NationStates Jolt Archive

Just to make it clear, I'm not advising or supporting any kind of warfare against China or its people.

But recently in my economics class, one of my friends jokingly asked "Why don't any major countries just wage war on China, and stop it from crippling the world economy?" Obviously this goes against all human rights, but our teacher replied, "Because we'd probably lose. Even America."

What do you think. Do you think that even though China is still a developing country it could hold out in the long run with its economic and population advantage?

China is going to cripple the global economy :confused:

Um, it has the largest standing army in the world. I'm pretty sure it can do reasonably well in a war.

During the Korean War 6 million chinese infantry crossed the border bewteen China and North Korea under fire from British, French, and American machine gunners, for two hours. In that time almost 300,000 of them were killed or wounded.
We might as well just nuke ourselves, it would be a faster means to the same ends.

During the Korean War 6 million chinese infantry crossed the border bewteen China and North Korea under fire from British, French, and American machine gunners, for two hours. In that time almost 300,000 of them were killed or wounded.
We might as well just nuke ourselves, it would be a faster means to the same ends.

But forget infantry, what if we just sent over all our nukes at places of specific economic and military importance (not influenced by 9/11 in any way :rolleyes:)?
Would that not be enough? Plus we'd also sanction all exports from them.

But forget infantry, what if we just sent over all our nukes at places of specific economic and military importance (not influenced by 9/11 in any way :rolleyes:)?
Would that not be enough? Plus we'd also sanction all exports from them.

And cripple our own economy in the process...

economics of going to war with them is too much

You cant beat China. Not only it has a extremely huge population, but the have an extremely old culture, and as a unified country, they have been around for at least 23 centuries.

Can you imagine ocupiing it? If the US is having trouble in Iraq, imagine that times 1 billion people.

What you could do is totaly destroy their infraestructure, but I wager you would need to use every single bomb (minus the atomic) mankid has avaiable to do that.

But forget infantry, what if we just sent over all our nukes at places of specific economic and military importance (not influenced by 9/11 in any way :rolleyes:)?
Would that not be enough? Plus we'd also sanction all exports from them.

Why would you need to impose sanctions on a country you've nuked into a crater?

China has nukes. China will retaliate and do likewise to the USA. Hint: Nuclear war is bad. BAD.

But forget infantry, what if we just sent over all our nukes at places of specific economic and military importance (not influenced by 9/11 in any way :rolleyes:)?
Would that not be enough? Plus we'd also sanction all exports from them.

so you like to live in a nuclear winter

so you like to live in a nuclear winter

Well no one is going to do this. The political consequences will be just as devastating as the environmental. But would you agree that after that kind of attack they'd probably be pretty screwed?

But forget infantry, what if we just sent over all our nukes at places of specific economic and military importance (not influenced by 9/11 in any way :rolleyes:)?
Would that not be enough? Plus we'd also sanction all exports from them.

China has some nuclear weapons, although I'm not sure what kind of delivery mechanism they employ. Russia would probably retaliate on China's behalf, and the nuclear winter which followed would make the potential 'crippling'' of the world economy by China look trivial.

clearly no one's as happy as I am about a nuclear war...

clearly no one's as happy as I am about a nuclear war...

PS - sarcastic

Well no one is going to do this. The political consequences will be just as devastating as the environmental. But would you agree that after that kind of attack they'd probably be pretty screwed?

As would the country launching the nukes. As would most of the world.

Well no one is going to do this. The political consequences will be just as devastating as the environmental. But would you agree that after that kind of attack they'd probably be pretty screwed?

If any country nukes another, we are all screwed. If American nuked China, then China would nuke America right back, and Russia would probably nuke America too, then what's left of America would nuke Russia. By the end of the day everything on the planet will be dead or dying.

Well no one is going to do this. The political consequences will be just as devastating as the environmental. But would you agree that after that kind of attack they'd probably be pretty screwed?

no i don't

I'm sure the USA could drop some nukes over China under the radar and turn it into glass before China had time to make a counter attack.

