NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

OOOOOOOOKKKKKKK NO.
Heres what i think and my reasioning.
The United States could kick Chinas butt and then wipe the floor with them.




The fact is the United States Airforce is vastly superior to any enemy or friendly airforce. Mabye some enemy planes are close to ours, but they dont have as many as we do, they dont have as good pilots as we do, and they dont have as good planes as we do. We don't have as good grammar as the do.

Worst Case US secaniro
Lets say the US dosent have the M1A2
Lets say we dont have the Bradley
Lets say we dont have the Apache, or the Cobra.
Lets all we have is some HMMVWs, and LAV-25s. And our airforce. And our Navy.

So the Chinese J-10 [ahahahaha] gets blown out of the sky and it generally sucks. Then we call in A-10s. There goes most of Chinese Type 98s, 96s, and 99. [If that didnt work, we always have the javilen. bit more effective than an RPG]. Ok. No more Chinese armor. We knock the crap out of the shore with A-10s, F-18s, the whatnot. Chinese Radar falls to HARMs from Growlers and Prowlers. B-1bs, B-2s, make tactial strikes all over. America lands with just *armoured* HMMVWS and LAV-25. Chinese proceed to charge us with AK-47s and sticks. We proceed to Napalm Chinese. Lets say that a fair amount of chinese reach US. Most will be un-trained, poorly equipped, and generally have no idea what there doing. A billion Chinese could work in Korea, but we dont have crappy sabrecats now.


Problems for China:
A-10 IS a WMD. That is extremly hard to destroy.
M1A2 is undenibly one of the best tanks in the world, if not the best.
Our Air Force generally owns.
We have training and equipment, and we are dedicated. "Untoutoutered courage is useless against educated bullets."


Also, people acutlly think China could invade America. We didnt make the VA class sub to dominate Basra

So I wonder what everyone thinks about this? Does my theory hold up? What are the holes?

Aliens come to earth with a heat-ray that could ignite all the carbon on the earth's surface......could america win THAT war

Define 'win'.

If you are refering to a classical invade, conquer and control war then the loser out of the US and China would be whichever one invaded the other. If it came down to nuclear weapons, we would all lose.

I wouldn't say that we would wipe the floor with them like we did to Saddam's army, it would be a tough fight. However I think the US could beat China anywhere except China itself. And the US would certainly not back down after 2000 casualties...

Aliens come to earth with a heat-ray that could ignite all the carbon on the earth's surface......could america win THAT war

We wouldnt have to... the aliens would die of disease because their lack of immunity to Earth's microorganisms. [/Waroftheworlds]

This has been done before, usually it comes down to...

The US can't win-win. We can bomb the hell out of the cities. We can destroy chunks of the countryside.

But China is almost as big as the US in total size, has a billion people, and terrian that the Chinese have proven they can retreat into and maintain themselves handily.

So, no, we can't force a win like we did with Germany or Japan unless we start tossing the nukes, which China can toss right back.

The other news is that China can't get its troops out of China unless they can walk there, so they can't win either.

Define 'win'.

If you are refering to a classical invade, conquer and control war then the loser out of the US and China would be whichever one invaded the other. If it came down to nuclear weapons, we would all lose.

I am refering to Invade, Conquer, Control War. We have problems with Guerilla warfare, I admit. [although our thuderruns are pretty cool to watch videos of].
With Nukes, I havent really checked that out. I read somwhere China only has like 50 ICBMs in the 400 Nuke stockpile, where as we have sevral thousand.

I am talking about to Conventinal warfare.

I think in order to hold land in China you would have to destroy damn near the whole populace in that particular area. Would be the same with the US. Although one thought is that the Chinese populace does not have weapons as the US populace does. So that would make for an interesting guerrilla campaign. The Chinese equipment roster is not much better than Soviet piles of crap. Personally saw how our armored columns tore through Soviet hardware. You also can not overlook who has the most military allies. I am sure Nato and most of our allies such as Japan, S Korea would be in on it. Perhaps even India would join in if they could get some territory. I don't really think China would have a prayer. Would be a one sided event with alot of death. Mainly Chinese dead. Just my thoughts.

I am refering to Invade, Conquer, Control War. We have problems with Guerilla warfare, I admit. [although our thuderruns are pretty cool to watch videos of].
With Nukes, I havent really checked that out. I read somwhere China only has like 50 ICBMs in the 400 Nuke stockpile, where as we have sevral thousand.

I am talking about to Conventinal warfare.

Tell you what, invade China and let the rest of the world know how you get on.

We may or may not be there to pursuade China to not to go so harshly on you when you get destroyed.

We wouldnt have to... the aliens would die of disease because their lack of immunity to Earth's microorganisms. [/Waroftheworlds]

they could should it from space.

Tell you what, invade China and let the rest of the world know how you get on.

We may or may not be there to pursuade China to not to go so harshly on you when you get destroyed.

And how will China destroy us, tell me? Is it the Type-99s? The J-10s? The Ak-47s? Oh, I know! The Chinese Fishing Boat Navy will destroy before we get there!

Tell you what, invade China and let the rest of the world know how you get on.

We may or may not be there to pursuade China to not to go so harshly on you when you get destroyed.

lawl.
"One American is ignorant and overconfident, so all Americans are ignorant and overconfident!"
:rolleyes:

lawl.
"One American is ignorant and overconfident, so all Americans are ignorant and overconfident!"
:rolleyes:

I am not Ignorant and overconfident. Mr. Tokyo whats his face is over confident and Ignorant.
Who on earth can say the American Army is incompetent? I admit, we are still learning about Guerilla Warfare. Notice how i say Conventional Warfare.
Or are you saying that our AF could be shot down by some chinese planes?

lawl.
"One American is ignorant and overconfident, so all Americans are ignorant and overconfident!"
:rolleyes:

Yes, that' exactly what I said.

Tell you what, invade China and let the rest of the world know how you get on.

We may or may not be there to pursuade China to not to go so harshly on you when you get destroyed.

Just making a snide remark I see. What would you know about military abilities? Just curious...:rolleyes:

And how will China destroy us, tell me? Is it the Type-99s? The J-10s? The Ak-47s? Oh, I know! The Chinese Fishing Boat Navy will destroy before we get there!

Realistically, Type-99's are upgraded 98's w/ performance generally equal or superior to that of a Russian T-90 series. While individually not equal to the A1SEP's or A2's, they have the potential to be deadly.

J-10's are also not equal individually to any of our planes. However, the Chinese AF can field considerably more of them than we can ours. They have also been purchasing Su-27 and 30 series fighters from Russia as well as producing their own as the J-11.

The PLA also does not generally use their versions of the AK's anymore. They've upgraded to the Type 95 which is in a bullpup configuration and is 5.8mm.

The Chinese Navy has also expanded it's bluewater capabilities significantly. The US Navy still dominates there but where they would get hurt is in the Littorrals where we are weaker and the Chinese have primarily focused on.

I'm quite certain that the US could win any conventional war. The problem is that the country keeps engaging in these politico-beaureaucratic clusterfucks the news media likes to refer to as 'wars' and as long as the goal behind these actions is to not make too many other countries upset, it's going to be a long time before there's a decisive victory in anything.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Whofuckincares.jpg
I certainly don't! Good night :D

Realistically, Type-99's are upgraded 98's w/ performance generally equal or superior to that of a Russian T-90 series. While individually not equal to the A1SEP's or A2's, they have the potential to be deadly.

J-10's are also not equal individually to any of our planes. However, the Chinese AF can field considerably more of them than we can ours. They have also been purchasing Su-27 and 30 series fighters from Russia as well as producing their own as the J-11.

The PLA also does not generally use their versions of the AK's anymore. They've upgraded to the Type 95 which is in a bullpup configuration and is 5.8mm.

The Chinese Navy has also expanded it's bluewater capabilities significantly. The US Navy still dominates there but where they would get hurt is in the Littorrals where we are weaker and the Chinese have primarily focused on.
Su-27s....no. just no. I dont know very much about the J-11. But another main thing is our pilots are much better trained than the Chinese. Im sure we would lose some planes, but im sure we could take on a greater number of planes and still win.
I think that the Type 99s will become piles of twisted metal when our planes are done with them.
Im pretty much banking the victory on our Air force.
The Type 95 still isnt as accurate, and the sources i saw said that only Chinas elite units have them.
Tis a big improvment over the AK-47. I have to say, the Ak-103s bring respect back to AK. I think like the venezulenas and russians use it.

America could certainly win any conventional pie-eating contest.;)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Whofuckincares.jpg
I certainly don't! Good night :D

Why do people post responses such as this in threads they don't care about? Why bother? Anyway that is a good pic I just may steal that from you...;)

America could certainly win any conventional pie-eating contest.;)

Japanese got that one.fine by me.:p

Su-27s....no. just no. I dont know very much about the J-11. But another main thing is our pilots are much better trained than the Chinese. Im sure we would lose some planes, but im sure we could take on a greater number of planes and still win.
I think that the Type 99s will become piles of twisted metal when our planes are done with them.
Im pretty much banking the victory on our Air force.
The Type 95 still isnt as accurate, and the sources i saw said that only Chinas elite units have them.
Tis a big improvment over the AK-47. I have to say, the Ak-103s bring respect back to AK. I think like the venezulenas and russians use it.

Su-27's are actually very good planes. 30's are even better. We may have better trained pilots but there is only so much we can do. The Chinese also have very large AAA units which our pilots would still have to contend w/.

While 2/3's of the Sino armour may still be made up of 55/65 series, they are replacing them w/ 95's of which there are over 1500 already. Thier armor is decent and their main gun can penetrate.

There is also the problem of logistics. Along the lines that we invade them, we'ld need to get enough forces over there to be able to take and hold a beachhead and continue to supply/ reenforce it. W/O nuclear intervention, I don't think we could maintain one.

In a mythical straight out put them all in a field, they would overwhelm us by numbers.

The US would probably win in a conventional war, yes. Although, it seems the era of conventional warfare is coming to a close, replaced by a resurgence of guerilla and platoon versus platoon combat, rather than the old fashioned armies of 150,000 collide in a large battle.

Su-27's are actually very good planes. 30's are even better. We may have better trained pilots but there is only so much we can do. The Chinese also have very large AAA units which our pilots would still have to contend w/.

While 2/3's of the Sino armour may still be made up of 55/65 series, they are replacing them w/ 95's of which there are over 1500 already. Thier armor is decent and their main gun can penetrate.

There is also the problem of logistics. Along the lines that we invade them, we'ld need to get enough forces over there to be able to take and hold a beachhead and continue to supply/ reenforce it. W/O nuclear intervention, I don't think we could maintain one.

In a mythical straight out put them all in a field, they would overwhelm us by numbers.

Isn't the Type 95/6/8/9 using the t-72 chasis? It still seems fairly inferior to M1A2s. I think Leopard 2s, Challenger II, and M1A2s are in a class of thier own. There all about equally good. I thought the M1A2 was impervious to HEAT and Sabot Rounds? Ive seen shells bounce off the sides before.
And the A-10 would still clean house.
I love A-10s. I will bring them up in any argument anyone makes with me.
Plus, they can fly bakcward when they fire there gun. ;)
Su-27s suck. Su-30s are pretty good. I think a fight between a F-16 and a Su-30 would be a good one indeed. Thank God for the F-22. And Chinese AA wouldnt be much of a problem to destroy. With Radar gone, all that would be left is Infared, which we could deal with by blowing them up.

Im not going to talk about logistics becuase you are right.

I should probably be doing homework right now.

The only sensible thing you've said.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

Oh yea! It's the racist, sexist, Chinese holocaust denying fascist, Ishihara Shintaro. You can ignore anything that bastard has to say.

OOOOOOOOKKKKKKK NO.
Heres what i think and my reasioning.
The United States could kick Chinas butt and then wipe the floor with them.
-snip-


That's a rather silly and unrealistic scenario.

Also, people acutlly think China could invade America.

http://atangledweb.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/scarecrow_oz.gif

So I wonder what everyone thinks about this? Does my theory hold up? What are the holes?

Nope, it's riddled like Swiss Cheese. Most of the holes have been or are being pointed out to you.

Well, we can obviously win all tactical manuevers, the toughie would be staying power. Within the first month we'd have destroyed the PLAN and PLAAF, and most likely crippled 90% of the PRC Nuclear Capability. Move to cripple the command infrastructure. Kill the Politburo, the Generals, and any major bureaucrats with targeted airstrikes. By this point, the obvious bit of advice kicks in "Never start a land war on mainland Asia." So, what do you do. The obvious, don't start a land war. Blockade the coast, and unleash the most furious strategic bombing campaign that's been waged for half a century.

Destroy their fuel supplies, their military bases and complexes. Move on to their industrial base, their transportation infrastructure, their resource base and finally their agricultural base, herbicides are a good way to start, but unorthodox methods may be required. Break the entire country, it's the only way to do it. To win this war, a country must be ruthless. Tens of millions of innocent Chinese will die. This is tragic and unavoidable, but in this case, the cost of defeat would be even higher.

If this fails to break China, then only one option will remain, and that option is too horrible to contemplate.

When I give the analysis that I just did, I do not give this analysis with joy. I don not relish the deaths of millions of innocent Chinese. I just give my understanding of a tragic reality. I hope and pray that this war should never come, yet, if it must, we cannot hold back.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

OOOOOOOOKKKKKKK NO.
Heres what i think and my reasioning.
The United States could kick Chinas butt and then wipe the floor with them.




The fact is the United States Airforce is vastly superior to any enemy or friendly airforce. Mabye some enemy planes are close to ours, but they dont have as many as we do, they dont have as good pilots as we do, and they dont have as good planes as we do. We don't have as good grammar as the do.

Worst Case US secaniro
Lets say the US dosent have the M1A2
Lets say we dont have the Bradley
Lets say we dont have the Apache, or the Cobra.
Lets all we have is some HMMVWs, and LAV-25s. And our airforce. And our Navy.

So the Chinese J-10 [ahahahaha] gets blown out of the sky and it generally sucks. Then we call in A-10s. There goes most of Chinese Type 98s, 96s, and 99. [If that didnt work, we always have the javilen. bit more effective than an RPG]. Ok. No more Chinese armor. We knock the crap out of the shore with A-10s, F-18s, the whatnot. Chinese Radar falls to HARMs from Growlers and Prowlers. B-1bs, B-2s, make tactial strikes all over. America lands with just *armoured* HMMVWS and LAV-25. Chinese proceed to charge us with AK-47s and sticks. We proceed to Napalm Chinese. Lets say that a fair amount of chinese reach US. Most will be un-trained, poorly equipped, and generally have no idea what there doing. A billion Chinese could work in Korea, but we dont have crappy sabrecats now.


Problems for China:
A-10 IS a WMD. That is extremly hard to destroy.
M1A2 is undenibly one of the best tanks in the world, if not the best.
Our Air Force generally owns.
We have training and equipment, and we are dedicated. "Untoutoutered courage is useless against educated bullets."


Also, people acutlly think China could invade America. We didnt make the VA class sub to dominate Basra

So I wonder what everyone thinks about this? Does my theory hold up? What are the holes?
Er, yeah, under the circumstances, Chinas ass would be ours.

You guys are forgetting the fact that the Terracotta soldiers would come to life and punch everyone to death.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

OOOOOOOOKKKKKKK NO.
Heres what i think and my reasioning.
The United States could kick Chinas butt and then wipe the floor with them.




The fact is the United States Airforce is vastly superior to any enemy or friendly airforce. Mabye some enemy planes are close to ours, but they dont have as many as we do, they dont have as good pilots as we do, and they dont have as good planes as we do. We don't have as good grammar as the do.

Worst Case US secaniro
Lets say the US dosent have the M1A2
Lets say we dont have the Bradley
Lets say we dont have the Apache, or the Cobra.
Lets all we have is some HMMVWs, and LAV-25s. And our airforce. And our Navy.

So the Chinese J-10 [ahahahaha] gets blown out of the sky and it generally sucks. Then we call in A-10s. There goes most of Chinese Type 98s, 96s, and 99. [If that didnt work, we always have the javilen. bit more effective than an RPG]. Ok. No more Chinese armor. We knock the crap out of the shore with A-10s, F-18s, the whatnot. Chinese Radar falls to HARMs from Growlers and Prowlers. B-1bs, B-2s, make tactial strikes all over. America lands with just *armoured* HMMVWS and LAV-25. Chinese proceed to charge us with AK-47s and sticks. We proceed to Napalm Chinese. Lets say that a fair amount of chinese reach US. Most will be un-trained, poorly equipped, and generally have no idea what there doing. A billion Chinese could work in Korea, but we dont have crappy sabrecats now.


Problems for China:
A-10 IS a WMD. That is extremly hard to destroy.
M1A2 is undenibly one of the best tanks in the world, if not the best.
Our Air Force generally owns.
We have training and equipment, and we are dedicated. "Untoutoutered courage is useless against educated bullets."


Also, people acutlly think China could invade America. We didnt make the VA class sub to dominate Basra

So I wonder what everyone thinks about this? Does my theory hold up? What are the holes?Stop thinking firepower and start thinking logistics.

the key here is "Conventional Warfare" , whatever method is needed will be used. The USA can not win the war in Iraq and cannot even consider taking on another state such as Iran at the moment. It could not win the war with Viet Nam, considering taking on China is idiotic, neither side would win and it would ruin both economically. An invasion of China is as delusional as Germany invading USSR in WW2, China's size and population make that a non starter.

Bringing nukes into the equation changes nothing, USA's numerical superiority is irrelevant, China Russia, Britian, France all have enough nukes to completely devaste the USA, of course total destruction would be mutual.

This is kind of a silly thread to begin with.

The only sensible thing you've said.



Oh yea! It's the racist, sexist, Chinese holocaust denying fascist, Ishihara Shintaro. You can ignore anything that bastard has to say.



That's a rather silly and unrealistic scenario.



http://atangledweb.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/scarecrow_oz.gif



Nope, it's riddled like Swiss Cheese. Most of the holes have been or are being pointed out to you.

