NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Mistake then. I am wrong.

But in other words, Japan shouldn't be changing their textbooks about their aggression all over Asia, primarily China.

Mistake then. I am wrong.

No problem. :)

But in other words, Japan shouldn't be changing their textbooks about their aggression all over Asia, primarily China.

Err... What?

I think people overestimate China. I'm a Briton resident in the PRC and quite frankly I don't think their army is up to all that much.

Historically, what the hell has China ever achieved militarily? They even got whopped by about 10 nomads from Tibet on a regular basis 1000 years or so back. The Japanese totally massacred them.

Their army is basically a glorified Boy Scouts movement.

The Americans would twonk them.

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?


A point of clarification: The Chinese aren't really communist any more.

I think people overestimate China. I'm a Briton resident in the PRC and quite frankly I don't think their army is up to all that much.



Historically, what the hell has China ever achieved militarily?

Lots of things: Sun Tzu's Ping Fa (still a standard military text book 2500 years after being written), lots of tech advancements (crossbow, catapult, stirrup, rockets) almost all of which appeared in in China before Europe, Mao's revolutionary theories, etc., etc.

They even got whopped by about 10 nomads from Tibet on a regular basis 1000 years or so back.

That whopping went back and forth.

The Japanese totally massacred them.

Japan was never able to stabilise it's occupation attempt.

Their army is basically a glorified Boy Scouts movement.

Just plain wrong.

The Americans would twonk them.

I wish people would learn how to read. :(

A point of clarification: The Chinese aren't really communist any more.

However, the CCP still rules the roost.

A point of clarification: The Chinese aren't really communist any more.

A point of clarification: Socialism is a mix of capitalism and communism, a transition period from capitalism to communism. We just have to realize that given history and the application of socialism in varying ways, the Chinese transition maybe less linear and easy to track.

I think people overestimate China. I'm a Briton resident in the PRC and quite frankly I don't think their army is up to all that much.

Historically, what the hell has China ever achieved militarily? They even got whopped by about 10 nomads from Tibet on a regular basis 1000 years or so back. The Japanese totally massacred them.

Their army is basically a glorified Boy Scouts movement.

You are going to the other extreme of underestimating China. If you disregard morals, ethics and such warm and fuzzy things and look at it purely from a nationalist-militarist angle - the policies and strategies that the Chinese have taken since 1950 is quite effective. They conquered Tibet and Uighurstan promptly- nearly tripling the size and getting themselves vast buffer lands with India and Russia. They invaded India and conquered Aksai Chin - to connect Tibet to Uighurstan. They are the only major power to have been at war with *both* the US and USSR both when they did not have ICBM based MAD deterrent and got away with no damage. They have successfully created strangleholds for other nations by proliferating to their proxies. The CCP has been quite pragmatic albeit ruthless and hegemonic (apart from Taiwan where they have painted themselves into a corner by making it a definitive national ideology issue).

Err... What?

I think he's referring to that recent adoption of revised history textbooks which more or less portrays Japan's actions as a saint in WWII.

I think he's referring to that recent adoption of revised history textbooks which more or less portrays Japan's actions as a saint in WWII.

The thing is that there really haven't been any big changes. And I still don't see the connection to withdrawal of the GSDF.

A point of clarification: Socialism is a mix of capitalism and communism, a transition period from capitalism to communism. We just have to realize that given history and the application of socialism in varying ways, the Chinese transition maybe less linear and easy to track.
Oh, come on. That's just their excuse.

A point of clarification: Socialism is a mix of capitalism and communism, a transition period from capitalism to communism. We just have to realize that given history and the application of socialism in varying ways, the Chinese transition maybe less linear and easy to track.

False. Socialism isn't a mix of communism and capitalism. If they were, then why is the USSR still so damn poor, or should I say Russia? Socialism is Communism in Europe. Communism is the Asian way to say it.

It's not a blend between governments.

The thing is that there really haven't been any big changes. And I still don't see the connection to withdrawal of the GSDF.

If no such big change, why is there so many Asian countries going blitz about it at the time they did that?

It's not a blend between governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

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

So where does it say socialism?