Yeah.. I'm in the US Army... and China is the only country I'm afraid of. I would have to slap the shit out of whoever sent me there.:sniper:

If any country nukes another, we are all screwed. If American nuked China, then China would nuke America right back, and Russia would probably nuke America too, then what's left of America would nuke Russia. By the end of the day everything on the planet will be dead or dying.

Maybe not Australia... they'd just be like WTF? (www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php)

Maybe not Australia... they'd just be like WTF? (www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php)

you never watch the movie "on the beach"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053137/

But recently in my economics class, one of my friends jokingly asked "Why don't any major countries just wage war on China, and stop it from crippling the world economy?"

In way way is it crippling the world economy?

Obviously this goes against all human rights, but our teacher replied, "Because we'd probably lose. Even America."

Not a given. See below.

What do you think.

1) Whether China can be beaten depends on the goals. If the goal is to deter certain actions, this can probably be done. If the goal is to destroy the country regardless of the consequences, this can be done very easily. If the goal is to occupy China, that's a no. If the goal is to render the country non-functional while keeping the rest of the world safe, this can be done, but would be tricky.

Do you think that even though China is still a developing country it could hold out in the long run with its economic and population advantage?

They have a big population, but they have many flaws economically. They are racing against several ticking timebombs.

You cant beat China.

Depends on how you define the goal.

Not only it has a extremely huge population, but the have an extremely old culture,

The large population makes it difficult, or yes even near impossible, if yourt goal is to occupy China.

and as a unified country, they have been around for at least 23 centuries.

Err. No. China has been divided several times. They way things are headed now, they may well be divided again before the end of the century.

Can you imagine ocupiing it? If the US is having trouble in Iraq, imagine that times 1 billion people.

The basic number for a sucessful occupying force of a defeated nation is 5%. That says it all.

What you could do is totaly destroy their infraestructure, but I wager you would need to use every single bomb (minus the atomic) mankid has avaiable to do that.

That would depend on the circumstances and how much "collateral damage" would be acceptable.

so you like to live in a nuclear winter

Depends on the extend of the war.

Well no one is going to do this. The political consequences will be just as devastating as the environmental. But would you agree that after that kind of attack they'd probably be pretty screwed?

Depends on the circumstances.

China has some nuclear weapons, although I'm not sure what kind of delivery mechanism they employ.

Current inventory:
1 old boomer w/ 12 SLBMs
20-30 old liquid fueled ICBMs

Russia would probably retaliate on China's behalf

Possibly yes, possibly no. Again, it depends on the circumstances.

I'm sure the USA could drop some nukes over China under the radar and turn it into glass before China had time to make a counter attack.

China's an awfully big country. Even if Russia didn't get involved, the number of nuclear weapons needed to neutralise China would be enough to trigger nuclear winter on their own. Besides, the Chinese nuclear weapons are almost certainly located in underground bunkers, specifically designed to withstand a nuclear attack; they also have nuclear submarines.

Honestly, has no-one watched Dr Strangelove? You can't win a nuclear war!

Depends on the extend of the war

ever one who has nukes i bet will fire them off

If any country nukes another, we are all screwed. If American nuked China, then China would nuke America right back, and Russia would probably nuke America too, then what's left of America would nuke Russia. By the end of the day everything on the planet will be dead or dying.

Not necessarily so.

I'm sure the USA could drop some nukes over China under the radar and turn it into glass before China had time to make a counter attack.

It's a bit more compolicated than that.

The ICBMs could probably be hit first, but the boomer is dicier. And it'd need to be hit before the ICBMs but in a predicatble enough time frame for a quick follow on against the ICBMs.

Yeah.. I'm in the US Army... and China is the only country I'm afraid of. I would have to slap the shit out of whoever sent me there.:sniper:

China is pretty bad. But there are other countries that may be worse... Imagine being sent to Russia...

ever one who has nukes i bet will fire them off

Doubtful, at best, even if one assumes that not all the players are rational actors.

China is pretty bad. But there are other countries that may be worse... Imagine being sent to Russia...

Yeah. I have to many friends in the Military... I would not want them to be sent off to China.

Yeah. I have to many friends in the Military... I would not want them to be sent off to China.

Agreed. You know, I wouldn't want them to be sent anywhere really... My stepdad is in the Air Force, he just got sent to Iraq on Friday.

