NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes. This again. Who'd win a war (1 on 1)- China- or Old-School America? Just post opinion + reasons.

I vote US, out of arrogance and our nukes and technology

Yes. This again. Who'd win a war (1 on 1)- China- or Old-School America? Just post opinion + reasons.

I vote US, out of arrogance and our nukes and technology

what do you mean by 'old-school America'?

Yes. This again. Who'd win a war (1 on 1)- China- or Old-School America? Just post opinion + reasons.

I vote US, out of arrogance and our nukes and technology


Scorpions and cockroachs.

what do you mean by 'old-school America'?

They're n00bs to the whole super-power thing.

Everytime this comes up, the same questions are asked:

-Are the countries actually trying to conquer each other? -The one that invades the other would not be able to get the men and supplies needed to hold the other one properly.
-Are Nukes involved? - Everybody loses.
-Are we assuming that both countries are going for all out war? For example, the US might have difficulty convincing a large chunk of thier population to get involved.

etcetc.

*sighs* Same as it ever was.

Assuming no nukes, the US would be able to 'beat' China given that China can't come to the US (lack of a blue water navy), but it would be the same as Iraq. We could probably force the CCP to retreat, but there's no way in hell we could hold the country. And given the CCP's history, they have no qualms about retreating then going underground and making life hell till the other side finally leaves.

Russia

The US, strictly because of the Navy - the vast majority of their fighters are obsolete, and most of their navy is near-obsolete coastal vessels that even the Coast Guard could take on, if we reinstalled Harpoons and ASW packages on them. From there, a blockade would serve to cripple their economy - true, we import much from China and we would take an economic hit, but it would be relatively easy for us to find other countries to make the goods.

The only reason we'd get in a fight is over Taiwan, which if they invade, we just need to stay out of. I have a sinking feeling that we will not (no matter what side is in power).

The US, strictly because of the Navy - the vast majority of their fighters are obsolete, and most of their navy is near-obsolete coastal vessels that even the Coast Guard could take on, if we reinstalled Harpoons and ASW packages on them. From there, a blockade would serve to cripple their economy - true, we import much from China and we would take an economic hit, but it would be relatively easy for us to find other countries to make the goods.
Just out of curriosity, how do you plan to blockade the land side of China? There's a lot of that after all and China has a large ammount of experiance shipping things that way.

I vote neither, since if they were stupid enough to go to war, our planet would likely go BOOM. So everybody loses.

Neither country could beat the other on their home turf. If it went nuclear the U.S. would win hands down. The Chinese don't have enought nukes to annihilate the US and America has some anti ballistic missile technology.

Just out of curiosity, do you still realize that the vast majority of goods are still shipped by merchant marines? Have fun exporting your manufactured luxury goods to former Soviet Bloc and third-world nations, over mountains.

If there was a war between us, it would be a naval war. Neither nation is going to want to put land troops down, and the Chinese may be communist dictators, but they aren't stupid - Mutually Assured Destruction, anyone?

Nobody.

They're n00bs to the whole super-power thing.

Says the Child of 1777 to the 5,000-year old Empire...

It depends on what definition we are using for 'win', if America launches an invasion of China and fails to secure any territory, then according to the 1812-school of American strategy that constitutes a win. I believe China may have harsher criteria...

Although, on the risk of being cliché I have to say, 'no-one would win'.

Honestly I would wager that we would win for the following reasons:

Yes I do beleive that in a land war China would own us BUT:

We have the stronger and more advanced navy and airforce. We would be able to keep them at bay and prevent an invasion.

Weeeee!

But open land war I would say if we have good commanders it would be a tough fight in their favor but USA would have a chance at winning unless it made retarded decisions.

Just out of curiosity, do you still realize that the vast majority of goods are still shipped by merchant marines? Have fun exporting your manufactured luxury goods to former Soviet Bloc and third-world nations, over mountains.
I know that, but they CAN move them that way if they wanted to (Heck, they built that one train line to Tibet). It's easier to move by sea, but not a nessisity.

Iran/Syria.

No, seriously.

A China-vs-US war would wipe both sides of military power. The US would have to withdraw from Iraq and the internal conflict would go full-scale. If the Sunni win, Syria gets a new ally; if the Shia do, Iran gets the ally. Either way, the winning country would get either direct land or indirect access to the oil supply in Iraq (perhaps Kurdistan might be different...)

Just out of curriosity, how do you plan to blockade the land side of China? There's a lot of that after all and China has a large ammount of experiance shipping things that way.

Well if we were able to effectively (note: not perfectly) blockade the whole of southeast+southern american coasts during the civil war with that navy & tech.....

Well if we were able to effectively (note: not perfectly) blockade the whole of southeast+southern american coasts during the civil war with that navy & tech.....
True, but the CSA shared its border with the USA and we weren't in the mood to trade nicely.

It would depend upon how the counties around China felt about the war and which side they would be on. Heck, if Russia decides to play nice and allow movement across the border, China could have goods to a port within a few days (Russia's Pacific port). Of course the US could try to stop that, but that would mean war with Russia AND China, not the most pleasent way to spend a war.

*sighs* Same as it ever was.

Assuming no nukes, the US would be able to 'beat' China given that China can't come to the US (lack of a blue water navy), but it would be the same as Iraq. We could probably force the CCP to retreat, but there's no way in hell we could hold the country. And given the CCP's history, they have no qualms about retreating then going underground and making life hell till the other side finally leaves.

*sighs* Haha! Indeed. A friend of mine was recently arguing about the same question except between the PRC and Japan. Either scenario is conceivable but completely impractical. The US and Japan would act in tandem in any conflict; they are, after all, allies. As my friend said, don't underestimate the potency of Japan's military capabilities; I would add, especially in conjunction with America's.

I also believe, however, that no one could 'conquer' China. Even toppling the CCP and shattering the PRC would only give rise to military generals establishing localized CCP-style warlordships and a resistance that would redefine 'guerilla war' in terms of 'economies of scale', hahhah. And where would North Korea be? The PRC is, after all, their greatest ally on this planet. That would necessarily involve South Korea as well. What would Russia do~~sit and watch?? How about the other fiesty militaries in the region, including but not limited to, Vietnam, Thailand, and Nepal? Would the Tibetans rise up, or levitate? And Taiwan? We'd probably get it here pretty badly, unless those 800 ballistic missiles were rediverted to Japan or US fleets. The Phillipines, Guam, Saipan, and Palau would be America's launch points of a complete blockade, also making them targets of retribution.

And there's one more very sneaky factor that is exactly about how the CCP has survived: Myanmar. This is another country whose only real friend is China. Even when the communists were still the rebels and Chiang Kai-Shek's ROC was on the run, the Chinese fortified in Burma, awaiting their turn to reconquer. While in that instance the ROC went to Taiwan without ever 'reconquering the mainland', China today is a serious investor in Myanmar; so much, in fact, that the government of Myanmar has been selling wholesale the Shan and Kachan states in the north and northeast, as well as all of downtown Madalay. It is said that the best road in Myanmar runs from Mandalay to China. If there was to be a real threat to the CCP in Beijing, I suspect they would easily, stealthily retreat and regroup. Remember also, the Chinese people, despite so much dissent that we can read about, still predominantly support the government, especially against America!, and that makes about a billion patriots.

We'd anihilate them. They haven't really modernized that much-Chinese tactics still rely on human wave attacks because they have such a huge draft pool of men to choose (160 million or so). That said, noone could hold China for long. Chinese mindset and the massive population.

That said, the only real reason we'd go to war over would be Taiwan. Hands down, US would win. The Chinese army, navy, and airforce would get pounded from the sea and Air. They couldn't invade taiwan because nothing makes it across.

Now, they would pummel Taiwan with missiles of all sorts, but hopefully the Taiwanese have dug their bomb cellars deep.

Yes. This again.

Why? Especially since you appear to know this question gets redone regularly enough with more or less the same results.

If it was just to see it done yet again, go back and read Monkeypimp's post. It covered the results of all the times this has been done.

Why the hell isn't Tuvulu, the greatest nation on the planet on that list?

True, but the CSA shared its border with the USA and we weren't in the mood to trade nicely.

It would depend upon how the counties around China felt about the war and which side they would be on. Heck, if Russia decides to play nice and allow movement across the border, China could have goods to a port within a few days (Russia's Pacific port). Of course the US could try to stop that, but that would mean war with Russia AND China, not the most pleasent way to spend a war.

Well if Russia decided to help China that would be a whole 'nother story entirely in that case I would agree with you.

The US would bitch slap them. why? because they have technology on their side thats why.

Lichtenstein. They could re-draw the map of Europe and add too thier borders as the world watches the impending nuclear holocaust.

The US would bitch slap them. why? because they have technology on their side thats why.

Like Vietnam. And Iraq.




Or was that the point..?

I predict a long bloody stalemate. The U.S. would cripple Chinese naval capabilities early with Cruise missile and airstrikes on Chinese naval bases. Subs then move in to enforce a blockade, but attrition to the U.S. fleet is high due to China's diesel sub fleet and land based anti-ship missiles.

The air war never really ends. The U.S. targets Chinese military bases and vital infastructure, while China retaliates against U.S. bases and allies (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines)...pilot casualties are high on both sides, and a truce is eventually signed as each side begins running out of experienced pilots.

No general on either side is foolish enough to attempt a ground war, and I don't see the air/sea war playing out any other way until China get's itself a blue-water navy...a matter of a decade or two and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Russia would be elated to see China and the U.S. fight....they'll stay out of it. India would probably help keep Chinese influence out of SE Asia, but I don't see them making a move to help either side while Pakistan remains an issue for them.

China.

China.

Are they going to swim to California??

The US in a strategic exchange or on a battlefield requiring force projection by both sides. US Navy is way too strong for China, and if it came to nukes China has huge targets in it and inferior delivery systems.

A land war in mainland Asia, China has a chance. I can't think of a US ally in Asia which would be willing to have a war of that magnitude on their soil, though, and they'd probably change sides pretty quick.

Proxy war is far more likely. NK or central Africa. China would win in NK (perhaps even Taiwan) and US would win in Africa.

winner...China........US economy is a house of cards even contemplating a war of this size would send it tumbling down

The US can defeat China with their nuclear weapons and technology. Though it wont be a easy fight. China, also, has a technological edge against the US. In their naval fleets, China has anti ship missiles that are designed to bypass the US's missile defense system, Aegis. Not only that, but they have designed plenty of missiles that can bypass their other systems. Who says China doesn't have nuclear weapons? This is another edge China holds.

With Russia as their arms manufactuers, China is able to receive numerous of technologies and arms from them. Multi role aircrafts like the Su-37MKK2, and other variants, are designed to fight against more than a single type of American fighter. Especially the MiG-21's, China would totally beat the Americans if they were on defensive position.

As for the infantry, China has rearmed its troops with a new variant of the FAMAS, now called the Type 95 Assault Rifle. The rifle has a better reliability than the M-16, and tested to be more manueveurable.

For tanks, China is currently designing its supertank that can be comparably compatible with the M1A1 Abrams tank, called the T-99. The tank is armed with a laser self defence weapon, as well as using it to attack other tanks. The armor and weapons are designed to fight against the Abrams, as well as defend themselves independently.

Again, I'm not familiar with most of my information, because I'm half asleep, so check this site: www.sinodefence.com and it should tell you all about it.

I personally think China would kick America's ass because American soldiers suck. If they're so well trained, explain to me why they're losing in Iraq with Iraqi insurgents.

winner...China........US economy is a house of cards even contemplating a war of this size would send it tumbling down

If USA and China fights for real, it would crash the global economy.

Are they going to swim to California??

They have a navy. And they have Russia that wouldnt mind them reaching Alaska.

We'd anihilate them. They haven't really modernized that much-Chinese tactics still rely on human wave attacks because they have such a huge draft pool of men to choose (160 million or so). That said, noone could hold China for long. Chinese mindset and the massive population.

That said, the only real reason we'd go to war over would be Taiwan. Hands down, US would win. The Chinese army, navy, and airforce would get pounded from the sea and Air. They couldn't invade taiwan because nothing makes it across.

Now, they would pummel Taiwan with missiles of all sorts, but hopefully the Taiwanese have dug their bomb cellars deep.

Thats what all clueless Americans say. But you guys really don't know whats in the PLA.

I personally think China would kick America's ass because American soldiers suck. If they're so well trained, explain to me why they're losing in Iraq with Iraqi insurgents.

I guess for the same reason that Chinese soldiers lost to Vietnamese in 1979.

I guess for the same reason that Chinese soldiers lost to Vietnamese in 1979.


They didn't lose. And it's 1989, they won over a human wave.

Thats what all clueless Americans say. But you guys really don't know whats in the PLA.
Yay, a nationalist! Now we're gonna have a debate on our hands. :p

Yay, a nationalist! Now we're gonna have a debate on our hands. :p

No, actually I'm a ABC Republican.

They didn't lose.

Yeah, they did. They had more troops compared to the Vietnamese, but suffered greater casualties, and withdrew.

But OK. You wanna play denial, so can I. US troops aren't losing to anyone in Iraq. Except at least in my case, I don't have to deny 62 thousand casualties. ;)

And it's 1989, they won over a human wave.

Erm, it's 2007.

Erm, it's 2007.

I'm talking about the date of the war, smart one.

And provide me evidence that China lost. Any document.

Yes. This again. Who'd win a war (1 on 1)- China- or Old-School America? Just post opinion + reasons.

I vote US, out of arrogance and our nukes and technology

EU, Russia and India win by just staying there and looking at the two giants wrestling.
China and USA slug it out a lot and then sign a truce when they realise they're getting nowhere.
Japan, as the place that the US are most likely to use as advanced base, loses by becoming a battleground.

No, actually I'm a ABC Republican.
Then why would you claim that MiG-21s would be anything but cannon fodder for the USAF?

Then why would you claim that MiG-21s would be anything but cannon fodder for the USAF?

Why not? They can be cannon fodders.

Though, they are also into many stragetic plans into pinpointing these fighters in the battlefield.

Leocardia.

I'm out, tagged.

In this clash of the titans, I'd say that neither will win.

Both sides will be too exhausted and hurt to recover for a very long time, and both will have their ability to project power totally screwed up.

And besides, it isn't very likely to happen, given that both America and China do have extensive trade dealings with one another.

The US can defeat China with their nuclear weapons and technology. Though it wont be a easy fight. China, also, has a technological edge against the US. In their naval fleets, China has anti ship missiles that are designed to bypass the US's missile defense system, Aegis. Not only that, but they have designed plenty of missiles that can bypass their other systems. Who says China doesn't have nuclear weapons? This is another edge China holds.

Nobody said China had no nukes...what they do not have is enough nukes to turn every major U.S. city into a glass parking lot, which the U.S. could conceivably do to China.

Which missile is that that you are describing? The website you posted listed no anti-ship missiles with a range of more than 300km. China would likely have to utilize airplanes to launch the missiles at our surface fleets, which decreases both the size of the strike and it's chance for success, as well as putting pilot and plane at risk.

With Russia as their arms manufactuers, China is able to receive numerous of technologies and arms from them. Multi role aircrafts like the Su-37MKK2, and other variants, are designed to fight against more than a single type of American fighter. Especially the MiG-21's, China would totally beat the Americans if they were on defensive position.

The site you posted lists the Chinese Air Force as having less than 300 aircraft that can match U.S. aircraft in terms of technology and capability. Once those planes are dead, the Chinese air-force cannot hope to match the U.S. in the air, and are dead on the ground. A loss either way.

As for the infantry, China has rearmed its troops with a new variant of the FAMAS, now called the Type 95 Assault Rifle. The rifle has a better reliability than the M-16, and tested to be more manueveurable.

For tanks, China is currently designing its supertank that can be comparably compatible with the M1A1 Abrams tank, called the T-99. The tank is armed with a laser self defence weapon, as well as using it to attack other tanks. The armor and weapons are designed to fight against the Abrams, as well as defend themselves independently.

I said it before...no general on either side of such a conflict is going to be stupid enough to commit to a ground war.

China's best hope is to wear down the U.S. airforce via attrition. The U.S. best hope is to pound the Chinese economy into the dirt and force a settlement on US terms. Tanks and assault rifles won't even factor into it...nor will China's sheer numbers.

Again, I'm not familiar with most of my information, because I'm half asleep, so check this site: www.sinodefence.com and it should tell you all about it.

Your site simply confirms everything I already stated...good job. ;)

I personally think China would kick America's ass because American soldiers suck. If they're so well trained, explain to me why they're losing in Iraq with Iraqi insurgents.

Because Iraq is not China. If a full scale war such as the one we are describing were to actually occur, I can assure you that "collateral damage" will be the last thing on any military mind on either side.

Besides...soldiers are not airmen, and they are not sailors. :p

They have a navy. And they have Russia that wouldnt mind them reaching Alaska.

They've got no carriers, and limited troop carrying capacity. Estimates currently only place their sea-lift capabilities at 20-30,000 troops. Not even enough to take Taiwan, much less Alaska. :rolleyes:

Besides, without air-cover, they'd be picked apart by planes from Japan, Okinawa, Guam, Hawaii, and the Aleutians...subs would stalk them from port, and I doubt even one ship would make it to it's intended destination.

As I said before...China needs a blue-water navy.

They aren't projecting any power anywhere without a couple of carriers, which they ARE planning and building, but it's going to take a least a decade to get their navy to the level where it poses a threat to the U.S., especially considering all the other countries with capable navies (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines, Thailand, Australia) that wouldn't like to see an expansionist China.

I'm talking about the date of the war, smart one.

And provide me evidence that China lost. Any document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

China invaded in 1979, then hightailed it out of there after barely a month, having suffered at least 26,000 dead and failing to achieve their goal of forcing the Vietnamese out of Cambodia.

