NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. or China? No allies, no nukes.
If you think China will eventually surpass the U.S., how long will it take?

The numbers:

Population:
U.S.A. -- 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)
China - 1,313,973,713 (July 2006 est.)

Population growth rate:
U.S.A - 0.91% (2006 est.)
China - 0.59% (2006 est.)

Manpower available for military service:
U.S.A. -- males age 18-49: 67,742,879 females age 18-49: 67,070,144 (2005 est.)
China - males age 18-49: 342,956,265 females age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually:
U.S.A. -- males age 18-49: 2,143,873 females age 18-49: 2,036,201 (2005 est.)
China - males age 18-49: 13,186,433 females age 18-49: 12,298,149 (2005 est.)


Economy:

GDP (purchasing power parity):
USA - $12.410 trillion (2005 est.)
China - $8.182 trillion

GDP - real growth rate:
U.S.A - 3.5% (2005 est.)
China - 9.3% (official data) (2005 est.)

China might pass the US, but it would probably take several/many years. Right now, the US would surely win.

US would but only because we've been at the top of tech since the space race. Still it'd be close and we'd be crippled beyond repair. By the end of the war, no matter who'd win, they'd have lost so many ships and so many lives that their victory would taste as bitter as defeat.

Everybody Knows that Chuck Norris would win.

How?
Sure the US has the technology, but China's got ~5:1 more manpower.

Everybody Knows that Chuck Norris would win.
But the US wouldn't use him, 'cause that would be godmodding.

But the US wouldn't use him, 'cause that would be godmodding.
Hahaha!
:D
Well, to be fair, that's not unfamiliar territory for the U.S., especially of late ....
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." —to a group of Amish in Lancaster, PA, July 9, 2004

USA would probably win more battles because their military is more advanced, however China could probably outlast the US due to a huge reserve of soldiers and about 4X the population

The U.S. is better organized, and I think they have more patriotic zealots, anyways, and, of course, technology. However, if we were to fight a more Napoleonic war (I am feeling so intelligent right now, woo!), with troops lining up and shooting at each other and all--well, China would win. However, China and the U.S. aren't really neighbors, so I can't really imagine them every being in a situtation like that.
Both probably would be very crippled indeed.

The way I see it, once China gets a significant force onto US soil, they would inevitably win. I really don't see how technology could prevent this.:confused: Please explain.

No nukes? Their mere existence is a deterrent. Besides, I think the US has a far better navy and airforce than China.

Besides, I think the US has a far better navy and airforce than China.
Yeah, that's the primary thing that would stop a full-scale invasion, I think.

The US would win by a landslide. China's manpower is meaningless if they can't get the troops where they need to go, and since the US's air force and navy dominate China's, they would not be able to launch any military operations that required naval transport. Plus, China is also inferior in technology and quality; the government also has problems keeping their populace from rioting or protesting, and in a war situation it is possible that the repressed and impoverished (and resource-rich) inland provinces would rebel, further hampering a war effort.

Economically, China would collapse. Its economy is extremely heavily dependent on exports to the United States and lacks a lot of the advanced manufacturing that would be necessary to expand their military quickly. Also, the Chinese economy is not as well balanced as the US and it lacks the fiscal and monetary policy expertise necessary to control inflation; they could not keep up a war for an extended period of time because their economy would not be able to supply

Furthermore, China doesn't have the infrastructure necessary for national defense; all of it is clustered on the coast to serve its export industries and is very vulnerable to cutoffs since their highway and freight rail capacity is consolidated in to a small number of trunk lines. The major raw material producing sectors also have similar limitations and are vulnerable to uprisings due to the social instability and large-scale riots that occur often in those regions.

Nevertheless, a US victory would not result in a large-scale occupation of China; the size of the nation and the possibility of a widespread insurgency would make the occupation costly and time consuming. We would win, but the aftermath of the war would not result in occupation unless other world nations participated in the occupation like the division of Germany amongst the allies at the end of WWII.

