< iran, etc. would do absoulutly nothing? And whats all this shit about "technological superiority and better training!" shit, we tried that shit in, what, afghanistan, iraq, vietnam. all caused more problems maybe cept for afghanistsan, then again, noone really bothers with that country much anymore anywyas, it's all iraq nowadays in america) and if your going to rely on air superiority you'll end up like the russians did when THEY invaded afghanistan. Listen, all these factors needed to be taken into careful consideration, more so than anyone (who has some form of life, or actually does this for a career) here, that has a computer, a few years knowledge of the subject, and some websites can offer.

Why are we so damn adament about makeing some war strategy anyway? Let's have something called trade, and peace, and just let china devolp. Because that way, I make money and don't lose my future sons! or daughters with the way things are in the military, anyways... My god you people frustrate me with your constant warmongering talk. worry about iraq (to all those americans out there, myself included) because that country never stood a chance and look at the shit it's giving us! so trus me, we'dbute off a little more than we can chew if we tried china anytime soon, what with our shitty econemy and all, not to mention wars have been rather porly planned as of late.


w/e rant over.

Uh, nobody was really planning on attacking China dude. We're just having a friendly "what if" discussion, and no, the terms don't have to be realistic for the discussion to be entertaining.

If you're not interested, don't put your energy into it. But telling others to "shut the hell up" is far closer to authentic aggression than what anybody here was projecting. Throttle down on the self-righteousness, okay?

what if conversation my ass. I hardly see enough humor in the average post to declare this a "friendly What-if disscussion" jesus christ, i say YOU need to tone down on the self-rightousness "dude"! Think before you talk back to your SUPERIORS! you will speak when spoken to slave!

what if conversation my ass. I hardly see enough humor in the average post to declare this a "friendly What-if disscussion" jesus christ, i say YOU need to tone down on the self-rightousness "dude"! Think before you talk back to your SUPERIORS! you will speak when spoken to slave!

You can disagree without acting like that, I hope. You have a right to your opinion, but yelling that you're my superior is pretty unfounded.

Ok im tire and sick of faggots comming in here and complanning "OH why do you have to make such a thread with China and America." well Firck off if you don't like my thread... you Hermaphrodite.

But people let's stick to the subject.

Firstly, I am not a faggot or a hermaphrodite. People who simply dismiss others with differing views of things, like you have to me, give the impression that they are very ignorant (which is probably true).

I did talk about the subject in my post. I did speak about who would have an advantage and a disadvantage! I gave you a little bit on the "what if These two went head on into a stupid war"! My "plan and tactical thinking" is basically, we must prevent this from ever happening. Did you not understand this, or did you choose to ignore what I typed?
I figured that I really was being logical! Apparently, I'm just being a faggot and a hermaphrodite...

JUSTIN

Im Curious... Which side has an advantage in warfare...
needless to say, what if These two went head on into a stupid war.. and fought one another for a stupid reason... who do you think would has the vantage, and dis....

Ok be logical people.. I don't want no baise thoughts here... I just want plan and tatical thnking alright...
It depends. On Chinese soil the Chinese would win a war of attrition thanks to the size of their nation and the number of soldiers they have unless nuclear weapons were exchanged.

If fought anywhere else the US technological advantage in naval warfare, weapons and logistics would ensure victory unless nuclear weapons were exchanged.

One more thing: Let's not forget that the US is China's biggest customer. Think of the massive amount of trade they went to war. Also, no one has mentioned the other countries in the region that are our allies; I'm pretty sure we have some bases in Thailand, and Bush has been working hard to get India all buddy-buddy with us.

"the only way we could possibly get enough bullets is if they were actually made in CHINA! and they might catch on to that"-Al Murrey

China would just overrun mainland south east Asia and combined with Chinas devastating brown water defences we won't be able to land any troops! (not even aircraft carriers could get close enough)

so it would be stalemate until Russia lets America send its troops across (never)

Given several things we know (and we can cite Eut's post earlier with numbers) about this, it seems obvious that a US China war will not be a land war. Instead we'll see the war kick off like this:

First thirty minutes: American stealth bombers based out of Guam orbiting Chinese airspace begin immediate penetration to neutralize several key PRC strategic assets. Specifically counterforce strikes against all know PRC nuclear weapons facilities and sites, and docked shipping capacity etc.. Decapitation strikes would be attempted, the success of these would be uncertain.

First hour: American carrier aircraft begin immediate engagement with PRC landbased aircraft, depending on how fast the PRC fighters move this could be an air-to-air duel or an American airstrike against coastal airbases. It is doubtful that the PRC fighters would get the jump on the carriers because of AWACs and AEGIS protection. At the same time American anti-submarine forces would begin hunting the PRC nuclear missile sub(s). Meanwhile, governmental debates would occur in the capitols. It's only a matter of who decides first. The US could theoretically nullify all the debt that the PRC has purchased on the grounds that it is warfare that has been engaged, or the PRC could move first and sell the debt and the dollars, which would be bad, but survivable.