That's a loss...period.

Lesson: Don't fuck with Vietnam! :p


EU, Russia and India win by just staying there and looking at the two giants wrestling.
China and USA slug it out a lot and then sign a truce when they realise they're getting nowhere.
Japan, as the place that the US are most likely to use as advanced base, loses by becoming a battleground.

Pretty much what I said in my first post...Japan actually makes out the worst, since it's export markets will collapse no matter who wins.

In this clash of the titans, I'd say that neither will win.

Both sides will be too exhausted and hurt to recover for a very long time, and both will have their ability to project power totally screwed up.

And besides, it isn't very likely to happen, given that both America and China do have extensive trade dealings with one another.

True, true, and true...nice to see a little sanity. :)

The rest of the world.

it would be a stalemate.

Yes. This again. Who'd win a war (1 on 1)- China- or Old-School America? Just post opinion + reasons.

I vote US, out of arrogance and our nukes and technology

China would win, within a week.


The first day the US would capture a million poorly armed Chinese soldiers.

The second day, the US would capture twice as many.

The third day, with broken morale, twice as many again would surrender.

And so forth...


After a week, the US would surrender to China - just so they could stop feeding and sheltering the POW's.

No, actually I'm a ABC Republican.

Anyone But Clinton Republican?
Little joke, but really, I'm wondering ...?

more like a clash of stone gollems.
i don't know who'd "win".
i just know i'd rather be on some other planet.
watching someothing more interesting
like a documentry on hernia gauge track maintainence.

ah but wouldn't the planet be a lovelier place without both of them?
as long as the rest of us didn't get hit with flying shrapnell.

(the land both of them sit on, well all land is sacred and wonderful and good, but both of their governments, as either of those current governments have ever been ... )

=^^=
.../\...

If the US runs it correctly, then the odds are strongly in its favor. There can be no American troops on Chinese soil, save for Special Operations units with quick insertion/extraction missions. Otherwise, the only strategy would be to blockade the PRC and begin a massive strategic bombing campaign against industrial and urban targets, designed to, amongst other things, cripple the industry and demoralize the population. Eventually, the elimination of the availability of oil to the PRC, combined with the massive bombing campaign and the protraction of a long, unpopular war in which millions of Chinese citizens are being killed would hopefully force the PRC to surrender absolutely.

And besides, it isn't very likely to happen, given that both America and China do have extensive trade dealings with one another.

In the year of 1914 France and Germany had extensive trade dealings with one another...

Yes. This again. Who'd win a war (1 on 1)- China- or Old-School America? Just post opinion + reasons.

I vote US, out of arrogance and our nukes and technology

What sort of war?

Full-blown nuclear exchange or some sort of conventional affair?

Further, what are the ally pools for each nation? Will an ally provide manpower, resources or overflight rights? Or, is the rest of the world neutral and only US/China manpower, resources and airspace involved?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[QUOTE=Cameroi;12215987]ah but wouldn't the planet be a lovelier place without both of them?

Ah, the words of jealousy.

To answer, in a word, no.

Ah, the words of jealousy.

To answer, in a word, no.

Indeed. China has a cultural history which is the envy of the world.

Ah, the words of jealousy.

To answer, in a word, no.

Agreed, it would be a pretty crummy place without two of the major engines of the global economy.

A war like that would screw up the world more than the other two World wars combined.

Initially, the US will have a great advantage at first, with the Navy, Airforce and other things.

Then China's Manufacture output would pass up America very quickly. Since our Steel Industry is unfortunatley in sorry shape, Any large Navy Vessel would be lost while China can possibly build more than we can sink. The US would quickly run out of bombs since there was little production of them since WW2.

As for man to man, each Marine can kick a China national's butt! But then China has an army that's most likley over 10 times larger than US. Get ready for conscription US!

Once the 'Total War' state is reached, China will still be ahead in Production, but the US Quality and Technology will balance that out. It might become a battle of who can destroy the most war factories.

Let's not forget that both of the countries have secret facitities (like Area 51) so that's the unpredictable factor of what new weapons can become.

And The whole world Economy will collapse! Welcome dark ages!

US and China lose. Everybody else wins.

US and China lose. Everybody else wins.

Wrong.

Everyone loses.

Among military stratergists in china, the view has long being held amongst some that china would win any nuclear war, due to a hardy and huge population (whether its true is another matter, wiki dosnt seem to have any historic Articles about the after effects of a nuclear exchange, which has thankfully never happened.) China does have ICBMs, america dosnt have a 100% interception system. China also possess nuclear submarines, and while American submarines are of course far supiror, i do not belive any US amiral would claim he'd be able to identify and position all of china's subs in the space of 72 hours. You have to find them to kill em.After that, bye bye west coast.

Of course it might not go nuclear. But any large scale bombing or land invasion would probably result in china using them, as it would have little to use.

The most liekly results i belive would be a complete naval blockade by USA, dameging, but not destroying Chinas economy. No shots would be fired, war perhaps not even officially declared. It would end with a treaty, probably with China making political concessions, i.e a free tibet, but no form of finacial or military reperations. And 50 years later china would win without a shot.

(Oh and look for china vrs usa over influence in Africa, especially congo. Its going to happen, mainly over raw resources. Probably no open conflict though.)

Indeed. China has a cultural history which is the envy of the world.

Yeah, that must be it...

Let's say that we did get into a prolonged conventional war with China -

I promise you that we would gain and maintain Air and Naval superiority, which would cripple China even if their Ground forces were vastly superior, which they are not (poor training, outdated weapons - don't gimme that FAMAS crap - China has MIGs as well, but the vast majority of their Air power doesn't even have radar, and little practical experience).

Even assuming their manufacturing capability is superior, they wouldn't be able to churn out anyhting fast enough to combat air and naval power. Of course, the one thing that everyone overlooks when it comes to American wars is the fact that we have pulled off retooling of manufacturing capacity that boggles the mind - WWII, anyone?

Then, let's say that we did get into a ground war - I promise you that the Marine will gain us a foothold in China. Our sealift capabilities are some of the best in the world, and we can have M1A1s on the ground in no time - a tank that has proven its combat capabilities time and time again. Now, we head up against the Chinese military. Another fact often overlooked by people is that you only need to take out a small fraction of a unit before its deemed 'shattered' - combat ineffective. Given the poor training and lack of committment by PRC soldiers, I think it would be safe to guess that you wouldn't have to do much to shatter PRC units.

I won't say that it will end up being the rout that was the first and second Gulf War, but I don't think it will take long to see who will be the victor. In reality, I would like to think that even if China were to hit Taiwan, we wouldn't be dumb enough to land troops, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, that must be it...

You disagree?

Yeah, pretty much. I can't really think of any country who is envious of China's rich cultural history.

To be fair, no country cares about any other country's cultural history except their own.

Yeah, pretty much. I can't really think of any country who is envious of China's rich cultural history.

I think that says more about you, than about China's cultural heritage...

Hey dumbass, just because I happen to be enamored with the Germanic and Cajun culture doesn't mean I speak for the rest of the country. Nor does it change the fact that I still am more proud of my own country and its culture. I think someone else needs to get off their high horse.

Hey dumbass, just because I happen to be enamored with the Germanic and Cajun culture doesn't mean I speak for the rest of the country. Nor does it change the fact that I still am more proud of my own country and its culture. I think someone else needs to get off their high horse.

You admit that you are biased towards Germanic and 'cajun' cultures, and then call me a dumbass for suggesting that maybe the world (collectively0 might have admiration for, or draw heavily upon, our Chinese cousins?

Physician, heal thyself?

I refrain from making comments about whether one can even consider the US to have a 'culture'...

What would be the point to a war with the Chinese, especially since most of OUR manufactures just moved to China ...DA! And Nukes are a very bad idea, how long would it take the Chinese to buy Russian Nukes. Also you should have included a neutral choice in your poll.

What would be the point to a war with the Chinese, especially since most of OUR manufactures just moved to China ...DA! And Nukes are a very
bad idea.

It's just macho posturing. We define ourselves more by our 'enemies' than by our 'friends', and the former USSR has succumbed to a slow entropy, so we need to see who can urinate further in competition with someone else.

The fact that China is fiercely indifferent to our machismo just makes it worse.

It's just macho posturing. We define ourselves more by our 'enemies' than by our 'friends', and the former USSR has succumbed to a slow entropy, so we need to see who can urinate further in competition with someone else.

The fact that China is fiercely indifferent to our machismo just makes it worse.


So what you are saying is it's a Guy thing ... right :D

i'd vote neither - if either side started to lose, they'd launch nukes and end the hell with the world. People who'd think that either would lose or win is merely deluding themselves.

So what you are saying is it's a Guy thing ... right :D

Not all guys. There is a certain subset of the male population that craves some kind of 'evidence' of their testosterone... the sports car, the m16, the nuclear missile array...

Some of the rest of us feel less need to thump our chests and scentmark.

Indeed. China has a cultural history which is the envy of the world.

As if a cultural history guaranteed anything.
Or a military capacity guaranteed anything.
The world would be a poorer place without China or the US.
It would be a poorer place with either of them harmed or wasting their capacities, too.

Why this thread? Why war?

Love something, or someone, or some nation. Add to it, improve it, nurture it. Forget this urge to destroy! Rise above it, leave it to those of lesser ability, and it will never be more than an annoyance.

As if a cultural history guaranteed anything.
Or a military capacity guaranteed anything.
The world would be a poorer place without China or the US.
It would be a poorer place with either of them harmed or wasting their capacities, too.

Why this thread? Why war?

Love something, or someone, or some nation. Add to it, improve it, nurture it. Forget this urge to destroy! Rise above it, leave it to those of lesser ability, and it will never be more than an annoyance.

You largely mirror my own sentiments.

You admit that you are biased towards Germanic and 'cajun' cultures, and then call me a dumbass for suggesting that maybe the world (collectively0 might have admiration for, or draw heavily upon, our Chinese cousins?

Physician, heal thyself?

I refrain from making comments about whether one can even consider the US to have a 'culture'...


Well, now that you're done beating my strawman...

Wow, how pretentious can you get? First, you suggest that other countries are envious of China's culture and history. I'm sure the French and the Russians cry themselves to sleep everynight because they can't have China's history. I'm sure countries where people wonder if they're going to eat that night think more of China's history than they do their own culture.

Also, the implication that the US doesn't have a culture is downright naive. Once again, I think countries like Kyrgistan would love to know that they haven't existed long enough to have a culture.

It could hardly be called patriotism if people weren't proud of their own culture and history. Perhaps someone else here lacks sufficient pride in their own cultural identity, in which case, that's a failing on your own part. Sorry bud, but for once my views coincide with the rest of the world's.

Then, out of left field, you can you agree with 'when has culture guaranteed anything?' So, on one hand you say everyone wishes they had China's, and on the other you say that it doesn't matter. Which is it, kid?

You're like those air-headed teenagers obsessed with Japanese culture - if you like it, more power to you, but stop prattling about how superior it is, because nobody cares.

More insults? I was hoping for something more substantial than ad hominem attacks... ah well, I'll play the hand you deal, I guess.

Well, now that you're done beating my strawman...


Um.. okay. Not sure what you are talking about, but I'll press on...


Wow, how pretentious can you get? First, you suggest that other countries are envious of China's culture and history. I'm sure the French and the Russians cry themselves to sleep everynight because they can't have China's history. I'm sure countries where people wonder if they're going to eat that night think more of China's history than they do their own culture.


Being envious of the culture doesn't necessarily equate to loss of sleep. I doubt that the average American (or European) often appreciates how much of their culture originates further East than their own borders.

(A classic example would be the 'Cinderella' tale, which is actually based on an old Chinese folk tale, imported into English only via other (earlier) European attempts).


Also, the implication that the US doesn't have a culture is downright naive. Once again, I think countries like Kyrgistan would love to know that they haven't existed long enough to have a culture.


It isn't just a matter of relative 'newness'. The proud cultural heritage that might be claimed as 'native' to the US was largely stamped out in the Manifest Destiny genocides. What is left, even you must admit, is European culture with different spelling.


It could hardly be called patriotism if people weren't proud of their own culture and history.


Like 'patriotism' is supposed to be a virtue?

Like one can rationally be 'proud' of achievements of people that lived before and remote from them, and have no debt to the current generation?


Perhaps someone else here lacks sufficient pride in their own cultural identity, in which case, that's a failing on your own part.


Why is it a failing? Why should I be 'proud' of what other people did? Surely, it makes more sense to feel pride in what I have done, am doing?

If you need to borrow the successes of others to justify your existence, that is hardly my failing.


Sorry bud, but for once my views coincide with the rest of the world's.


Because you say it, it must be true.


Then, out of left field, you can you agree with 'when has culture guaranteed anything?' So, on one hand you say everyone wishes they had China's, and on the other you say that it doesn't matter. Which is it, kid?


Read the comment I was replying to. The culture of a nation does not guarantee a military victory. I never claimed it did. I merely lamented the potential loss of one of the most consistent chains of 'culture' in the event of chest-pounding warmongering.


You're like those air-headed teenagers obsessed with Japanese culture - if you like it, more power to you, but stop prattling about how superior it is, because nobody cares.

You apparently 'care' quite strongly... although you believe that 'American' culture is the superior one. I lack your ubermensch assurance.

You disagree?

Yes, I do.

Yes, I do.

You appear to be submerged in a large body of water flowing through Egypt.

If it was nuclear, it would be the last and shortest war ever fought on the planet. If it was conventional and on Chinese soil then the USA would loose. If you take the example of tanks, the Chinese might have an inferior model to the USA M1A2 but, in battle the USA tank might continually knock out the Chinese tanks until it runs out of shells...

That's the reality, with over 2 million active troops and something like a 5 million reserves. If the USA provoked a war, it would upset the entire region, I'm sure the Russians and North Koreans wouldn't sit ideally by and they would attack American interests in the region. It would destroy the economy of the world, the USA wouldn't be able to afford such a war so it would be economically damaged, China would be broke and you there could be the danger of both the American and Chinese governments collapsing. A war on this sort of super power would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, both civilian and military in both countries.

In short, neither would win.

Like Vietnam. And Iraq.




The difference is a war with China would be a conventional war, which the US could win. Vietnam and Iraq were(are) guerrilla wars which the US is unable to win.

I'm talking about the date of the war, smart one.

And provide me evidence that China lost. Any document.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=358806

War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Tibet By Eric S. Margolis, ISBN 0415927129, 2000, Routledge (UK), pp 228. "Official Chinese losses were 26000 killed and 37000 wounded; Vietnamese losses were roughly equal." "Unofficial reports, however, put Chinese casualties at double that figure."

It is also a matter of public record that China withdrew. Just like the US withdrew.

Though I suppose the public record might be different in China.

You appear to be submerged in a large body of water flowing through Egypt.

You appear to need glasses.

It's not my problem if you can't handle my disagreement.

Nobody said China had no nukes...what they do not have is enough nukes to turn every major U.S. city into a glass parking lot, which the U.S. could conceivably do to China.

Which missile is that that you are describing? The website you posted listed no anti-ship missiles with a range of more than 300km. China would likely have to utilize airplanes to launch the missiles at our surface fleets, which decreases both the size of the strike and it's chance for success, as well as putting pilot and plane at risk.



The site you posted lists the Chinese Air Force as having less than 300 aircraft that can match U.S. aircraft in terms of technology and capability. Once those planes are dead, the Chinese air-force cannot hope to match the U.S. in the air, and are dead on the ground. A loss either way.



I said it before...no general on either side of such a conflict is going to be stupid enough to commit to a ground war.

China's best hope is to wear down the U.S. airforce via attrition. The U.S. best hope is to pound the Chinese economy into the dirt and force a settlement on US terms. Tanks and assault rifles won't even factor into it...nor will China's sheer numbers.



Your site simply confirms everything I already stated...good job. ;)



Because Iraq is not China. If a full scale war such as the one we are describing were to actually occur, I can assure you that "collateral damage" will be the last thing on any military mind on either side.

Besides...soldiers are not airmen, and they are not sailors. :p



They've got no carriers, and limited troop carrying capacity. Estimates currently only place their sea-lift capabilities at 20-30,000 troops. Not even enough to take Taiwan, much less Alaska. :rolleyes:

Besides, without air-cover, they'd be picked apart by planes from Japan, Okinawa, Guam, Hawaii, and the Aleutians...subs would stalk them from port, and I doubt even one ship would make it to it's intended destination.

As I said before...China needs a blue-water navy.

They aren't projecting any power anywhere without a couple of carriers, which they ARE planning and building, but it's going to take a least a decade to get their navy to the level where it poses a threat to the U.S., especially considering all the other countries with capable navies (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines, Thailand, Australia) that wouldn't like to see an expansionist China.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

China invaded in 1979, then hightailed it out of there after barely a month, having suffered at least 26,000 dead and failing to achieve their goal of forcing the Vietnamese out of Cambodia.

That's a loss...period.

Lesson: Don't fuck with Vietnam! :p




First of all. It's not a loss. If you read carefully through the Wikipedia you sent me, the result was that both sides claimed victory. Therefore, they have won also.

The missile I am talking about is the Moskit missile. Antiship, carried by warships from the Chinese navy. It seems you have not read enough around the site. I'm not asking you to read the front page, I'm asking you to use the WHOLE site as a resource.

There are more than 300 aircrafts in the PLAAF that are fit to be capable against the USAAF fighters, especially technologically. If you knew how to read, it would be easier for me to explain to you.

China's aims would be tackling American airforce and navy, to encourage them to take ground. And I don't think America's aims is to tackle Chinese economy. You do know China has a huge border of land, right? It doesn't have to be necessarily from sea where they have their trades.

The site I've given is accurately correct, but you haven't stated with your information accurately. You have missed alot of information.