The US would win by a landslide. China's manpower is meaningless if they can't get the troops where they need to go, and since the US's air force and navy dominate China's, they would not be able to launch any military operations that required naval transport. Plus, China is also inferior in technology and quality; the government also has problems keeping their populace from rioting or protesting, and in a war situation it is possible that the repressed and impoverished (and resource-rich) inland provinces would rebel, further hampering a war effort.
It could cause a premature disolution of the nation, and its subsequent fragmentation. That could happen even without a war, but never would it happen so quickly.

-snip-
Ah... thanks. I was looking for a comprehensive answer.

Do you think they will ever stand a chance? If so, when?

No allies? No nukes?

The the USA would surely win right now.

The USA has uber tech. The Chinese would never be able to land an invasion force on US soil - their troop transports would be blown out of the water.

In every way the US would dominate this conflict - it is so far ahead in technology that it cannot be meaningfully compared to any other nation right now.

The US can take any square foot of land anywhere in the world. The problem isn't taking a position, the problem is HOLDING the position.

The US couldn't hold a position (outside of the bases) in Nam, and can't hold a position (outside of the bases) in Bushnam, What makes anyone think the US could hold any square foot of China?

The only advantage to the US would be nukes that would devistate the moral of the people. On the other hand, it could totally inspire them to fight harder.

Numbers would not mean anything in a war like this.The U.S would win because the U.S have the superior firepower.China would be pounded into submission by the US's Airforce and Naval Strikes.All of Chinas numbers would mean nothing if there cities are being decimated by an airforce that cannot be stopped by what you have.The Chinese would(most likely)Surrender due to enourmous civillian casualties.

Its a moot point. Neither would win.

The US couldn't defeat the chinese in china. Wouldn't be able to move enough forces onto the chinese homeland in a short amount of time, and the USAF would have a large amount of trouble supporting the troops in china.

Chinese troops would never likely even touch the US homeland, unless they somehow got a few spec ops in.

Going to war would hurt both economies heavily.

The US could blockade China, but to what point? Bomb it for a while, bomb it for a long time even, they still wouldn't be able to muster enough troops for a successful attack in china(assuming the US could even get enough troops to accomplish such a task, not mentioning landing them).

So in conclusion, a US invasion would fail, a Chinese invasion is impossible.

In 30 years or so, it will change to either that both would fail, or both would never happen.

Numbers would not mean anything in a war like this.The U.S would win because the U.S have the superior firepower.China would be pounded into submission by the US's Airforce and Naval Strikes.All of Chinas numbers would mean nothing if there cities are being decimated by an airforce that cannot be stopped by what you have.The Chinese would(most likely)Surrender due to enourmous civillian casualties.

Just like the Vietnamese surrendured?

The US could never bring much firepower against China. It would have to rely on naval power, while on the defensive, China could use its entire airforce, air defense, and navy. Its alot easier to build 100 top of the line fighters, than 100 top of the line fighters and a carrier to base them on, too.

More than likely, the US would eventually broker for peace, as the US would hate the status quo being so distrupted by the war.

I'm not really willing to answer this without asking a few questions of my own.

Whose land are we fighting on, and are we assuming the U.S. military is heavily committed as it is today?

If we're in China and stretched out, we're screwed. We don't have the manpower to take down a billion people. With a little more manpower, we'd be fine. As it stands now, it would be another 'Nam.

No allies? No nukes?

The USA has uber tech. The Chinese would never be able to land an invasion force on US soil - their troop transports would be blown out of the water.

Even without allies fighting with the US, the obvious thing for China to do is cut off trade. Ie., They would go for Korea, Japan, the oil of the Mid East and eventually Europe, ala Genghis Khan. Without trade where would the US get parts for their tech?

No allies? No nukes?

The the USA would surely win right now.

The USA has uber tech. The Chinese would never be able to land an invasion force on US soil - their troop transports would be blown out of the water.

In every way the US would dominate this conflict - it is so far ahead in technology that it cannot be meaningfully compared to any other nation right now.

Wow, patriotic much?