Yea! And a scarecrow is a great answer to our Millitary! Why don't you go learn something before you come on here and just call people morons. And no holes have been pointed out to me.

So, you tell me, how would China even go about reaching the US? Using scarecrows? Yea, thats real intillegnet. Or, mabye, you could just use sarcasam! Why dont you try using your brain and thinking?

Yea! And a scarecrow is a great answer to our Millitary! Why don't you go learn something before you come on here and just call people morons. And no holes have been pointed out to me.

So, you tell me, how would China even go about reaching the US? Using scarecrows? Yea, thats real intillegnet. Or, mabye, you could just use sarcasam! Why dont you try using your brain and thinking?

their nukes would reach america, it wouldn't matter if their army consisted of one man with a pitching wedge......

Give China 15 to 20years to develop technology and with their man power they will clean the floor with the US. If the two sides went to war with each tommorrow, it would be long, bloody and in the end neither side would win. I would never support such a war between these two countries.

Yea! And a scarecrow is a great answer to our Millitary! Why don't you go learn something before you come on here and just call people morons. And no holes have been pointed out to me.

So, you tell me, how would China even go about reaching the US? Using scarecrows? Yea, thats real intillegnet. Or, mabye, you could just use sarcasam! Why dont you try using your brain and thinking?You know, maybe, just maybe, he was using it when posting that picture.

their nukes would reach america, it wouldn't matter if their army consisted of one man with a pitching wedge......That wouldn't be considered conventional warfare though.

You know, maybe, just maybe, he was using it when posting that picture.

You don't say?

That wouldn't be considered conventional warfare though.

Yeah, but how likely is it that it would be a conventional war? I really doubt that the people saying the US couldn't win in that article were thinking of a conventional war.

their nukes would reach america, it wouldn't matter if their army consisted of one man with a pitching wedge......

Weve got more Nukes!!! And most of thier nukes are Tactical, onyl a few ICBMS.

Yea! And a scarecrow is a great answer to our Millitary!

Err... your statement:
Also, people acutlly think China could invade America.

was a strawman argument, hence the puicture of the strawman.

Why don't you go learn something before you come on here and just call people morons.

I haven't called you a moron, but I will consider doing so.

And no holes have been pointed out to me.

Go back and re-read the thread.

So, you tell me, how would China even go about reaching the US? Using scarecrows?

It's strawman, not scarecrow. Learn what it means, and avoid using it again.

Yea, thats real intillegnet.

Quote for irony.

Or, mabye, you could just use sarcasam! Why dont you try using your brain and thinking?

Quote for irony.

Yeah, but how likely is it that it would be a conventional war? I really doubt that the people saying the US couldn't win in that article were thinking of a conventional war.

He said that our Army would be unable to stem any Chinese Conventional assualt. The entire purpose of this thread is to prove him wrong there.

Yeah, but how likely is it that it would be a conventional war? I really doubt that the people saying the US couldn't win in that article were thinking of a conventional war.Well perhaps, but then again, the premise of this thread (as hinted by its title) is that the US could win any conventional war.

The US military relies on air power to win. If it does not have Air Power it would be defeated by the Chinese. With Air power you'd probably have some situation much like korea, or maybe even world war one. The US would also have an extreme problem keeping the millions of soldiers it would have to need to win supplied on the other side of the world. The populace of China would never submit even if the conventional forces would be defeated, which would be a absolutly apocalyptic guerrila war. The US would most likley not defeat the Chinese in a conventional war in China, even with air power. The US needs to get rid of that piece o' shit m16 and get real gun too.

Having said that, that US would definetly not be 'whipped' and definetly not retreat after losing 2,000 soldiers. In Iraq the US has losed 2,500ish in there and has not retreated. It is true that the US is senstive when it comes to casualties, because we haven't had total all out bloodshed here sense the Civil war, and have not sene over 100,000 die since world war two. But The US, if the entire population supported the war and was willing, then the body count would be less of an issue. Getting a high body count does not win you the war, a lesson any conventional army that has lost to guerrilas knows.

You fool. It's idiots who think like you that got us into the Vietnam War and various impossible military ventures.

The last time the United States fought a serious conventional non-gurilla war of any size was Korea. The US/UN force were ahead of Chinese forces by DECADES technologically and managed to force a bloody stalemate.

Don't underestimate the PLA (People's Liberation Army). Most of their technology is about equivalent to late 1980s hardware, with some very up-to-date units here and there.

Their defense infrastructure is formidable and their air defense radar nets are especially impressive. And where the hell do you think you can stage your oh-so-w00t Air Force out of?

You can expect nothing short of fanatical devoution from the defenders. US soldiers would be (about) equally devoted if they were fighting in California, Texas or Nebraska. They'd be fighting for their very homes (almost).

Not to mention logistics, they'd be fighting on their home turf. Where the hell would you get the logistic capability (mechanics, technicians, storage, transport). Without sufficient logistics your high-tech hardware will be out of fuel, spare parts, batteries and be sitting ducks for their supposedly inferior 1970s hardware.

Ultimately, war is a means to an end. Not an end unto itself. Why the hell would we want to engage China on these terms? The causalties suffered will make Vietnam look minor.

He said that our Army would be unable to stem any Chinese Conventional assualt. The entire purpose of this thread is to prove him wrong there.

It's Shintaro Ishihara. As I said before, don't take seriously anything the man says.

He said that our Army would be unable to stem any Chinese Conventional assualt. The entire purpose of this thread is to prove him wrong there.You don't need to point out how superior the US military is to do that, though. The laws of logistics apply to China just as much as they do to the US, with the exception that China currently lacks the military capability to invade Taiwan, much less the US.

Yea, the U.S. would for sure win any war, and all those dead young men and women would be happy because they won.

Weve got more Nukes!!! And most of thier nukes are Tactical, onyl a few ICBMS.

50-100 nukes and the USA is done, complete economic collapse, imagine a Hurricane Katrina in USA's 50 biggest cities only far more destructive. The damage to the countries infrastructure would be so severe more americans would likely die of starvation afterwards than by the intial nuklear strikes. Waging war would no longer be practical.

The US military relies on air power to win. If it does not have Air Power it would be defeated by the Chinese. With Air power you'd probably have some situation much like korea, or maybe even world war one. The US would also have an extreme problem keeping the millions of soldiers it would have to need to win supplied on the other side of the world. The populace of China would never submit even if the conventional forces would be defeated, which would be a absolutly apocalyptic guerrila war. The US would most likley not defeat the Chinese in a conventional war in China, even with air power. The US needs to get rid of that piece o' shit m16 and get real gun too.

Having said that, that US would definetly not be 'whipped' and definetly not retreat after losing 2,000 soldiers. In Iraq the US has losed 2,500ish in there and has not retreated. It is true that the US is senstive when it comes to casualties, because we haven't had total all out bloodshed here sense the Civil war, and have not sene over 100,000 die since world war two. But The US, if the entire population supported the war and was willing, then the body count would be less of an issue. Getting a high body count does not win you the war, a lesson any conventional army that has lost to guerrilas knows.

I agree on the M-16 thing. I think and AR-15 would be a lot better.

But why wouldnt Air Power win? We would have total air superiority, which would give us a huge advantage. Back in WWII, it wasnt as much of an advantage, becuase Planes weren't as good, but now its a huge advantage.

Weve got more Nukes!!! And most of thier nukes are Tactical, onyl a few ICBMS.

Erm, so? And how many nukes does it take to fuck up a country?

They wouldn't need as many as us to do a shitload of damage. The US landmass is sizeably smaller than that of China. You just forgot that part, right?

You aren't really paying attention to what people are saying. A stand up fight 'tween America and China wouldn't be the slamdunk you seem to think it would be.

They wouldn't need as many as us to do a shitload of damage. The US landmass is sizeably smaller than that of China. You just forgot that part, right?
Um... China is the 4th largest country in the world in terms of landmass, 1st in terms of population. The United States of America is the 3rd in terms of landmass and 3rd in terms of population. The US is bigger than China.

50-100 nukes and the USA is done, complete economic collapse, imagine a Hurricane Katrina in USA's 50 biggest cities only far more destructive. The damage to the countries infrastructure would be so severe more americans would likely die of starvation afterwards than by the intial nuklear strikes. Waging war would no longer be practical.

The same applies to China - except it would take 3-5, not 50-100, strikes. Three Gorges, Shanghai, and Beijing, and maybe throw in the next largest two cities to round out the 5 - and it's over. You'd want to have the air force fly a few jets out of SKorea to mop up a bit and make sure there are no operational, unsecured nuclear silos lying around, but otherwise those 3-5 would wipe out the vast majority of Chinese governmental, economic, and military infrastructure in one fell swoop, not to mention so much of their population that even they would feel it.

Oh yea! It's the racist, sexist, Chinese holocaust denying fascist, Ishihara Shintaro. You can ignore anything that bastard has to say.
You forgot Right-wingnut job in your description of the honorable governor of Tokyo. ;)

Um... China is the 4th largest country in the world in terms of landmass, 1st in terms of population. The United States of America is the 3rd in terms of landmass and 3rd in terms of population. The US is bigger than China.

The figure I keep hearing is that China is 55 square miles larger than the continental US.

He said that our Army would be unable to stem any Chinese Conventional assualt. The entire purpose of this thread is to prove him wrong there.

Whoops should have read that more carefully instead of skimming, sorry.

The figure I keep hearing is that China is 55 square miles larger than the continental US.

China total area: 9,596,960 sq km
US total area: 9,631,420 sq km
CIA World Factbook

Um... China is the 4th largest country in the world in terms of landmass, 1st in terms of population. The United States of America is the 3rd in terms of landmass and 3rd in terms of population. The US is bigger than China.

Is that with or without Alaska?

China total area: 9,596,960 sq km
US total area: 9,631,420 sq km
CIA World Factbook

Yes, that's the US total area. I said the continental US.

50-100 nukes and the USA is done, complete economic collapse, imagine a Hurricane Katrina in USA's 50 biggest cities only far more destructive. The damage to the countries infrastructure would be so severe more americans would likely die of starvation afterwards than by the intial nuklear strikes. Waging war would no longer be practical.

Yes, but if it came to nukes we could bomb them right back.

But why wouldnt Air Power win? We would have total air superiority, which would give us a huge advantage. Back in WWII, it wasnt as much of an advantage, becuase Planes weren't as good, but now its a huge advantage.
Because...

1. Where are you going to have them come in from? Russia would not let us violate their air space, Inda is on the wrong side of China, and Japan would REALLY not like us if we turned their nation into an Air Force camp.

2. As proven in Afganistan, you can't bomb the shit out of mountains, the mountains are still bigger and China has LOTS of mountains. China also has a large history of retreating into those very inaccessable areas, then coming out to bite people in the ass. They've done it longer than the US has been around.

Yes, that's the US total area. I said the continental US.

My appologies then, I was replying to the gentleman above me who said that China was much larger than the US.

watch out for the ninja's....and chuck Norris.....:p

Um... China is the 4th largest country in the world in terms of landmass, 1st in terms of population. The United States of America is the 3rd in terms of landmass and 3rd in terms of population. The US is bigger than China.

Why do you assume the whole country must be occupied?

Why do you assume all people would know about an invasion and for that matter take up arms?

Yes, but if it came to nukes we could bomb them right back.of course, which is why even considering using them is rediculous. It doesn't matter if the USA has a million Nukes and the opponent has only 50 the result is the same. If anything like 1,000 nukes are used at any time in a conflict then the entire world is in danger of nuclear winter/extinction.

What many people do not know is that if the Cuban missle crisis had escalated into nuclear warfare which it very nearly did, the amount of nuke's launched by USSR, Cuba and USA would ended civilization.

of course, which is why even considering using them is rediculous. It doesn't matter if the USA has a million Nukes and the opponent has only 50 the result is the same. If anything like 1,000 nukes are used at any time in a conflict then the entire world is in danger of nuclear winter/extinction.

What many people do not know is that if the Cuban missle crisis had escalated into nuclear warfare which it very nearly did, the amount of nuke's launched by USSR, Cuba and USA would ended civilization.

Of course, I was pointing out that its pointless to say that the China could nuke the US thus making a more traditional war imposible when that we do the same back screwing both sides.

Um... China is the 4th largest country in the world in terms of landmass, 1st in terms of population. The United States of America is the 3rd in terms of landmass and 3rd in terms of population. The US is bigger than China.

The US is BIGGER? Oh, my bad. I've always understood China to be bigger than the US

Why do you assume the whole country must be occupied?
Because of Chinese history. Read up on the rise of the CCP, especially the Long Retreat. Also look up the Japanese invasion in WWII where both the nationalist AND the CCP pulled the same trick.

China has a history of doing this over and over again. It doesn't seem to matter WHO occupies the capital, because the government has no qualms moving elsewhere then coming back.

Why do you assume all people would know about an invasion and for that matter take up arms?
All people? Probably not. Many of them? Possibly, it's their home and wouldn't YOU fight if someone came into YOUR home?

Because of Chinese history. Read up on the rise of the CCP, especially the Long Retreat. Also look up the Japanese invasion in WWII where both the nationalist AND the CCP pulled the same trick.

China has a history of doing this over and over again. It doesn't seem to matter WHO occupies the capital, because the government has no qualms moving elsewhere then coming back.

That is if you were trying to run the whole country. It won't work, the British approach was better.

All people? Probably not. Many of them? Possibly, it's their home and wouldn't YOU fight if someone came into YOUR home?

Different kind of people with a different kind of life style. Many people live in the middle of nowhere and if you aren't bothering them, the probably wouldn't care.

All I am saying is that the whole population isn't all of sudden going to take up weapons.....

That is if you were trying to run the whole country. It won't work, the British approach was better.
Er, the British managed to control the major cities and waterways, but the rest of the country belonged to the warlords.

And the Nationalists eventually drove the Brits out, using the same methods.

Different kind of people with a different kind of life style. Many people live in the middle of nowhere and if you aren't bothering them, the probably wouldn't care.

All I am saying is that the whole population isn't all of sudden going to take up weapons.....
I'm not saying the whole of the country would rise up in revolt (though it might, China's strange), but that it would be next to impossible to force a win through conventional warfare. You could take control of Bejing, just to watch half of China remain out of control, you take that half, and another half goes out of control.

The Psyker-my post on nukes was intended to another poster who claimed ultimate victory for the USA based on numbers of nukes. my position is that despite any superiority the US may have over China in nukes there will be no winner.

IMO-the US cannot defeat the chinese in a conventional war, at best a stalemate. Even if possible to win there is then the risk of escalation to nuclear
war-everyone loses.

I don't forsee such a war ever occuring.

Why would the U.S. start a war that would be sure to end it's status as a true superpower through attrition?

Why would China start a war that would be sure to end it's economic growth and most likely result in the end of the current political regime?

But, should that conflict actually occur, the U.S. would start with B2's and Submarine launched cruise missiles against Chinese shore-based defenses and naval bases. Once the Chinese ability to threaten the U.S. navy from the land and sea is neutralized, the U.S. will be able to initiate a more widespread air campaign. The fact that U.S. air logistics (AWACs and midair refueling) are still far beyond Chinese capabilities will play the cruicial role.

It is also important to remember that most current U.S. pilots have combat experience...Chinese pilots don't. This is a key factor.

Quite simply...the U.S. has the capability to deny the skies and seas to China. China does not have the capability to deny the skies and seas to the U.S. In any extended conflict, this gives a clear advantage to the U.S.

Also...those who say that China will have "caught up" with the U.S. in terms of military technology in the next 10-20 years seem to think that U.S. military R&D will cease during that time period...which of course it won't.

watch out for the ninja's....and chuck Norris.....:p

But they have Bruce Lee...

One thing a lot of people are forgetting is that North Korea will almost certainly come in on China's side. After all, the Chinese did the same for them 45 years ago. Between North Korea and China, they have a large enough infantry army to repel almost any ground-based assault, though the US Airforce could undoubtedly destroy most of their artillery and tank emplacements.

"It is also important to remember that most current U.S. pilots have combat experience...Chinese pilots don't. This is a key factor." when exactly did US pilots gain combat experience? Attacking ground targets is not combat, air to air combat is rare, americans have no more experience in this than the Chinese.

"It is also important to remember that most current U.S. pilots have combat experience...Chinese pilots don't. This is a key factor." when exactly did US pilots gain combat experience? Attacking ground targets is not combat, air to air combat is rare, americans have no more experience in this than the Chinese.
They do do a lot of training exercises-- not the real thing I know, but due to our copious defense budget they can make some pretty realistic simulations.

They do do a lot of training exercises-- not the real thing I know, but due to our copious defense budget they can make some pretty realistic simulations.

China throws copious amounts at it's military as well. Simulation is not combat(I'm sure the Chinese do the same too).

when exactly did US pilots gain combat experience? Attacking ground targets is not combat, air to air combat is rare, americans have no more experience in this than the Chinese.

I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that U.S. pilots have flown real combat sorties in situations where they were at risk to enemy fire...something the modern Chinese air-force has yet to do.

...it's true that Ground Attack and Air Combat are two different things...but that doesn't mean that the last two decades (Iraq I & II, Kosovo) have been completely devoid of air-to-air engagements.

Define 'win'.

If you are refering to a classical invade, conquer and control war then the loser out of the US and China would be whichever one invaded the other. If it came down to nuclear weapons, we would all lose.

nope..we would survive a nuke attack from the chicoms...and they would not survive or attack..period.

most of their missiles would fail in the launch pad...the others...well our guidance systems they got from clinton would be useless..hehehe..and our subs would reek havoc..off their coast...
no one can play with the big boys..period.

you can wishfull think all you want..we would bitch slap anyone in a conventional fight.

ergo the low intensity conflicts we see now...it is like a flea biting a cows ass..annoying yet ...possibly affective in the short term.

but the point of the thread was..who can bring it on against the u.s.
i say no one..if we get pissed..everyone is dead..so dont piss us off.