WRONG on your statement on troop-carrying capacity. They have a number of amphibious ships that are used to carry troops. Enough to load 150,000 soldiers into Taiwan. As I said before, China is almost completely completed their blue-water navy. Though they haven't yet, they still can have a powerful edge when it comes to defensive measures.

Anyone But Clinton Republican?
Little joke, but really, I'm wondering ...?

American Born Chinese

Nukes- everyone, including those not involved, loses.
Otherwise, I assume The United States would "win", because I don't think we'd be stupid enough to try and occupy China, since I'm defining victory as an unconditional surrender.

If you read carefully through the Wikipedia you sent me, the result was that both sides claimed victory. Therefore, they have won also.
Hmmm...you're aware that Hitler claimed victory for Stalingrad too, right?

We would all lose...

First of all. It's not a loss. If you read carefully through the Wikipedia you sent me, the result was that both sides claimed victory. Therefore, they have won also.

The numbers of casualties, in relation to each side's forces, and the fact that the Chinese pulled out after a month tells me that whatever they'd like to fool people (i.e you) into believing, they did not achieve victory.

I think you're just reaching the point where you go "na uh!" whenever someone provides evidence that ya know, maybe China's troops aren't exactly all that great.

Denial in other words.

Hmmm...you're aware that Hitler claimed victory for Stalingrad too, right?

No I am not. Though, this is similiar to the debate to whether if the US is winning in the war with Iraq. The fact that we've already captured Saddam Hussein, we should have claimed victorious, Bush is an idiot. We are now viewed as losing the war. Either way, the US will struggle if they stay in Iraq, or they can withdraw and make the insurgents think they're committed a victory.


Anyway, what I'm saying is that even though Chinese soldiers withdrew from Vietnam and resulted mass causalities, they still severely damaged Vietnamese infrastructure, housing, and the food supply. Enough damage to claim a victory from something that just walked in, shot alot of people, and just walked back home.

The numbers of casualties, in relation to each side's forces, and the fact that the Chinese pulled out after a month tells me that whatever they'd like to fool people (i.e you) into believing, they did not achieve victory.

I think you're just reaching the point where you go "na uh!" whenever someone provides evidence that ya know, maybe China's troops aren't exactly all that great.

Denial in other words.

It doesn't matter that they've lost many lives and withdrawing within a month. It matters how much damage they did to the enemy, which is severe. Enough to claim a victory.

If you're using that reason to support your arguement, then are you saying what happened in the Chinese Civil War wasn't a victory for Communist?

I don't think the United States would even dare to use their nuclear weapons. If they did, they'd break the treaty they signed with the UN, and be likely to turn on Russia's nuclear arsenal. With a war on China, the United States would open the door for the Russians who will take their opportunity and blast the US out of the planet.

If US nuked China, obviously US loses some key economic allies like Japan and Taiwan, plus with 200 nukes in the world, the world would go doom doom.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that even though Chinese soldiers withdrew from Vietnam and resulted mass causalities, they still severely damaged Vietnamese infrastructure, housing, and the food supply. Enough damage to claim a victory from something that just walked in, shot alot of people, and just walked back home.
In that case, America won Vietnam too.

Victory is defined by whether or not you achieve your war goals. The Chinese goal in this war was to get the Vietnamese out of Cambodia. They didn't achieve that, ergo, they did not win.

The goal of the Vietnamese was to stay in Cambodia, defeat Pol Pot and get the Chinese out of Vietnam. They achieved that, ergo, they won.

In that case, America won Vietnam too.

Victory is defined by whether or not you achieve your war goals. The Chinese goal in this war was to get the Vietnamese out of Cambodia. They didn't achieve that, ergo, they did not win.

The goal of the Vietnamese was to stay in Cambodia, defeat Pol Pot and get the Chinese out of Vietnam. They achieved that, ergo, they won.

True, America can say that. I mean, they're not claiming it as a defeat either. They only said they helped, and they're helped was not helpful.

But you have to look at it. America didn't damage severely to the countries's infrastructure, housing, or food supply. They just aided the South with military forces. And they're result is running away because they're help was no good.

Nukes- everyone, including those not involved, loses.
Otherwise, I assume The United States would "win", because I don't think we'd be stupid enough to try and occupy China, since I'm defining victory as an unconditional surrender.
That would be the problem though. The CCP has already proved they can abandon the cities and retreat into the mountains and still fight. We simply don't have enough troops, even if we drafted everyone, to occupy all of China and get them out of there.

Just as a reminder folks, you're talking about a country that is just a few hundred sq miles smaller than the whole of the US (Alaska included).

America didn't damage severely to the countries's infrastructure, housing, or food supply.
Excuse me?

America damaged Vietnam quite a lot, thank you very much. And its neighbour Laos is the most-bombed country in history, above Germany or Japan.

Excuse me?

America damaged Vietnam quite a lot, thank you very much. And its neighbour Laos is the most-bombed country in history, above Germany or Japan.

Well, then they can claim victory, but they're not. They don't consider it as a defeat either, so I don't know where you're going with this topic.

I'm speaking it in a China's point of view, as from the topic I'm supposedly defending against.

Well, then they can claim victory, but they're not. They don't consider it as a defeat either, so I don't know where you're going with this topic.
Many politicians do. And those who don't publically say it still know that it was.

As for the topic, you were the one who said that the US is losing Iraq, and then denied that China lost in Vietnam.

And besides, if we're talking damage to the country's infrastructure, the US has Iraq absolutely pwned.

Many politicians do. And those who don't publically say it still know that it was.

As for the topic, you were the one who said that the US is losing Iraq, and then denied that China lost in Vietnam.

And besides, if we're talking damage to the country's infrastructure, the US has Iraq absolutely pwned.

I didn't say US is losing to Iraq, and I still deny that China didn't lose to Vietnam. And even though I said those things, you were the one who continued the debate.

I didn't say US is losing to Iraq, and I still deny that China didn't lose to Vietnam.
You are denying that China did not lose to Vietnam? So you are, in fact, admitting that China did lose to Vietnam then.

America may not have caught on to the whole “asymetrical war” thing as of yet, but when it comes to conventional wars, America trumps everything.

First of all China would be on the almost total defensive from the get go. Even if China is close to developing a blue water navy and a competent air force, they would never be able to cross the pacific in force, if at all.

America is the proud own of 36 Super Carriers (Or something close to that), and the closest competitor is England… with a resounding four Carriers. While this is hardly an end all be all statistic, it gives one an idea of the massive gap of power concerning naval muscle throughout the world.

Beyond the sheer numbers advantage that America holds in terms of naval strength, it also hold the technological trump card. America not only has the ships, but the information infrastructure to employ them in a frighteningly potent manner. There may be a few interesting bits of technology out there that throw a few mild curves at the American navy, but the simple fact of the matter is this. Overall the American navy is large and more technologically sophisticated than any other in the world, and will win ANY conventional engagement.

This brings us to the airforce. I would like to cite this briefly. Taken from http://www.exile.ru/2006-October-06/venezuela_enchilada_of_evil.html
I recommend you read it, the guy knows his stuff.
What he did buy with his $3 billion was 24 Sukhoi Su-30 fighters and 53 helicopters. Against a US invasion, all that hardware would be an instant writeoff. If you want to beat the US armed forces, you don't buy fighter jets, because they'll just get shot down. More likely, the USAF will turn them into modern art inside their hangars before they even get warmed up. And those 53 choppers, if they ever get into the air, will just be dessert for any US pilots who didn't get the chance to kill your fighter planes. You know how those fighter jocks are, itching to stencil another kill on the fuselage.
You can't fight an air-to-air war with the US, period. Nobody on this planet could -- not Russia, not China (not yet, anyway), not even Britain--though the RAF would probably trade kills evenly till we overwhelmed them with sheer numbers. You can outlast the USAF, sure; you can bleed it from the ground with SAMs. But you can't get into a dogfight with our air force and expect to survive the first week. You need a lot more than fighter planes to even think about it. You need satellites, AWACS, stealth tech, industry support.
Above all, industry support. Every time we get into an air war, it's not just Armed Forces techies swarming around the fighters and sweating over the mission reports, it's hundreds of missile technicians on loan from Raytheon, radar experts from Lockheed, General Dynamics structural engineers plotting weapons loads. It's a huge, incredibly expensive world you don't hear about.

And before you cry foul, take into mind this guy does not think highly of the united states military, read some of his other stuff.
Now China may soon have the power to face America in an airwar, but not yet.

As far as a land war, I do not think America would ever win this, but fortunately we would never have to fight it. After obliterating the Chinese airforce and Navy in a matter of days, we could commence large scale bombings, or even the launching of nukes, wiping out tens to hundreds of millions of Chinese in a matter of months, or even weeks. Would this draw outside support for China?

I’m not so sure. First of all, there is the fact that most nations are much more talk then they are action, unfortunately. Secondly, with the global economy in a tail spin due to this war, I doubt that many leaders will send troops into a foreign engagement when their own country is in the midst of a massive depression and most likely social unrest. What leader is going to sacrifice his own stability for some Chinese, people just don’t care enough in the real world. On the third hand, its always possible China has already carried out some horrific civilian targeted attack on the United States, ensuring us the moral high ground for a time. Should worse come to worst, America could always stage a nuclear strike on its own citizens, which would cause the rest of the world to give us some breathing room for a time.

Despite all that, most likely a few nations would get involved. Honestly, nothing the United States cant strong arm on the seas with their newly (mostly) freed up navy.

I think that with hundreds of millions dead in US bombings China would surrender on any terms the US wished. Even if we were to get beat down by other nations at a later date, China is already set back dozens of years and millions of people, and has essentially already lost. America just happens to later loose to other nations.

I don’t claim to be an expert, but this is just my opinion.

Also, if you happen to be from China, no offense, but think about what you say. Your country runs a massive censorship campaign, so not is all as it seems. (Not that everything is as it seems in the US)

As far as a land war, I do not think America would ever win this, but fortunately we would never have to fight it. After obliterating the Chinese airforce and Navy in a matter of days, we could commence large scale bombings, or even the launching of nukes, wiping out tens to hundreds of millions of Chinese in a matter of months, or even weeks.
Except...
1. China has its own nukes. We start flinging them around, they reply in kind. They can watch us, probably not nearly as well as we can watch them, but you can't take all of their nukes out. We start loosing millions of people as well.

2. This assumes that everyone stays in the cities. The CCP feels no need to do so. Go read the history for that particular war, they know how to use the mountains of China (where we can't carpet bomb them) well.

I think that with hundreds of millions dead in US bombings China would surrender on any terms the US wished. Even if we were to get beat down by other nations at a later date, China is already set back dozens of years and millions of people, and has essentially already lost. America just happens to later loose to other nations.
May I suggest some Chinese history? The bloodest war on the planet was the Chinese civil war, deaths are estimated at over 300 million. My point being that, as said, they can't win and we can't force them to give up either. It's a stalemate.

Except...
1. China has its own nukes. We start flinging them around, they reply in kind. They can watch us, probably not nearly as well as we can watch them, but you can't take all of their nukes out. We start loosing millions of people as well.

2. This assumes that everyone stays in the cities. The CCP feels no need to do so. Go read the history for that particular war, they know how to use the mountains of China (where we can't carpet bomb them) well.


I kind of just added the nukes in there for effect, I was more leaning towards carpet bombings within the cities.

Perhaps a better course of events would be as such, hit as many nuclear silos as possible, and intercept as many nuclear subs as possible. This may take a while, but China isn't going anywhere. I doubt we would get them all, or even half, however we would be able to drastically lower their capabilities before we began our launches.

Either way, we win the nuclear exchange by a large margin, even if we fail to damage it prior the the exchange. Sure millions of US citizens are dead, even tens of millions, but China is in far worse shape.

Secondly, the China that was fine living in the mountains is dying. There are few things more addicting than the modern comforts, which thanks to China’s growth, millions are getting. While I have not doubt a great deal of China could take to the mountains, it would not be like the past. Luxury has sunk its claws into Chinese hardiness.

Worst comes to worst, we wipe the mountains from the earth, we have enough fire power to do it.

May I suggest some Chinese history? The bloodest war on the planet was the Chinese civil war, deaths are estimated at over 300 million. My point being that, as said, they can't win and we can't force them to give up either. It's a stalemate.



That's a pretty high estimation. Is it including civilian deaths? Here are some other figures on the same war

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll

Now, I doubt either are correct, but 300 million... come on. Also as I said before, China has changed, and I dont think any leader would endure as hundreds of millions of his citizens were wiped from the earth in nuclear strikes.

Either way, we win the nuclear exchange by a large margin, even if we fail to damage it prior the the exchange. Sure millions of US citizens are dead, even tens of millions, but China is in far worse shape.
Terrific. See, this is the point where both sides lose.

Secondly, the China that was fine living in the mountains is dying. There are few things more addicting than the modern comforts, which thanks to China’s growth, millions are getting. While I have not doubt a great deal of China could take to the mountains, it would not be like the past. Luxury has sunk its claws into Chinese hardiness.
In deperation, one must do what one must. But in any case, their history has proven time and again that they CAN do so.

Worst comes to worst, we wipe the mountains from the earth, we have enough fire power to do it.
We have something able to destory mountains? Really? What is it and why haven't we used it on those mountain areas that are currently giving us trouble? :rolleyes:

That's a pretty high estimation. Is it including civilian deaths? Here are some other figures on the same war

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll
Wrong war, you're looking at the Nationalist/Communist war. This civil war period is the last gasp wars between the Qing Dynasty and various detractors. And yes, including civilians the count is (estimated) at over 300 million.

Now, I doubt either are correct, but 300 million... come on. Also as I said before, China has changed, and I dont think any leader would endure as hundreds of millions of his citizens were wiped from the earth in nuclear strikes.
The CCP almost got wiped out and came back. China itself lost about 30 million (depending who you ask) to WWII and came back. The question would be, could the US endure that kind of loss? Doubtful.

That's why I said it's a stalemate. We can't force China to capitulate in the way we did to Japan. They can't force us either.

Face it, it's back to the cold war US vs the USSR. We could slug it out, yeah, but there's no real way to 'win' an all out war, only to cause both sides to lose.

Either way, we win the nuclear exchange by a large margin, even if we fail to damage it prior the the exchange. Sure millions of US citizens are dead, even tens of millions, but China is in far worse shape.

There's a difference between the Chinese and American mindset in general. Forgive my rude metaphor, but the Chinese are like cockroaches. No matter how many die, they will not stop. If you lose a couple million people in America, your people will force themselves to back down and there will be civil unrest. There may be propaganda in China, but that heavy nationalism will make sure that no such thing will happen when the time comes.

Honestly I would wager that we would win for the following reasons:

Yes I do beleive that in a land war China would own us BUT:

We have the stronger and more advanced navy and airforce. We would be able to keep them at bay and prevent an invasion.

Weeeee!

But open land war I would say if we have good commanders it would be a tough fight in their favor but USA would have a chance at winning unless it made retarded decisions.

For the sake of argument let's say that no other country decides to take sides in such a war and no nuclear weapons are used.

There is no way that the U.S. or China can win such a war.

Even if the U.S. were to send every man woman and child to China to invade we would still be outnumbered by a more than 3:1 ratio.

China has no way to effectively move large amount of troops (which they have) to U.S. soil.
Even if they could they would be met by an armed populace that has never lived under occupation and never would.

The U.S. might be able to bomb the hell out of some of China's cities but there is no way we could even hold a fraction of the country as an occupying force.

A land war in Asia is a no win situation for any invading army (can you spell Vietnam boys and girls?)

The U.S. just does not have the manpower necessary to invade China.
The Chinese might have the manpower to invade the U.S. but they have no way to get them here.

This war would be a bloody stalemate.

Yeah, but the thing to keep in mind is that simply having troops there is not the end-all. Again, I think the last thing we need to do is get into a war with China, but fighting the Chinese would be akin to fighting the Italian in WWII - not pushovers, but not exactly the most determined of troops, either. Chinese troops would be much more likely to rout when things start looking bad. The problem with invading China is that you know that if things start to look bad, I don't think their leadership would have any problem with using tactical nukes on US troops to get them out of there. I can see it devolving very quickly from there.

Also, this wouldn't be like Vietnam, because you're invading a country and fighting against a conventional Army - you have a definitive end goal (defeating China and forcing a treaty with them), as opposed to Vietnam. Even if they started partisan forces, we would be out of there before they could go any serious damage.

Yeah, but the thing to keep in mind is that simply having troops there is not the end-all. Again, I think the last thing we need to do is get into a war with China, but fighting the Chinese would be akin to fighting the Italian in WWII - not pushovers, but not exactly the most determined of troops, either. Chinese troops would be much more likely to rout when things start looking bad. The problem with invading China is that you know that if things start to look bad, I don't think their leadership would have any problem with using tactical nukes on US troops to get them out of there. I can see it devolving very quickly from there.

Also, this wouldn't be like Vietnam, because you're invading a country and fighting against a conventional Army - you have a definitive end goal (defeating China and forcing a treaty with them), as opposed to Vietnam. Even if they started partisan forces, we would be out of there before they could go any serious damage.

The Chinese were quite a threat during the Korean War, though.

I didn't say US is losing to Iraq...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12215554&postcount=33
I personally think China would kick America's ass because American soldiers suck. If they're so well trained, explain to me why they're losing in Iraq with Iraqi insurgents.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12215587&postcount=38
They didn't lose...

And even though I said those things, you were the one who continued the debate.
:confused:

You made a point, I contested it. Anyways, I think we sorted out all the questions.

...fighting the Chinese would be akin to fighting the Italian in WWII - not pushovers, but not exactly the most determined of troops, either. Chinese troops would be much more likely to rout when things start looking bad.
Their history tells us otherwise.

who'd win in a fight between USA and PRC? with Nukes? just the two?

the winners would be
Russia, Japan, Hong Kong (if they can avoid being a target), Taiwan, Vietnam, India, Canada, Mexico...