US technology isn't all that special. The only place it has a real step ahead is aircraft, and especially in stealth. This is mostly because it can afford these, not the research. Europe especially is only a few years behind us otherwise, in airforce(stealth coming more or less to various planes, AESA, etc etc). Navally, the US is pretty well matched technology wise by europe. We just have the incredible numbers.

Ground forces wise, we are defidentally nothing special. Our AFV's aren't particularly good, compared to those of France/Britain/Germany. Infantry weapons, the M-16 is outdated if anything, and the rest of our infantry weapons arent much better. Not much special in munitions, communication technology, etc.

The US is so strong for a combination of three reasons: Numbers(compared to most of the world), Technology(compared to most of the world), and force multipliers(where the US reigns supreme).

Ah... thanks. I was looking for a comprehensive answer.
Do you think they will ever stand a chance? If so, when?

I doubt any earlier than 2040-2050, for the simple reason that China does not forsee the elimination of rural poverty any earlier than that date; although that might seem minor, the "socialist countryside" program it contains is a massive, widespread infrastructure buildout that will have both defensive and economic implications massively beneficial to the inland and rural regions. Those regions are two of the main Achilles' heels of Chinese defense and government stability.

However, the Chinese economy is facing some major challenges that will need to be overcome before it can concievably match that of the US. Size alone would not matter; the Chinese economy needs to both significantly increase its productivity and diversify away from exports in order to have an economy capable of fighting a prolonged war. Also, they need to address the problems of severe poverty, income inequality, and discontent in the inland parts of the nation that pose a serious threat to the government's stability. Infrastructure needs to be diversified and expanded, both to address those problems as well as making it less vulnerable to disruptions and less centered on imports; ideally, the infrastructure expansion would be designed to encourage growth in rural areas.

Electricity production needs to be increased and petroleum subsidies removed in order to increase the productivity of industry/agriculture and to make the nation less dependent on vulnerable oil pipelines from Russia and Iran. China is doing that with its ambitious programs of alternative energy/fuels and fuel economy standards, but their strong economic growth will continue to drive petroleum demand for the near future. It is also possible that China may make significant moves towards democracy, a multiparty system, extensive civil rights and a free market globalized economy. If that happens, a war with China may never occur.

Whose land are we fighting on, and are we assuming the U.S. military is heavily committed as it is today?

The war starts... NOW! Whoever launches an invasion first would decide that. As far as military committment, I think that if a war with China broke out, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would be redirected in a heartbeat.

Wow, patriotic much?

US technology isn't all that special. The only place it has a real step ahead is aircraft, and especially in stealth. This is mostly because it can afford these, not the research. Europe especially is only a few years behind us otherwise, in airforce(stealth coming more or less to various planes, AESA, etc etc). Navally, the US is pretty well matched technology wise by europe. We just have the incredible numbers.

Ground forces wise, we are defidentally nothing special. Our AFV's aren't particularly good, compared to those of France/Britain/Germany. Infantry weapons, the M-16 is outdated if anything, and the rest of our infantry weapons arent much better. Not much special in munitions, communication technology, etc.

The US is so strong for a combination of three reasons: Numbers(compared to most of the world), Technology(compared to most of the world), and force multipliers(where the US reigns supreme).

Indeed. It isn't our numbers or our training that would win the fight; it's the fact that we could break the spine of the PRC army overnight because of our ability to put a carrier group anywhere off the coast and then systematically gut their C3 abilities in short order without much in the way of response. Our command of the seas off China's shore, the air above their head, and the satellites watching them from space ensure our victory far more than our numbers. A ball-peen in the right spot is far more is far more useful than a sledge wielded by a blind and deaf man, however powerful, and blind and deaf is exactly what we'd make China in a matter of hours after going to war.

China. They could do it right... now. (looks out window overlooking Lake Ontario and US to the south, expectantly)

Damn.

Well, right now, China relies fairly heavily on the U.S. for trade, so unless they had some way of sustaining themselves until hostilities ceased, their economy would implode.

And as for infantry weapons, I'll have to disagree about them being outdated. Apparently we've got a sniper rifle that can hit targets with great accuracy from 2 miles away. :sniper:

There's also [URL="http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_300.swf ]that nifty anti-tank-rocket device we bought off of the Israelis]

One good thing about China---They don't traditionally fight outside of their immediate sphere of influence.