Hmmm... just my two pence, but I think the US could certainly win a conventional war. Their air and sea superiority would be total, and there land forces are smaller, but superior: while Leopard 2s and Challenger 2s are candidates if you like speed-firepower-light-protection or armour-firepower-slow-speed, the Abrams is king of balanced attribute tanks, while China is still using WW2 era organisations including motorised and straight leg divisions and medium tanks.

But alot of this is dependant on cause. If it was a justified response to, say... I dunno, just something in breech of international law, then they would indeed have NATO and other allies behind them. France, Britain, and Germany can put a couple of effective divisions on the ground each, which would help even out the numbers a little, and the former two could also add a little to the naval contingent. And of course South Korea, with its K1 (essentially licensed Abrams) tanks, is a ready made beachhead, while Japan could host aircraft.

But if it was expansionism or aggresion on America's part, there's no telling what could happen. And, while the thread subject fobids me to elaborate, I believe subsequent guerilla operations would be unwinnable.

But can America win any conventional war? Nope. How about this one: USA versus everyone. Practicaly impossible, I know, but let's say that America calls for the extremination of all immigrants and religious people. Again, ridiculous (I hope), but it is a convetional war that you couldn't win.

But if America is an illegit

So? Is anyone ever going to attempt conventional war with the US? Not a fucking chance. Conventional war is outdated because the US throws money at it until it wins.

You should be worried about the warfare the US military will have to deal with: guerilla.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

OOOOOOOOKKKKKKK NO.
Heres what i think and my reasioning.
The United States could kick Chinas butt and then wipe the floor with them.




The fact is the United States Airforce is vastly superior to any enemy or friendly airforce. Mabye some enemy planes are close to ours, but they dont have as many as we do, they dont have as good pilots as we do, and they dont have as good planes as we do. We don't have as good grammar as the do.

Worst Case US secaniro
Lets say the US dosent have the M1A2
Lets say we dont have the Bradley
Lets say we dont have the Apache, or the Cobra.
Lets all we have is some HMMVWs, and LAV-25s. And our airforce. And our Navy.

So the Chinese J-10 [ahahahaha] gets blown out of the sky and it generally sucks. Then we call in A-10s. There goes most of Chinese Type 98s, 96s, and 99. [If that didnt work, we always have the javilen. bit more effective than an RPG]. Ok. No more Chinese armor. We knock the crap out of the shore with A-10s, F-18s, the whatnot. Chinese Radar falls to HARMs from Growlers and Prowlers. B-1bs, B-2s, make tactial strikes all over. America lands with just *armoured* HMMVWS and LAV-25. Chinese proceed to charge us with AK-47s and sticks. We proceed to Napalm Chinese. Lets say that a fair amount of chinese reach US. Most will be un-trained, poorly equipped, and generally have no idea what there doing. A billion Chinese could work in Korea, but we dont have crappy sabrecats now.


Problems for China:
A-10 IS a WMD. That is extremly hard to destroy.
M1A2 is undenibly one of the best tanks in the world, if not the best.
Our Air Force generally owns.
We have training and equipment, and we are dedicated. "Untoutoutered courage is useless against educated bullets."


Also, people acutlly think China could invade America. We didnt make the VA class sub to dominate Basra

So I wonder what everyone thinks about this? Does my theory hold up? What are the holes?


However you have an incompetant president and administration. China has a much bigger population than the US does. China has a much bigger economy than the US does. Half the Middle East would suddenly lend every weapon they posess to China in fighting the US. Europe, with the exception of Britian( and it would only be governmental support) and maybe Spain would just stand by, pull up a seat and watch the show. I think China would kick American Ass! Never misjudge a communist.

would it just be Us gonig into China if so we known that it wil be a giant mess up as they wouldn't have any Allies to do all the bulk of the work seem the US Military cant win aything with out allies donig most of the dirty work

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

OOOOOOOOKKKKKKK NO.
Heres what i think and my reasioning.
The United States could kick Chinas butt and then wipe the floor with them.




The fact is the United States Airforce is vastly superior to any enemy or friendly airforce. Mabye some enemy planes are close to ours, but they dont have as many as we do, they dont have as good pilots as we do, and they dont have as good planes as we do. We don't have as good grammar as the do.

Worst Case US secaniro
Lets say the US dosent have the M1A2
Lets say we dont have the Bradley
Lets say we dont have the Apache, or the Cobra.
Lets all we have is some HMMVWs, and LAV-25s. And our airforce. And our Navy.

So the Chinese J-10 [ahahahaha] gets blown out of the sky and it generally sucks. Then we call in A-10s. There goes most of Chinese Type 98s, 96s, and 99. [If that didnt work, we always have the javilen. bit more effective than an RPG]. Ok. No more Chinese armor. We knock the crap out of the shore with A-10s, F-18s, the whatnot. Chinese Radar falls to HARMs from Growlers and Prowlers. B-1bs, B-2s, make tactial strikes all over. America lands with just *armoured* HMMVWS and LAV-25. Chinese proceed to charge us with AK-47s and sticks. We proceed to Napalm Chinese. Lets say that a fair amount of chinese reach US. Most will be un-trained, poorly equipped, and generally have no idea what there doing. A billion Chinese could work in Korea, but we dont have crappy sabrecats now.


Problems for China:
A-10 IS a WMD. That is extremly hard to destroy.
M1A2 is undenibly one of the best tanks in the world, if not the best.
Our Air Force generally owns.
We have training and equipment, and we are dedicated. "Untoutoutered courage is useless against educated bullets."


Also, people acutlly think China could invade America. We didnt make the VA class sub to dominate Basra

So I wonder what everyone thinks about this? Does my theory hold up? What are the holes?

I think you have a love of military vehicles, and little understanding of warfare.

America does not have the numbers, nor the rescources to win any war with China, unless China attempted to invade America.
Forward deployment....

You know how many people China has in its armed forces?

One friend told me his drill instructor used to say "Have no illusions about a war with China. They have over a billion people in thier military. We dont have that many bullets."

Now thats not true....but you get the idea of what the man was intending.

No way would America succsessfully invade China.

Conventional war is outdated

Exactly - if you've got a problem with America and want to attack them militarily, just mount a guerilla/terrorist campaign against local US forces/citizens/tourists. Or, if you can afford it somehow, start a nuclear programme as a state-with-the-right-to-self-determination to freak them out/extort money off richer nations.

Conventional war on their own soil is almost unthinkable against a sufficiently committed western nation, especially the US. Pissing about with them is a new and worryingly effective way to fight their soldiers, kill their people, drain off their money, demoralise their armed forces, and get their own citizens and allies to speak out against them! It's got all of the advantages of at least a semi-successful conventional war with none of the getting-crushed drawbacks.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

OOOOOOOOKKKKKKK NO.
Heres what i think and my reasioning.
The United States could kick Chinas butt and then wipe the floor with them.



Overconfidence the biggest indicator of military incompetence.
http://www.geocities.com/militaryincompetence/

China has a much bigger economy than the US does.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

You sure about that one? :rolleyes:

Heres what i think and my reasioning.
The United States could kick Chinas butt and then wipe the floor with them.

The fact is the United States Airforce is vastly superior to any enemy or friendly airforce. Mabye some enemy planes are close to ours, but they dont have as many as we do, they dont have as good pilots as we do, and they dont have as good planes as we do. We don't have as good grammar as the do.

Worst Case US secaniro
Lets say the US dosent have the M1A2
Lets say we dont have the Bradley
Lets say we dont have the Apache, or the Cobra.
Lets all we have is some HMMVWs, and LAV-25s. And our airforce. And our Navy.

So the Chinese J-10 [ahahahaha] gets blown out of the sky and it generally sucks. Then we call in A-10s. There goes most of Chinese Type 98s, 96s, and 99. [If that didnt work, we always have the javilen. bit more effective than an RPG]. Ok. No more Chinese armor. We knock the crap out of the shore with A-10s, F-18s, the whatnot. Chinese Radar falls to HARMs from Growlers and Prowlers. B-1bs, B-2s, make tactial strikes all over. America lands with just *armoured* HMMVWS and LAV-25. Chinese proceed to charge us with AK-47s and sticks. We proceed to Napalm Chinese. Lets say that a fair amount of chinese reach US. Most will be un-trained, poorly equipped, and generally have no idea what there doing. A billion Chinese could work in Korea, but we dont have crappy sabrecats now.

Problems for China:
A-10 IS a WMD. That is extremly hard to destroy.
M1A2 is undenibly one of the best tanks in the world, if not the best.
Our Air Force generally owns.
We have training and equipment, and we are dedicated. "Untoutoutered courage is useless against educated bullets."

Also, people acutlly think China could invade America. We didnt make the VA class sub to dominate Basra

So I wonder what everyone thinks about this? Does my theory hold up? What are the holes?

lolrof The US cannot even win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Two tiny countries with tiny populations.

America Could Win Any Conventional WarExcept for the small detail of public opinion, which entails they can't afford to have lots of casualties.
America loses most battles at the home front.

lolrof The US cannot even win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Two tiny countries with tiny populations.Those aren't conventional wars though.

The United States could definitely defend herself against any invading country.

She couldn't win a conventional war with China though, think about it, they could bomb the hell out of China, destroy much of her infastructure, missile bases, cities etc. But the moment US forces actually go in on the ground and start suffering casualties the American public would be up in arms and force a withdrawl.

It's America's democracy that would be it's undoing, China can draft all fighting age males within a few days and they number into the hundreds of millions. Even if they are poorly trained against the US forces they'd still inflict very heavy casualties and the US doesn't have the stomach for it.

Aside from that the US economy would suffer badly because China holds most of their ten trillion national debt and they'd flood the market with American dollars. The American public wouldn't like this either as they're too used to their comfortable lifestyles.

Thats my five cents.

America could never lose a conventional war. They could probably 'win' a war with China through air and naval power, but a nation as large as China would probably be impossible to invade and control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_doctrine

Is a vital US interest at stake?/Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Well, if you wanna talk Taiwan, I guess that's up to interpretation.

Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
I have my doubts. Americans (although generally fond of war movies and war movie-like news reports) aren't likely to enjoy the 10%+ tax hikes necessary to make this happen.

Are the objectives clearly defined?/Do we have a clear attainable objective?
No.

Will we sustain the commitment?
Again, the answer must be 'No'.

Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?/Is the action supported by the American people?
For the first 6 months, probably. After that, not so much.

Have we exhausted our other options?/Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
No.

Do we have a clear exit strategy?/Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Ahem...run away with your tail between your legs? I can't really think of an alternative right now.

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
No. Neocons aren't good at that sort of thing.

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
No.

Do we have genuine broad international support?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Good-Neighborliness_and_Friendly_Cooperation_Between_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_and_the_Russian_Fed eration
http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2138.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-americanism

It's America's democracy that would be it's undoing, China can draft all fighting age males within a few days and they number into the hundreds of millions. Even if they are poorly trained against the US forces they'd still inflict very heavy casualties and the US doesn't have the stomach for it.

I love it when I hear this argument...

...what the hell are they going to arm all these draftees with? We'd literally be talking spears, if they pushed it so far as to draft hundreds of millions of people.

I'll take a couple of F-16's with some cluster-bombs against any number of spear-wielding divisions.

China will draft people, sure, but they aren't going to bother to draft more people than they can adequatley arm.

China will draft people, sure, but they aren't going to bother to draft more people than they can adequatley arm.
Two things about that:

1) Already the Chinese have absolutely huge manufacturing capacities in their country, and although not all of that can be used for war, it's still a lot of factories.

2) The original Chinese doctrine in Mao's time was for the PLA to be a real people's army: decentralised, self-sufficient and deeply connected with the locals. Armies would have their own factories, soldiers would often work there and make their own weapons and ammunitions, they'd grow their own food etc etc
While this doesn't matter so much in the initial stage in which everything is going to be over in a relatively short time - if the war drags on and the Americans have to put boots on the ground in China, that sort of thing will make a big comeback.

Either way, they'll probably have 100 million or more volunteers, but you're right, it's probably not conceivable that they arm that many.

I love it when I hear this argument...

...what the hell are they going to arm all these draftees with? We'd literally be talking spears, if they pushed it so far as to draft hundreds of millions of people.There are plenty of guns to go around.

I'll take a couple of F-16's with some cluster-bombs against any number of spear-wielding divisions.Massacre of defenseless people won't gain you any points in public opinion.
Besides, they do have anti-aircraft weaponry. They're not savages.

China will draft people, sure, but they aren't going to bother to draft more people than they can adequatley arm.You underestimate how many they can arm. In fact how many they already have armed.
Underestimating the enemy is a surefire way to get your ass bitten..

I pity the poor warmongering fool who thinks that a war with China would be against people armed with bamboo sticks and stones and 50's Tanks.

I pity the poor bastard sent to fight the Chinese who thinks what the poor warmongering fool says is truth, and whose fate will be watched on CNN by the poor warmongering fool.

I pity the poor knowledgable person who trys to convince both the truth is otherwise.

I pity the poor bastard sent to fight the chinese who knows the truth and whose fate will be watched on CNN by the poor warmongering fool and the poor knowledgable person, with the former saying "WOOOOO YEAH!" then "Woah...what?!" and the other saying "I can't watch."

There are plenty of guns to go around.

The Chinese have half a billion small arms? That's news to me, considering everything I've seen indicates there are only around 600 million worldwide.

I guarantee you a significant percenatge of those 600 million guns are NOT in China.

They have some work to do, it seems.

Massacre of defenseless people won't gain you any points in public opinion. Besides, they do have anti-aircraft weaponry. They're not savages.

First of all, I'm fully aware they aren't savages. I never said they were, and I'll thank you not to imply that I hold such an opinion.

Anti-aircraft weaponry is great...but possessing such systems by no means makes a nation immune to air attacks. Radars are also great targets.

And if the Chinese are stupid enough to field divisions of ill equipped troops, then I would expect our armed forces to treat them as they would any other enemy formations...as a target.

You underestimate how many they can arm. In fact how many they already have armed.
Underestimating the enemy is a surefire way to get your ass bitten..

They're on a buying spree in regards to arms...there's no doubt about that.

That hardly means they can just start handing out a gun to every one of a couple hundred-million draftees at the drop of a hat.

While you are right about underestimation, I think you are greatly overestimating just how many properly equipped soliders China can deploy at will.

The Chinese have half a billion small arms? That's news to me, considering everything I've seen indicates there are only around 600 million worldwide.

I guarantee you a significant percenatge of those 600 million guns are NOT in China.

They have some work to do, it seems.



First of all, I'm fully aware they aren't savages. I never said they were, and I'll thank you not to imply that I hold such an opinion.

Anti-aircraft weaponry is great...but possessing such systems by no means makes a nation immune to air attacks. Radars are also great targets.

And if the Chinese are stupid enough to field divisions of ill equipped troops, then I would expect our armed forces to treat them as they would any other enemy formations...as a target.



They're on a buying spree in regards to arms...there's no doubt about that.

That hardly means they can just start handing out a gun to every one of a couple hundred-million draftees at the drop of a hat.

While you are right about underestimation, I think you are greatly overestimating just how many properly equipped soliders China can deploy at will.
What I think you will find is that the Gov of China is alot less bothered about the deaths of 20,000 men than the gov or public of the US. So hw the US would maintain the will is beyond me.

As to the previous posts about the US having the best men and machines..I'm not even going to bother.

I pity the poor warmongering fool who thinks that a war with China would be against people armed with bamboo sticks and stones and 50's Tanks.

I pity the poor bastard sent to fight the Chinese who thinks what the poor warmongering fool says is truth, and whose fate will be watched on CNN by the poor warmongering fool.

I pity the poor knowledgable person who trys to convince both the truth is otherwise.

I pity the poor bastard sent to fight the chinese who knows the truth and whose fate will be watched on CNN by the poor warmongering fool and the poor knowledgable person, with the former saying "WOOOOO YEAH!" then "Woah...what?!" and the other saying "I can't watch."

I think that that's probably the best summary of the reality of war that I've ever seen.

Err... your statement:

was a strawman argument, hence the puicture of the strawman.

I haven't called you a moron, but I will consider doing so.

Go back and re-read the thread.

It's strawman, not scarecrow. Learn what it means, and avoid using it again.

Quote for irony.

Quote for irony.
That is no way to talk to a ninja!! :D

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

OOOOOOOOKKKKKKK NO.
Heres what i think and my reasioning.
The United States could kick Chinas butt and then wipe the floor with them.




The fact is the United States Airforce is vastly superior to any enemy or friendly airforce. Mabye some enemy planes are close to ours, but they dont have as many as we do, they dont have as good pilots as we do, and they dont have as good planes as we do. We don't have as good grammar as the do.

Worst Case US secaniro
Lets say the US dosent have the M1A2
Lets say we dont have the Bradley
Lets say we dont have the Apache, or the Cobra.
Lets all we have is some HMMVWs, and LAV-25s. And our airforce. And our Navy.

So the Chinese J-10 [ahahahaha] gets blown out of the sky and it generally sucks. Then we call in A-10s. There goes most of Chinese Type 98s, 96s, and 99. [If that didnt work, we always have the javilen. bit more effective than an RPG]. Ok. No more Chinese armor. We knock the crap out of the shore with A-10s, F-18s, the whatnot. Chinese Radar falls to HARMs from Growlers and Prowlers. B-1bs, B-2s, make tactial strikes all over. America lands with just *armoured* HMMVWS and LAV-25. Chinese proceed to charge us with AK-47s and sticks. We proceed to Napalm Chinese. Lets say that a fair amount of chinese reach US. Most will be un-trained, poorly equipped, and generally have no idea what there doing. A billion Chinese could work in Korea, but we dont have crappy sabrecats now.


Problems for China:
A-10 IS a WMD. That is extremly hard to destroy.
M1A2 is undenibly one of the best tanks in the world, if not the best.
Our Air Force generally owns.
We have training and equipment, and we are dedicated. "Untoutoutered courage is useless against educated bullets."


Also, people acutlly think China could invade America. We didnt make the VA class sub to dominate Basra

So I wonder what everyone thinks about this? Does my theory hold up? What are the holes?

All you have is more. Not better, only more stuff.

Sure, you could invade any country you want, but you might not be able to win a war against multiple allied countries.