Well nukes would of course mean no one would win.

But if the US just wanted to annex China it would be totally impossible, just in terms of the vast geography and amount of people, millions upon millions of troops would be needed to saturate the country. (I doubt the US even at full mobilization has enough to occupy the country).

I mean we are talking about the people who wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. The US would just have to resort to Vietnam-style 'seek and destroy' tactics and commit mass war crimes on the populace, eventually the US's casualties would be too great and they would be forced to withdraw. Even so I wouldn't be so quick to rule out Chinas military.

It's just back to the old idea of Vietnam, Military Attrition(US) Vs Psychological/Political Attrition (NK/VC). The Communists won in the end because they were willing to take as many casualties as neccessary to establish their nation, while the US was under immense political pressure in an unpopular war. Plus on the ground the US forces lost the war of psychological attrition against an enemy tactic they could not defeat.

I don't care what anyone says, the US military is a conventional military, it cannot fight guerrilla wars. History, present and possibly the future will continue to prove this.

Well nukes would of course mean no one would win.

But if the US just wanted to annex China it would be totally impossible, just in terms of the vast geography and amount of people, millions upon millions of troops would be needed to saturate the country. (I doubt the US even at full mobilization has enough to occupy the country).

I mean we are talking about the people who wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. The US would just have to resort to Vietnam-style 'seek and destroy' tactics and commit mass war crimes on the populace, eventually the US's casualties would be too great and they would be forced to withdraw. Even so I wouldn't be so quick to rule out Chinas military.

It's just back to the old idea of Vietnam, Military Attrition(US) Vs Psychological/Political Attrition (NK/VC). The Communists won in the end because they were willing to take as many casualties as neccessary to establish their nation, while the US was under immense political pressure in an unpopular war. Plus on the ground the US forces lost the war of psychological attrition against an enemy tactic they could not defeat.

I don't care what anyone says, the US military is a conventional military, it cannot fight guerrilla wars. History, present and possibly the future will continue to prove this.*nods*

the only thing the US could do is level their cities and keep the PRC in near stone age conditions.

They could hide in the mountains, but the moment they try to industialise any village to produce weapons... the US will level it.

and with places like Hong Kong and Taiwan who would most likely, favor the US... the US would have a defensable position to make these airstrikes. but a landwar would favor the PRC.

That is if the fight is strictly between the USA and PRC.

Complete stalemate.

China can get away with using nukes against other people.....the chinese populace would probably cheer for the death of the imperialist pig-dogs.
If the United States government used nukes against someone, thered be so many impeachments and recall elections, florida would be shitting chads for a year. thats a powerful thing to hold over a countries head. they can get away with it, we cant. they DO have an SSBN (nuclear missile submarine) that could probably launch twenty nukes at us before we could blow it to commie hell. sure, we have twelve of them but is it really going to matter when seattle, LA, sacramento, and san fransico are smoking green craters?

as far as conventional forces, the seventh fleet could probably hold the PLA navy with its propellers tied behind its back. The same goes for the PLA air force. they have crap planes and worse pilots. An F-22 with an american pilot who got his jollies watching top gun over and over as a kid is worth twenty busted up migs with chinese morons toting little red books flying them.

on the ground tho, they got our asses kicked. cant argue with the fact that they have at least five times the number of infantry personel. our cool toys arent going to do us much good there. so my prediction is we win the air and sea battle, they kick our ass on the ground.

All this speculation however is dependent on no other countries getting involved. Because I am pretty sure even if they didn't start it, the US would have zip support externally, and even less internally. I would think the political situations in both countries need to be taken into account also, the Chinese are rather fanatical while the US populace would most likely riot and revolt, and refuse any kind of Federal draft, especially when you consider State politics.

Lots of US troops would be needed to enforce the Insurrection Act in their own country if it came to total war with the PRC. While the PRC as a highly centralized and collective-based society would have little of those type of war issues to deal with.

Contested result.


The Chinese AF is anything but poor. The J-10 is a rather potent plane, but would still prove rather useless against comparable American craft. The J-11 may provide bothersome, but the sheer number of planes the People's Army Air Force could get in the air would render Air Superiority useless.

At sea, the PLAN would most likely die, although contrary to other posts below me, China does have a rather potent navy, although it is atrocious in comparison to the nations size. It's new AEGIS rip-off would be interesting to see, and seeing the Sunburn in action against American carriers would be interesting. Still, decisive American advantage at sea.

On the ground I feel the PLA would be willing to take grotesque losses to defend herself, despite a rather clear American advantage on the ground. The Type 99 is no pushover and I would predict quite heafty American armored vehicle losses.

To be honest, neither has the manpower/military capability to "Defeat" one another.

(Note that above speculation relates to an American invasion of mainland China.)

All this speculation however is dependent on no other countries getting involved. Because I am pretty sure even if they didn't start it, the US would have zip support externally, and even less internally. I would think the political situations in both countries need to be taken into account also, the Chinese are rather fanatical while the US populace would most likely riot and revolt, and refuse any kind of Federal draft, especially when you consider State politics.

Lots of US troops would be needed to enforce the Insurrection Act in their own country if it came to total war with the PRC. While the PRC as a highly centralized and collective-based society would have little of those type of war issues to deal with.
and this is speculating that some act didn't occure that made the populace of both nations ready for war.

Due to how the OP puts it, It can be assumed that not only Congress has voted for the war, but the civilians are lining up outside the recruitment offices in droves.

Due to how the OP puts it, It can be assumed that not only Congress has voted for the war, but the civilians are lining up outside the recruitment offices in droves.

Well either way, could you ever see that happening?

Well either way, could you ever see that happening?... an event that will galvanize the US populace to go to war? yes.

An Act of War so plain and open that even the most hardy skeptic cannot deny it.
A Chinese agent releases a biological/chemical bomb in at least one major city.
A major city is nuked and all evidence points to China.
there are thousands of scenarios that could occure, of course they would be improbable... but so is the OP situation.

Yes. This again. Who'd win a war (1 on 1)- China- or Old-School America? Just post opinion + reasons.

I vote US, out of arrogance and our nukes and technology

blue water navy is one...plus we wont fight with our best trading partners....relates to the iran thing unfortunately.

they are the ones playing musical chairs(the iranians) and there wont be any chairs left.

there are other reasons but i am tired.

feel sorry for iran:(

Nobody, as many have said.

People have brought up ww2. I agree, except that China is the new USA. Think about it.

In the last 50 years, what has happened? America has become a service based economy, while pretty much every product you find was built in china, or somewhere else in asia. Sure, both countries take a large economic hit, but I'm guessing the chinese would be more willing to accept the loss of US goods, than vica-versa. Not being able to get chinese manufactured products would suck for nearly everyone in america, and it would take a long time to make up for it on our own, even if all other country's started trying to pick up the pace.

So, war begins. China retools its industries to military capacity. They don't even launch their airforce to meet the USN. They fly as deep as possible into china, and possibly hide them, or fly them to a neutral country for a while(NK, Burma, Pakistan). The US begins flying its bombing runs. Its doing heavy damage, but its gotta ship re-supplies for its aircraft carriers. And it has to ship that across the atlantic. Chinese subs will be making runs on our shipping, civilian if the military supply ships are too well guarded.

While we're trying to make sure we get all their missiles, SAMs, airbases, etc destroyed, their retooling their factories for S-400's, anti-shipping missiles, and ATGM's. Once we get to their factories, thats when they bring their aircraft back out. Large strikes against US aircraft that are flying quite far to hit the factories in the west of china. They also probably kept reserve SAMs there. So, while we have our expensive as hell stealth aircraft making runs, we are only doing pinpricks. Any aircraft that aren't particularly stealthy, assuming we have somewhere to launch them(F-15's and F-16's, B-1b's, etc), are getting fired at and struck.

We would have to try to massively wipe out their industrial might, very quickly. This means taking large casualties, nuclear missiles, or a very large build-up before such an attack. And we would be worried about the chinese military before their industrial might.

It would basically be a race, between china's ability to push out defensive equipment, and america's ability to bomb everything in sight. I give it to china, no allies.

This doesn't mean china wins. It just becomes the most fortified place in existance. Sure, we have stealth aircraft. That means we either slowly make attacks with B-2's supported by F-35's, even more slowly with F-22's, or we fly the B-2's unescorted, which free's up the F-35's for more attacks. Great, except a mig-21 can kill a B-2, undefended. Human intelligence, with a B-2 flying that far over china, would mean SAMs and fighters going for it simply by visual confirmations, etc.

China would be fucked over, but its military would gain a huge boost, and probably put it in a position to expand on land once the US gave up, which it would. The US would also be fucked over, it would have spent plenty of money, and lives, on an invasion that gained them. It would have lost one of its biggest traders.

China would physically lose more, but probably be in a better position over-all than america.

First of all, the likelihood of any such war ever even occurring is very minimal. The United States and China rely too heavily upon each other particularly economically as I am sure we are all aware. The impact of such a war would be negative to both sides and could never justify the outcome. In political terms though if you comparatively match off the United States and China today it is very likely that it would end up in an American victory but hardly. China has a formidable military and some of the best and most sophisticated tanks in the world. Their air force and navy however are sub par. They do of course, have the numbers advantage but even that does not guarantee victory. In the end technology would be the key deciding factor and if we look to that factor the U.S. has an advantage. That is not to say however that such a victory would be pretty, in fact it would constitute a Pyrrhic victory simply because so many lives on both sides would be lost.

Nobody, as many have said.

People have brought up ww2. I agree, except that China is the new USA. Think about it.

In the last 50 years, what has happened? America has become a service based economy, while pretty much every product you find was built in china, or somewhere else in asia. Sure, both countries take a large economic hit, but I'm guessing the chinese would be more willing to accept the loss of US goods, than vica-versa. Not being able to get chinese manufactured products would suck for nearly everyone in america, and it would take a long time to make up for it on our own, even if all other country's started trying to pick up the pace.

So, war begins. China retools its industries to military capacity. They don't even launch their airforce to meet the USN. They fly as deep as possible into china, and possibly hide them, or fly them to a neutral country for a while(NK, Burma, Pakistan). The US begins flying its bombing runs. Its doing heavy damage, but its gotta ship re-supplies for its aircraft carriers. And it has to ship that across the atlantic. Chinese subs will be making runs on our shipping, civilian if the military supply ships are too well guarded.

While we're trying to make sure we get all their missiles, SAMs, airbases, etc destroyed, their retooling their factories for S-400's, anti-shipping missiles, and ATGM's. Once we get to their factories, thats when they bring their aircraft back out. Large strikes against US aircraft that are flying quite far to hit the factories in the west of china. They also probably kept reserve SAMs there. So, while we have our expensive as hell stealth aircraft making runs, we are only doing pinpricks. Any aircraft that aren't particularly stealthy, assuming we have somewhere to launch them(F-15's and F-16's, B-1b's, etc), are getting fired at and struck.

We would have to try to massively wipe out their industrial might, very quickly. This means taking large casualties, nuclear missiles, or a very large build-up before such an attack. And we would be worried about the chinese military before their industrial might.

It would basically be a race, between china's ability to push out defensive equipment, and america's ability to bomb everything in sight. I give it to china, no allies.

This doesn't mean china wins. It just becomes the most fortified place in existance. Sure, we have stealth aircraft. That means we either slowly make attacks with B-2's supported by F-35's, even more slowly with F-22's, or we fly the B-2's unescorted, which free's up the F-35's for more attacks. Great, except a mig-21 can kill a B-2, undefended. Human intelligence, with a B-2 flying that far over china, would mean SAMs and fighters going for it simply by visual confirmations, etc.

China would be fucked over, but its military would gain a huge boost, and probably put it in a position to expand on land once the US gave up, which it would. The US would also be fucked over, it would have spent plenty of money, and lives, on an invasion that gained them. It would have lost one of its biggest traders.

China would physically lose more, but probably be in a better position over-all than america.

china wont fight the usa....they will look towards russia i assure you..the more plausible scanario.

Just out of curriosity, how do you plan to blockade the land side of China? There's a lot of that after all and China has a large ammount of experiance shipping things that way.Not when I release my army of B's.

Snip

Agree for the most part, except the People's Liberation Army Air Force bit....I don't think comparing the PLAAF to the Iraqi Air Force is very fair :P

Agree for the most part, except the People's Liberation Army Air Force bit....I don't think comparing the PLAAF to the Iraqi Air Force is very fair :P

I'm not comparing it. The PLAAF would be flying to neutral countries, not enemy ones(Iran). Also, The Iraqi airforce didn't come back :P

First of all. It's not a loss. If you read carefully through the Wikipedia you sent me, the result was that both sides claimed victory. Therefore, they have won also.

...I think this has been discussed enough.

The missile I am talking about is the Moskit missile. Antiship, carried by warships from the Chinese navy. It seems you have not read enough around the site. I'm not asking you to read the front page, I'm asking you to use the WHOLE site as a resource.

I did use the whole site as a resource.

The Moskit has a range of less than 300km, as you stated. Without carriers, the ships that launch these missiles must depend on ground based air-support, or they'll be slaughtered.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. Navy is smart enough to keep it's most important assets away from Chinese ground based air-cover, ensuring that any Chinese effort to engage the U.S. fleet with surface ships meets with dismal faliure.

There are more than 300 aircrafts in the PLAAF that are fit to be capable against the USAAF fighters, especially technologically. If you knew how to read, it would be easier for me to explain to you.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/default.asp

As I said...300 3rd Generation fighters.

If you think a bunch of J-8's and Q-5's are going to last in an air war with the U.S. Fighter inventory, you're dreaming...especially with U.S. AWAC and ELINT capabilities.

China's aims would be tackling American airforce and navy, to encourage them to take ground. And I don't think America's aims is to tackle Chinese economy. You do know China has a huge border of land, right? It doesn't have to be necessarily from sea where they have their trades

China depends on Arab oil as much as we do, and they don't have a pipeline yet to get it by land. So, yes, they do need their coastal trade routes.

That, in turn, makes the "hide the air-force" idea pretty silly. Planes aren't cars...you can't park them wherever there is space and still utilize them effectively.

Granted, if anyone has the knowhow for it, it's China...but if China loses it's energy imports due to naval blockade, those planes will find themselves grounded due to lack of fuel pretty damn quick.

They have to make a fight of it at the coast...they have no other option

If they had another option, they wouldn't be trying to build a blue-water navy!!

The site I've given is accurately correct, but you haven't stated with your information accurately. You have missed alot of information.

Every piece of information I stated in my last post was taken directly from the site you suggested I use.

If you knew how to read, it would be easier for me to explain to you.

WRONG on your statement on troop-carrying capacity. They have a number of amphibious ships that are used to carry troops. Enough to load 150,000 soldiers into Taiwan. As I said before, China is almost completely completed their blue-water navy. Though they haven't yet, they still can have a powerful edge when it comes to defensive measures.

Why don't you take a look at your own website again? There is nothing there that indicates that the Chinese armed forces have anything approaching the troop carrying capacity that you claim.

The biggest Chinese amphib-warfare vessel is the Yuting-II class

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/amphibious/yutingii.asp

They have seven of them...and they carry 250 soldiers apiece.

They might be able to take Taiwan, given their large number of "landing craft"...but a trans-Pacific invasion??

Get serious.

They still don't have a carrier, so even if they could cross a hostile Pacific, they have no air-support for their invasion. Sounds like a good way to lose a lot of good soldiers to me.

They won't have a blue-water navy until they have a few carriers...and the ones they bought from Russia to refit won't cut it in this kind of conflict.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm

You can pretend that China has a blue-water force all you like...but that navy looks like one geared to defend it's own coasts...not invade another nation across the world's largest ocean...hence, not a blue-water navy, and it won't be one anytime soon either.

...and why wouldn't the U.S. attack the Chinese economy??

China cannot retaliate in kind without using nukes, so if we can bomb their steel producing facilities, their munitions plants and their fuel refineries, and make their military grind to a halt, why the hell wouldn't we?

New Zealand.
We have the Mighty Tsunami bomb technology.

In the year of 1914 France and Germany had extensive trade dealings with one another...
My history facts on German-French trade prior to World War One are zilch. Link please to verify your statement, Andaluciae?

And I didn't say that war between the PRC and the USA was impossible to occur because of their extensive trade ties, just that it wasn't very likely.

China versus USA?
Stalemate. :D

However, there may be a 'victory' if the war becomes "Industry Hunt" type, where the one who's capable to destroy the other's industry the most will become a winner.

China cannot retaliate in kind without using nukes, so if we can bomb their steel producing facilities, their munitions plants and their fuel refineries, and make their military grind to a halt, why the hell wouldn't we?

Because one or two Chinese higher ups have declared that any invasion (it might be a little iffy with naval blockades, but let's say it counts), will be met with nuclear retaliation on said invasion. China certainly does not have an equal "glass the world" reach compared to America, but it without doubt has enough ballistic missiles with the reach to render any carrier group slag.

The question is whether the US would retaliate by using its nukes to strike at Chinese cities in retaliation.

Aside from economic reasons, that is a pretty good reason the US wouldn't do something like that.

Because one or two Chinese higher ups have declared that any invasion (it might be a little iffy with naval blockades, but let's say it counts), will be met with nuclear retaliation on said invasion. China certainly does not have an equal "glass the world" reach compared to America, but it without doubt has enough ballistic missiles with the reach to render any carrier group slag.

The question is whether the US would retaliate by using its nukes to strike at Chinese cities in retaliation.

Aside from economic reasons, that is a pretty good reason the US wouldn't do something like that.

If the Chinese leadership is dumb enough to give the U.S. the green light to respond in kind by being the first to launch nukes, then I feel sorry for the Chinese people.