Too bad the US can't say the same.

If such a war comes it will be caused by the US, not China.

Well, right now, China relies fairly heavily on the U.S. for trade, so unless they had some way of sustaining themselves until hostilities ceased, their economy would implode.

And as for infantry weapons, I'll have to disagree about them being outdated. Apparently we've got a sniper rifle that can hit targets with great accuracy from 2 miles away. :sniper:

There's also that nifty anti-rocket device we bought off of the Israelis ("http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_300.swf).

This article covers things pretty well:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/china-20050808.htm

Wow... that's pretty cool. What is the countermeasure? Is it a projectile or an EMP or something? I didn't see anything in the video.

BTW the link to the anti-RPG system in that last post doesn't work.

China owns enough US currency to crush our economy at will, so does the Vatican. If either dumped it all on the market at once, we'd sink. When they no longer need us, we'll be history.

Without faith in it's currency, any nation fails.

This would be a very easy winner, the simple fact of the matter is the fact that the United States has the ability, militarily, to do almost whatever it wants to.

1. Look at the numbers, the annual military spending of the united states accounts for 58% of the total global budget, that is greater than all of the other countries combined, and that is only in the official US budget, it has been long known that there are huge unaccounted amounts of money spent by the US deemed the "black budget" almost all of this money is also spent to the military.

2. Size does not matter, the Chinese military could consist of 5 billion people, the fact is that in modern terms size is irrelevant. The rapid advances in technology allow for a ground army to be destroyed by a few bombs dropped by aircraft, both highly advanced and in huge supply in the US. There is a downfall to the great size as well, China cannot transport even 1/3 of its army, that is why they have not attempted any military invasion of weaker bordering countries (along with the fear of US intervention). They also don't even have enough weapons for their troops, I don't care if you think our M-16 is out of date, it is better than trying to kill the enemy by throwing rocks at them.

3. Tech. Hands down, you cannot deny US technological superiority over China, you claim that the USAF is only slightly ahead of Europe, which is wrong because the JSF has been in the US for a year, and still being developed by European Nations while the F/A-22 Raptor has proven to still be more advanced, appearing about the size of a bumblebee on the most advanced US radar systems, so it may not even appear on the Chinese. The Ageis Crusier of the US military can hit a fly with a cruise missile from 1,300 miles, and there is a large number of those in service currently, able to take out any naval opposition from China. The US is the only country in the world with the ability to inflict casualities from space, based laser weaponry systems, which are placed all around the globe.

4. No Nukes, no problem. The MOAB (Massive Ordinance Air Blast) has about the power of an atomic warhead equal to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and guess what, none of that pesky radation or nuclear side effects, it is a conventional eapon, the strongest in the world, able to have about 4 on an F/A-22.

5. No allies, i already answered we spend more than the combined total of the world, that means we can fight the entire world, on paper mind you, and win, i think a one on one would not be too difficult. I will give you that China is the world's second biggest spender, but it pales in comparison to the spending of the US (US= over $518,000,000,000USD China =$81,000,000,000USD) and China spends 4.3% of a shaky economy on their military, imagine the economic collapse of a complete US pull-out of Chinese goods, they would be a third-world country with in a week.

It is plain and simple, the only, and I mean only, chance for a Chinese victory in such a war is to A. Get a method of transporting troops (with out immediate US detection and destruction) B. Arm all of those troops (By the way AK-47 is older than M-16 and the much more advanced M-107 and M-109 and XM-107 and XM-109, which are long range [2+miles] .50 caliber, Zero recoil assult, and sniper rifles) C. Find someone else to buy goods and sustain economy after a complete US pull out D. Hope that they can force any ground battles with the US

For any of this to happen would be incredibly unlikely, especially having it all happen in the time it would take the US to turn China into a barren inhospitible wasteland.

At the moment, I believe the USA would win. Give the Chinese 15-20 years, though & it could be a very different outcome.