So where does it say socialism?
Have you ever had the chance to read anything by or about Marx?

The idea is that capitalism is an unstable form of society, which eventually will be overthrown by the working classes. For a while these workers will run the country, and abolish private property, money and so on. That stage is called socialism. Following that eventually there will be so much stuff produced and there will be no artificial scarcities, so the need for a government disappears and it will dissolve, leaving behind a world in which everyone has enough stuff, works as much as he wants and there is no more coercion in the world.

That's the theory. Unfortunately it wasn't quite thought through.

There have been several comments on the U.S. not having the political will to fight an extended ground campaign in China.

I'm going to turn this one around.

Due to the One-Child policy, there is a significant percentage of only-child males in China. Where does the popular support in China come from when family lines are ending because the only child has been killed?

Despite the Chinese authoritarian government, the cultural background leads me to believe that China, too, has no political will for a significant war, due to current demographics leading to the likelihood of the loss of popular support.

In the hypothetical scenario of this topic, it probably wouldn't matter, but in RL, I believe China is very similar to the U.S. in terms of not having the political will to absorb casualties, especially if China is engaged in a war of aggression instead of defending itself.

...anyone else care to comment?

There have been several comments on the U.S. not having the political will to fight an extended ground campaign in China.

I'm going to turn this one around.

Due to the One-Child policy, there is a significant percentage of only-child males in China. Where does the popular support in China come from when family lines are ending because the only child has been killed?

Despite the Chinese authoritarian government, the cultural background leads me to believe that China, too, has no political will for a significant war, due to current demographics leading to the likelihood of the loss of popular support.

In the hypothetical scenario of this topic, it probably wouldn't matter, but in RL, I believe China is very similar to the U.S. in terms of not having the political will to absorb casualties, especially if China is engaged in a war of aggression instead of defending itself.

...anyone else care to comment?


Interesting, but the PRC could still handle 10x the amount of casualties the US could, bassically because the US has made themselves soft. We don't have the stomach for war for far more reasons than family. And if the PRC is on the defensive on Chinese soil, then the families would take their anger out on the opposing force that killed their son, rather than the state. If on offensive its seen that the state sent him to that far away land to die, not put him in a real defense of his nation. This is also the authoritarian aspect where the will of the people wont matter to the government.

There have been several comments on the U.S. not having the political will to fight an extended ground campaign in China.

I'm going to turn this one around.

Due to the One-Child policy, there is a significant percentage of only-child males in China. Where does the popular support in China come from when family lines are ending because the only child has been killed?

Despite the Chinese authoritarian government, the cultural background leads me to believe that China, too, has no political will for a significant war, due to current demographics leading to the likelihood of the loss of popular support.

In the hypothetical scenario of this topic, it probably wouldn't matter, but in RL, I believe China is very similar to the U.S. in terms of not having the political will to absorb casualties, especially if China is engaged in a war of aggression instead of defending itself.

...anyone else care to comment?

That's making an assumption that Chinese parents wouldn't want revenge instead.... On the other hand, the Chinese government can't control their population nearly as well as the big cities make them seem like.

But technology stands at the American side. Other than outright Nuclear war, which no one sane could contemplate, China has no means of actually, directly, attacking America. On the other hand, America could level Chinese cities with really minimal loses. China has a large but near useless air force that simply won't be able to defend their territory.

I mean, Taiwan is just off their shore and has about 300 or so decent planes (F-16.....). China can't take that on yet.

I think so far the F-22 has lost one plane to F-16/15/sth?

If no such big change, why is there so many Asian countries going blitz about it at the time they did that?

Like I said above - err... what?

Please let me know what changes you're on about.

That's making an assumption that Chinese parents wouldn't want revenge instead.... On the other hand, the Chinese government can't control their population nearly as well as the big cities make them seem like.

But technology stands at the American side. Other than outright Nuclear war, which no one sane could contemplate, China has no means of actually, directly, attacking America. On the other hand, America could level Chinese cities with really minimal loses. China has a large but near useless air force that simply won't be able to defend their territory.