I am not Ignorant and overconfident. Mr. Tokyo whats his face is over confident and Ignorant.
I don't think so.
Who on earth can say the American Army is incompetent?
I can!

They seem to be pretty poorly trained, let's be honest. The average US grunt is trained in a worse way than even the (professional elements of the) PLA.

You might have all of the firepower in the world on your side, but if you don't know the terrain, or the culture of the people you're fighting, or the capabilities of your enemies, then you're going to lose. Every single time.
I admit, we are still learning about Guerilla Warfare.
No shit.
Notice how i say Conventional Warfare.
Are the Chinese and US armies going to deploy in a big long line, 1800s-style, or are the Chinese going to be a bit clever?

Even if they did simply line up, the Chinese will win. Their weapons are actually really quite good (Type 95s > Colt M4s) and their soldiers are better trained, and are going to be much more interested in fighting, simply because it's their homeland at stake.

China could also bring literally millions of soldiers into the fight, the amount of able-bodied men and women would be immense.

And as to your "hahaha lolz teh spears" comments - if a US soldier runs out of bullets, and the enemy has spears, he is buggered to no end.

Or are you saying that our AF could be shot down by some chinese planes?
Yeah, probably, the USAF's pilots are cocky beyond belief (I've met a fair few and 90% of them were tossers), that'll work in the favour of the Chinese to no end.

Again, their equipment is good, but the pilots won't be in any kind of mental state which will make them effective, they'll probably be showing off and doing loop-the-loops around the enemy planes before shooting them down, such is their overconfidence, and this will lead to their inevitable defeat.

Are the Chinese and US armies going to deploy in a big long line, 1800s-style, or are the Chinese going to be a bit clever?


Conventional warfare doesn't mean lining up on a battlefield in rows and columns, though :) In recent history, the conventional war in the Balkans, and in Iraq twice, was won in a matter of weeks, and those weren't life or death struggles but the modern equivalent of expeditionary forces. The guerrilla campaign is what a modern army isn't yet able to deal with.

yadda yadda yadda

China and the US are business partners.... hello?

Conventional warfare doesn't mean lining up on a battlefield in rows and columns, though :) In recent history, the conventional war in the Balkans, and in Iraq twice, was won in a matter of weeks, and those weren't life or death struggles but the modern equivalent of expeditionary forces. The guerrilla campaign is what a modern army isn't yet able to deal with.
The same would happen, regardless.

The Chinese have more strength in terms of numbers and, in reality, equipment, than the US does.

I'm assuming that this is a US invasion of China, because of the context of the OP.

If it was "in a flat, temperate area somewhere" then I'm not quite as sure of who would win, but it would still probably be China, simply because of the advantages in terms of manpower and overall dedication.

yadda yadda yadda

China and the US are business partners.... hello?

Don't use logic here :)

yadda yadda yadda

China and the US are business partners.... hello?
Aieee!

Careful thinking overrides hypothetical situation possibility crisis!

Aieee!

Careful thinking overrides hypothetical situation possibility crisis!

Hey, I'm only a warmonger under certain circumstances. If it's bad for business, it's stupid.

I am refering to Invade, Conquer, Control War. We have problems with Guerilla warfare, I admit. [although our thuderruns are pretty cool to watch videos of].
With Nukes, I havent really checked that out. I read somwhere China only has like 50 ICBMs in the 400 Nuke stockpile, where as we have sevral thousand.

I am talking about to Conventinal warfare.

I dont think we-the US- could ever "Invade,Conquer or Control" China. I think if there was and armed exchange of hostilities we could damage their command and communication enough to stop their aggression toward us.

I dont see the US ever being able to occupy China during or after a military conflict.

We would have a better chance of financial/trade control.

yadda yadda yadda

China and the US are business partners.... hello?

Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will! :p) but doesn't China hold a whole bunch of US debt nowadays as well?

Correct me if I am wrong (I know you will! :p) but doesn't China hold a whole bunch of US debt nowadays as well?

Jepp, so it's a knew kind of MAD.

China could at least harm if not devestate, the USA economy (and in the long term the whole world since we are influenced by USA economy to a high degree). However, China also has a big need of import and export, which USA could hinder to the degree where Chinas economy would be harmed.

Hey, I'm only a warmonger under certain circumstances. If it's bad for business, it's stupid.
The Iraq was was terrible for business, putting oil prices up etc. , would you say it was stupid?

Yeah, probably, the USAF's pilots are cocky beyond belief (I've met a fair few and 90% of them were tossers), that'll work in the favour of the Chinese to no end.

Again, their equipment is good, but the pilots won't be in any kind of mental state which will make them effective, they'll probably be showing off and doing loop-the-loops around the enemy planes before shooting them down, such is their overconfidence, and this will lead to their inevitable defeat.

Yeah- we see this all the time. Stunts that get us defeated. :rolleyes:

The equipment is the best. The training is the best. The result is air superiority nearly immediately in nearly all armed conflicts.

You've met a few and 90% were tossers. Spare us.

The Iraq was was terrible for business, putting oil prices up etc. , would you say it was stupid?

What business was it bad for? All the companies that are reconstructing Iraq arent complaining. They are hiring thousands and buying tons of material. And shipping companies are bringing it there.
Oil companies have posted their largest record setting earnings every quarter. Their employees and stockholders are very happy. Business is good.
Everyone with a military contract is up to their ears in orders-they can barely keep up.

Its funny all the America bashers are quick to chant its a war for oil and Haliburton.
Then try to sneak the bad for business BS by.

You cant have it both ways.

Yeah- we see this all the time. Stunts that get us defeated. :rolleyes:
If the USAF is happy cutting off cable-cars upside-down when they've got nothing better to do, I reckon they'd do loop-the-loops instead of properly fighting the Chinese AF, due to overconfidence.
The equipment is the best.
Disputably.
The training is the best.
The RAF is better trained, the Luftwaffe is better trained and I imagine the French Air Force is better trained.
The result is air superiority nearly immediately in nearly all armed conflicts.
Mostly because you've never fought anyone with a proper air force.
You've met a few and 90% were tossers. Spare us.
OK then...

Jepp, so it's a knew kind of MAD.

China could at least harm if not devestate, the USA economy (and in the long term the whole world since we are influenced by USA economy to a high degree). However, China also has a big need of import and export, which USA could hinder to the degree where Chinas economy would be harmed.

I think its in both China and the US best interest to maintain the balance of trade between the two. If there was any hostilty where people in the US drastically decreased purchase of Chinese good, or China suddenly cut off their shipments of products to the US- too many companies and too many employees would suffer.

Thats stronger than the threat of military. We already control each other with trade and finance- we both benefit from it. Why would anyone disrupt that?

What business was it bad for? All the companies that are reconstructing Iraq arent complaining. They are hiring thousands and buying tons of material. And shipping companies are bringing it there.
Oil companies have posted their largest record setting earnings every quarter. Their employees and stockholders are very happy. Business is good.
Everyone with a military contract is up to their ears in orders-they can barely keep up.

Its funny all the America bashers are quick to chant its a war for oil and Haliburton.
Then try to sneak the bad for business BS by.

You cant have it both ways.

You can if yer an American or UK taxpayer....

You can if yer an American or UK taxpayer....
Damn right.

The Iraq was was terrible for business, putting oil prices up etc. , would you say it was stupid?

Nope.

The price of gasoline is already plummeting again here. It's projected to go to 2 dollars a gallon by November. In the US.

Convert that to Euros or Pounds, and see how happy that makes you.

And our economy is doing very well, thank you.

Their defense infrastructure is formidable and their air defense radar nets are especially impressive. And where the hell do you think you can stage your oh-so-w00t Air Force out of?
Well, besides our strategic bombers, which can reach-out-and-touch-yah from the Contiguous US, we could also base planes in the Aleutians, the ROK, Taiwan, Japan, Guam and the Phillipines. Not to mention our carrier air wings.


You can expect nothing short of fanatical devoution from the defenders. US soldiers would be (about) equally devoted if they were fighting in California, Texas or Nebraska. They'd be fighting for their very homes (almost).
That's why you blockade and bomb.

Not to mention logistics, they'd be fighting on their home turf. Where the hell would you get the logistic capability (mechanics, technicians, storage, transport). Without sufficient logistics your high-tech hardware will be out of fuel, spare parts, batteries and be sitting ducks for their supposedly inferior 1970s hardware.
US Merchant Marine and Reserve Air Fleet. The US has the best global supply system in the entire world, and can get anything, anywhere in under a day, if need be.

Ultimately, war is a means to an end. Not an end unto itself. Why the hell would we want to engage China on these terms? The causalties suffered will make Vietnam look minor.
I'd oppose a war with China because of the potential economic shocks.

If the USAF is happy cutting off cable-cars upside-down when they've got nothing better to do, I reckon they'd do loop-the-loops instead of properly fighting the Chinese AF, due to overconfidence.

Disputably.

The RAF is better trained, the Luftwaffe is better trained and I imagine the French Air Force is better trained.

Mostly because you've never fought anyone with a proper air force.

OK then...

You're reckoning is sadly mistaken-but only because of your deep desire to believe they are redneck cowboys.

The RAF, Luftwaffe and French Air Force ?

No one else has a "proper air force" because they cant have one. They cannot afford to build one, to train one and maintain one. Only to have it decimated by the only country with a "proper air force" if the circumstances were to arise.
besides- why waste all those euros and effort ? The US will defend them from any hostilities anyway.

You can if yer an American or UK taxpayer....

I'm a US taxpayer and currently enjoying a great standard of living.

Do I want to be at war? No-of course not.

But-dont for a second think its bad for business. Few events are better for business, unfortunately.

You're reckoning is sadly mistaken-but only because of your deep desire to believe they are redneck cowboys.

The RAF, Luftwaffe and French Air Force ?

No one else has a "proper air force" because they cant have one. They cannot afford to build one, to train one and maintain one. Only to have it decimated by the only country with a "proper air force" if the circumstances were to arise.
besides- why waste all those euros and effort ? The US will defend them from any hostilities anyway.


The only air force in the world with the ability to project power around the globe is the US Air Force.

Additionally, the Chinese Air Force would be simple targets. None of their air force is considered technologically advanced enough to survive any longer than the Iraqi Air Force did (same technological level).

It would be another wipeout. The words that any Chinese pilot would fear more than any others would be "cleared for takeoff".

Iraqi pilots who survived the 1991 Gulf War by not flying said that was what they feared the most. They were being shot down as they retracted their landing gear as they took off, by missiles fired from planes they couldn't see.

Taking down an IADS is what the US Air Force does better than any nation in the world. In just a few days.

Okay fine, we can win conventional wars. Unfortunately warfare is becoming more unconventional as time passes, so perhaps we should begin putting an equal emphasis on this type of warfare too.

You're reckoning is sadly mistaken-but only because of your deep desire to believe they are redneck cowboys.
You do realise that I wasn't lying about the cablecars thing, right?
The RAF, Luftwaffe and French Air Force ?
Are better trained than the USAF...
No one else has a "proper air force" because they cant have one. They cannot afford to build one, to train one and maintain one.
Well then, that must make it rather pointless to claim that you can have aerial superiority, then, doesn't it?

Also, the European air forces could hold their own against the USAF in reality.
Only to have it decimated by the only country with a "proper air force" if the circumstances were to arise.
I was more referring to the fact that you've only ever fought with the USAF against the Japanese (who, for a long time, were doing quite well air-wise), the late-war Luftwaffe (who didn't have anything that they needed to rebuild after 1942) the Koreans (yeah...) the North Vietnamese (who actually did very well against the USAF, it never really gained air superiority), the Iraqis (whose airforce couldn't really be bothered) and the Afghanistanis (who have no need of one).
besides- why waste all those euros and effort ? The US will defend them from any hostilities anyway.
Urmm... eh?

Okay fine, we can win conventional wars. Unfortunately warfare is becoming more unconventional as time passes, so perhaps we should begin putting an equal emphasis on this type of warfare too.

Maybe we should concentrate on doing business instead.

And if we need to do a war with someone who is getting really stupid (as I believe Iran is), wait until the day they actually get stupid (such as the day they nuke Tel Aviv), and then fire several hundred nuclear weapons at all of their population centers at once.

No conventional war. No insurgency. And the people who were thinking about being stupid with their own country would shit themselves.

I'm a US taxpayer and currently enjoying a great standard of living.

Do I want to be at war? No-of course not.

But-dont for a second think its bad for business. Few events are better for business, unfortunately.

here is what I was replying to mate..

What business was it bad for? All the companies that are reconstructing Iraq arent complaining. They are hiring thousands and buying tons of material. And shipping companies are bringing it there.
Oil companies have posted their largest record setting earnings every quarter. Their employees and stockholders are very happy. Business is good.
Everyone with a military contract is up to their ears in orders-they can barely keep up.

Its funny all the America bashers are quick to chant its a war for oil and Haliburton.
Then try to sneak the bad for business BS by.

You cant have it both ways

Where is all that money coming from? Paying for the reconstruction? It sure as hell ain't from those companies own coffers is it?

no...its us paying for it.

so yes I can say its for the oil...and for Haliburton....and I can say its bad for business....

you might have a great standard of living...until you get sick, your company either pulls or puts you on a lower health insurance scheme....you loose your job or any number of things....

this entire situation is a SNAFU.

on second thoughts maybe it is good for business...what with the housing bubble about to or actually going tits up...but thats another thread...

however you are right....war is always good for biz...but its us taxpayers footing the bill...

You do realise that I wasn't lying about the cablecars thing, right?

Are better trained than the USAF...

Well then, that must make it rather pointless to claim that you can have aerial superiority, then, doesn't it?

Also, the European air forces could hold their own against the USAF in reality.

I was more referring to the fact that you've only ever fought with the USAF against the Japanese (who, for a long time, were doing quite well air-wise), the late-war Luftwaffe (who didn't have anything that they needed to rebuild after 1942) the Koreans (yeah...) the North Vietnamese (who actually did very well against the USAF, it never really gained air superiority), the Iraqis (whose airforce couldn't really be bothered) and the Afghanistanis (who have no need of one).

Urmm... eh?


You and I just arent going to agree. However, the facts are leaning toward my opinions.

Euro airforces holding their own against the USAF ?
Perhaps- against the Air National Guard...from ONE state.

You and I just arent going to agree. However, the facts are leaning toward my opinions.

Euro airforces holding their own against the USAF ?
Perhaps- against the Air National Guard...from ONE state.

If you say Rhode Island I'm gonna have to :upyours: at you! LOL :)

You do realise that I wasn't lying about the cablecars thing, right?

Wow...one incident from years ago apparently makes the entire USAF a bunch of cocky fools who would perform tricks while in hostile airspace. :rolleyes:

Are better trained than the USAF...

Here's a deal...you go through a tour of duty with ALL of those Air Forces, and THEN you can tell us who has the better training...otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.

Well then, that must make it rather pointless to claim that you can have aerial superiority, then, doesn't it?

As I stated earlier in this thread, the U.S. has a significant advantage over any other nation in terms of the numbers of logistical aircraft necessary to prosecute any significant air campaign...namely midair refueling aircraft and AWACs planes.

Other airforces are geared towards national defense...ours is a way to project power across the globe. The Iraqi's HAD a significant air force during Gulf War I...there's a reason we had it so easy the second time around.

Also, the European air forces could hold their own against the USAF in reality.

If they were all working together, over European airspace, sure...

...if not...I have significant doubts.

I was more referring to the fact that you've only ever fought with the USAF against the Japanese (who, for a long time, were doing quite well air-wise) the late-war Luftwaffe (who didn't have anything that they needed to rebuild after 1942) the Koreans (yeah...) the North Vietnamese (who actually did very well against the USAF, it never really gained air superiority), the Iraqis (whose airforce couldn't really be bothered) and the Afghanistanis (who have no need of one)

I'm not going to bother...you're the equivalent of Americans who say "We saved your ass in WWI & WWII!"

Urmm... eh?

That's about what I was thinking.

here is what I was replying to mate..

What business was it bad for? All the companies that are reconstructing Iraq arent complaining. They are hiring thousands and buying tons of material. And shipping companies are bringing it there.
Oil companies have posted their largest record setting earnings every quarter. Their employees and stockholders are very happy. Business is good.
Everyone with a military contract is up to their ears in orders-they can barely keep up.

Its funny all the America bashers are quick to chant its a war for oil and Haliburton.
Then try to sneak the bad for business BS by.

You cant have it both ways

Where is all that money coming from? Paying for the reconstruction? It sure as hell ain't from those companies own coffers is it?

no...its us paying for it.

so yes I can say its for the oil...and for Haliburton....and I can say its bad for business....

you might have a great standard of living...until you get sick, your company either pulls or puts you on a lower health insurance scheme....you loose your job or any number of things....

this entire situation is a SNAFU.

on second thoughts maybe it is good for business...what with the housing bubble about to or actually going tits up...but thats another thread...

however you are right....war is always good for biz...but its us taxpayers footing the bill...

Doesnt business pay the taxpayer salaries ? Dont they pay stockholders? Isnt that where we get our health coverage from?

Yes- taxpayers pay the bills, but we dont grow our own money.

I've paid close attention. I just sold my house a few months ago for drastically more than I paid for it. I reduced my mortgage and paid off all credit cards.
I have a new small mortgage at a much lower interest rate than the last one. Fixed. I have no other debt. At all.
I bought a larger house and more property in the mountains. My energy costs, taxes and insurance are all drastically less.
I have two jobs- one is working from home.

I have done the best I can to insulate and protect myself from rising interest rates and falling housing market. I am by no means any type of financial genius. Many average people have taken reasonable steps to stay on stable ground.
If prices go up and I lose one job (God forbid) I'll live.

US Merchant Marine and Reserve Air Fleet. The US has the best global supply system in the entire world, and can get anything, anywhere in under a day, if need be.Actually, if my friends that are in the military are to be believed, no, it can't. Things that are needed probably don't make it even if "need be", as you can see with the armor situation in Iraq. Also, a lot of equipment that went to various European bases went through the same base (I think it was K-town, but I'm not sure) first, and they'd always take what they wanted before shipping it further. Best globabl supply system, no doubts about that. Get anything anywhere within a day? During peace time that could be pretty difficult and during war, across the Pacific (even if you can store it in Korea and Japan before bringing it to China) is a pretty big financial stretch.