A note to all the "at the moment people"

OUR ARMY IS IN IRAQ!

Seriously, if china attacked the USA right now the very second I'm writing this post, they could possibly make it. All they’d have to do is get a few ships past our air force and Assuming that they could get their troops across To the Atlantic coast before we with drew from Iraq They'd be able to do it.

Trust me.

Us. Easy. However, that would not come with taking over the mainland, that would be suicide. It would have to be with wide area napalm and making it so costly for the chinese to continue the war.

Or even better, split the commie party and get two factions fighting against each other.

A note to all the "at the moment people"

OUR ARMY IS IN IRAQ!

Seriously, if china attacked the USA right now the very second I'm writing this post, they could possibly make it. All they’d have to do is get a few ships past our air force and Assuming that they could get their troops across To the Atlantic coast before we with drew from Iraq They'd be able to do it.

Trust me.

Ok, I'm assuming that the US is disengaged from Iraq & has its full forces at its disposal.

Ummm....2 things.

1. How in the hell would the PRC transport troops over to North America without being intercepted by the US Navy and Air Force? The PRC's Blue Water navy leaves much to be desired, as their transport capability as well.

2. Do you think all the gun toting rednecks would accept occupation by "the evil yellow people"? You think the Iraqi insurgency is bad, watch out for the American Insurgency!

A note to all the "at the moment people"

OUR ARMY IS IN IRAQ!

Seriously, if china attacked the USA right now the very second I'm writing this post, they could possibly make it. All they’d have to do is get a few ships past our air force and Assuming that they could get their troops across To the Atlantic coast before we with drew from Iraq They'd be able to do it.

Trust me.

They'd never get past the USN subs. We'd see them coming a long time before they got here and undoubtedly it would be a rat's nest of US subs.

Ummm....2 things.

1. How in the hell would the PRC transport troops over to North America without being intercepted by the US Navy and Air Force? The PRC's Blue Water navy leaves much to be desired, as their transport capability as well.

2. Do you think all the gun toting rednecks would accept occupation by "the evil yellow people"? You think the Iraqi insurgency is bad, watch out for the American Insurgency!


Sounds like my mad crazy red neck exploits have surfaced to the public :D

Model it after the Korean War. Although the Chinese sent a plethora of men to support North Korea during the war, they lost around 900,000 of them (this is Chinese casualties only, not including NK casuatlies). The U.S. (not including other UN forces) lost about 50,000.

Overall it'd be a draw.


A note to all the "at the moment people"

OUR ARMY IS IN IRAQ!

Seriously, if china attacked the USA right now the very second I'm writing this post, they could possibly make it. All they’d have to do is get a few ships past our air force and Assuming that they could get their troops across To the Atlantic coast before we with drew from Iraq They'd be able to do it.

Trust me.

First point good, second one no good. Yes, at the moment the ground forces are overly stretched. However, this does not give the PRC the magic ability to put together an invasion fleet capable of crossing the Pacific. (And why on earth would they attack from the Atlantic coast. Surely you meant Pacific?)

Since there are no allies, America's trade has no real point except for commercial growth, which is somewhat inconsequential in China, and the war will turn to attrition, and obviously China has much more soldiers than America.

Ok, I'm assuming that the US is disengaged from Iraq & has its full forces at its disposal.


Thats funny...:D our military is deployed all over the world..Iraq is a small percentage of our military . There's only 130 to 140 thousand troops in Iraq .


As far as China ..they have no ability what so ever to project force...except on land and against their neighbors . And its laughable to think they could " somehow " get enough forces over to the US ...without being detected..what ten guys in a raft ? as big as their military is ..they are nothing more than cannon fodder..unless the US or any other country is dumb enough to invade China ...then they are doomed ..in the long run ..unless of course they use neutron bombs/missiles to remove the population before the " invasion '"..

A war with the US on a massive scale is the end of the opponent country..at this point in time and for the near future ..