If the Chinese leadership is dumb enough to give the U.S. the green light to respond in kind by being the first to launch nukes, then I feel sorry for the Chinese people.

Why not? It's the same principle Soviet leadership had in the cold war. It also kept the US and the USSR from turning each other into glass bowls. Sure, the PRC cannot slag all of the US, but losing the coastal cities would be a bad enough loss that whoever started the whole mess will be lucky to leave office alive.

Politicians make the decisions to go to war after all, and what kind of politician will authorize a war he knows will result in the slagging of a good chunk of his voter base?

The threat of nuclear strikes may not be nice, but it keeps people polite.

When it came to manufacturing of munitions and stuff like that PRC would outdo US by a mile, I mean how much stuff says 'made in China' on it. It terms of labor numbers in building I doubt the US could organize that kind of manpower.

If the Chinese leadership is dumb enough to give the U.S. the green light to respond in kind by being the first to launch nukes, then I feel sorry for the Chinese people.

How does this make sense to you?

China is willing to use nuclear munitions as a defense mechanism - thus, whether or not it gives the US the 'green light to retaliate in kind' is irrelevent - they will use that defense if they feel the need to.

Secondly - you feel sorry for the Chinese people? But... not the Americans that would have been killed by the Chinese 'defense' against American attack?

Or - are you under the impression that we would somehow get out of it okay...? Maybe you think superman would stop the Chinese attack...

America may not have caught on to the whole “asymetrical war” thing as of yet, but when it comes to conventional wars, America trumps everything.

First of all China would be on the almost total defensive from the get go. Even if China is close to developing a blue water navy and a competent air force, they would never be able to cross the pacific in force, if at all.

America is the proud own of 36 Super Carriers (Or something close to that), and the closest competitor is England… with a resounding four Carriers. While this is hardly an end all be all statistic, it gives one an idea of the massive gap of power concerning naval muscle throughout the world.

Beyond the sheer numbers advantage that America holds in terms of naval strength, it also hold the technological trump card. America not only has the ships, but the information infrastructure to employ them in a frighteningly potent manner. There may be a few interesting bits of technology out there that throw a few mild curves at the American navy, but the simple fact of the matter is this. Overall the American navy is large and more technologically sophisticated than any other in the world, and will win ANY conventional engagement.

This brings us to the airforce. I would like to cite this briefly. Taken from http://www.exile.ru/2006-October-06/venezuela_enchilada_of_evil.html
I recommend you read it, the guy knows his stuff.


And before you cry foul, take into mind this guy does not think highly of the united states military, read some of his other stuff.
Now China may soon have the power to face America in an airwar, but not yet.

As far as a land war, I do not think America would ever win this, but fortunately we would never have to fight it. After obliterating the Chinese airforce and Navy in a matter of days, we could commence large scale bombings, or even the launching of nukes, wiping out tens to hundreds of millions of Chinese in a matter of months, or even weeks. Would this draw outside support for China?

I’m not so sure. First of all, there is the fact that most nations are much more talk then they are action, unfortunately. Secondly, with the global economy in a tail spin due to this war, I doubt that many leaders will send troops into a foreign engagement when their own country is in the midst of a massive depression and most likely social unrest. What leader is going to sacrifice his own stability for some Chinese, people just don’t care enough in the real world. On the third hand, its always possible China has already carried out some horrific civilian targeted attack on the United States, ensuring us the moral high ground for a time. Should worse come to worst, America could always stage a nuclear strike on its own citizens, which would cause the rest of the world to give us some breathing room for a time.

Despite all that, most likely a few nations would get involved. Honestly, nothing the United States cant strong arm on the seas with their newly (mostly) freed up navy.

I think that with hundreds of millions dead in US bombings China would surrender on any terms the US wished. Even if we were to get beat down by other nations at a later date, China is already set back dozens of years and millions of people, and has essentially already lost. America just happens to later loose to other nations.

I don’t claim to be an expert, but this is just my opinion.

Also, if you happen to be from China, no offense, but think about what you say. Your country runs a massive censorship campaign, so not is all as it seems. (Not that everything is as it seems in the US)

I think there is a flaw in any discussion about air versus air potential. If we were fighting a war in China, and were relying on our airforce to do the job, we might as well hoist the white flag immediately. That's the kind of 'war' that would bankrupt us.

And that's the thing - China doesn't need to dogfight. If they can just occassionally twat one or two of the US aircraft with their lightweight ground defenses, they are hosing us in terms of 'value' of losses.

Add to which - Navy and airforce would be little use in a war with China, for the simple reason that China is a big place, and we just couldn't hold it. As someone else has pointed out, even if we conscripted every single living soul in the US, and used them to occupy strategic targets in China, we'd still be heavily outnumbered by the occupied forces.

Terrific. See, this is the point where both sides lose.

Yes and no. In terms of civillian deaths is it a great tragedy? Hell yes. Is it the greatest blow ever dealth to the American people? Is it a loss by conventional thought? Yes. However, this is a war the scale of which the world has never seen before, rivalled only by WWII. The Russians lost 20 million people in WWII but few feel they "lost". If examined with regards to the overall scale of the war, it is not a loss. Its a tragedy, but not a loss.

Also, consider, most of their nuclear arsenal would be exhausted, and we would most likely still have quite a few nukes remaining. If anything this would enrage the United States and push it further into the war. Look at 9/11, our spirit wasn't broken, we rallied and went to war. Obviously they are in different ballparks, but if the average American had just lost a great deal, but knew that we still had the capability to make our enemy pay, and they had just exhausted themselves, wouldn't he take it?


In deperation, one must do what one must. But in any case, their history has proven time and again that they CAN do so.


The same could be said for America, but I also doubt Americans could give as much as the Chinese. However, America has never had to face a trials as great as the Chinese.

We have something able to destory mountains? Really? What is it and why haven't we used it on those mountain areas that are currently giving us trouble? :rolleyes:

Well, it may be due to the fact that their would be incredible collateral damage. Large scale nuclear strikes tend to do that. Even if they survived the scattered blasts, we could follow up with dirty bombs and the like. Irradiate everything. Easy? No. Humane? No. Possible? With effort, yes. I dont care if you are in the deepest, most sheltered cave, if everything outside is toxic and will kill you, your going to die eventually.

Wrong war, you're looking at the Nationalist/Communist war. This civil war period is the last gasp wars between the Qing Dynasty and various detractors. And yes, including civilians the count is (estimated) at over 300 million.

This the one, doesn't look like 300 million to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
And if that is not the right one, kindly find a source on the right one.

The CCP almost got wiped out and came back. China itself lost about 30 million (depending who you ask) to WWII and came back. The question would be, could the US endure that kind of loss? Doubtful.

People do what they must, America has never been forced to face such a trial. But as I said before, I think such a loss would only embolded the American people. Revenge is a powerful desire.


That's why I said it's a stalemate. We can't force China to capitulate in the way we did to Japan. They can't force us either.

Face it, it's back to the cold war US vs the USSR. We could slug it out, yeah, but there's no real way to 'win' an all out war, only to cause both sides to lose.

I personally believe we could force them to capitulate. If not that, make it so it didn't matter either way. Would both sides lose? As I said before, yes and no. Its all about taking things in context. We are at war with the only nation that rivals us in power, if we come out with a broken arm, leg, and only one eye, but they are a puddle on the floor, I think we have won.

I think its more that our definitions of victory are different. I approach this as "Victory at any Cost" where as you look at it in the more humane way. I dont know, what do you think?

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/default.asp

As I said...300 3rd Generation fighters.

If you think a bunch of J-8's and Q-5's are going to last in an air war with the U.S. Fighter inventory, you're dreaming...especially with U.S. AWAC and ELINT capabilities.





That source is incorrect, as is your point of view. The SU-27 and J-10 are both 4th generation aircraft, and the SU-30MK is a 4.5th generation aircraft. Noting this, the PLAAF also has access to the AA-11 and other top of the line Russian built air to air missiles. 342 4th generation aircraft, coupled with the hundreds of J-7's and J-8's in reserve offer a dismal situation for the USAF over China.

The US wouldn't want to or need to find a land war with China or even occupy it. China is a 3rd class military power with a few nukes as a deterent force.

The only thing I can see the PRC in a war with the US is over Taiwan. The US would own the air and the waters over the strait and would cripple the ability of China to move men or materials into the area to threaten Taiwan.

The war would be short and for the Chinese devestating. If they as they have done in the past actually carried out their threats to nuke LA over Taiwan--the US would flatten China and bomb it back to the Shang Dynasty.

There is no scenerio I can see where the US would want to occupy China.

Right now? USA.

In five years? Probably China. China is much more willing to resort to nuclear weapons early in the conflict, and in five years they'll have a delivery system that can attack the US directly.

The US has the industrial capacity to win any war that isn't taking place in the United States. China would make sure the war IS taking place in the United States, and that's why the US would lose.

Right now? USA.

In five years? Probably China. China is much more willing to resort to nuclear weapons early in the conflict, and in five years they'll have a delivery system that can attack the US directly.

The US has the industrial capacity to win any war that isn't taking place in the United States. China would make sure the war IS taking place in the United States, and that's why the US would lose.

Well, with the technology of today, I'd have to disagree with you. Do you not think that the USA in a war with China (who both are known to have nukes; USA by far has a greater number of Nukes) would not have some nukes on stand by and close proximity to China, waiting for signs of Nuke movements from China (Satelites, Intel, etc...) Even if China were able to successfully launch and strike the mainland USA with a Nuke it wouldn't destroy the entire USA. We have a very large land mass. China would be obliviated.

As for the land war in China...The USA isn't a bunch of idiots. We'd bomb the hell out of them with our Awesome Airforce and Navy would be all very close too. We'd definately bomb the hell out of them and shake them up before we send in the troops to finish the job. The USA would definately win because against China we would definately go in in Full Force.

Right now? USA.

In five years? Probably China. China is much more willing to resort to nuclear weapons early in the conflict, and in five years they'll have a delivery system that can attack the US directly.

The US has the industrial capacity to win any war that isn't taking place in the United States. China would make sure the war IS taking place in the United States, and that's why the US would lose.

Which is why the United States would launch a major (probably conventional, although I would not rule out the use of low yield nuclear weapons) counterforce campaign against the PRC nuclear force immediately.

Which is why the United States would launch a major (probably conventional, although I would not rule out the use of low yield nuclear weapons) counterforce campaign against the PRC nuclear force immediately.

I'm betting every time a Chinese SSBN leaves port, there is a L.A. class Hunter-Killer not far away.

The Chinese have only one set of land based silos, as far as I know. A good first target for the B-2's

I don't think China's nukes will factor into it too much unless the U.S. is dumb enough to put boots on the ground.

Both would lose.

If no nukes are fired USA loses.
I know no american ever would admit it, but unless war can end in months, and it cant, china would simply outproduce USA.
Dont forget WW2. Germany had better technology, better army and greater arrogance.
It didn't have the manpower and production power to keep it up long term.
if chinese production is turned to war, it outproduced USA in 10 to 1.
But I will be flamed and called an idiot. Fact is I seen threads USA vs. the world and americans never admit they would be defeated.

Right now? USA.

In five years? Probably China. China is much more willing to resort to nuclear weapons early in the conflict, and in five years they'll have a delivery system that can attack the US directly.

The US has the industrial capacity to win any war that isn't taking place in the United States. China would make sure the war IS taking place in the United States, and that's why the US would lose.

What is this mythical American industrial capacity? Have you not read a history book that covers 1950-2000? We are now a service based economy. We have industrial capacity, but compared to the ratio before, and relative to a nation like china, we don't nearly have the advantage we had before.

Also, not related to the quote, China's airforce really does suck. The Su-27 is an ok aircraft with a huge radar signature. Its going to get clocked with a BVRAAM by any aircraft with a half-decent RCS, especially ones with AESA(F-18's and F-35's in this context). J-10's, I don't know much about, but I know they don't have many. Su-30MMK's? Not bad aircraft, but not comparable to 4.5'ers and 5th generation aircraft.

I'm also not sure on Chinese AWACS, if they have any at all, but if they do, they would be the first target by stealth aircraft. They wouldn't last a day.

I still hold that china has a signifigant advantage if attacked by whatever the US can bare against it, with the exception of nuclear weapons. Everyone loses with nuclear weapons, I don't care who takes more deaths.

If no nukes are fired USA loses.
I know no american ever would admit it, but unless war can end in months, and it cant, china would simply outproduce USA.
Dont forget WW2. Germany had better technology, better army and greater arrogance.
It didn't have the manpower and production power to keep it up long term.
if chinese production is turned to war, it outproduced USA in 10 to 1.
But I will be flamed and called an idiot. Fact is I seen threads USA vs. the world and americans never admit they would be defeated.

But if the US is in a war with China wouldn't we knock out their factories and such early on with out air power?

Energy resources may be an important point. China has a massive land army, so could conceivably march to the Middle East and seize oilfields (although they may have trouble holding them). If there was a subsequent oil embargo on America, the US Navy and USAF would have problems reaching Asia.

But if China, India, Chavez's oil-rich Venezuela and Iran had an alliance, and China bribed Africa (as it is already) then Ametica--given it's unpopularity--might be in a lot of trouble. In this case the Chinese wouldn't have to hold Middle Eastern oilfields. The Iranians might blockade the Persian Gulf blocking oil tankers and collapsing the Western economy.

Also, if China retook Taiwan all America's 'Made in China' and 'Made in Taiwan' consumer goods would dry up. This would also be bad for the economy and might lead to shortages at first--domestic producers probably couldn't match Chinese production very fast.

I don't think either side would be insane enough to nuke the other (I hope), and neither could occupy the other successfully.

But if the US is in a war with China wouldn't we knock out their factories and such early on with out air power?

We'd be more worried with knocking out airbases, command posts, ports, silo's, SAMs, etc. If the chinese were smart, and they've been pretty sneaky in the past, they would concentrate their defenses around their industry, which would be pumping out SAMs by the crapload, at least at first, enough to provide a signifigant amount of covering fire against air attacks. I don't doubt that russia would give china plans for S-400's(Or do they already have them?) in such a war.

Tel onga, India would sure as hell not ally with China. If Iran attempted to blockade oil exports from the ME, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Israel would probably kick Iran's ass.

Ohh, and China wouldn't be able to take over taiwan, certainly in the next 15 years or so anyways. The best they could do is try some quick and dirty conventional missile launches, and try to heavily damage taiwans industry.

Barring nuclear war, neither. The US couldn't sustain an invasion of China because of the latter's immense population. China could not get an invasion force to the US or keep them supplied because their navy couldn't beat the USN.

We have a very large land mass. China would be obliviated.


So does China. Even larger, iirc.

Has it been the requisite six months since the last time we went through this? :rolleyes:

Well, with the technology of today, I'd have to disagree with you. Do you not think that the USA in a war with China (who both are known to have nukes; USA by far has a greater number of Nukes) would not have some nukes on stand by and close proximity to China, waiting for signs of Nuke movements from China (Satelites, Intel, etc...) Even if China were able to successfully launch and strike the mainland USA with a Nuke it wouldn't destroy the entire USA. We have a very large land mass. China would be obliviated.


Because China is so small?

Because, in the event of it going nuclear... China would (you imagine) only send one nuke?

You could at least try to be a little realistic.


As for the land war in China...The USA isn't a bunch of idiots. We'd bomb the hell out of them with our Awesome Airforce and Navy would be all very close too. We'd definately bomb the hell out of them and shake them up before we send in the troops to finish the job. The USA would definately win because against China we would definately go in in Full Force.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are really for real, or if this is a parody account.

Even if we destroyed every airbase, harbour, military installation, and factory... even if we sent every man, woman and child to occupy... we would still be outnumbered by three to one. Plus - you just can't realistically occupy a landmass that size, or a population that size.

US, China's monetary reserves would quickly disappear without constant exports to the US...

So does China. Even larger, iirc.

United States of America: Total Area=3,718,695 square miles if we subtract all the bodies of waters Land Only=3,537,594.6.

People's Republic of China: Total Area=3,704,427 square miles/Land Only=3,600,703.1 square miles.

It's pretty close but really is irrevelent since the USA Nukes, by large, outnumbers that of PRC. USA also has the capabities of closing in on PRC vs PRC would have a hard enough time to successfully hit Hawaii, Alaska, and the West Coast of the mainland USA. I just don't see it happening. Could be due to my biased as I am an American...

United States of America: Total Area=3,718,695 square miles if we subtract all the bodies of waters Land Only=3,537,594.6.

People's Republic of China: Total Area=3,704,427 square miles/Land Only=3,600,703.1 square miles.

It's pretty close but really is irrevelent since the USA Nukes, by large, outnumbers that of PRC. USA also has the capabities of closing in on PRC vs PRC would have a hard enough time to successfully hit Hawaii, Alaska, and the West Coast of the mainland USA. I just don't see it happening. Could be due to my biased as I am an American...

I'm bias too, but as for missiles, China could reach us- just probably not Washington. You can thank Clinton for perfecting the Chinese missile program

Because China is so small?

Because, in the event of it going nuclear... China would (you imagine) only send one nuke?

You could at least try to be a little realistic.

-snip-

I don't think I said anything about China being so small...Reality, they're relatively the same size land mass, actually taking away the water would be larger than that of the USA.

I see where I may have confused you when I said "...a Nuke..." So, do you think that the PRC has the capabilities to successfully strike the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, New England, and the Southeast along with the Westcoast States? and who is the one who needs to be a little realistic?

and speaking of being realistic, I don't think this thread OP is very realistic by having PRC and the USA trying to destroy each other would more than likely destroy both's economies and causing both to become 3rd world nations if there were any survivors after the "Nuclear War" between the two. So I do find it quite hard to be realistic in an unrealistic Post.

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

Now, I know this is not a perfect source, but its a source none the less.