Actually, if my friends that are in the military are to be believed, no, it can't. Things that are needed probably don't make it even if "need be", as you can see with the armor situation in Iraq. Also, a lot of equipment that went to various European bases went through the same base (I think it was K-town, but I'm not sure) first, and they'd always take what they wanted before shipping it further. Best globabl supply system, no doubts about that. Get anything anywhere within a day? During peace time that could be pretty difficult and during war, across the Pacific (even if you can store it in Korea and Japan before bringing it to China) is a pretty big financial stretch.

No, it's not Federal Express. But it is an existing logistical system.

No other nation has such a logistical system worldwide. Nor the number and types of aircraft to support worldwide operations. And few navies operate worldwide in the numbers and strength of the US Navy.

If you say Rhode Island I'm gonna have to :upyours: at you! LOL :)

Nah-I'm not that cocky myself. But California or Texas ? Certainly.

Maybe we should concentrate on doing business instead.

And if we need to do a war with someone who is getting really stupid (as I believe Iran is), wait until the day they actually get stupid (such as the day they nuke Tel Aviv), and then fire several hundred nuclear weapons at all of their population centers at once.

No conventional war. No insurgency. And the people who were thinking about being stupid with their own country would shit themselves.

And, this is the scary thing about democracy... and why I'm glad we don't have one.

Wow...one incident from years ago apparently makes the entire USAF a bunch of cocky fools who would perform tricks while in hostile airspace. :rolleyes:
Yeah, because I'm biased.
Here's a deal...you go through a tour of duty with ALL of those Air Forces, and THEN you can tell us who has the better training...otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.
Whose air force blows up and bombs its own allies in Iraq?

The RAF or the USAF?

"*crsssh* The Iraqis are wearing Canadian uniforms! Sneaky bastards! Over"
"*crsssh* I agree, kill 'em all! Over"
*Canadians generally shot at from the air for a bit*
"We're on your fucking side! Stop it!"
"*crsssh* Whoops, over"
"*crsssh* I agree, over and out"
*the USAF flies off*
As I stated earlier in this thread, the U.S. has a significant advantage over any other nation in terms of the numbers of logistical aircraft necessary to prosecute any significant air campaign...namely midair refueling aircraft and AWACs planes.
Or possibly, most nations just don't care about long air campaigns, because they've studied things like Rolling Thunder and have come to the conclusion that they've crap?
Other airforces are geared towards national defense...ours is a way to project power across the globe.
If by "across the globe" you mean "to any nation without any allies or a particularly good air force".
The Iraqi's HAD a significant air force during Gulf War I...there's a reason we had it so easy the second time around.
Yeah - you bribed them.
If they were all working together, over European airspace, sure...

...if not...I have significant doubts.
The Europeans are really not that interested in force projection, and they certainly would work together if attacked from a source outside of the EU.
I'm not going to bother...you're the equivalent of Americans who say "We saved your ass in WWI & WWII!"
So which parts of it were wrong, then?

A couple of thing that people haven't mentioned:

The OP mentioned as his objective the occupation and control of China. We simply do not have the manpower to do so. The minimum ratio for an occupation force to stablise a country is 20 soldiers per 1000 population. This number drastically increases if the population is actively hostile. Occupying China successfully would require several times the full compliment of US forces, even if every single last military person was sent to China. (Note: That number is not some stat drawn out of my ass, but is based on research. Of particular interest are several papers on the subject by James T. Quinlivan for RAND and Parameters.)

Secondly, if the scenario is conventional warfare, we can stop talking about nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, one big questionmark no one has touched upon is China's cyberwarfare capacity. The Chinese have been dedicating quite a bit of time anbd effort towards this, and if open warefare ever breaks out between China and the US, you can expect quite a bit of economic and civilian informationb infrastructure damage.

Next, as far as I can tell, only one person has mentioned the financial aspect. China owns a huge amount of US debt.

Finally, basing military assesments on how "cool" certain pieces of equipment are, is at best laughable, and at worst idiotically dangerous.

A couple of thing that people haven't mentioned:

The OP mentioned as his objective the occupation and control of China. We simply do not have the manpower to do so. The minimum ratio for an occupation force to stablise a country is 20 soldiers per 1000 population. This number drastically increases if the population is actively hostile. Occupying China successfully would require several times the full compliment of US forces, even if every single last military person was sent to China. (Note: That number is not some stat drawn out of my ass, but is based on research. Of particular interest are several papers on the subject by James T. Quinlivan for RAND and Parameters.)

Secondly, if the scenario is conventional warfare, we can stop talking about nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, one big questionmark no one has touched upon is China's cyberwarfare capacity. The Chinese have been dedicating quite a bit of time anbd effort towards this, and if open warefare ever breaks out between China and the US, you can expect quite a bit of economic and civilian informationb infrastructure damage.

Next, as far as I can tell, only one person has mentioned the financial aspect. China owns a huge amount of US debt.

Finally, basing military assesments on how "cool" certain pieces of equipment are, is at best laughable, and at worst idiotically dangerous.

And the whole scenario relies on China fighting a 'conventional war'... whatever the hell that is supposed to be.

Does the OP really think the Chinese army would line up in rows and charge at American armour?

Doesnt business pay the taxpayer salaries ? Dont they pay stockholders? Isnt that where we get our health coverage from?

Yes- taxpayers pay the bills, but we dont grow our own money.

I've paid close attention. I just sold my house a few months ago for drastically more than I paid for it. I reduced my mortgage and paid off all credit cards.
I have a new small mortgage at a much lower interest rate than the last one. Fixed. I have no other debt. At all.
I bought a larger house and more property in the mountains. My energy costs, taxes and insurance are all drastically less.
I have two jobs- one is working from home.

I have done the best I can to insulate and protect myself from rising interest rates and falling housing market. I am by no means any type of financial genius. Many average people have taken reasonable steps to stay on stable ground.
If prices go up and I lose one job (God forbid) I'll live.

Yeah..biz pays salaries and salaries are taxed...but then again bad management of tax money does not help anyone except those wallowing in pork.

I'm in the UK so not an expert in US health matters, although my father is in the US and suffering from a very debilitating disease...luckily he is retired and his company health plan is looking out for him and dealing with his treatment...but I have seen his bills and they are astromonical...as in the 100K region...and as far as I can make out these bills are for consultants and kit used in consultancies...only about 10% is for the drugs used for his treatment...

I guess one reason is that the medical profession is beholden to the insurance companies with regards to mal-practice/liability...i don't know. What I do know is that had he been in a less senior role or another company he would be broke by now...even after paying large/huge sums into medical insurance plans.

Housing market...once more not a subject I am overly familiar with...but it seems that the market is cooling and foreclosures are rising...yet I see interest only deals and the like being bandied about as a good way to buy...

however with reagrds to housing....well that is something (as you have shown) that needs to be watched....no point in living off the never never (aka credit) like so many people do....whati s the point of having a Mc Mansion??

mmmm are we derailing this thread??

Nah-I'm not that cocky myself. But California or Texas ? Certainly.

The Confederate Airforce?? LOL

We may or may not be there to pursuade China to not to go so harshly on you when you get destroyed.

Who is we?

Does Northern Ireland have a mouse in it's pocket?

Oh wait, Northern Ireland is a mouse.

Actually, if my friends that are in the military are to be believed, no, it can't. Things that are needed probably don't make it even if "need be", as you can see with the armor situation in Iraq. Also, a lot of equipment that went to various European bases went through the same base (I think it was K-town, but I'm not sure) first, and they'd always take what they wanted before shipping it further. Best globabl supply system, no doubts about that. Get anything anywhere within a day? During peace time that could be pretty difficult and during war, across the Pacific (even if you can store it in Korea and Japan before bringing it to China) is a pretty big financial stretch.

Well, I'm operating within the war-scenario I'm predicting, and you have to remember that in the one I'm predicting, the US won't commit ground troops for anything more than special forces operations.

And the whole scenario relies on China fighting a 'conventional war'... whatever the hell that is supposed to be.

Does the OP really think the Chinese army would line up in rows and charge at American armour?

Chinese proceed to charge us with AK-47s and sticks.

That would appear to be the case.

Well, I'm operating within the war-scenario I'm predicting, and you have to remember that in the one I'm predicting, the US won't commit ground troops for anything more than special forces operations.

As proof of that as a policy direction:
https://www.ohio.navy.mil/html/conversion.htm

Trident SSGN resolves these dilemmas by providing a near term solution to littoral warfighting requirements that is low cost, sur-vivable and highly versatile. In its baseline concept, the SSGN would replace nuclear missiles in 22 of the Tridents 24 tubes with Vertical Launch System (VLS) canisters that hold six conventional land attack missiles per tube. A single Ohio class boat would carry 132 such missiles, a mix of Tomahawk cruise missiles and the naval variant of the Army Tactical Missile system known as NTACMS. The Tomahawk would provide precision strike against interior land targets, while the NTACMS short range ballistic would provide rapid response against targets closer to the coast, including such time urgent targets as Scud bases. With a full complement of 132 missiles, a single Trident SSGN provides a covert and powerful force to serve as the forward echelon of a Joint Task force, suppressing defenses and anti-access forces. In addition, the SSGN also serves to make more missiles cells in the surface battle force available for anti-air and TMD missions.

But it also could serve as tar more than a summered version of the ill-fated arsenal ship. In the baseline concept, two of the Trident SSGN tubes would be modified to function as lockin-lockout chambers for special operations personnel. The large interior volume of Ohio class boats could accommodate 66 such personnel for extended periods, and over 100 for briefer spans. In addition, the Trident would retain its existing anti-ship and undersea warfare capabilities, plus its extensive capacity for reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence gathering. The Trident SSGN would thus be transformed into a multi-role warship with numerous littoral applications, and at the same time could serve as a tested for innovative submarine modular payload concepts, ideas that have been inhibited by the traditional 21 inch torpedo tube.

There are many operational advantages in such a concept. First of all, Trident SSGN would be highly survivable; able to non-provocatively operate near potential littoral adversaries in advance of hostilities without fear of being preemptively attacked. Second, Trident SSGN could operate autonomously throughout all phases of a conflict, collecting intelligence useful in impending operations, preparing the battlespace for the arrival of surface and/or airborne assets, and delivering the first highly precise response to aggression.

Third, Trident SSGN also would operate seamlessly as part of a larger Joint Task Force, integrating its capabilities with those of surface, air and land assets to create a multi-dimensional approach to littoral warfare. Fourth, it could operate without requiring local air or sea control, and would require little or no protection from other friendly forces because of its combination of stealth and self-defense capabilities. Finally, it would require little logistical support during forward deployments and littoral operations due to its relatively low manning requirements and the remarkable endurance afforded by nuclear propulsion.

That would appear to be the case.

Oh. I missed that bit. :(

Seriously - if we are going to indulge anough of a suspension-of-disbelief to enable this fantasy to be considered... sure - the US will win easily.

If Santa and all the pixies haven't already killed the defenders when we get there.

Doesnt business pay the taxpayer salaries ? Dont they pay stockholders? Isnt that where we get our health coverage from?

Yes- taxpayers pay the bills, but we dont grow our own money.

I've paid close attention. I just sold my house a few months ago for drastically more than I paid for it. I reduced my mortgage and paid off all credit cards.
I have a new small mortgage at a much lower interest rate than the last one. Fixed. I have no other debt. At all.
I bought a larger house and more property in the mountains. My energy costs, taxes and insurance are all drastically less.
I have two jobs- one is working from home.

I have done the best I can to insulate and protect myself from rising interest rates and falling housing market. I am by no means any type of financial genius. Many average people have taken reasonable steps to stay on stable ground.
If prices go up and I lose one job (God forbid) I'll live.

So are we to assume that ALL American's own property instead of renting, are able to find jobs working from home so that they spend less on fuel and are as capable of you to weather any economic shock?

1% of America's population, owns 40% of the countries wealth, when you consider that their GDP per capita and Purchasing Power Parity is about the same as Brazil or South Africa. 12% of American's live below the poverty line (according to the CIA World fact book).

So I highly doubt the "average" American is as comfy as you are.

Let's try and avoid ignorance and naivety.

The Confederate Airforce?? LOL

California does have a fair number of troops.

The California National Guard is a broad based organization with more than 23,000 men and women performing many different types of operations. This state military Department is comprised of the California Army National Guard with more than 18,000 members and the California Air National Guard with 4,900 members.

There's also the California State Military Reserve (http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/), which can be activated to act in a support function for the CANG.

And the whole scenario relies on China fighting a 'conventional war'... whatever the hell that is supposed to be.

Does the OP really think the Chinese army would line up in rows and charge at American armour?

A modern conventional war doesn't involve 2 sides lining up in a field and charging - look at the 2 recent invasions of Iraq for prime examples of a conventional war - this part of the conflict was over in weeks.

Purely hypothetically - it's almost impossible to imagine it really happening - the USA could beat China in such a conflict, but certainly couldn't occupy it without getting the Chinese population to be on their side, and world opinion to be right behind them and against the Chinese government. Purely in terms of destroying military infrastructure and killing off any concentrations of force though, the USA'd win.

The Confederate Airforce?? LOL

They had to change it to the "Commemorative Air Force" a few years back, because some overly PC bastard sponsors objected to the Confederate bit.

:upyours:
(Wow. I finally found a use for that one!)

BTW, they need money to put Fifi, the only remaining flyable B-29, back in flying condition. http://www.commemorativeairforce.org/news/news_details.php?newsid=61

Let's try and avoid ignorance and naivety.

We can start with YOU.

51% of minorities in the US own their own homes or have a mortgage and do not rent.
http://www.fanniemae.com/initiatives/minority/index.jhtml?p=Initiatives&s=Minority+Homeownership

Overall, it's 70% of Americans.

18% own them outright - owing no money on them.

Ignorant?

So are we to assume that ALL American's own property instead of renting, are able to find jobs working from home so that they spend less on fuel and are as capable of you to weather any economic shock?

1% of America's population, owns 40% of the countries wealth, when you consider that their GDP per capita and Purchasing Power Parity is about the same as Brazil or South Africa. 12% of American's live below the poverty line (according to the CIA World fact book).

So I highly doubt the "average" American is as comfy as you are.

Let's try and avoid ignorance and naivety.

No-I was talking about people that pay attention.

Lets try to avoid being know it all loud-mouths.

A modern conventional war doesn't involve 2 sides lining up in a field and charging

Grave_n_idle knows that. I know that. You and almost everyone else posting seems to know that. The OPer, from the comment quoted above, doesn't seem to.

even if its america vs. world?

Oh. I missed that bit. :(

Seriously - if we are going to indulge anough of a suspension-of-disbelief to enable this fantasy to be considered... sure - the US will win easily.

If Santa and all the pixies haven't already killed the defenders when we get there.

I don't think the chinese celebrate christmas so Santa would have no reason to go there.

If we are serious, there are no reason that the US (at the current world status) would or could attack (and win) China for reasons already mentioned on other places, and there are no reason to belive that the chinese would fight a traditional warfare since they would not win that way. Therefore this reasoning is about as real as discussing who would win between Allah and Moses.

Now, why did I post this again? :confused:

A modern conventional war doesn't involve 2 sides lining up in a field and charging - look at the 2 recent invasions of Iraq for prime examples of a conventional war - this part of the conflict was over in weeks.

Purely hypothetically - it's almost impossible to imagine it really happening - the USA could beat China in such a conflict, but certainly couldn't occupy it without getting the Chinese population to be on their side, and world opinion to be right behind them and against the Chinese government. Purely in terms of destroying military infrastructure and killing off any concentrations of force though, the USA'd win.

You never played Risk, did you?


The question is - what exactly IS a conventional war, at the start of the 21st Century? Is it a concept evn worth debating? The recent invasions of Iraq largely consisted of isolated pockets of resistance, and a lot of house to house fighting... collecting 'strategic objectives' rather than holding ground, one assumes.

Under such terms - maybe the US could claim 'a win'. On the other hand - if we are actually talking about reality, the Chinese forces resisting an American invasion are unlikely to feel they have to defend 'conventionally', now are they? And - you just can't win a landwar in Asia. You can't hold the territory.

But, we can indulge your version of the US being able to kill off any concentration of force.... just show me bin Ladin's body first, and we'll take it from there.

But, we can indulge your version of the US being able to kill off any concentration of force.... just show me bin Ladin's body first, and we'll take it from there.

Bin Laden isn't a concentration of force - in fact, he's the opposite.

The only organizations that survive attack by US conventional forces are dispersed, decentralized organizations. Concentrations of force are only targets.

Grave_n_idle knows that. I know that. You and almost everyone else posting seems to know that. The OPer, from the comment quoted above, doesn't seem to.

Exactly. We have no way to debate this topic, when the Original Poster is talking about a 'conventional war' as being equivalent to the old wars in Europe.

Bin Laden isn't a concentration of force - in fact, he's the opposite.

The only organizations that survive attack by US conventional forces are dispersed, decentralized organizations. Concentrations of force are only targets.

Missed the point, didn't you.

Warfare has changed. This idea that we are going to line up tanks against each other, or fire machineguns from trench to trench, is a fantasy.

Small units ARE 'concentrations of force' now. Modern warfare IS 'dispersed, decentralised organisations'.

Regarding bin Ladin, the reason I point the finger there in particular, is because we have seen video footage of him with units of armed men. If we can't hit a public speaker, who releases video and audio evidence of his location, how the hell are we going to pinpoint small concentrations of force that draw no attention?

even if its america vs. world?

Give it time. Current foreign policy does seem to be heading in that direction.

They had to change it to the "Commemorative Air Force" a few years back, because some overly PC bastard sponsors objected to the Confederate bit.

:upyours:
(Wow. I finally found a use for that one!)