*In this timeframe the possibility that a PRC ICBM could survive the initial strike would drive the PRC to adopt a "use it or lose it" mentality, should this be the case, the launch would happen within an hour, as per the fact that the PRC would most likely keep their aging liquid fueld rockets fueled during a time of high tensions. It is a reasonable chance that the US NMD would be able to down one or possibly more rockets, given that it is a multilayered system, with AEGIS Cruisers having proven that they can shoot down an ICBM, and a 60% success rate with the Interceptor rockets.

Within the first day: Potential for rapid resolution by either the decapitation of the PRC high command (US national command is too hardened to be able to decapitate in anything except a thousand-plus warhead exchange) or cooler heads prevailing. If not, a naval engagement will ensue, with PRC land based fighters and their brown water fleet against three to six American Carrier Battlegroups, with American naval victory probable. One might expect PRC missile attacks against Japan, Taiwan, Guam, The Marianas and the Phillipines. Patriot II systems owned by Japan and Taiwan would play a role, as would the Patriot III on the US possessions. Any AEGIS ships would also be important as well. Depending on cause, alliance activation will begin in this time frame, with US, various NATO countries, Japan, Australia, the Phillipines, ROC, ROK and oddly enough Vietnam is a possible. The PRC might see help from Russia, but its doubtful.

Continued hostility levels would continue. American air power would first attempt to eliminate as much PLA military capacity as possible, and then a strategic air war is also a possibility (countervalue). But it is doubtful that the US would invade the PRC, perhaps the ROC will push for it, but it is doubtful.

...conclusion: uncertain...

WHat I'm tired of is the fact that everyone thinks that china is hell-bent on conquering the world, my god, shut the hell up about these "hypothetical situations" and your "assumptions that this nation does nothing, and that these guys are neutral" because war isn't like that. Do you people honestly think that the nearby nations of russia, india, korea (both)< iran, etc. would do absoulutly nothing? And whats all this shit about "technological superiority and better training!" shit, we tried that shit in, what, afghanistan, iraq, vietnam. all caused more problems maybe cept for afghanistsan, then again, noone really bothers with that country much anymore anywyas, it's all iraq nowadays in america) and if your going to rely on air superiority you'll end up like the russians did when THEY invaded afghanistan. Listen, all these factors needed to be taken into careful consideration, more so than anyone (who has some form of life, or actually does this for a career) here, that has a computer, a few years knowledge of the subject, and some websites can offer.

Why are we so damn adament about makeing some war strategy anyway? Let's have something called trade, and peace, and just let china devolp. Because that way, I make money and don't lose my future sons! or daughters with the way things are in the military, anyways... My god you people frustrate me with your constant warmongering talk. worry about iraq (to all those americans out there, myself included) because that country never stood a chance and look at the shit it's giving us! so trus me, we'dbute off a little more than we can chew if we tried china anytime soon, what with our shitty econemy and all, not to mention wars have been rather porly planned as of late.


w/e rant over.

The basic concept is that we play out a strategy to see how it would happen. A war with the PRC is one of the last things I would advocate, for various reasons.

But, it's a mind game.

And a war with the PRC would be different from Vietnam and Iraq because those were not traditional interstate wars, a US-PRC War would be interstate, and that is what the US military is designed to fight, not insurgencies.

You know what scares me worse?

Crappy movies with Jaime Foxx about computer-guided bombers.
Emphasis on CRAPPY! That fucking movie wasn't worth the film it was recorded to! And Jamie Foxx SUCKS as anything but a comedian. He's not even very good at that!

In order for the American people to back such a war, some drastic attack on the mainland US would have had to occured, akin to a 9/11 which was precipitated by a nationstate. I'd say that a war simply over Taiwan or the Republic of Korea would meet stiff public resistance, especially due to the problems in Iraq.

Additionally, even if there was a catastrophic attack which is widely acknowledged to be of Chinese origin, there would still be ne'ersayers and peace activists- the government can't stamp them down like they did in WWI and WWII with cases like Shenck vs the United States, it wouldn't jive anymore.

The USA hasn't gone into full war mode since WWII, but if we did-I mean to the point of shutting down production on consumer goods and churning out weapons, ships, planes et cetera the US would be in a position to project a lot more power than we can now.

Additionally, if the cause is just enough, you might see recruitment rise- similar to how it did just after 9/11, except in a more marked manner. If the government can say, "look at what China has done to us, fight for the survival of our country and way of life" and wave the bloody shirt like they did after Pearl Harbor, then I think you would see a more favorable public view of any military conflict. We haven't fought a war for survival since the American Revolution, WWI was a political war. WWII was a war of cultures and philosophies, in order for a war with China to be accepted and persecuted with all due vigor would be if it was a war of survival, where the loser ceases to exist, or a war where philosophies are diametrically opposed to each other.

It would have have to be a just and legally declared war, not this ridiculous presidential usurpation of their role as a Commander in Chief to send 'police missions' 'interdictions' 'military actions' or other political terms of that ilk.