China simply doesn't have enough nuclear firepower to match the United States in a large scale engagement. I doubt they could even deploy their full arsenal against America. If America weathers that initial storm, which it most likely could, its game over for China.

I have a few more detailed posts a bit back.

Unlike in NS, IRL military equipment isn't all that determines the outcome of a war; and, actually, it isn't even in NS.

IRL, other major factors are industrial power, industry flexibility, and, most importantly, people - their will to fight and work for the war. With all the power projection capabilities of US, projected power can't match the homeland of China.


Its going to get clocked with a BVRAAM by any aircraft with a half-decent RCS, especially ones with AESA(F-18's and F-35's in this context).
If they fly one towards other over a desert, yes for sure.
In all other cases it matters much less.
I'll quote one of my writings on the topic:

From the data available, it seems that current Su-30MKI is clearly second to F-22. However, it's really the second one - while with a bit higher RCS that other non-US designs, Su-30MKI and Su-35/37 feature very powerful radars which can partially compensate for that difference, especially from less stealthy angles. In terms of armament, current Russian missiles are considerably better in flight characteristics and have less sophisticated, but more reliable avionics.

In real situations, major total advantage is required to efficiently use stealth, including having strategic and tactical initiative and established air dominance, for operating in which F-22 is tailored for. It is likely that if a pack of fighters flies overseas to attack USAF base with same number of F-22, they will all be shot down with very few US losses. However, in more equal situations there is much more than in theoretical "two fighters fly towards each other over a desert, nothing else exists".
Planes are not stealthy when flying at high supersonic. Fighter's location is known when flying as an escort, given away by escorted plane. Simple rain reduces stealthiness. Ground-based radars see stealth aircraft much easier than fighters', due to greatly reduced effect of stealth tech on high wavelengths, especially of old radars. All aircraft shine bright from the turbines side (rear hemisphere), and are even not as stealthy from sides as from the front. Just accidental blinks may give away the location. If the approximate location is known, radar may narrowly light it up, enabling longer range than with normal scanning, and missiles with active or even semi-active homing may be used, since stealth only reduces detection range, and at close range they work again. Also, knowing location allows to attack from the rear. Of course, all that doesn't make stealth inefficient - just making the opponent to go through all that trouble and keep radar on aircraft instead of fire&forget is already a good advantage. But not the one which wins the war.

Also, it should be kept in mind that F-22 is tailored specifically for lowering losses. The capabilities won't help as much when doing interception, escort, patrol - just anything except direct fighter engagement. That doesn't mean US shouldn't build F-22, of course. This is the fighter just for the wars US fight - engaging much weaker opponent, already having air domination.


Now, for war of US vs China, it will depend on international support. In part, on whether Russia will "do not sell, but investigate into the smuggling" them technologies and equipment designed specifically to oppose US technology, like S-400 system. Since US is going to be about as popular by then as Germany in 1942, it's likely that China will find a lot of partners who will "do not provide" them with military technologies, intelligence data and sometimes even equipment. Will US lose? Probably not. China doesn't have that long hands. But winning alone against the world which at best morally supports China and at most assists to avoid being the next target, is something which has been tried exactly as many times as it failed, and by much more militarized countries.

Because China is so small?

Because, in the event of it going nuclear... China would (you imagine) only send one nuke?

You could at least try to be a little realistic.


The PRC maintains a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. Perhaps 12 Land Based ICBMs as well as a single submarine equipped with SLBMs. A force easily handled in an aggressive counterforce campaign.

The PRC maintains a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. Perhaps 12 Land Based ICBMs as well as a single submarine equipped with SLBMs. A force easily handled in an aggressive counterforce campaign.

Because King George will sit on the White House roof, and tell the tide of missiles to roll back?

Or - are we assuming that our hypothetical war situation starts with the 'counterforce' (doesn't sound logical...) operation?

Since US is going to be about as popular by then as Germany in 1942, it's likely that China will find a lot of partners who will "do not provide" them with military technologies, intelligence data and sometimes even equipment.

Why assume the U.S. is the aggressor?

China is far more likely to go for Taiwan or the Spratly Islands than the U.S. is to just whack the worlds largest hornet nest with a stick.

Why assume the U.S. is the aggressor?

China is far more likely to go for Taiwan or the Spratly Islands than the U.S. is to just whack the worlds largest hornet nest with a stick.

Agreed, China seems to be very aggressive when it comes to Taiwan. I'm sure a lot of it is just posturing, but it defiantly is more likely than the US trying to attack China first.

Without nuclear weaponry, the US cannot hold China. Look at the Korean War. Sheer numbers still play a large part in war.

They're n00bs to the whole super-power thing.



oh. baaaaad call. i forgot that the USA has been a developed and independant people for thousands of years, suriviving many different invasions and contributing (to) many of the fundamental developments of human civilization, and not the other way around....

China defines superpower. the USA is just a shooting star.

But if the US is in a war with China wouldn't we knock out their factories and such early on with out air power?

Alot of their production capabilities is too far to be reached from the water, also its most unlikly USA would get right to fly over Russia at first.
War against china would be like germany vs. russia WW2. At first complete sucess for USA. Then china pulls back into mainland, and starts to produce weapons and soldiers. After they achieve air superiorits through noumbers, not quality and make enough mobile anti air support they would move back to sea and start producing cheap huge ships that can carry alot of cheap planes.
they would have advantage over USA in not acctually caring if soldiers are safe or not.
But war like that is acctually impossible. If two superpowers go to war, entire world would pick sides and then the real shit would hit the fan.
War between USA and PRC would be a huge disaster that would take world far more to recover then after WW2 because no truly powerful economy would survive intact.

Well, with the technology of today, I'd have to disagree with you. Do you not think that the USA in a war with China (who both are known to have nukes; USA by far has a greater number of Nukes) would not have some nukes on stand by and close proximity to China, waiting for signs of Nuke movements from China (Satelites, Intel, etc...) Even if China were able to successfully launch and strike the mainland USA with a Nuke it wouldn't destroy the entire USA. We have a very large land mass. China would be obliviated.

As for the land war in China...The USA isn't a bunch of idiots. We'd bomb the hell out of them with our Awesome Airforce and Navy would be all very close too. We'd definately bomb the hell out of them and shake them up before we send in the troops to finish the job. The USA would definately win because against China we would definately go in in Full Force.

You are aware that with todays nukes it would take only two nukes to completly finish the war.
One for china, and one for USA. Oh SOME of both would survive. And that what survives would depend on goodwill of neighbours for radiation treatements and canned goods.

Unlike in NS, IRL military equipment isn't all that determines the outcome of a war; and, actually, it isn't even in NS.

IRL, other major factors are industrial power, industry flexibility, and, most importantly, people - their will to fight and work for the war. With all the power projection capabilities of US, projected power can't match the homeland of China.



If they fly one towards other over a desert, yes for sure.
In all other cases it matters much less.
I'll quote one of my writings on the topic:

From the data available, it seems that current Su-30MKI is clearly second to F-22. However, it's really the second one - while with a bit higher RCS that other non-US designs, Su-30MKI and Su-35/37 feature very powerful radars which can partially compensate for that difference, especially from less stealthy angles. In terms of armament, current Russian missiles are considerably better in flight characteristics and have less sophisticated, but more reliable avionics.

In real situations, major total advantage is required to efficiently use stealth, including having strategic and tactical initiative and established air dominance, for operating in which F-22 is tailored for. It is likely that if a pack of fighters flies overseas to attack USAF base with same number of F-22, they will all be shot down with very few US losses. However, in more equal situations there is much more than in theoretical "two fighters fly towards each other over a desert, nothing else exists".
Planes are not stealthy when flying at high supersonic. Fighter's location is known when flying as an escort, given away by escorted plane. Simple rain reduces stealthiness. Ground-based radars see stealth aircraft much easier than fighters', due to greatly reduced effect of stealth tech on high wavelengths, especially of old radars. All aircraft shine bright from the turbines side (rear hemisphere), and are even not as stealthy from sides as from the front. Just accidental blinks may give away the location. If the approximate location is known, radar may narrowly light it up, enabling longer range than with normal scanning, and missiles with active or even semi-active homing may be used, since stealth only reduces detection range, and at close range they work again. Also, knowing location allows to attack from the rear. Of course, all that doesn't make stealth inefficient - just making the opponent to go through all that trouble and keep radar on aircraft instead of fire&forget is already a good advantage. But not the one which wins the war.

Also, it should be kept in mind that F-22 is tailored specifically for lowering losses. The capabilities won't help as much when doing interception, escort, patrol - just anything except direct fighter engagement. That doesn't mean US shouldn't build F-22, of course. This is the fighter just for the wars US fight - engaging much weaker opponent, already having air domination.


Now, for war of US vs China, it will depend on international support. In part, on whether Russia will "do not sell, but investigate into the smuggling" them technologies and equipment designed specifically to oppose US technology, like S-400 system. Since US is going to be about as popular by then as Germany in 1942, it's likely that China will find a lot of partners who will "do not provide" them with military technologies, intelligence data and sometimes even equipment. Will US lose? Probably not. China doesn't have that long hands. But winning alone against the world which at best morally supports China and at most assists to avoid being the next target, is something which has been tried exactly as many times as it failed, and by much more militarized countries.

I agree with your assesment exept in one detail.
USA would not be conquered. But it would lose. Nobody would try to acctually occupy USA. But once USA is economicly broken, and unable to support the war anymore, then it would be made to sign economic and military concessions, effectivly ending its status as superpower. Which would then be mitigated by giving usa cheap luxurious goods, and buying enmasse USA food. Efectivly making it tied to china.

so which is more important, then? ground superiority, naval superiority, or aerial superiority?

we all know who'd dominate the ground game, but the other two are essentially up for grabs

so which is more important, then? ground superiority, naval superiority, or aerial superiority?

we all know who'd dominate the ground game, but the other two are essentially up for grabs

Not really.

China would dominate on its turf, America would dominate on its turf. Well, on the ground, anyways.

Air and Naval, the US would have the advantage period.

But more important? Depends on the length. In a quick war, air power is most important. Fast strikes, destroying what you need to. Naval power gets less important the longer or shorter the war is, or basically, its in the middle time-frame. However, in the long run, china could produce faster than america could bomb, considering its projecting power over an ocean. Hence, America would need land forces in the long run, and it could not successfully hold much chinese land.

Wrong.

Everyone loses.

No! You're wrong!

*pats self on back for winning opinionate argument*

Agreed, China seems to be very aggressive when it comes to Taiwan. I'm sure a lot of it is just posturing, but it defiantly is more likely than the US trying to attack China first.

But, in the eyes of China, Taiwan IS China.

If Texas decided to secede today, would the US let it? (We know the answer, this question was finalised some time ago).

Would the US reclaim the territory by military means, if they thought it necessary? (Again, we've already seen how this one is answered).

And, how would the US react to foreign intervention? Because that is the direct parallel of the US getting involved in the situation between China and Taiwan.

Why assume the U.S. is the aggressor?
China is far more likely to go for Taiwan or the Spratly Islands than the U.S. is to just whack the worlds largest hornet nest with a stick.
Well, China - or anybody else - would never attack U.S. in the foreseeable future. And Taiwan is certainly not U.S.; it's a separated Chinese province. While counter-strike in response to attack on Taiwan may pass as a reason, world politics is not as tied to formal reasons and war declarations today. While most countries in the region do prefer Taiwan to be a counterweight to China, overseas control of US over the region is much worse alternative for everyone there. As for other countries, they are much less concerned, and China would find a justification to invade Taiwan as well.



The PRC maintains a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. Perhaps 12 Land Based ICBMs as well as a single submarine equipped with SLBMs. A force easily handled in an aggressive counterforce campaign.
At least 100 weapons with delivery systems, according to open data; many estimates go between 300 and 1000. Even 100 is already enough to be a strong deterrence.
Also, they have high production capabilities, and could go to nuclear superpower level if assisted by other powers - which would certainly be more happy with bipolar world if they keep close to the pole. For instance, the particularly worrying detail about the new Topol-M missile is not as much focus on missile defense penetration, as tailoring for simplified production and low cost. If things start to go dangerous, it's likely that China will get the data, and the newer weapons don't need forty years of building up the industry to enter production lines. This applies to all areas, from assault rifles and ATGM to AAM and aircraft. Su-30MKI partially produced by much less experienced Indian aerospace industries is a particular example. Brahmos is another. Can China pull off something like that? Very likely so, as no one is more notable for copying others' products. It would take just a helping hand, which would appear if the emerging multipolarity is seriously threatened.
On the other hand, the most advanced and feared American weapons require very high technologies with extreme precision manufacturing, industry which can't be quickly extended. It's fine for limited force projection, but not for going against the sheer production capacity of China, especially being limited by overseas logistics. In WWII, it was efficiency and balance between quantity and quality which finally won the war, not just perfection of weapons alone. Information-based economy and advanced applied science may create state of the art equipment, but China is better in terms of mass production.
As the bottom line, it's in any case better for everyone for this conflict not to happen.

I'm finally glad to see some people in here that isn't using the all-American perspective, but also the Chinese point of view.

I'm all for China's defence.

How did the discussion turn from China and Taiwan, when this is supposed to be China and USA?

You must take several things into perspective.

*First of all, no one wins a war.

*China and the US wouldn't get into a war. It would cause severe economic reccesses on both sides. China would have their goods just sit there... And the US would have none to buy. And the other main countries that China exports to- mostly NATO Western nations- go to war along side America. So China has no one to export to. True, the US could just trade more heavily with Japan and Taiwan, but we'd see the stock market fall a good bit. If I was in charge we'd give companies with US made goods some tax breaks and other incentives.

*Since the US could shoot down almost everything China can put in the air- (Most Missiles, Planes, and other aerial warfare materials) China would be like taking candy from a baby in an aerial war.

*China has no navy, so to speak. They have one outdated aircraft carrier from the Ukrainians and mabe a few outdated ships. They don't have the ship-building facilities and no one like them enough to make them one. They've no way of reaching the US.

*Manpower matters less and less. The US spends about 10x what China does on defense. There's no way in hell that we could hold China.

*Chinese power is overrated. CNN and other news stations often revert to talking about this "Chinese Superpower" in a slow news day. I believe it happened today. Also, that anti-sattelite test wasn't at all scary. We've had that capability over 30 years. The US military is even implementing laser technology.

*The US has (or they say) many strong smaller great European powers- the UK, France, Germany. China's got- perhaps Russia.

*It would just be another Iraq.

So , I'd have to say the US. Though inside

America.

America.

Should I presume your statement only applies if NZ is with us? ;)

Who'd win?
Nobody, duh. Look at all the deaths caused by wars now.

Should I presume your statement only applies if NZ is with us? ;)
Honestly, right now we would be a hinderence, better give us to China then you'll win.
Wai...

We need Artillary.

And the other main countries that China exports to- mostly NATO Western nations- go to war along side America.
Not exactly. No one on the continent is going to go to war against China. US or Australia can afford that, it's easy to start wars when you are out of enemy reach and don't risk an invasion. Japan and Taiwan would give up with resisting only for trading, they don't want to get all rolled over.
Europe had enough of occupation during WWII, and China wouldn't mind getting a few hundred millions of their population moved out there. They are overpopulated, and wouldn't have problems the Germany had with controlling the territory.

And, let's face it, West Europe military today is nearly nothing. Some demonstrator planes, some tanks, but all too few. UK will soon cut half of the Navy. The West European militaries are weaker than they were in 1940, and even then they were rolled over rapidly. Not even combined they are a real military power. Their militaries are just forces for self-defense, police reinforcement and showing by their support "Yay!" or "Nay!" for US invasions.
The only European country with power to oppose China wouldn't do so, the West is less friendly towards them than China. At least in their shoes I'd make an agreement with China to own the continent together.

Wiki might not be the most reliable source for precise figures, but still it's worth that to look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces
- and try various sorting. Whatever way you sort, West European countries don't come into the first ten except by expenditures (which are mostly personnel payments due to high wages) and navy (just because no one else but the prime Asian powers and Europe has navies at all), and the first three are US, Russia, China, with the rest well behind. Numbers are not all, but not all European arms are the show-off top quality ones either. In other words, Europe will not have a say in such war.


*China has no navy, so to speak. They have one outdated aircraft carrier from the Ukrainians and mabe a few outdated ships. They don't have the ship-building facilities and no one like them enough to make them one.
Actually, Chinese-built ships are pretty popular today on the commercial market. Low cost, fast construction, sufficient quality. Well, they don't have much military shipbuilding expertise, of course, but they know where to get it.
Likely China won't even approach US waters, but will be able to keep US Navy out of their ones. Mines, torpedoes, AShM are not too dependent on their carrier.

*Manpower matters less and less. The US spends about 10x what China does on defense. There's no way in hell that we could hold China.
Afghanistan. Iraq occupation. Lebanon. All the recent wars show than manpower matters more than we used to think, and cheap ATGM and MANPADS blast more expensive tanks and helicopters today than the other way around.

Russia

:p Thats got my vote for who would win.

Wait...in Korea...didn't the UN run out of ammo before the Chinese ran out of troops...?

If it did turn out into a war between the US and the PRC, the UN would be screwed; atrocities would be abound on the US side as we firebombed their cities, and American casualties would see no end in a ground war.

China would go in for the kill because, by the time both nations are actually politically stupid enough to declare war on each other, their modernization programs would probably be complete.

All in all, WW III.

If things stayed conventional, it would be a stalemate. The Chinese Navy would probably be exterminated(barring some unforseen trick pulled by the PRC), preventing China from ever invading the US directly. But the US cannot put enough boots on the ground to seriously threaten China.