BTW, they need money to put Fifi, the only remaining flyable B-29, back in flying condition. http://www.commemorativeairforce.org/news/news_details.php?newsid=61

NO WAY!!!!

Commemorative Air Force??? I bet Nolan must be pissed!!!!

I agree...stupid PC bullshit that.

The only flying Lanc is heading that way but mainly due to the amount of flying hours she's racked up....

I'd give my eye tooth to see a '29 take off and land....*sigh*

I used to live just down from RAF Duxford...love the place :)

http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/

Missed the point, didn't you.

Warfare has changed. This idea that we are going to line up taks against each other, or fire machineguns from trench to trench, is a fantasy.

Small units ARE 'concentrations of force' now. Modern warfare IS 'dispersed, decentralised organisations'.

Regarding bin Ladin, the reason I point the finger there in particular, is because we have seen video footage of him with units of armed men. If we can't hit a public speaker, who releases video and audio evidence of his location, how the hell are we going to pinpoint small concentrations of force that draw no attention?


No, I didn't miss the point. The OP is silly.

But, the Chinese Army is too large to decentralize and still fight effectively as a modern military.

It's mostly infantry in trucks. Good, perhaps, as insurgents. But not as offensive operations military.

And modern warfare requires you to, at some point, concentrate force. If you do so, the US military does indeed have you.

Finding one man in the middle of nowhere is also pretty hard. Eric Rudolph hid for five years - in North Carolina - a few miles from where he originally lived.

Let's see the two main reasons why this scenario will not benefit America in any way:

1) Media - First off, China is not officially known to harbour terrorists, nor make any attack on American soil. If America is the first one to launch an attack, the media will simply go ape shit, and whomever in charge of launching the attack will not be in office long. Sure, the Middle East was slightly justified in the search for terrorists and WMDs, but America still got alot of smack for doing it (Sheehan and Michael Moore's trashy films). Now, if America suddenly has this brilliant (sarcasm) idea to invade China, a country without any known connections to terrorism nor a country that have instigated a war in quite a while, then how do you think the majority of the American public would respond? How do you think a large number of Chinese, Malaysian, Thai, Japanese and Korean people living in America would respond to see American soldiers slaughtering their relatives in China? Not well, I assume.

2) Economy - China owes America a large debt, though its paid by America owing China an equally large debt. Both economics are tied extremely tight. Now, I am given the bulletproof argument that other asian countries nearby are willing to pick up China's slack, which is laughable. First off, corporations need to agree with the regulations set out by the governments of those nations, set up companies, demolish companies in China, train new workers, get new languages set into the company, find new trading routes, etc. It's not that simple. If America ever attempted to launch an economic blockade against China, who's going to suffer? Both - they're tied together too closely to each other, more than people believe so. Not to mention that would destabilize the whole region - India, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, they all manufacture and work in different markets, but they all go through China. If you launch a blockade or deprive China of its economic freedom, you'll be instigating poverty into East Asia, and unpleasent things will follow for you.

Given those two factors aside, the US Cannot hold a successful war against China if it is invading. Assuming that the US might use supplies sent from its bases in Japan (to quicken its campaign), or simply from the US itself, fighting over a billion Chinese citizens splashed with 50+ years of Chinese Nationalism will not be a walk in the park. They can run the American soldiers out by sheer number, and that will be a very devastating war, given that China can treat its soldiers and men like numbers rather than independant lives.

I am part Chinese myself, and I am doing my best to not be biased on this argument.

But, we can indulge your version of the US being able to kill off any concentration of force.... just show me bin Ladin's body first, and we'll take it from there.

I like to think its hanging in a meat locker somewhere, awaiting the perfect moment to be revealed.

It was hard to believe that uday and husay would be nailed, Then hard to believe sadam himself. Then al-zarquai.

I'm optimistic. I think we'll see his body.

I am part Chinese myself, and I am doing my best to not be biased on this argument.

Yes- how would it benefit either side? What each country has-the other obtains through profitable commerce.

I hope the balance can be maintained and there is never any real reason for the two to come to blows.

Tiawan is going to be a sticky issue at some point. China could invade it and the US is bound by law to defend it.

Yeah, because I'm biased.

Well, at least you can admit it...and acknowledging a problem is the first step towards recovery. ;)

Whose air force blows up and bombs its own allies in Iraq?

The RAF or the USAF?

"*crsssh* The Iraqis are wearing Canadian uniforms! Sneaky bastards! Over"
"*crsssh* I agree, kill 'em all! Over"
*Canadians generally shot at from the air for a bit*
"We're on your fucking side! Stop it!"
"*crsssh* Whoops, over"
"*crsssh* I agree, over and out"
*the USAF flies off*

I could spend an hour digging up statistics on friendly-fire aircraft incidents over the last century of conflict, and show how much those statistics have dropped since Vietnam...but why bother? It won't change your mind.

And your response still doesn't do a thing to back up your claims that European air-forces are better trained.

Or possibly, most nations just don't care about long air campaigns, because they've studied things like Rolling Thunder and have come to the conclusion that they've crap?

If you think that any conventional war in the modern era can be sustained without a significant air campaign, you're deluding yourself.

If by "across the globe" you mean "to any nation without any allies or a particularly good air force".

Most nations with a particularly good air force are already OUR allies. The few that aren't (N. Korea, China) lack the ability to match our capabilities.

Yeah - you bribed them.

Got a source for that? It wouldn't shock me, honestly...and if true, it's certainly an effective tactic. Though I'm pretty sure the crews of the 40 aircraft we shot down weren't bribed. (Call it a hunch)

The Europeans are really not that interested in force projection, and they certainly would work together if attacked from a source outside of the EU.

Europe isn't interested in force projection because they know that we'll do it for 'em. Be glad we're willing to do your work for you if necessary...a quality air-force, as stated before, isn't cheap.

Unless, of course, it's Europe that the U.S. is fighting...but why the hell would NATO implode?

So which parts of it were wrong, then?

*sigh* Again, I could spend an hour writing such a post...and you still wouldn't change your mind. As you said, your biased.

Perhaps someone else will humor you, but I don't particularly feel the need.

No, I didn't miss the point. The OP is silly.

But, the Chinese Army is too large to decentralize and still fight effectively as a modern military.

It's mostly infantry in trucks. Good, perhaps, as insurgents. But not as offensive operations military.

And modern warfare requires you to, at some point, concentrate force. If you do so, the US military does indeed have you.

Finding one man in the middle of nowhere is also pretty hard. Eric Rudolph hid for five years - in North Carolina - a few miles from where he originally lived.

That's my point. Modern warfare doesn't require 'concentrations of force'.... in anything like the way it has done previously... and when 'concentrated force' is required, it no longer requires a massive collection of bodies... a building can be taken down by one man, and armoured column halted or diverted by a few men, or hidden objects no larger than breadboxes.

You say that the Chinese armed forces would be useless as anything 'more' than insurgents... but that is what a defensive war IS, now. And, we aren't alking anything new here - the Russians used the same techniques defending against the Germans more than half a century ago.

The original poster is living in a fantasy world.... in more ways than one.

The conflict here - is what the terminology means. What is a 'modern military'...? What is a 'conventional war', in this day and age? You can sit down and make a hundred definitions... but they'll be completely subjective.

And - you just can't win a landwar in Asia. You can't hold the territory.

That would really depend on the methods employed to hold the territory. Assuming that nuclear weapons are not used and that the Geneva Conventions go unheeded by US forces, we could "hold" the territory we conquered by simply killing every Chinese soldier or civilian in the area. It's not a pleasant solution, but it would allow us to subjugate China fairly quickly. Their only advantage is in numbers -- take that away, and they have nothing.

And how will China destroy us, tell me? Is it the Type-99s? The J-10s? The Ak-47s? Oh, I know! The Chinese Fishing Boat Navy will destroy before we get there!

No. It's the fact that the Chinese populace, odds are, would not allow the US government to remain there. See Vietnam.

I'd give my eye tooth to see a '29 take off and land....*sigh*

You'll really hate me for this - when I was a kid, I used to see Fifi about once a year at airshows growing up in south Texas.

You never played Risk, did you?


The question is - what exactly IS a conventional war, at the start of the 21st Century? Is it a concept evn worth debating? The recent invasions of Iraq largely consisted of isolated pockets of resistance, and a lot of house to house fighting... collecting 'strategic objectives' rather than holding ground, one assumes.

Under such terms - maybe the US could claim 'a win'. On the other hand - if we are actually talking about reality, the Chinese forces resisting an American invasion are unlikely to feel they have to defend 'conventionally', now are they? And - you just can't win a landwar in Asia. You can't hold the territory.

But, we can indulge your version of the US being able to kill off any concentration of force.... just show me bin Ladin's body first, and we'll take it from there.

agreed-the days of chivilary are long gone where opponents square off against each other "conventional warfare". Smart generals know their opponents and pick the course of action that will work, face to face, hit and run, or other methods.

Hezbollah doesn't have tanks, airforce or any thing resembling a standing army but they did battle to a standstill a strong conventional army with the best military technology available(USA's). USA never lost a major battle in Viet Nam yet it lost the war despite a huge advantage in technology. Vietnamse leadership and tactics were superb they knew the USA could not sustain a long conflict, China would be a far more potent adversary.

I like to think its hanging in a meat locker somewhere, awaiting the perfect moment to be revealed.

It was hard to believe that uday and husay would be nailed, Then hard to believe sadam himself. Then al-zarquai.

I'm optimistic. I think we'll see his body.

I can easily believe that Saddam was captured in the initial strike, and that he was held until public opinion becase less volatile... such that his 'trial' could be arranged to be as American as possible... i.e. nothing really happens, celebrity counts for more than evidence, and if you let it run long enough, people lose interest.

Zarqawi... well - we made the cult of personality. We diverted the attention from a person who really HAD been a problem, but had decided to follow a different course (Muqtada al-Sadr), to a puppet of our own. Again - I'm not entirely surprised Zarqawi turns up dead.

On the other hand, bin Ladin strikes me as something more 'independent'. Thus - he probably wasn't in our pocket to start with. Thus - we'd actually have to FIND that guy. Which is why it hasn't happened.

Yes- how would it benefit either side? What each country has-the other obtains through profitable commerce.

I hope the balance can be maintained and there is never any real reason for the two to come to blows.

Tiawan is going to be a sticky issue at some point. China could invade it and the US is bound by law to defend it.

It's most likely that China will wait until its reached an economic surplus enough to simply buy Taiwan out. Everyone folds to money eventually.

Hezbollah doesn't have tanks, airforce or any thing resembling a standing army but they did battle to a standstill a strong conventional army with the best military technology available(USA's). USA never lost a major battle in Viet Nam yet it lost the war despite a huge advantage in technology. Vietnamse leadership and tactics were superb they knew the USA could not sustain a long conflict, China would be a far more potent adversary.

Actually, a large percentage of IDF equipment is indigenous.

Begoner21;11620832']That would really depend on the methods employed to hold the territory. Assuming that nuclear weapons are not used and that the Geneva Conventions go unheeded by US forces, we could "hold" the territory we conquered by simply killing every Chinese soldier or civilian in the area. It's not a pleasant solution, but it would allow us to subjugate China fairly quickly. Their only advantage is in numbers -- take that away, and they have nothing.

You realise there are more of 'them' than there are of 'us' yes? Again - if you honestly think Chinese people are just going to line up and let us execute them, I think you are living in the clouds. They can afford to lose 3 bodies for every one we can field, and STILL have the greater numbers.

And, think about it... HOW are we going to hold the land? Sure - you can stick soldiers in a village, and kill every civvie and soldier you see.

But, it's the one you DON'T see, that finds his Christmas comes early... because he gets to kill an entire group of soldiers that have conveniently massed in one place.

Well, at least you can admit it...and acknowledging a problem is the first step towards recovery. ;)
Urmm yeah...
I could spend an hour digging up statistics on friendly-fire aircraft incidents over the last century of conflict, and show how much those statistics have dropped since Vietnam...but why bother? It won't change your mind.
You would really have to hope so, seeing as Vietnam was an absolute friendly fire-fest.

The homing missiles that locked onto F4s were absolutely classic.

It's not how much of an improvement you've made, it's more how much still occurs. And that amount is plenty.
And your response still doesn't do a thing to back up your claims that European air-forces are better trained.
The RAF has caused close to no (if not none at all) friendly fire incidents.

The USAF has, amongst other things, bombed the Canadians and shot down a Chinook.
If you think that any conventional war in the modern era can be sustained without a significant air campaign, you're deluding yourself.
Air power alone does not a war win.
Most nations with a particularly good air force are already OUR allies. The few that aren't (N. Korea, China) lack the ability to match our capabilities.
They don't lack the ability, they lack the will. If the Chinese really wanted to, they'd have the best air force in the world. But they don't want to at all.
Got a source for that? It wouldn't shock me, honestly...and if true, it's certainly an effective tactic. Though I'm pretty sure the crews of the 40 aircraft we shot down weren't bribed. (Call it a hunch)
'fraid not, sadly, I read it a fair while ago and it's the kind of thing which nobody really cares about any more.
Europe isn't interested in force projection because they know that we'll do it for 'em.
No, it's not that we know you'll do it for us, it's more a general disinterest in force projection as a whole, due to Europe mostly wanting to keep itself to itself, rather than bumbling around the world causing trouble.
Be glad we're willing to do your work for you if necessary...a quality air-force, as stated before, isn't cheap.
Most European nations have a perfectly excellent air force, actually.
Unless, of course, it's Europe that the U.S. is fighting...but why the hell would NATO implode?
Resources?

General anger over some matter or another?
*sigh* Again, I could spend an hour writing such a post...and you still wouldn't change your mind. As you said, your biased.
You said bias is "curable". Try me.
Perhaps someone else will humor you, but I don't particularly feel the need.
Ah right, I see.

Begoner21;11620832']That would really depend on the methods employed to hold the territory. Assuming that nuclear weapons are not used and that the Geneva Conventions go unheeded by US forces, we could "hold" the territory we conquered by simply killing every Chinese soldier or civilian in the area. It's not a pleasant solution, but it would allow us to subjugate China fairly quickly. Their only advantage is in numbers -- take that away, and they have nothing.
Ah yes, because it's not like they wouldn't fight back whatsoever or anything, is it?

I can easily believe that Saddam was captured in the initial strike, and that he was held until public opinion becase less volatile... such that his 'trial' could be arranged to be as American as possible... i.e. nothing really happens, celebrity counts for more than evidence, and if you let it run long enough, people lose interest.

Zarqawi... well - we made the cult of personality. We diverted the attention from a person who really HAD been a problem, but had decided to follow a different course (Muqtada al-Sadr), to a puppet of our own. Again - I'm not entirely surprised Zarqawi turns up dead.

On the other hand, bin Ladin strikes me as something more 'independent'. Thus - he probably wasn't in our pocket to start with. Thus - we'd actually have to FIND that guy. Which is why it hasn't happened.


But prior to the captures- dead or alive- you probably did doubt they would happen-right? Regardless of how important these individuals seemed to you.

bin laden is not only more independant than the rest of these guys, but unfortunately, I think he has more supporters than all the others combined. And the people that support him do so for more religious that financial reasons, so the bounty on his head loses its value. No one was behind sadam, his sons or zarquai for faith reasons.
bin laden's supporters seem to be able to keep their mouths shut and when they do communicate, its so low tech, we are at a disadvantage with all our tech know how and equipment.

I feel there is a small, well organized and funded group still relentlessly hunting him (if he isnt on that meat hook already) and sooner or later, he'll be produced.
I think we would be better off if he is dead when caught.

Hezbollah doesn't have tanks, airforce or any thing resembling a standing army but they did battle to a standstill a strong conventional army with the best military technology available(USA's).

If Israel really wanted to, it could completely destroy Hezbollah. Unfortunately for Israel, however, to do so would require killing a large amount of civilians, since Hezbollah terrorists are frequently hidden in civilian populations. Because of Israel's reticence to kill Lebanese civilians, they did not launch a full-scale offensive against Hezbollah -- they simply launched an aerial bombardment combined with a minor offensive into Southern Lebanon. If Israel exercized its full military muscle, however, Hezbollah would be a push over. It is extremely hard to win a guerilla war if you cannot differentiate between an enemy combatant and a civilian, and that's why Israel was unable to eradicate Hezbollah.

Actually, a large percentage of IDF equipment is indigenous. if it isn't american equipment outright then it's designed with american technology, stolen or bought. In this last war and previous conflicts there were always large airlifts of american arms delivered to Israel to replace their losses.

Begoner21;11620890']If Israel really wanted to, it could completely destroy Hezbollah. Unfortunately for Israel, however, to do so would require killing a large amount of civilians, since Hezbollah terrorists are frequently hidden in civilian populations. Because of Israel's reticence to kill Lebanese civilians, they did not launch a full-scale offensive against Hezbollah -- they simply launched an aerial bombardment combined with a minor offensive into Southern Lebanon. If Israel exercized its full military muscle, however, Hezbollah would be a push over. It is extremely hard to win a guerilla war if you cannot differentiate between an enemy combatant and a civilian, and that's why Israel was unable to eradicate Hezbollah.

Yes... this is why guerilla warfare is fought... if you cannot possibly win, you can get the media on your side, and the enemy is pretty much destined to lose.

What's your point?

You realise there are more of 'them' than there are of 'us' yes? Again - if you honestly think Chinese people are just going to line up and let us execute them, I think you are living in the clouds.

They do not have the military technology to defend themselves against an aerial US assault. We could bomb them into submission via a strategy similar to what we employed against Japan in WWII. The first step would be to bomb all their industry to destroy their gun-producing capability. Then, we would strategically bomb a city prior to securing it with ground troops. After we eliminate all the people we can find in that city, we proceed to the next one. It's not a pretty strategy, and it violates about every single international law on the books, but it will work. The fact of the matter is that if we are attempting to ethnically cleanse every single Chinese person in China, then we do not need to "hold" a city as in conventional warfare. The only territory we need to "hold" is the front line against the Chinese Army. We could care less if 1,000 people escape when we capture a city. It's simply a question of numbers -- do not allow them to get the opportunity to kill any US troops. With our air force, that goal can be realized.