2. Do you think all the gun toting rednecks would accept occupation by "the evil yellow people"? You think the Iraqi insurgency is bad, watch out for the American Insurgency!
Well, you've got a point about the race issue, but they'd probably hide under their sheets with typical cowardice, and keep up the church meetings as planned - maintaining a steady tithe to certain contributors to the Bush campaign and David Duke.
And, don't discount the "fat, lazy, complacent, arrogant, and misinformed" portion of those folks. Heck, of the whole U.S. ... remember how many votes just tallied in for American Idol? :(

Since there are no allies, America's trade has no real point except for commercial growth, which is somewhat inconsequential in China, and the war will turn to attrition, and obviously China has much more soldiers than America.

All they are are a bunch of targets to be destroyed . From a distance ....what did you expect anyone to be dumb enough to go over and get in a ground war with China ? Before "preparing the field" ... as it may be... by destroying the military and its command structure in place...please tell me how China could stop the US from bombing them ..with conventional weapons ..into oblivion . they have some new secret air defense system ???

A month or two maybe less if they decide to actually try to fight .. and no more Chinese air force...so whats the hurry...bomb the living crap out of the military and the infastructure and then what ?
What can China do ? They suddenly have no viable survivable military force and no electricity or transportation..no manufacturing centers..that they have so nicely bunched up so they can controll them...no way to move food around the country....why bother invading them ?

Of course they luanch nukes at us...or attack japan or Russia or Vietnam or whomever....then they are a smoking hole ...

If it was not true then Taiwan wouldnt exist .

4. No Nukes, no problem. The MOAB (Massive Ordinance Air Blast) has about the power of an atomic warhead equal to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and guess what, none of that pesky radation or nuclear side effects, it is a conventional eapon, the strongest in the world, able to have about 4 on an F/A-22.

Say what? At (rougly) 9 tons of HE[1] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm), the GBU-43/B is nowhere near the 15 and 22 kt range of Little Boy and Fat Man. And no, an F/A-22 can't carry one, much less 4! These babies are C-130 dropable. Finally, there's a question of inventory - I will 200% guarantee you that there are not anywhere near enough of these to be employeed in the manner you suggest.


And for anyone interested in this subject, I reccomend Eric L. Harry's novel Invasion.

Thats funny...:D our military is deployed all over the world..Iraq is a small percentage of our military . There's only 130 to 140 thousand troops in Iraq .


As far as China ..they have no ability what so ever to project force...except on land and against their neighbors . And its laughable to think they could " somehow " get enough forces over to the US ...without being detected..what ten guys in a raft ? as big as their military is ..they are nothing more than cannon fodder..unless the US or any other country is dumb enough to invade China ...then they are doomed ..in the long run ..unless of course they use neutron bombs/missiles to remove the population before the " invasion '"..

A war with the US on a massive scale is the end of the opponent country..at this point in time and for the near future ..

Some 30% of the brigades is a fairly significant number, not a "small percentage". And that doesn't include those preparing for or recouperating from Iraq. But, if the cause were pressing enough, yes, the US could certainly scrape up the man power.

As for the rest, that's why it'd be a draw. Neither can invade the other, so it all comes down to a naval and air war, which ends up being inconclusive. The PLAAF won't be quite the push over a lot of people seem to expect, but neither will they ultimately win. Same goes for the naval forces. Really, the victory will depend on the goals. If it's merely some random unexplained all out war, it's a draw.

I think the Dutch would win...

Somehow, some way...

Some 30% of the brigades is a fairly significant number, not a "small percentage". And that doesn't include those preparing for or recouperating from Iraq. But, if the cause were pressing enough, yes, the US could certainly scrape up the man power.

As for the rest, that's why it'd be a draw. Neither can invade the other, so it all comes down to a naval and air war, which ends up being inconclusive. The PLAAF won't be quite the push over a lot of people seem to expect, but neither will they ultimately win. Same goes for the naval forces. Really, the victory will depend on the goals. If it's merely some random unexplained all out war, it's a draw.

If needs be they could form massive civilian militias. Imagine, a pool of recruits already armed and trained with their weapon. Maybe a week or so of rapid training and they could replace the NG in supporting roles.

Draw.