I mean, Taiwan is just off their shore and has about 300 or so decent planes (F-16.....). China can't take that on yet.

I think so far the F-22 has lost one plane to F-16/15/sth?

Hm, you have alot to learn. I think you need to check your sources.

First, America has technology only in its military. If you were to compare China's civilian technology with America's, America would be losing. Second, China can take on Taiwan's Airforce. They have a large airforce, and during modernization, now is capable in overpowering the Taiwanese airforce. Third, it doesn't matter what kind of fighter/bomber jet. Maybe there's a side with an advantage point, but it really depends on how good the pilot is.

China is receiving Su-30's and Su-27's, multirole fighters. A Su-27, proven to outperform a F-15, and China's first fighter jet to compete with Western powers. Russia gave China a license to domestically produce the Su-27, and they called it the J-11. Since then, China has been mass producing the J-11 and producing newer fighters such as the J-12 and J-13. As well as the new research on its fifth generation J-XX.

Due to the One-Child policy, there is a significant percentage of only-child males in China. Where does the popular support in China come from when family lines are ending because the only child has been killed?
First of all, they are Asians. Much more loyal.
Second, I think China will lift that policy well before preparing to take the war. And, once they lift it, expect expansion.


I mean, Taiwan is just off their shore and has about 300 or so decent planes (F-16.....). China can't take that on yet.
Mainland China will simply obliterate Taiwan if a war breaks out. Infrastructure plus numbers. Combined arms.

Plus the warring China won't be modern China. They have a lot of reserves - it just takes to start militarizing.

Hm, you have alot to learn. I think you need to check your sources.

First, America has technology only in its military. If you were to compare China's civilian technology with America's, America would be losing. Second, China can take on Taiwan's Airforce. They have a large airforce, and during modernization, now is capable in overpowering the Taiwanese airforce. Third, it doesn't matter what kind of fighter/bomber jet. Maybe there's a side with an advantage point, but it really depends on how good the pilot is.

China is receiving Su-30's and Su-27's, multirole fighters. A Su-27, proven to outperform a F-15, and China's first fighter jet to compete with Western powers. Russia gave China a license to domestically produce the Su-27, and they called it the J-11. Since then, China has been mass producing the J-11 and producing newer fighters such as the J-12 and J-13. As well as the new research on its fifth generation J-XX.


i think YOU need to check up on your sources. america has technology only in the military? that can only be said if you haven't bothered to look at any other aspects at all. your second point is true, but only because the air arm of their military has modernized part of itself and still has numerical superiority. they don't have any technological advantage....just parity. and for your information, it matters VERY much what kind of fighter or bomber it is...being the best pilot in the world doesn't mean jack when you are destroyed before realizing the enemy is there....or before you even take off.

their are in existence su's capable of outperforming an f-15, but the 27 isn't one of them. in addition to the vastly larger force of that quality of aircraft in the hands of the US, there is the f-22 which china cannot match.

First of all, if we take original F-15 vs. Su-27, it is. If we take upgraded, take Su-27M, or even Su-35, or Su-30MKI.

Second, compare system vs. system, not component vs. component. Continental system is not the same as a guest battlegroup - in particular, ground radars seriously reduce stealth advantage.

If we take upgraded, take Su-27M, or even Su-35, or Su-30MKI.
Which China doesn't have access to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Air_Force#Aircraft_inventory

Look, in 15 years or so I think the PLAAF will be able to put up a serious fight. The F-22 and F-35 of the USAF will still be superior, but the Chinese will by then have mostly 4th generation fighters like the J-10, and maybe the J-XX will be ready too.

At the moment there just aren't enough of these advanced jets in service. And regardless of training or system, Mig-21 derivatives are ultimately gonna lost out in a battle like this. Even the Su-30s they have at the moment are gonna be worn down after a while.

Of course, today they lack these. Still, Su-30MKK is quite good.

F-35 is a striker, not ADF. And F-22 requires airfields. That is quite a factor.