If it went nuclear, the US would win a phyrric victory. The Chinese only have 12 single warhead ICBMs actually capable of reaching us, that would be enough to level some of our major cities and setting back our economy by a century or two, not too mention killing millions of people. But the United States has thousands of missiles and even more warheads and could wipe every single industrial, military, and civilian center in China off the map.

Either way, the results are seriously grim.

If you'd look at reality, the war on Iraq is a losing war. Each day, soldiers are being killed, and amounts totalled up to more than 2,000. This is just Iraq, a small country, nothing bigger than California and Oregon combined. Now how would US forces in China result? I don't think they would do any better than they are doing in Iraq, and by the looks of it, with counter-terrorism technology, American casulties still result.

The M-16 rifle is not capable into being in Iraq, as well as China, terrains. They get jammed really fast and they need a better gas propeller. China can just arm a couple of their soldiers with a regular AK-47 (even though they've changed to a Type 95 assault) and would probably do a better performance in combat than the American soldier's weapon.

Technology isn't everything. With China's newest release on its 'White Paper' defense, their modernization is driving China out of poverty as well as closng the technology gap with the US within a short 10 years. They've tested their ASAT weaponry, which is also listed in the White Paper defense, and they've made incredible improvements in their naval forces, as well as modernizing their airforce. China's navy may look small with its ships, but they're weaponry is enough to deter American ships.

The United States still owes China more than a trillion dollars, as well as India, and is hurting the United States drastically soon. When China decides to call back its debt, the United States would make a huge plunge in their economy and the Great Depression might result. If the United States ever thinks about war with China, China has a secret economic weapon at their hands.

The United States still owes China more than a trillion dollars, as well as India, and is hurting the United States drastically soon. When China decides to call back its debt, the United States would make a huge plunge in their economy and the Great Depression might result. If the United States ever thinks about war with China, China has a secret economic weapon at their hands.

Why would China economically cripple their largest market? It would hurt China as much or more than it would hurt the U.S.

Sure, if it came to war, they'd probably do it...but I don't see either side being dumb enough to let it slide that far anytime soon.

The USA. There's a reason nobody engages the USA in a fair fight, and it might just be beacuse they'd lose rather quickly.

If you'd look at reality, the war on Iraq is a losing war. Each day, soldiers are being killed, and amounts totalled up to more than 2,000. This is just Iraq, a small country, nothing bigger than California and Oregon combined. Now how would US forces in China result? I don't think they would do any better than they are doing in Iraq, and by the looks of it, with counter-terrorism technology, American casulties still result.

The M-16 rifle is not capable into being in Iraq, as well as China, terrains. They get jammed really fast and they need a better gas propeller. China can just arm a couple of their soldiers with a regular AK-47 (even though they've changed to a Type 95 assault) and would probably do a better performance in combat than the American soldier's weapon.

Technology isn't everything. With China's newest release on its 'White Paper' defense, their modernization is driving China out of poverty as well as closng the technology gap with the US within a short 10 years. They've tested their ASAT weaponry, which is also listed in the White Paper defense, and they've made incredible improvements in their naval forces, as well as modernizing their airforce. China's navy may look small with its ships, but they're weaponry is enough to deter American ships.

The United States still owes China more than a trillion dollars, as well as India, and is hurting the United States drastically soon. When China decides to call back its debt, the United States would make a huge plunge in their economy and the Great Depression might result. If the United States ever thinks about war with China, China has a secret economic weapon at their hands.

Firstly, and I do appreciate that kill ratio is never a guarantor of success, both in Vietnam, and now in Iraq, the US forces are maintaining a kill ration of 1:15 or so. In light of this, and the fact that the USA is essentially leaving most of its real toys in the cupboard in Iraq, I defy the will of any man to suggest that the US wouldn't anhillate China.

Secondly, in the event of China calling in US debts, how do they back it up? Threaten the World's most potent military force with conflict? God, wouldn't that be sensible.

In light of this, and the fact that the USA is essentially leaving most of its real toys in the cupboard in Iraq,

Primarily because they keep breaking down. I've heard a few complaints in regards to tank engines not working properly due to dust conditions and the tracks melting on hot sand.


I defy the will of any man to suggest that the US wouldn't anhillate China.


With nuclear weapons? Certainly. They have significantly more ICBMs with the range required than China does. With conventional weapons? Not so certain.


Secondly, in the event of China calling in US debts, how do they back it up?


By not selling them anything anymore for one. Besides, how many US trading partners would continue trading with it if the US said "nope, I'm not going to pay you what I owe. nyaah"

Not many I suspect.

Before long, the US economy would crumble like wet tissue paper.

Primarily because they keep breaking down. I've heard a few complaints in regards to tank engines not working properly due to dust conditions and the tracks melting on hot sand.



With nuclear weapons? Certainly. They have significantly more ICBMs with the range required than China does. With conventional weapons? Not so certain.



By not selling them anything anymore for one. Besides, how many US trading partners would continue trading with it if the US said "nope, I'm not going to pay you what I owe. nyaah"

Not many I suspect.

Before long, the US economy would crumble like wet tissue paper.

However, I guarantee it would last long enough to grind China into the dust.

Honestly?

Jesus Howard Christ the First.

China could not win USA vs PRC 1v1. So it will be eighter a tie(Nukes are used or USA fails to force China to surrender) or US victory(USA manages to beat China). China doesn't have navy to invade USA mainland.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Nukes.jpg

However, I guarantee it would last long enough to grind China into the dust.

Not really no. Most nations have a defensive doctrine for use of nuclear weapons, primarily meaning if you invade them or shoot nukes at them, they shoot you with theirs. In this case, China would probably nuke the invasion force at the cost of irradiating their own territory, giving the US the choice of either backing down, or the rather unpalatable first nuclear strike doctrine since China did not nuke US soil but a US invasion force.

i believe China will lose the war its Military isn't that strong...yet
plus their navy has no aircraft carriers and their Air Corps are composed of MIG's and grossly outdated soviet military hardware.. and as for the U.S invading china... that would be the day as 180000 marines land on Hong kong 1million PLA Troops would be waiting for them at the harbor and 39 million more in reserved..

as for nukes, the U.S wouldn't Nuke China Unless China would but its Nuclear Arsenal is very Limited its been reported they have very few ICBM and with very limited capability

But give it time china will get there they now have the largest military force in world and with China's economic might the Toothless Chinese Dragoon will finally have Some teeth...

i believe China will lose the war its Military isn't that strong...yet
plus their navy has no aircraft carriers and their Air Corps are composed of MIG's and grossly outdated soviet military hardware.. and as for the U.S invading china... that would be the day as 180000 marines land on Hong kong 1million PLA Troops would be waiting for them at the harbor and 39 million more in reserved..

as for nukes, the U.S wouldn't Nuke China Unless China would but its Nuclear Arsenal is very Limited its been reported they have very few ICBM and with very limited capability

But give it time china will get there they now have the largest military force in world and with China's economic might the Toothless Chinese Dragoon will finally have Some teeth...

And your source for that information is....?

First of all, the US Army isn't so good. They depend heavily on technology and their technological weapons have weaknesses such as terrains. Such rifles like M-16's and M4A1 Cabines have weaknesses in these kinds of environments, such as jamming. The Chinese Army Forces have weaponry known to operate efficiently in their territories.

Take Iraq for example, where places is very hot and dry. The M-16 jams very often and overheats. Compare that to the AK-47, which would perform much better, less jams. M-16's are designed to fight in sizable terrains like American /European soil.

Y

*China has no navy, so to speak. They have one outdated aircraft carrier from the Ukrainians and mabe a few outdated ships. They don't have the ship-building facilities and no one like them enough to make them one. They've no way of reaching the US.

Actually, if you looked into this unofficial website: www.sinodefence.com. Your statements have turned false. China has a number of technologically modernized ships, as well as many ship building facilities in their territories. And also, China has a navy.

lets just say, D.C. would be feelin the boots of the PRC. :eek:

Pac Racing Club would totally own those american wimps.

And also, China has a navy.
Which lacks the power projection to really go any further than Taiwan.

Compared to, what, 12 Carrier Task Forces?

We can shoot down China's nukes. For the most part. They'd be lucky to land about 3 or 4- let's make that VERY lucky- of their cold war era ICBMs on American soil. If they did decide to nuke the world's only superpower (okay, MAYBE the EU is kind of) they're done for.

Neighther side would ever be stupid enough to actually try to invade each other's country as they are both import massive amounts of goods from one another.If this war started it would be a battle of the sea. and America owns the seas and skies. After 12 -18 months america's Navy would have established superiority and then cut off all trade to China. After 2 more years of bloodshed the U.S blockde of goods flowing to China would force them to the negotiating table.
P.s America has proven time and time again that they dont need numbers to destroy massive amounts of opposition troops. When america invaded Iraq in 1990 They had the 3rd largest militry force in the world wich was destroyed easily by the much smaller offensive force.
dont get me wrong, the odds of victory are 60/40 in favor of the americans simply because China recently displayed the ability to destroy satelites. With out satelites America's Pinpoint Air force and Navy would have to revert to the inaccurate ways of the first world war.
This war wouldnt be fought alone , with our allies great britain and japan's navies they dont stand a chance

How about India vs China?

Indian fleet is only a few notches below US, and the Army and Air Force are extremely powerful, not to forget the BrahMos missile.

How about India vs. US otherwise if IA vs PLA isn't good enough.

Just out of curriosity, how do you plan to blockade the land side of China? There's a lot of that after all and China has a large ammount of experiance shipping things that way.

India can attack from the west and liberate Tibet. "Waves of steel"

They have a navy. And they have Russia that wouldnt mind them reaching Alaska.


Have you done any research at all on China's navy? Perhaps you should.

India can attack from the west and liberate Tibet. "Waves of steel"
Yeah, those soldiers are gonna be really happy to hear about your plan. What, with crossing the Himalayas with full gear and all. :rolleyes:

Neighther side would ever be stupid enough to actually try to invade each other's country as they are both import massive amounts of goods from one another.If this war started it would be a battle of the sea. and America owns the seas and skies. After 12 -18 months america's Navy would have established superiority and then cut off all trade to China. After 2 more years of bloodshed the U.S blockde of goods flowing to China would force them to the negotiating table.

Aside from your abominable spelling, your points are somewhat lacking in forethought. America depends on Chinese trade quite heavily right now, and Chinese RMB is what's holding up the American economy. 2 years of blockading China would drive America into a depression that would make Black Friday look like a hiccup.

Besides, no way is America going to be capable of blockading China's land trade routes short of an invasion. Russia, Iran and a few other nations further up north would be more than happy to trade with them while the US shoots itself.


This war wouldnt be fought alone , with our allies great britain and japan's navies they dont stand a chance

British politics is increasingly becoming less obedient to Washington's demands, and Japan wouldn't touch China because it lies within range of the majority of Chinese ICBMs.

If war came to China via US, Japan might ever so politely take a neutral stance. And boot out the US soldiers stationed there.

Yeah, those soldiers are gonna be really happy to hear about your plan. What, with crossing the Himalayas with full gear and all. :rolleyes:

Perhaps India has a Hannibal clone we don't know about.

India can attack from the west and liberate Tibet. "Waves of steel"

Not while Pakistan is there. India has it's own concerns, and that doesn't involve playing soldier for Washington.

Japan can only have defensive weapons. It's in their constitution...


We're the goose that's laying the golden egg for China. Sure, it would hurt us economically, but it would hurt China more. They'd have no one to export to. The government could support making American goods and buying from Taiwain and Japan.

Perhaps India has a Hannibal clone we don't know about.
Didn't most of Hannibal's elephants die? And wasn't his army about half the size when he got to the other side?

Meh, considering how cold and high it is up in the Himalayas, and how ridiculous the roads up there are, I can say with some confidence that I don't envy the soldiers sent on that mission.

Wow these are lame. I agree with the whole "neither nation can successfully invade piece." However as this has been done why don't we talk about something interesting like, who'd win, Vatican or France. Luxemborg or Lichtenstein, Iceland vs the Greenlander Penguin alliance, Sicily vs. the rest of Italy (Italy hasn't been successful in war since they gassed the Libyans under Mussilini, plus if you've seen the Godfather you know that Sicilians kick ass.) and of course my all time favorite Ethiopia vs. Hunger/AIDS/Poverty and other Diseases.(Ethiopia might have defeated European imperialisim, but it's not doing to well versus Skivies and the Human Immuno Deficency Virus.)

Bacteria.
Always the general winner in your actual holocaust scenario.

Besides, no way is America going to be capable of blockading China's land trade routes short of an invasion. Russia, Iran and a few other nations further up north would be more than happy to trade with them while the US shoots itself.



British politics is increasingly becoming less obedient to Washington's demands, and Japan wouldn't touch China because it lies within range of the majority of Chinese ICBMs.

If war came to China via US, Japan might ever so politely take a neutral stance. And boot out the US soldiers stationed there.[/QUOTE]

Ok u got on the spelling thing , I rush throug things and if it werent fro spell check i'd be flunking english. Now on the Japn ur wrong. Japn's Navy is much more powerful than the 20 years outdated Chinese military. Secondly U.S control over the seas would not destroy but cripple chinese trade. China is also very dipendant on U.S good as well . China is an extremely inefficiant nation that relies on russia and other nations to for their deffense. Mmaybe you havent realized this but if you look at U.N meetings US britain and japan are always together. so this nonsense you heard that Britain is weakening its alliance with America and not as willing support is completely outrageuos. Navies and air Forces win wars not to mention nukes and last timei checked we got them beat on evrything but population.

I have no clue where that guy got the idea that the U.S. and U.K. were getting cold on their Alliance.

I'll also start worrying about China once they get carriers and we can longer hear their submarine from miles away.

Also, China is working on the carriers, they bought one's from Ukraine. Then again, so is India.

Japan can only have defensive weapons. It's in their constitution...


We're the goose that's laying the golden egg for China. Sure, it would hurt us economically, but it would hurt China more. They'd have no one to export to. The government could support making American goods and buying from Taiwain and Japan.

Completely false.

I'm wondering, where do you get your sources from?

China's only trading partner is not America. They have many others too.

Ok u got on the spelling thing , I rush throug things and if it werent fro spell check i'd be flunking english. Now on the Japn ur wrong. Japn's Navy is much more powerful than the 20 years outdated Chinese military. Secondly U.S control over the seas would not destroy but cripple chinese trade. China is also very dipendant on U.S good as well . China is an extremely inefficiant nation that relies on russia and other nations to for their deffense. Mmaybe you havent realized this but if you look at U.N meetings US britain and japan are always together. so this nonsense you heard that Britain is weakening its alliance with America and not as willing support is completely outrageuos. Navies and air Forces win wars not to mention nukes and last timei checked we got them beat on evrything but population.


Mostly false. Again, you ignorant people, where do you find your sources? Or is this all collected off the top of your head?

First of all, the Japanee Navy's technology gap with the Chinese Navy isn't so big. It's just that Japan's Navy has more ships in numbers than the Chinese. Though, China's Navy holds a very sizable amount of antiship missiles, torpedoes, as well as naval aircrafts that are deterents to the Japanese.

The Japanese Army Forces isn't so "updated" as you said so. Their guns are the same as American soldiers, and their training is the same as the rest of Asia's. They may have experience from American soldiers, but the soldiers themselves have no experience except as military police (guarding headquarters, etc.). The Chinese Army Forces have plenty of experience that dates back to the 1979 Vietnam War (is the year right?). While that time may be far to long, Chinese forces are stationed in parts of Africa, and as UN Peacekeeping troops in Haiti and the border of Israel and Lebanon. China's main infantry weapon, the Type 95 assault rifle, is more reliable that the M-16, when tested by multiple soldiers.

China is not inefficient depending on other countries like Russia for defence. If you haven't checked the sources, the Chinese defence weaponry is loaded with a majority of Chinese domestically made weaponry. Technology that was researched by Chinese army researchers or legally produced with a liscense from another country. They also have a number of old Russian missile simulators, which they've upgraded and mass produced their own upgraded modifications, which are overall better than the ones last used. They've also domestically produced the American Aegis System, which they've stolen through espionage in the United States.

So if you're thinking if US will win because they have a gap advantage in technology, then you've never read about Chinese spies in America stealing military technologies from laser weaponry to space research.

I have no clue where that guy got the idea that the U.S. and U.K. were getting cold on their Alliance.

On the news, before, it clearly states that relations with US and UK plummet due to its reputation internationally supporting the US in the war on Iraq, which was a total misunderstanding. Though, even if relations with them dropped, I doubt they would not be allies because they've been through so much together.

Ok u got on the spelling thing , I rush throug things and if it werent fro spell check i'd be flunking english.

If you have to take exams, and they constitute the pass/fail mark, and you write like this, you still flunk English.


Now on the Japn ur wrong. Japn's Navy is much more powerful than the 20 years outdated Chinese military.

I never claimed the Japanese navy to be inferior to China's. However, Japan lies ever so conveniently within range of several hundred Chinese ICBMs and does play host to several major US bases.

If Japan wants to survive this relatively intact, heck, just to make sure they're trade is ok, they'll not participate in this bit of dick swinging.


Secondly U.S control over the seas would not destroy but cripple chinese trade.

Control of seas != control over land borders. Which is where Chinese trade will go through with US naval fleets parked off its coast.

For however long it takes for them to nuke said fleet.


China is also very dipendant on U.S good as well.


Bwahahahaha. That's rich. US is dependent on Chinese made goods. China is dependent on the US money. That's the relation. Not the other way round. At least until they can find sufficient partners to write off America.


China is an extremely inefficiant nation that relies on russia and other nations to for their deffense.

China buys some Russian tech, true. But that doesn't mean China doesn't make their own things. Furthermore, they are upgrading their navy to be quite an effective brown water navy. Which means good at coastal defense.