China has too many troops for a US invasion to stand a chance. But the US Navy would obliterate a Chinese invasion fleet before it got past the Philippines.

Draw.

China has too many troops for a US invasion to stand a chance. But the US Navy would obliterate a Chinese invasion fleet before it got past the Philippines.

It's not that they have too many troops, it's that they have a massive pool of replacements.

Really the way to crush them would be to obliterate their industrial production, IE all those factories along the Yalu and yangtze river.

ETA: To me the US marines would be more than a match for the Chinese army, plus they have a bone to pick with them after Korea.

The way I see it, once China gets a significant force onto US soil, they would inevitably win. I really don't see how technology could prevent this.:confused: Please explain.
One word,
Insurgents.:cool:

China can break America's economy as easily as America can break China's. Any invasion is impossibleand u could bomb China for years without makin a dent in the population. All it would take is some clever propaganda and all of those bombed civilians get pissed off with America. The only way for america to win is to give all the chinese poeple bird flu or somethin to kill em all b4 any invasion. China can win easily is if they pulled off a huge scale replica of the Tet Offensive which occured in the Vietnam war

If needs be they could form massive civilian militias. Imagine, a pool of recruits already armed and trained with their weapon. Maybe a week or so of rapid training and they could replace the NG in supporting roles.

For sure. As I said, if the cause is pressing enough. If the PRC actually managed to get ashore in the CONUS, it would be nasty. Read the book I mentioned before - it's quite good.

really depends how and where it was fought.

U.S. or China? No allies, no nukes.
If you think China will eventually surpass the U.S., how long will it take?

The numbers:

Population:
U.S.A. -- 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)
China - 1,313,973,713 (July 2006 est.)

Population growth rate:
U.S.A - 0.91% (2006 est.)
China - 0.59% (2006 est.)

Manpower available for military service:
U.S.A. -- males age 18-49: 67,742,879 females age 18-49: 67,070,144 (2005 est.)
China - males age 18-49: 342,956,265 females age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually:
U.S.A. -- males age 18-49: 2,143,873 females age 18-49: 2,036,201 (2005 est.)
China - males age 18-49: 13,186,433 females age 18-49: 12,298,149 (2005 est.)


Economy:

GDP (purchasing power parity):
USA - $12.410 trillion (2005 est.)
China - $8.182 trillion

GDP - real growth rate:
U.S.A - 3.5% (2005 est.)
China - 9.3% (official data) (2005 est.)


USA.

Others already made excellent points...

So we take one Pacific oceans, put both armies on their respective coast and there we go. My view is that during first few months due to satellites and US Navy, the China Navy will be non existant. Then US air forces from carriers and Closest bases will bomb every military concentration of soldiers/tanks etc. And only after that we could try to look at manpower ratio again. best China's achievemnt would be destroying all USA forces in South Kore where they are now.

When will it change: No idea, but I have two ideas: You should look at military spending and its growth. Secondly, wars should never ever exclude allies, because such (and this) simplification becomes unrealistic. Japan, Taiwan, South and North Korea, Russia, are sooo significant players in this field.

Neither. Neither side has the capacity to effectively occupy the other. Note how the USA is having trouble in Iraq, a nation of 24 million; regardless of your political views, you can't claim that the conflict there is "over" by any stretch of the imagination. How then could the US successfully control a nation of 1.3 billion people? Regardless of any early military triumphs putting one side on the defensive, it would end up being a bloody war of attrition that would drag on forever, until they both collapse from exhaustion. The Japanese couldn't manage to occupy China last century despite brutal tactics; and arguably the balance of power in that conflict was skewed towards the Japanese immeasurably. The modern US and China are a lot more equal in terms of power distribution than 1930's Japan and China were.

EDIT:

Let's put things in perspective further.