The system isn't just about where the jet engine is located or what shape the airframe has. The system includes radars and SAM - including ones specifically designed against stealth aircraft. They are not yet in China, but they will be once they start to prepare to war. China has the financial power to get them, and has the industrial power for cooperative mass production.
Advantages of stealth are retained, but they don't give such superiority in system vs. system fight as can be displayed in component vs. component (over a huge empty desert).

F-35 is a striker, not ADF.
I think the beauty of the thing is its versatility. I'm not a fan of the F-22, I think the sheer cost of it is just silly, but the F-35 I quite like.

And F-22 requires airfields. That is quite a factor.
Well, those would be in South Korea and Japan, plus maybe in the Philippines. And in Central Asia as well.

Yes, there will be airfields, but all airfields are vulnerable. And, also, a country has to be convinced to offer them first. It's one thing when everyone goes to pwn the defenseless Iraq, completely another when the enemy could blast you apart if he wanted so - and has available forces to do it.

I've not read every page and every post but of the few that I have read the one thing that everyone has missed (I think) is this fact. In the modern age that we are in lines run deep globally. It would depend who moved on who first and the ultimate outcome would be as follows. If China were the aggressor America would not stand alone. The other fear is that if China moved you can rest assured they would not be alone.

Force to force I "believe" we can out battle them in the air and naval bombardments. The areas would be pulverised from the air long before regular US troops ever set foot on their soil. Now I "feel" the biggest asset that we have over them is that we are more than capable of taking the war to them and punching through any defenses they may have navally. Once our fleets are within range and the carrier groups are there all that will be left for China is plannng their guerilla war. There is no way a Chinese navy could reach our waters with enough of its force in tact to ever pose a risk to us. Not to mention we have fleets in the water and twice as many in moth balls. The older vessels could be revamped and fitted for coastal defenses.

Could we conquer them wholesale and claim the territory.. Plain and simple. Never. Their culture would never succum to a forein power on their sovereign soil anymore than we could be over taken. Could we wipe them off the map conventionally. I believe so. However.... The one failing of China could be the youth who would/may want a end to communist life.


Speaking on Nuclear war... If China launched first the Allied powers would wipe them off the map. I do not feel that a "First Strike" by anyone would be tollerated in this day and age. If we launched first even if we survived the retaliations the UN and world as a whole would turn on us and turn its backs on us. The US would be rendered as powerless as the USSR was when it fell apart. Then we would be left for the pickings of whoever had most cause to overtake and replace our government & Military much as we are attempting to do in Iraq. We can't fight the whole planet.

Anyway that was my long winded 2 cents. I look forward to rebuttals.

First of all, we here aren't discussing China invading US. They have neither ability, nor, actually, need to do so.

We're about US invading China. Here the long-range air strikes would have to face interception and heavy AA defenses; just long-range strikes are simply not enough to hurt China unless supported by carrier battlegroups and other forces. So, no, the war would have to be all-out: Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, all at once. Navy is needed to approach China at all. Army is needed to defend airfields.

And there are defenses. Navy would have to face mines, submarines and AShM - particular threat to logistics. Army just would have to be constantly defended by Navy and AF against much more powerful PLA. AF would constantly have to deal with air defenses. I believe PLAAF, being weaker in any case, would pull back behind AA and just distance, striking at bombers, or joining in particularly hard cases.
In general, Chinese defenses could turn it into a war of attrition, and here it is attrition of the local expeditionary forces, with constantly endangered supply lines, against the entire China.

Also, the effect of conventional weapons and airstrikes shouldn't be overestimated. US bombed incomparably smaller and defenseless countries, bombed them for a long time - and it still didn't solve the war. Just not enough power to speak about breaking the army's spine, let alone "wiping out". The wars had to be fought with the land forces, and not too fast. It took two months to beat Iraq, and China is tens of times stronger.


[ BTW, Tactical nuclear weapons also shouldn't be discounted. US doesn't want to lose all the major cities, and so would have to follow the no-first-strike policy even if China uses tactical weapons to their defense. This would let US to do the same, though, but it takes much less to wipe out a fleet rather than a country's dispersed military (tactical use is anti-military, not anti-civilian). ]


So it's not about USA vs PRC, but more about US power projection vs. Chinese defense.