Mmaybe you havent realized this but if you look at U.N meetings US britain and japan are always together. so this nonsense you heard that Britain is weakening its alliance with America and not as willing support is completely outrageuos. Navies and air Forces win wars not to mention nukes and last timei checked we got them beat on evrything but population.

This about sums up your ignorance in total I think. Britain would not go to war with China unless a very good reason can be produced. Like China invading say, Europe or something similar. Blair won't stay in power forever, and the British have somewhat longer memories as to what kind of unpopular practices their leaders have done compared to Americans.

Japan on the other hand, in case you've forgotten, has a constitutional law that bars going to war with other nations for any reason except for self defense. And as I said, it is well within range of much of China's long range nuclear capable missiles. If America wanted this war, it would go it alone.

And probably lose a few fleets in the process.

Why? Because China maintains a defensive nuclear use strategy, one that specifies acceptable use of nuclear weapons in the event of an invasion.

Put away your nationalism and face reality. Or maybe study a bit more. It does wonders for your world view.

Oh, and neither the navy, nor air force, can win wars with conventional arms. Ultimately, it's the boots on the grounds that win them.

Control of seas != control over land borders. Which is where Chinese trade will go through with US naval fleets parked off its coast.

And where, exactly, are the supertankers that are fueling the Chinese economy supposed to dock while this blockade is going on?

Pipelines don't build themselves overnight.



...yeah.

Neither.

Go Canada!

kill the chinks!

Yes. This again. Who'd win a war (1 on 1)- China- or Old-School America? Just post opinion + reasons.

I vote US, out of arrogance and our nukes and technology


quite simply.............................america

And where, exactly, are the supertankers that are fueling the Chinese economy supposed to dock while this blockade is going on?

Pipelines don't build themselves overnight.

Maybe not, but they are being built. And unless the US decides to invade in oh say, 2 years time, it should be done by then.

Thou I would love to see America win the bout, the chinese have far greater numbers (ground forces) and they ass would probably end up fignting guerrilla style, and we all know America cant deal in no guerrilla war.

Maybe not, but they are being built. And unless the US decides to invade in oh say, 2 years time, it should be done by then.

The pipe-line that Russia ie Putin is buliding with Iran, the sea is not the only way of transport during these modern times. Pipeline has been in the works for years, they (Russia) are already to cut off western Europe at any given time

Non aligned states, regarding Japan, the constitutional ban on offensive weapons is not going to hold up for very long. For several reasons.

1. It was put in place by the U.S. and was never something the Japanese ever wanted nor asked for. With the Our (I'm american) current states of affairs we are not going to tell them to enforce that in any way shape nor form.

2. North Korea has both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. The same ballistic missiles that they have been firing over japan for the last several years, and in case you were not watching the news at that time, the day or so after that nuclear revelation japan's prime minister has announced that japan will repeal that ban and become a major military super power out of it's own need for defense from north korea.

3. China is not going to support N. Korea for much longer as they had both agreed that N. Korea would not go nuclear. This has severally pissed off and embarrased PRC. If you were watching the U.N. security council on the topic (go c-span) then you would know that China voted for the trade embargo on N. Korea.

4. China is rapidly becoming a capitalist country, as time passes the similarities between N. Korea and China will continue to decrease.

5. I believe China is currently in a state of flux image wise. They are trying to get away from the Cold War dictatorship of mao zedoung and trying to look like a more friendly country in order not to scare off investors or international support, I don't think they would take a japanese build up as an act of aggression after the korean incident.

Maybe not, but they are being built. And unless the US decides to invade in oh say, 2 years time, it should be done by then.

Perhaps...but the nations that can export by land via pipeline are not going to be able to massively increase exports to China at the drop of a hat.

The lack of oil from Gulf states would cause China significant problems, regardless of whether or not they can make up some or all of the shortfall via pipelines.

Even though Prime Minister Abe is trying to do away with the 7th (I think) article, I doubt his abilty to garner national support, as the Japanese people still have a pacifistic tendency, and a strong anti-war attitude.

I also find the idea that China is becoming capitalistic as a blow to those who say, "The freer the market, the freer the people." China is far from a friendly country, and I blame Bush Sr. for that. Contrary to popular belief, being nice to someone who fundamentally opposes your way of life and giving them money will not change them, only make you seem weak.

Non aligned states, regarding Japan, the constitutional ban on offensive weapons is not going to hold up for very long. For several reasons.

Oh, I know that, but that doesn't mean it's going to go to war with China just cause the US says so. Unless China does actually threaten the surrounding regions, I cannot see what reason Japan would have to go on a hair brained campaign that would ruin it.

As for North Korea, well, I haven't said anything to the effect that would include it. China will deal with North Korea in its own way, but that should not detract from how events will turn out should the US decide to invade.


5. I believe China is currently in a state of flux image wise. They are trying to get away from the Cold War dictatorship of mao zedoung and trying to look like a more friendly country in order not to scare off investors or international support, I don't think they would take a japanese build up as an act of aggression after the korean incident.

Ahh, so this is your line of reasoning. Well, I doubt China would care very much about the Japanese arms buildup unless they start babbling about the co-prosperity sphere that justified their invasion in 1939. But the China now is very different from the China then, and can ruin Japan in the event of a Japanese invasion.

But that's besides the point. The main point is that if the US does invade China, things would not go well for Japan because it plays host to several large US bases which would surely act as staging points for the US.

To put it simply, it would be a very bad time to be a US regional ally if it starts war with China.

Sorry to interrupt your debates on the Japanese constitution on defensive/offensive weapons. Must I state that there are Japanese forces in Iraq right now, at this very point. They are aiding the American forces in Iraq battling against insurgency. You guys debating about Japan's defence-only army, when you know they are exactly like Canadian forces, except that Canada doesn't have a constitution stating their self defence only.

Sorry to interrupt your debates on the Japanese constitution on defensive/offensive weapons. Must I state that there are Japanese forces in Iraq right now, at this very point. They are aiding the American forces in Iraq battling against insurgency. You guys debating about Japan's defence-only army, when you know they are exactly like Canadian forces, except that Canada doesn't have a constitution stating their self defence only.

I remember engineering and support teams, which skirts the constitution ever so slightly, but nothing about combat troops.

Yes. This again. Who'd win a war (1 on 1)- China- or Old-School America? Just post opinion + reasons.

I vote US, out of arrogance and our nukes and technology

Who'd win? Defense contractors and reactionary politicians.

Who'd lose? Everyone else.

a cold nuclear stalemate.

I remember engineering and support teams, which skirts the constitution ever so slightly, but nothing about combat troops.
Precisely. The Australian troops were stationed there to protect the Japanese.

The Japanese commander insisted that his soldiers were quite capable of defending themselves, but the politicians called him back and said they were happy to have Australian bodyguards.

the heads of state and of certain industries, in both countries, would "win", and 99.999% of everyone else (also in BOTH countries) would loose.

that's the way it always goes, whatever pretentions to the countrary biased history books, mass media, or anyone else might try to tell us.

wars are fought by the many for the few,
and when the fighting's over,
the many still get screwed.

=^^=
.../\...

I remember engineering and support teams, which skirts the constitution ever so slightly, but nothing about combat troops.

No, actually they have a combat team in there, as well as with Canadian troops. But Canada is in because their in NATO.

Yeah, those soldiers are gonna be really happy to hear about your plan. What, with crossing the Himalayas with full gear and all. :rolleyes:

The Nathu La Pass, when open, is motorable. The mountain division of Indian army is pretty tough what with the experience of fighting and maintaining presence in Siachen and Kargil areas. Also the Stillwell road can be used to reach the soft underbelly of China thru Burma.

Not while Pakistan is there. India has it's own concerns, and that doesn't involve playing soldier for Washington.

True dat. Unless there is an attack by China first, India will be mouthing "non-alignment".

India has only 3 strike corps. One for the western border (Pak) and one for the eastern (China) and one in reserve. With Pakistan around - India needs at least 2 corps since a breakthrough by Pak at any point will be disaster since there would be no stopping them from rolling over across the plains of Punjab and Rajasthan into Delhi.

If an all out war breaks out between US and PRC and if Pak army sides with PRC then it means they will be attacked by the US which means they will retaliate against India (the same logic of Saddam scudding Israel cuz he can't bomb US). So potentially the 2 strike corps can invade Pak (assuming nukes are taken care of...either by the US pre-emptive strikes or by Indian). Interestingly the Indian army has developed a doctrine called "Cold Start" with integrated battle groups that can go to war in short notice - following the inability to force a military solution during Operation Parakram. Some units are also being NBC trained (Nuke ,Bio and Chem de-contamination). If that goes well (which never does since no war goes according to plan), then India may be able to free some troops to liberate Tibet through Nathu La and cut off the Uighurstan - Tibet link in Aksai Chin. The Navy can cut off all supplies to China thru the Malaccan Straights. That is probably the biggest card that India has against China, militarily. But then none of these would happen so :p

If war came to China via US, Japan might ever so politely take a neutral stance. And boot out the US soldiers stationed there.

Very, very unlikely.

Ok u got on the spelling thing , I rush throug things and if it werent fro spell check i'd be flunking english.

LOL (On a serious note, have you been checked for dyslexia?)

Now on the Japn ur wrong. Japn's Navy is much more powerful than the 20 years outdated Chinese military.

Japan certainly has the best Navy in Asia.

[QUOTE=Novus-America]Even though Prime Minister Abe is trying to do away with the 7th (I think) article,

Article 9 ;)

I doubt his abilty to garner national support, as the Japanese people still have a pacifistic tendency, and a strong anti-war attitude.

Bingo.

Sorry to interrupt your debates on the Japanese constitution on defensive/offensive weapons.

I am happy to see that this version (number 35,877, if I count correctly, ;)) of the Japanese military side bar debate has actually been rather well informed about the issue, comparitively speaking. I've seen it almost as bad as to be along the lines of "ZOMG! Nuh-uhh! Japan does not have a military!" :D

Must I state that there are Japanese forces in Iraq right now, at this very point.

Not anymore. The JIRSG completed it's withdrawal 7 months ago.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-06/2006-06-25-voa16.cfm?CFID=34234109&CFTOKEN=43755383

(However, note that JASDF aircraft continue to fly into Iraq.)

They are aiding the American forces in Iraq battling against insurgency. You guys debating about Japan's defence-only army, when you know they are exactly like Canadian forces, except that Canada doesn't have a constitution stating their self defence only.

1) They were a humanitarian reconstruction force, not a fighting force.
2) No, Japan's military isn't exactly like Canada's.
3) Japan's constitution officially states that no military forces at all were to be kept. However, they've been in material breech for more than 50 years via some smoke and mirrors and the ability to ignore such things.

I remember engineering and support teams, which skirts the constitution ever so slightly, but nothing about combat troops.

Primarily yes, about 550 total at any one time (there were nine different contengents over a 2 year period). But a small security element of about 50 was attatched.

IIRC, small units of the Japanese Special Operations Group, the Western Infantry Army Regiment, and the 1st Airborne Brigade made up the security element.

Precisely. The Australian troops were stationed there to protect the Japanese.

As well as some Brits.

The Japanese commander insisted that his soldiers were quite capable of defending themselves, but the politicians called him back and said they were happy to have Australian bodyguards.

I love Japanese domestic politics.

Japan needs to abolish Article 9. They don't have to go nuclear, but the JSDF has to be augmented into regular armed forces, capable of waging war. Elevating the Defense Minster to cabinet level was a good move, but more has to be done. Despite what any treaty says, if the shit hits the fan and it becomes a choice between defending the US or defending Japan, the Nipon's are on their own.

Japan needs to abolish Article 9.

Actually, I think a simple re-write would be in order, simply to bring the current situation from de facto legitimate into de jure legitimacy.

They don't have to go nuclear, but the JSDF has to be augmented into regular armed forces, capable of waging war.

Depends on exactly what you mean by that. They are already regular armed forces. If you meant beefed up a bit more, maybe.

Elevating the Defense Minster to cabinet level was a good move, but more has to be done. Despite what any treaty says, if the shit hits the fan and it becomes a choice between defending the US or defending Japan, the Nipon's are on their own.

Agreed.

Very, very unlikely.

Why is that? China would be foolhardy not to strike at staging bases for US forces within its reach if they're supplying the war effort against them.


Japan certainly has the best Navy in Asia.


Oh, no doubt about that. But he seems to think that it would outclass China's navy to the point of no contest. Which I very much doubt.


Not anymore. The JIRSG completed it's withdrawal 7 months ago.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-06/2006-06-25-voa16.cfm?CFID=34234109&CFTOKEN=43755383

(However, note that JASDF aircraft continue to fly into Iraq.)


What sort of aircraft? Transport? I don't think they're flying bombing missions.


Primarily yes, about 550 total at any one time (there were nine different contengents over a 2 year period). But a small security element of about 50 was attatched.

IIRC, small units of the Japanese Special Operations Group, the Western Infantry Army Regiment, and the 1st Airborne Brigade made up the security element.

Security is one thing. It'd be damn stupid to send in engineers into Iraq during this whole fiasco without some sort of security team to prevent kidnappings and random killings.

But if they were being sent to do things like oh, say, raids, combat operations, that'd be a different story.

Depends on exactly what you mean by that. They are already regular armed forces. If you meant beefed up a bit more, maybe.

According to one Japanese guy I know (who was raised in New Jersey, ironically), the JSDF is paid to clean up after traffic accidents (not literally). However, the has to be public support, which is what Abe needs to concentrate on. If he can garner that, then Japan will be okay.

Why is that? China would be foolhardy not to strike at staging bases for US forces within its reach if they're supplying the war effort against them.

Japan's government is too tightly knit with the US. And the US bases are significantly large, such that Japan couldn't possibly do what Crownheights had suggested and simply boot US forces out - at least within a time frame effective to prevent strikes by the PRC, if suck strikes were likely to happen. That would be a big move for the PRC and like almost everything here, would depend on the scenario and objectives of the war.

Also, Japan has pretty close ties with and a major trading stake in Taiwan, the most commonly considered flashpoint between the US and the PRC.

Oh, no doubt about that. But he seems to think that it would outclass China's navy to the point of no contest. Which I very much doubt.



What sort of aircraft? Transport?

That's correct. Mostly for humanitarian aid delivery.

I don't think they're flying bombing missions.

If they were, we'd both know it. ;)

Security is one thing. It'd be damn stupid to send in engineers into Iraq during this whole fiasco without some sort of security team to prevent kidnappings and random killings.

Exactly so.

But if they were being sent to do things like oh, say, raids, combat operations, that'd be a different story.

Indeed. That would have been rather bad for Koizumi.

According to one Japanese guy I know (who was raised in New Jersey, ironically), the JSDF is paid to clean up after traffic accidents (not literally). However, the has to be public support, which is what Abe needs to concentrate on. If he can garner that, then Japan will be okay.

Ah. Nope. Japan has a pretty significant military as it is - a 160,000 man army with 900 modern MBTs, a Naval fleet that is the most significant in Asia, and an airforce with 300 modern fighters and 100 other assorted combat aircraft.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/index.html
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200522521.asp

The underlying truth is that at this time, Japan is arguably the strongest power in East Asia – and it is at this point with one hand tied behind its back. Should Japan be pushed to the point where it feels it needs to use all the military power it is capable of generating, it could readily become a superpower in military terms. Its tradition is of a highly-trained, professional force that can be a fierce adversary (as it demonstrated during World War II) would be there, and this has long worried Japans neighbors.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005512213835.asp

The Nathu La Pass, when open, is motorable. The mountain division of Indian army is pretty tough what with the experience of fighting and maintaining presence in Siachen and Kargil areas.
Mountain wars tend to end in ugly stalemates, and to be honest, I don't think that's helped by the fact that both sides have a billion people to sacrifice.

So I'm just saying that I'm not envying the guys who have to reenact the battles in the Italian Alps of WWI.

Japan's government is too tightly knit with the US. And the US bases are significantly large, such that Japan couldn't possibly do what Crownheights had suggested and simply boot US forces out - at least within a time frame effective to prevent strikes by the PRC, if suck strikes were likely to happen. That would be a big move for the PRC and like almost everything here, would depend on the scenario and objectives of the war.

Maybe so, but there'd be buildup to a war with China in any event. Probably preceded by a lot of "we're coming to get you evil Chinese for reasons that were utterly made up" noise from the White House before the actual invasion.

Japan would have to have blind, deaf, dumb, and probably dead, leaders for them not to realize how much the shit is going to hit the fan if America decides to invade or militarily blockade China.

They might not immediately demand removal of the bases, but they're bound to use it as a stick against the US. If things seem like they won't change at all, they'd simply say "No way, your war, not ours. Go home"


Also, Japan has pretty close ties with and a major trading stake in Taiwan, the most commonly considered flashpoint between the US and the PRC.


Maybe so, but short of an actual invasion of Taiwan, and a subsequent risk of a Chinese expansion to their territory, Japan wouldn't have any interest in being a meatshield for the US.

It depends on who's doing the war drumming.

Daistallia 2104, your sources are correct that Japan has completed its withdrawal 7 months ago. But that is only the military police portion. If I still remember, a couple weeks ago a Chinese Hong Kong Newspaper Singtao stated that Japanese troops are still inhabited in Iraq, performin their U.S.-assigned duties, as well as coalition.

Daistallia 2104, your sources are correct that Japan has completed its withdrawal 7 months ago. But that is only the military police portion. If I still remember, a couple weeks ago a Chinese Hong Kong Newspaper Singtao stated that Japanese troops are still inhabited in Iraq, performin their U.S.-assigned duties, as well as coalition.

Hmmm... The only thing I can think of would be the JASDF's airlift mission I mentioned.

The MOD's website (http://www.mod.go.jp/e/index_.htm) and the JGSDF website (sorry, Japanese only http://www.mod.go.jp/jgsdf/), both list their mission as completed in July 2006.