Let's assume that the Chinese military immediately folds like Iraq's did. (which it won't, but let's assume that it will for whatever reason.) The war then becomes an insurgent-troubled occupation similar to Iraq. If we use the same casualty rate as Iraq adjusted for population;

After 3 and a half years, there will be around 930,000 US soldiers wounded and 130,000 dead. That's your absolute best case scenario in which The Mystical War Fairy decides to vaporise the Chinese military and leave the country open to occupation. Sounds good, huh? If we factor in the Chinese military, the casualty rate will probably be greater than WW2...unwinnable. And i'm fairly certain that both powers will come to realise this if they haven't already.

really depends how and where it was fought.

And that all depends on the goals, as I said before.

If it's a magical allies free campaign over Taiwan (the only reasonably foreseeable conflict in the near term), then I'd say the PRC wins Taiwan, but at high costs.

If it's the magical (and incomprehensable) allies free all out war over an unnamed cause, it's a draw, due to the inability of either to take the war home and win it via boots on the ground. The PRC gets smacked around a bit, but not beaten. The US spends lotsa $$$ and blood for an uncertain result.

By what miracle does this happen every ship and sub are tracked by sattlite as the cross the PACIFIC ocean any "invasion fleet" gets destroyed.


A note to all the "at the moment people"

OUR ARMY IS IN IRAQ!

Seriously, if china attacked the USA right now the very second I'm writing this post, they could possibly make it. All they’d have to do is get a few ships past our air force and Assuming that they could get their troops across To the Atlantic coast before we with drew from Iraq They'd be able to do it.

Trust me.

By what miracle does this happen every ship and sub are tracked by sattlite as the cross the PACIFIC ocean any "invasion fleet" gets destroyed.

(Psst! His argument's been pwned several times over.)

You forget about gbu-28 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm) blu-82 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm) skeet (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm) blackout (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-114.htm)



Say what? At (rougly) 9 tons of HE[1] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm), the GBU-43/B is nowhere near the 15 and 22 kt range of Little Boy and Fat Man. And no, an F/A-22 can't carry one, much less 4! These babies are C-130 dropable. Finally, there's a question of inventory - I will 200% guarantee you that there are not anywhere near enough of these to be employeed in the manner you suggest.


And for anyone interested in this subject, I reccomend Eric L. Harry's novel Invasion.

Yeah but I reading the thread front to back and just hit it. (Psst! His argument's been pwned several times over.)

If the objective is to conquer the other country, I don't think either could do it for the foreseeable future. The U.S. is the only one with a chance at it, since they can at least get their military to China largely intact, but they would have to maintain a 5:1 kill ratio - which would not be that unrealistic due to better training, equipment, and technology. However, this would require a severe draft and would really hurt the U.S. economy by taking that much human capital out of the market place - in other words, the U. S. would never go for this option.

If the objective was to sharply diminish the ability of the other nation to project military force outside of its borders, the U.S. would win that one hands-down, possibly without drafting citizens at all. (Per the original post, I'm assuming no nukes, no allies by the way.) Contrary to the way it is commonly protrayed, the bulk of our military personnel and equipment is NOT currently in Iraq, especially if you count the Guard. Of course, it is enough to limit effectiveness somewhat in this scenario.

If the fight is over Taiwan, well... I think the U.S. could keep China from taking and holding Taiwan, but I don't think they could prevent China from reducing Taiwan to a smoking rock in the ocean, even without nukes on either side.

Put nukes in the picture, and China loses big-time. The world would come down on them and what would be left of China would certainly be devoid of ChiComms. The powers that be over there certainly don't want that. Their nuclear bark is sigificantly more than their nuclear bite for this and other reasons.

Tet! all tet did was kill off the Veit Cong so all authority would come from the North militarily it was a failure

China can break America's economy as easily as America can break China's. Any invasion is impossibleand u could bomb China for years without makin a dent in the population. All it would take is some clever propaganda and all of those bombed civilians get pissed off with America. The only way for america to win is to give all the chinese poeple bird flu or somethin to kill em all b4 any invasion. China can win easily is if they pulled off a huge scale replica of the Tet Offensive which occured in the Vietnam war

Ground forces wise, we are defidentally nothing special. Our AFV's aren't particularly good, compared to those of France/Britain/Germany.

You pretty much just blew your credibility by trying to compare US military ability/gear with the French. Pardon me while i stop laughing.