Yes... this is why guerilla warfare is fought... if you cannot possibly win, you can get the media on your side, and the enemy is pretty much destined to lose.

What's your point?

That if Israel did not care about what the media said, Hezbollah would be utterly destroyed in a matter of weeks. Similarly, if the US did not care what the media said, China could be controlled within a matter of months.

Begoner21;11620890']If Israel really wanted to, it could completely destroy Hezbollah. Unfortunately for Israel, however, to do so would require killing a large amount of civilians, since Hezbollah terrorists are frequently hidden in civilian populations. Because of Israel's reticence to kill Lebanese civilians, they did not launch a full-scale offensive against Hezbollah -- they simply launched an aerial bombardment combined with a minor offensive into Southern Lebanon. If Israel exercized its full military muscle, however, Hezbollah would be a push over. It is extremely hard to win a guerilla war if you cannot differentiate between an enemy combatant and a civilian, and that's why Israel is unable to eradicate Hezbollah. first you say Israel could completely destroy Hezzbollah then you Israel is unable to eradicate Hezzbollah, which is it? Truth is that that no nation can defeat a guerilla force without resorting to genocide. The US couldn't win in Nam and Iraq and Israel cannot defeat it's opponents.

Begoner21]They do not have the military technology to defend themselves against an aerial US assault. We could bomb them into submission via a strategy similar to what we employed against Japan in WWII. The first step would be to bomb all their industry to destroy their gun-producing capability. Then, we would strategically bomb a city prior to securing it with ground troops. After we eliminate all the people we can find in that city, we proceed to the next one. It's not a pretty strategy, and it violates about every single international law on the books, but it will work. The fact of the matter is that if we are attempting to ethnically cleanse every single Chinese person in China, then we do not need to "hold" a city as in conventional warfare. The only territory we need to "hold" is the front line against the Chinese Army. We could care less if 1,000 people escape when we capture a city. It's simply a question of numbers -- do not allow them to get the opportunity to kill any US troops. With our air force, that goal can be realized.

Some of the problems with that (and similar scenarios posted by others):

1) This expects the Chinese to sit idely by allowing themselves to be destroyed piecemeal without resort to nukes.

2) This expects the rest of the world to sit by and allow the US to carry out the above attacks unchallenged.

3) It ignores several other means by which China can retaliate: economic. cyberwarfare, proliferation, etc.

Begoner21;11620912']They do not have the military technology to defend themselves against an aerial US assault. We could bomb them into submission via a strategy similar to what we employed against Japan in WWII. The first step would be to bomb all their industry to destroy their gun-producing capability. Then, we would strategically bomb a city prior to securing it with ground troops. After we eliminate all the people we can find in that city, we proceed to the next one. It's not a pretty strategy, and it violates about every single international law on the books, but it will work. The fact of the matter is that if we are attempting to ethnically cleanse every single Chinese person in China, then we do not need to "hold" a city as in conventional warfare. The only territory we need to "hold" is the front line against the Chinese Army. We could care less if 1,000 people escape when we capture a city. It's simply a question of numbers -- do not allow them to get the opportunity to kill any US troops. With our air force, that goal can be realized.:rolleyes: I would think that the war would have escalted to a nuclear level by then. If the Chines thought they would be exterminated I doubt they would hesitate to take the US down with them.

:rolleyes:

first you say Israel could completely destroy Hezzbollah then you Israel is unable to eradicate Hezzbollah, which is it? Truth is that that no nation can defeat a guerilla force without resorting to genocide. The US couldn't win in Nam and Iraq and Israel cannot defeat it's opponents.

Exactly. If Isreal wanted to bomb Lebanon into oblivion, killing everybody without regard to age, gender, affiliation with Hezbollah, etc., Hezbollah would be a pushover. Militarily, it is no match for Israel. However, for Israel to beat Hezbollah, it would indeed have to resort to genocide, and it would most likely lose international support. The same would most likely apply to a hypothetical war between the US and China.

Begoner21;11620916']That if Israel did not care about what the media said, Hezbollah would be utterly destroyed in a matter of weeks. Similarly, if the US did not care what the media said, China could be controlled within a matter of months.

I've bolded the flaw.

Begoner21;11620916']That if Israel did not care about what the media said, Hezbollah would be utterly destroyed in a matter of weeks. Similarly, if the US did not care what the media said, China could be controlled within a matter of months.

Yes... this is exactly my point. You are just being stupid.

Begoner21]That if Israel did not care about what the media said, Hezbollah would be utterly destroyed in a matter of weeks. Similarly, if the US did not care what the media said, China could be controlled within a matter of months.

Highly unlikely. We do not have the manpower to control China, even under the devistation scenarios.

:rolleyes: I would think that the war would have escalted to a nuclear level by then. If the Chines thought they would be exterminated I doubt they would hesitate to take the US down with them.

:rolleyes:

If their arsenal hadn't been crippled, and, knowing US military doctrine, that would be one of the first targets. All 12 of the PRC's ICBM's and their nuclear missile sub.

That they do not have any other ICBMs or any long range bombers, their nuclear retaliation ability would be minimal, and only against US allies in the region. And even at that, if they'd be able to retain enough of a regional nuclear capability to do that is questionable.

Remember that we are all assuming the scenario right now. This conflict could be set in almost any future timeframe, and things could be much different. The US could have truly advanced incredibly far, or perhaps China could have caught up in terms of technology and training. Who knows?

Highly unlikely. We do not have the manpower to control China, even under the devistation scenarios.

There are two pre-requisites to a successful invasion of China:

1. Nuclear weapons are not used.
2. The Geneva Conventions are not followed

We do not need to station troops in every Chinese city -- we simply do not have the manpower to do such a thing. The only way to win would be to ruthlessly kill every Chinese civilian in sight, and then move on to the next city. As long as we sustain very low casualties, it is extremely likely that the war will be won. We simply need to bomb cities, send in ground troops to tie up as many loose ends as they can find, and then on to the next city. It does not matter if some Chinese civilians survive -- there will be a next time. Our objective in China would be to first destroy China's military capability and then to eliminate all Chinese civilians which could pose a threat. The latter part may take months, years, decades, etc., but there is no way we can lose because they can only hide and not co-ordinate any resistance.

some of the logic here absolutely silly:rolleyes:

assumptions that China has no technology, have a look at your computers, plasma tv's, MP3's or other techno toys and check where it's made. Chances are it's made in China(even when it say's Made in Japan).

The USA can't even rebuild New Orleans, subdue Iraq or capture Osama and the deluded types here think that it is capable of defeating and controling CHINA!:headbang:

some of the logic here absolutely silly:rolleyes:

assumptions that China has no technology, have a look at your computers, plasma tv's, MP3's or other techno toys and check where it's made. Chances are it's made in China(even when it say's Made in Japan).

The USA can't even rebuild New Orleans, subdue Iraq or capture Osama and the deluded types here think that it is capable of defeating and controling CHINA!:headbang:
Yeah, exactly...

Begoner21;11620985']There are two pre-requisites to a successful invasion of China:

1. Nuclear weapons are not used.
2. The Geneva Conventions are not followed

We do not need to station troops in every Chinese city -- we simply do not have the manpower to do such a thing. The only way to win would be to ruthlessly kill every Chinese civilian in sight, and then move on to the next city. As long as we sustain very low casualties, it is extremely likely that the war will be won. We simply need to bomb cities, send in ground troops to tie up as many loose ends as they can find, and then on to the next city. It does not matter if some Chinese civilians survive -- there will be a next time. Our objective in China would be to first destroy China's military capability and then to eliminate all Chinese civilians which could pose a threat. The latter part may take months, years, decades, etc., but there is no way we can lose because they can only hide and not co-ordinate any resistance.

Haha can we say international and domestic backlash? Use your brain.

assumptions that China has no technology, have a look at your computers, plasma tv's, MP3's or other techno toys and check where it's made. Chances are it's made in China(even when it say's Made in Japan).
There's a big jump between building the technological devices, and being able to make use of the same technology for military purposes. You can't just take a plasma TV, stick it into a J-7 and make it into a super-plane.

The USA can't even rebuild New Orleans, subdue Iraq or capture Osama and the deluded types here think that it is capable of defeating and controling CHINA!:headbang:
Totally different things. The US Military is trained around a Great Power War paradigm. All of our equipment is designed to be able to fight a Great Power War, not an irritating insurgency.

Yeah, exactly...

No, not at all.

Haha can we say international and domestic backlash? Use your brain.

Those are assumptions. The scenario is one in which there is not international backlash and the domestic population is woefully ignorant of the military strategy employed in China. I am only arguing that the military invasion is possible based on those two conditions -- nothing less, nothing more.

But prior to the captures- dead or alive- you probably did doubt they would happen-right? Regardless of how important these individuals seemed to you.

bin laden is not only more independant than the rest of these guys, but unfortunately, I think he has more supporters than all the others combined. And the people that support him do so for more religious that financial reasons, so the bounty on his head loses its value. No one was behind sadam, his sons or zarquai for faith reasons.
bin laden's supporters seem to be able to keep their mouths shut and when they do communicate, its so low tech, we are at a disadvantage with all our tech know how and equipment.

I feel there is a small, well organized and funded group still relentlessly hunting him (if he isnt on that meat hook already) and sooner or later, he'll be produced.
I think we would be better off if he is dead when caught.

Well - the Zarqawi thing was a matter of supreme indifference to me... the only value in the name was that which we attached to it. With Saddam, I had no reason to doubt he was caught in the invasion. It made no sense for him to be 'hiding out', when he would have been a more useful figure as a resistance leader. He would have hurt the US, and the Iraq 'war' would have taken on a very different complection - thus, logically, he was being held by someone with a vested interest.

So - no, I didn't really 'doubt' that Saddam would be produced. I was surprised about Zarqawi... but more about the reaction, than that a US-made puppet would wind up dead.

I would be fairly surprised if bin Ladin did 'turn up', without having been 'turned in' by Pakistan or someone... If for no other reason than, the US just really can't afford to kill him capturing him. (Plus, the we are actually no longer even looking for him, as of last summer. Can't remember where I heard that...)

if it isn't american equipment outright then it's designed with american technology, stolen or bought. In this last war and previous conflicts there were always large airlifts of american arms delivered to Israel to replace their losses.

In this war? Stolen Tech? Now you get to back that up. You do realize that Isreal has a large manufacturing and R&D base right?

Begoner21;11621004']Those are assumptions. The scenario is one in which there is not international backlash and the domestic population is woefully ignorant of the military strategy employed in China. I am only arguing that the military invasion is possible based on those two conditions -- nothing less, nothing more.

Ah, but that would mean that strategy would be very unuseful, is it not? There will always be this kind of stuff..unless its V for Vendetta Y_Y

some of the logic here absolutely silly:rolleyes:

assumptions that China has no technology, have a look at your computers, plasma tv's, MP3's or other techno toys and check where it's made. Chances are it's made in China(even when it say's Made in Japan).

Made in China with US, European, or Japanese technology in plants financed by foreign corporations. China's domestic innovation is still quite anemic and many of its engineering graduates end up leaving the country to pursue jobs in places where there are better job opportunities.

The USA can't even rebuild New Orleans, subdue Iraq or capture Osama and the deluded types here think that it is capable of defeating and controling CHINA!:headbang:

A chemical plant in China exploded, spilling thousands of barrels of toxic benzene and other chemicals in to the Songhua River. The government and the company behind it denied the spill initially and it took the action of local governments to prevent it from becoming a slaughter of thousands of people.

Similar incidents occur in China all the time...their weakness is their lack of transparency and communications, something the US has. We may be rebuilding New Orleans slowly, but at least you know that the hurricane hit the city and killed nearly 2,000 people.

I am not Ignorant and overconfident. Mr. Tokyo whats his face is over confident and Ignorant.
Who on earth can say the American Army is incompetent? I admit, we are still learning about Guerilla Warfare. Notice how i say Conventional Warfare.
Or are you saying that our AF could be shot down by some chinese planes?

One thing you don't seem to understand is that you can't decleare war and say " I call Conventional Warfare!" That's just stupid and ignorant. In war and especially in countries such as China their mentality is to fight you and I'm not talking about the army. Grandma's will be carrying supplies, kids will shoot you with AK-47s, they won't surrender. It would be just like Vietnam or even worse.

If their arsenal hadn't been crippled, and, knowing US military doctrine, that would be one of the first targets. All 12 of the PRC's ICBM's and their nuclear missile sub.

That they do not have any other ICBMs or any long range bombers, their nuclear retaliation ability would be minimal, and only against US allies in the region. And even at that, if they'd be able to retain enough of a regional nuclear capability to do that is questionable. a quick web serch-one estimate China 85 intercontinental nuclear ballistic missles and 250 warheads (how many are mirv's?), and 150 tactical nukes more than enough to destroy the US

a quick web serch-one estimate China 85 intercontinental nuclear ballistic missles and 250 warheads (how many are mirv's?), and 150 tactical nukes more than enough to destroy the US



This is generally regarded as one of the best source for strategic information available to the general public.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/index.html

No more than 20 land based ICBMs, in fixed positions. Perhaps another 24 on a submarine. Both are easy targets for the US.

There's a big jump between building the technological devices, and being able to make use of the same technology for military purposes. You can't just take a plasma TV, stick it into a J-7 and make it into a super-plane.


Totally different things. The US Military is trained around a Great Power War paradigm. All of our equipment is designed to be able to fight a Great Power War, not an irritating insurgency.the technology is the same, the chinese have put men into orbit they have the technology.

there best fighters are on par with the best anywhere,"The twin-engined Jian-8IIM is claimed to be better equipped to survive damage than single-engined F-16A/C and Mirage 2000 series. The high-altitude high-speed performance of the Jian-8IIM is superior to the F-16A/C, F-18, and Mirage 2000; and its radar and electronic equipment are better than those of the F-16A and are similar to those of F-16C, F-18,and Mirage 2000-5. By using the new, powerful WP-13B engines, the Jian-8IIM fighter boasts greatly improved low-altitude maneuverability, which is slightly better than that of the F-18 and Mirage 2000-5, but still inferior to that of the F-16. The Jian-8IIM fighter will probably be equipped with Russia's or China's helmet sight and advanced PL-9 and P-73 missiles, with which it will outperform the F-16C in close-range air combat. Phazotron, a Russian firm, has signed contracts with China to provide 150-200 improved Zhuk radars mainly in support of China's new F-8II fighter, but also to equip the new Chengdu J-10 fighter. These radars have six times the data and signal processing power of the basic variant and greater detection range than the current 80KM. They can track while scanning on 24 targets, display up to 8 of them, and simultaneously provide fire-control solutions for 2-4 of them."

the technology is the same, the chinese have put men into orbit they have the technology.

there best fighters are on par with the best anywhere,"The twin-engined Jian-8IIM is claimed to be better equipped to survive damage than single-engined F-16A/C and Mirage 2000 series. The high-altitude high-speed performance of the Jian-8IIM is superior to the F-16A/C, F-18, and Mirage 2000; and its radar and electronic equipment are better than those of the F-16A and are similar to those of F-16C, F-18,and Mirage 2000-5. By using the new, powerful WP-13B engines, the Jian-8IIM fighter boasts greatly improved low-altitude maneuverability, which is slightly better than that of the F-18 and Mirage 2000-5, but still inferior to that of the F-16. The Jian-8IIM fighter will probably be equipped with Russia's or China's helmet sight and advanced PL-9 and P-73 missiles, with which it will outperform the F-16C in close-range air combat. Phazotron, a Russian firm, has signed contracts with China to provide 150-200 improved Zhuk radars mainly in support of China's new F-8II fighter, but also to equip the new Chengdu J-10 fighter. These radars have six times the data and signal processing power of the basic variant and greater detection range than the current 80KM. They can track while scanning on 24 targets, display up to 8 of them, and simultaneously provide fire-control solutions for 2-4 of them."
Of course, the comparisons are being made to an older generation of American and French fighter planes. Right now the US is working on replacing the F-16 with the Joint Strike Fighter, and the French are making major headway with the Dassault Rafale. They're a generation behind.

This is generally regarded as one of the best source for strategic information available to the general public.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/index.html

No more than 20 land based ICBMs, in fixed positions. Perhaps another 24 on a submarine. Both are easy targets for the US.wonderful, you go ahead and believe the weakest report as sure thing, like the Cubans had no armed nukes(they had 70) and wouldn't use them(they would have), Iraq has WDM's:rolleyes: risk a nation on intelligence , pleeeease!

the technology is the same, the chinese have put men into orbit they have the technology.


The US put my boss into orbit in 1962. That's not exactly catch-up.

wonderful, you go ahead and believe the weakest report as sure thing, like the Cubans had no armed nukes(they had 70) and wouldn't use them(they would have), Iraq has WDM's:rolleyes: risk a nation on intelligence , pleeeease!

This is by far not the weakest report. This report is actually midrange, and from an extremely credible source.

And, with the Cubans, are you referring to the Luna Nuclear Rocket and FROG Nuclear rocket? You do know that those were pulled out after the Russians pulled their IRBMs out, right?

Begoner21;11620912']They do not have the military technology to defend themselves against an aerial US assault. We could bomb them into submission via a strategy similar to what we employed against Japan in WWII. The first step would be to bomb all their industry to destroy their gun-producing capability. Then, we would strategically bomb a city prior to securing it with ground troops. After we eliminate all the people we can find in that city, we proceed to the next one. It's not a pretty strategy, and it violates about every single international law on the books, but it will work. The fact of the matter is that if we are attempting to ethnically cleanse every single Chinese person in China, then we do not need to "hold" a city as in conventional warfare. The only territory we need to "hold" is the front line against the Chinese Army. We could care less if 1,000 people escape when we capture a city. It's simply a question of numbers -- do not allow them to get the opportunity to kill any US troops. With our air force, that goal can be realized.

1) Military technology to resist an ariel assault. It is worth pointing out, you can take down helicopters with automatic fire. It's not easy, but it's possible. Don't get caught in the trap of assuming that big shiny tech is NEEDED.

Also - do the math, work out how much it 'costs' to give four guys machineguns, and compare it to the 'cost' if they manage to take out a helicopter.

2) Bombing them into submission: Big words. How did that work in Vietnam? It assumes too many things... not least, it assumes CLEAR targets. If the Chinese military were to use concealed weaponry, mobile weapons, etc... then 'conventional' bombing becomes almost useless. If the Chinese military decided to fight a purely 'insurgent' resistance, 'bombing' is worth even less.

Again - you haven't done the math. The US literally couldn't AFFORD to carpetbomb all of China.

3) China doesn't have to use conventional production for weapons. They can produce weapons in ice-cream factories if the US invades. The 'Sten' gun design is practically capable of being made in a kitchen, costs almost nothing, and has hardly any moving parts... indeed, I seem to recall the whole assembly was less than 50 components. And yet, despite it's flaws, the Sten IS an almost idiot-proof submachine gun. The 'Uzi' design is similarly simplistic and inexpensive, if not quite so homemade-friendly.

Suffice to say - it is almost impossible for the production of such weapons to be eradicated in any halfway industrialised nation.

You also seem to be forgetting the fact that China shares huge amounts of borders with nations that might not smile upon a US invasion policy, and that have access to weapons that could be trafficked across those borders.

4) Purifying cities probably sounds like a great idea to you... but it is a nonsense. Unless you are going to use atomics, it is impossible. Read your history books, look at the problems the Germans found trying to take soviet cities. Look at the problems US troops are having in the Middle East. Then - add into your equation the fact that Chinese defenders would likely make it easier to enter a city than to leave it!

In other words, they'd cause huge casualties to an invading force, but it would be nothing compared to the shitstorm the soldiers would face trying to leave an urban environment. Again - history is our guide... try looking at the strategies the Vietnamese used on occupation forces.

5) Most importantly, probably - the rest of the civilised world is not likely to sit by idly, while the US carries out the kinds of acts you imagine. And, that's the biggest problem because the US would need supply, good supply lines, and things like fuel, that it would be relying on the international community to provide or sell. Ten thousand pounds of bombs are no use, if you can't get the bomber off the runway.

6) You can't 'ethnically cleanse' China. You couldn't even keep track of all the people, let alone kill them all. And, all they have to do is tear at your flanks. Cut off your supply lines. Injure patrols. Once again - history books can be your friend... try looking at the Russian 'partisans' in world war two, to see how poorly armed, poorly equipped, starving civilians can bring a military superpower to it's knees in an occupation.


7) Almost as an afterthought... the world has been watching the current US empire building. I suspect China might actually be the least of the problems the US might face in the region, if American expansionism led to an invasion of China.

Of course, the comparisons are being made to an older generation of American and French fighter planes. Right now the US is working on replacing the F-16 with the Joint Strike Fighter, and the French are making major headway with the Dassault Rafale. They're a generation behind.of course you're assuming China is not doing any advanced research, of it's own that would be wrong.

of course you're assuming China is not doing any advanced research, of it's own that would be wrong.

Yes, they're doing research, but it's a long way from research to reality. It took more than a decade to begin to field the Rafale and the JSF. To field a fighter of similar complexity, totally from scratch, the PRC would have to spend an extensive amount of time in development, if they wanted it to be worth a damn. And the US isn't just going to stand still until the PRC catches up, if you know what I mean.

of course you're assuming China is not doing any advanced research, of it's own that would be wrong.

They're doing some of it, but they are handicapped by the fact that a lot of their engineering graduates and other high-tech fields are leaving the country because job opportunities in tech are fairly rare compared to the US or other parts of Asia.

Incidentally, two points.

First, I don't think that mass executions of Chinese citizens counts as conventional.

Second, there probably won't be any war between the US and China soon because American businesses love Chinese labor.

In this war? Stolen Tech? Now you get to back that up. You do realize that Isreal has a large manufacturing and R&D base right? * "An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for [Israel] paid a U.S. government employee to obtain U.S. classified military intelligence documents. [This is a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian U.S. naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel's LAKAM espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified U.S. intelligence information.]

* "Several citizens of [Israel] were caught in the United States stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery gun tubes.

* "Agents of [Israel] allegedly stole design plans for a classified reconnaissance system from a U.S. company and gave them to a defense contractor from [Israel].

* "A company from [Israel] is suspected of surreptitiously monitoring a DOD telecommunications system to obtain classified information for [Israeli] intelligence.

* "Citizens of [Israel] were investigated for allegations of passing advanced aerospace design technology to unauthorized scientists and researchers.

* "[Israel] is suspected of targeting U.S. avionics, missile telemetry and testing data, and aircraft communications systems for intelligence operations.

* "It has been determined that [Israel] targeted specialized software that is used to store data in friendly aircraft warning systems.

* "[Israel] has targeted information on advanced materials and coatings for collection. An [Israeli] government agency allegedly obtained information regarding a chemical finish used on missile re-entry vehicles from a U.S. person."

I would be fairly surprised if bin Ladin did 'turn up', without having been 'turned in' by Pakistan or someone... If for no other reason than, the US just really can't afford to kill him capturing him. (Plus, the we are actually no longer even looking for him, as of last summer. Can't remember where I heard that...)

I heard that also. But I feel its more a misdirection tactic.

I never thought dropping large munitions on places he could be was as good an idea as quietly and methodically waiting him out-Some one in his camp will foul up and hopefully, we will be in a position to grab him intact. Dead or alive, but able to prove he has actually been taken out of commission.

Second, there probably won't be any war between the US and China soon because American businesses love Chinese labor.

I remember a quote from Thomas Friedman's book "The World is Flat" that sums it up quite well; he was speaking to a Chinese banker who said to him:

“First we were afraid of the wolf, then we wanted to dance with the wolf, and now we want to be the wolf"

China and the US have it too good trading with each other and building economic ties to ever consider fighting. They have everything to gain from a congenial relationship between our two nations and so do we. After all, in the future , China and the US will be the dominant economies so why not build up our relationship and interdependence as much as possible?

think of it this way, the US has made many enemies, if china played its cards right at the bargaining table... 30+ countries against the US???
we may have kickass weapons and stuff BUT: arent all people overly proud and boastful about thier own countries?(no offence) i mean, just because were a superpower doesnt mean we cant get our arses kicked.

This is by far not the weakest report. This report is actually midrange, and from an extremely credible source.

And, with the Cubans, are you referring to the Luna Nuclear Rocket and FROG Nuclear rocket? You do know that those were pulled out after the Russians pulled their IRBMs out, right?credible source? GWB and Powel aren't credible? they said Saddam had WMD's

What I am referring to Cuban's is the missle crisis, intelligence said the Cuban's didn't have control of the missiles, they did; that they weren't armed, they were; that they wouldn't dare use them, they would have. This info came from the US Sec of State at that time, he learned of the true facts much later after he was retired from the Cubans.

I heard that also. But I feel its more a misdirection tactic.

I never thought dropping large munitions on places he could be was as good an idea as quietly and methodically waiting him out-Some one in his camp will foul up and hopefully, we will be in a position to grab him intact. Dead or alive, but able to prove he has actually been taken out of commission.

Problem is... a dead Osama is more of a problem than a live one... all of a sudden, we make a martyr of him.

Indeed - if a Middle East power really wanted the shit to hit the fan, they should produce a dead Osama, and make the circumstances around it cloudy enough that the US can't make a really good pretense at deniability.

Incidentally, two points.

First, I don't think that mass executions of Chinese citizens counts as conventional.

Second, there probably won't be any war between the US and China soon because American businesses love Chinese labor.

China is greatly enjoying trade with America now.

Their middle class is now larger than the entire US population.

They're doing some of it, but they are handicapped by the fact that a lot of their engineering graduates and other high-tech fields are leaving the country because job opportunities in tech are fairly rare compared to the US or other parts of Asia.very true; and just what do you think they're doing with all that knowledge they gain in other countries? it's called espionage.

China is greatly enjoying trade with America now.

Their middle class is now larger than the entire US population.

That's what I'm saying. Any war is unlikely because both parties are enjoying trade with each other.

Problem is... a dead Osama is more of a problem than a live one... all of a sudden, we make a martyr of him.

Indeed - if a Middle East power really wanted the shit to hit the fan, they should produce a dead Osama, and make the circumstances around it cloudy enough that the US can't make a really good pretense at deniability.


Good point. Even though I feel a live osama would provoke all types of kidnap/hostage taking and terrorist situations all around the world in the name of freeing him.

So- we have to kill him quietly and have the body turn up in India somewhere. No-India is our friend, thats not a good idea.
Maybe- he has a heart attack in bed with the wife of the troll thats running Iran.

very true; and just what do you think they're doing with all that knowledge they gain in other countries? it's called espionage.

Not most of them. But some of them? Absolutely.

Reverse engineering for either commercial or military purposes can be very profitable to a scientist, engineer or programmer with less-than-scrupulous morality; I have no doubt that there are US expats in places like Japan or South Korea doing the exact same thing for US corporations or the government.

Maybe we should concentrate on doing business instead.

And if we need to do a war with someone who is getting really stupid (as I believe Iran is), wait until the day they actually get stupid (such as the day they nuke Tel Aviv), and then fire several hundred nuclear weapons at all of their population centers at once.

No conventional war. No insurgency. And the people who were thinking about being stupid with their own country would shit themselves.
IF the US nuked Iran in such a fashion, I would think that Pakistan would reply in kind. Then what?

Good point. Even though I feel a live osama would provoke all types of kidnap/hostage taking and terrorist situations all around the world in the name of freeing him.

So- we have to kill him quietly and have the body turn up in India somewhere. No-India is our friend, thats not a good idea.
Maybe- he has a heart attack in bed with the wife of the troll thats running Iran.

From that point of view, the happiest situation would be if a heavily drunk Osama were found in a dive bar or brothel in Thailand, or some similar.

Now - we KNOW the CIA probably could make such a sitution happen, if they had him. Which makes me think they don't.

That's what I'm saying. Any war is unlikely because both parties are enjoying trade with each other.
of course you're right, it's all a hypothetical situation.


China is predicated to pass the US as the world's economic superpower in 20-25 yrs and possible India as well.

IF the US nuked Iran in such a fashion, I would think that Pakistan would reply in kind. Then what?

I thought Pakistan was friendly towards the US ? I feel like I missed something? They are friendlier with Iran than the US?

IF the US nuked Iran in such a fashion, I would think that Pakistan would reply in kind. Then what?

Pakistan??? With what the missiles they have aimed at India ???

I thought Pakistan was friendly towards the US ? I feel like I missed something? They are friendlier with Iran than the US?the government maybe but the Pakistani government is only in power because the military backs it up. An attack on Iran and the military could it's hold on the populace.

From that point of view, the happiest situation would be if a heavily drunk Osama were found in a dive bar or brothel in Thailand, or some similar.

Now - we KNOW the CIA probably could make such a sitution happen, if they had him. Which makes me think they don't.

Damnit...using that logic, I fear you're right.

I can keep dreaming.

As much as I want bin laden to die on the end of a Seal's knife, the potential backlash might be too costly.

He does have to go,though. He cant live.

Begoner21]Those are assumptions. The scenario is one in which there is not international backlash and the domestic population is woefully ignorant of the military strategy employed in China. I am only arguing that the military invasion is possible based on those two conditions -- nothing less, nothing more.

And those two conditions are utterly rediculous. Even more so than the OP.

How will you prevent it?

Damnit...using that logic, I fear you're right.

I can keep dreaming.

As much as I want bin laden to die on the end of a Seal's knife, the potential backlash might be too costly.

He does have to go,though. He cant live.

:)

No - the problem isn't him being alive, it's the power he weilds. Jesus is a great example of this - being dead doesn't have to hurt your career. Far better than 'dead', is alive but impotent.

the government maybe but the Pakistani government is only in power because the military backs it up. An attack on Iran and the military could it's hold on the populace.

plus, showering pakistan with radioactive fallout might strain relations a bit...

I think nuking an islamic country right now would be a very bad idea indeed. Bin Laden is saying that the west is engaged in a war of extermination against Islam, a nuclear strike would make him that much more believable.

The synergism of the world economy will serve to prevent any major war , hence the reduction in size and posture of most of the worlds armies .
A large war would do more damage economically to the world economy than a nuclear war ..not in terms of death and destruction but in terms of progress and living standards .

Think of what would happen in the world if 50 percent of the oil supply is gone ....world wide depression lasting years .

Who wants that besides the fanatics that it would benifit ?

plus, showering pakistan with radioactive fallout might strain relations a bit...

I think nuking an islamic country right now would be a very bad idea indeed. Bin Laden is saying that the west is engaged in a war of extermination against Islam, a nuclear strike would make him that much more believable.


Nuetron bombs . Thats what they are for .

The Neutron Bomb
The neutron bomb is a small hydrogen bomb. The neutron bomb differs from standard nuclear weapons insofar as its primary lethal effects come from the radiation damage caused by the neutrons it emits. It is also known as an enhanced-radiation weapon (ERW).

The augmented radiation effects mean that blast and heat effects are reduced so that physical structures including houses and industrial installations, are less affected. Because neutron radiation effects drop off very rapidly with distance, there is a sharper distinction between areas of high lethality and areas with minimal radiation doses.

This was desired by the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), since they have to be prepared to fight in densely populated areas; any tactical nuclear explosion will endanger civilian lives and property.



http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fusion/Fusion5.shtml

Iran could be nuetroned out of existance and for Irony's sake given to the Jews ...:D

Man the US has just so many ways of wiping out large segments of the world its scary....

credible source? GWB and Powel aren't credible? they said Saddam had WMD's
There was also a bit of distorting of the facts at times as well. And some poor analysis on the part of the administration.

What I am referring to Cuban's is the missle crisis, intelligence said the Cuban's didn't have control of the missiles, they did; that they weren't armed, they were; that they wouldn't dare use them, they would have. This info came from the US Sec of State at that time, he learned of the true facts much later after he was retired from the Cubans.

The Russians actually had control of the missiles, and their theater commanders had control of the tactical nukes. Luna missiles and FROGs, which were tactical nuclear weapons, remained under Soviet officers control, throughout the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is no way that the Sovs would have given the Cubans the weapons, espescially in light of Castro's demand that the Russians launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US.

Fortunately Khruschev and Kennedy were both sane, and kept their subordinates under control.

Aliens come to earth with a heat-ray that could ignite all the carbon on the earth's surface......could america win THAT war

Hypernova, my friend. Hypernova.

Aliens are passe. We're looking at an explosion of the sun so enormous and the heat so intense that it travels at the speed of light.

:)

No - the problem isn't him being alive, it's the power he weilds. Jesus is a great example of this - being dead doesn't have to hurt your career. Far better than 'dead', is alive but impotent.

Another good point.

So-maybe we are best off right now- him hiding in holes and under rocks, with people that want to kill him a few steps away.

Hypernova, my friend. Hypernova.

Aliens are passe. We're looking at an explosion of the sun so enormous and the heat so intense that it travels at the speed of light.

Conventional, remember?

Yes, they're doing research, but it's a long way from research to reality.
Well, the Chinese have good friends who've been doing that stuff for a while. The minute the PAK FA takes shape they'll be all over it. That's 15 years or so, I reckon.

And I have my doubts whether the next few US Governments will be big on prestige-projects like these. There's the budget deficit and the demonstration that fancy planes don't win the "War on Terror".

People are missing the fact that the Chinese and the Russians are extremely good mates anyways. There's the Shanghai Round, that strategic partnership treaty, the joint military exercises and so on.

And regarding the discussion in this thread before about European Air Forces being better trained than the USAF - at least the Luftwaffe has an entirely different mission profile. They're still in the process of transforming it from a ground attack force to help stop the Russians.
Apparently they train together with many others at the bases in the States (that's right, the German Air Force has a base in New Mexico) and Canada, so I don't think they'd be trained any less. But air superiority is only now being really focussed on a bit more with the introduction of the Eurofighter.

It's funny how big threads will get when it involves:

"The US can beat everybody"
"The US are a bunch of bumbling retards and everybody else is better!"
"No they aren't, yes they are, no they aren't....."

There was also a bit of distorting of the facts at times as well. And some poor analysis on the part of the administration.



The Russians actually had control of the missiles, and their theater commanders had control of the tactical nukes. Luna missiles and FROGs, which were tactical nuclear weapons, remained under Soviet officers control, throughout the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is no way that the Sovs would have given the Cubans the weapons, espescially in light of Castro's demand that the Russians launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US.

Fortunately Khruschev and Kennedy were both sane, and kept their subordinates under control. Well Former Secatary of Defence McNamara disagrees with you, Russians manned the nukes but their was no direct chain of command to Moscow. In event of emergency Castro could have initiated the attack on his command alone. McNamara learned this years later when met Castro, so who am I going to believe you or McNamara and Castro?

Wow, go to bed and school and have 14 pages appear. This must have picked up after I left.

Wow, go to bed and school and have 14 pages appear. This must have picked up after I left.
Welcome to NS General...

Even I am amazed this thread has lasted so long.

I am not Ignorant and overconfident. Mr. Tokyo whats his face is over confident and Ignorant.
Who on earth can say the American Army is incompetent?
First of all, some Australian guys on this very forum said that the US infantry are fairly poorly trained.

I admit, we are still learning about Guerilla Warfare. Notice how i say Conventional Warfare.
Yes, sir, I did notice that you said conventional warfare, as it's in the post title. Are you trying to call me an idiot? Namecalling will not get you very far, sir.
Or are you saying that our AF could be shot down by some chinese planes?
Yep. The Su-27, AKA J-11, is a very capable fighter. PROC has the 3rd largest airforce in the world. It's not as strong as the USAF, but it's still a threat.

Furthermore, we're talking about an army of 7 million (though 2.5 million are currently active), vs. an army of 2.5 million at most. The US Army will probably win the conventional war, but will probably take serious losses and will be defeated when the war converts to an unconventional one.