Agreed. You know, I wouldn't want them to be sent anywhere really... My stepdad is in the Air Force, he just got sent to Iraq on Friday.

everyone needs to get the fuck out of iraq

I'm not one to normally join in these conversations but I think I shall for this one.

I'm not going to pretend to come across as understanding of world politics but from the little I have gathered China as an entity consists of one person in five of the entire world population.

It seems being big is the way forward so I thought let us examine who the 'bigs' are.

China.

India.

Nato and whatever this entails. This is a vague concept. America is the big player, but the European Union - although bigger in terms of population and GDP is a much more toothless tiger (and I speak as a supposed EU citizen)

The Muslim world - 22 or so countries and about 900 million people.

Russia.

I do not know what to make of South America or Africa, but have included in my view that Australasia is with Nato and Japan, possibly with Nato - but then again, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I see World War 1 - but with much 'bigger sides'

The only way to defeat China - and this is a worst case scenario, is if the whole of Nato and the EU were to be involved AND if Russia and China came into dispute or if China became very Muslim unfriendly and annoyed the 22 or so countries, or likewise if China and India came into dispute.

Anyway - if that happened - I would be living under a rock and selling rocks to fellow homeless.

China is pretty bad. But there are other countries that may be worse... Imagine being sent to Russia...

Like these poor bastards

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

You cant beat China. Not only it has a extremely huge population, but the have an extremely old culture, and as a unified country, they have been around for at least 23 centuries.

Not with its present geography. Tibet and Uighurstan were largely autonomous for most part of history.

Our firepower has drastically improved.

Theirs hasn't.

I doubt that their guns haven't improved at all. Their sense of humour on the other hand...

Not with its present geography. Tibet and Uighurstan were largely autonomous for most part of history.

And China's history was hardly unified; it was split in to dozens of dynasties and kingdoms throughout its history.

During the Korean War 6 million chinese infantry crossed the border bewteen China and North Korea under fire from British, French, and American machine gunners, for two hours. In that time almost 300,000 of them were killed or wounded.
We might as well just nuke ourselves, it would be a faster means to the same ends.

Our firepower has drastically improved.

Theirs hasn't.

Our firepower has drastically improved.

Theirs hasn't.

They don't need firepower, they've got over one trillion US dollars in their reserves. If they put that on the market, they could crash the dollar's value overnight. Goodbye US economy.

They don't need firepower, they've got over one trillion US dollars in their reserves. If they put that on the market, they could crash the dollar's value overnight. Goodbye US economy.

That would be the funniest thing to ever happen in our time. People will forever remember it as the day that Wall Street got the middle finger, again!

China has nukes. China will retaliate and do likewise to the USA. Hint: Nuclear war is bad. BAD.

Not really, their delivery system is about effective as black power rifles.

They don't need firepower, they've got over one trillion US dollars in their reserves. If they put that on the market, they could crash the dollar's value overnight. Goodbye US economy.

I don't do this, uh, ever, but could you provide a link with that information please?

A great way to screw a lot of people over.

Which results in the West and the US abandoning China. Goodbye Chinese economy.

We can play that game too.

And that's why traditional war makes no sense in a globalized world.

what a weird suggestion

first of all you dont nuke a country because it makes cheap shit to sell in walmart. its bad for business.

secondly, china is set to self destruct in a generation (something to do with demographics) so why rush to destroy what will fall on its own?

thirdly, china isnt the first country to get into the big boy league by starting with crap. if they dont self destruct with population problems, they will grow up and stop with the bad business practices.

fourthly, we cant handle the wars we have now that are with small poorly managed countries, we shouldnt pick one with a highly organized superpower.

They don't need firepower, they've got over one trillion US dollars in their reserves. If they put that on the market, they could crash the dollar's value overnight. Goodbye US economy.

Which results in the West and the US abandoning China. Goodbye Chinese economy.

We can play that game too.

Basically, I think it would work like this-

For whatever reason, China declares war on US, likely because something over India, over the Kashmir area or something.

China and India start duking it out, with million man armies wasting away in only a few days, India will likely get support from America, but likely in the role of support and air power, for most of the war, India and China will have a recreation of WWI.

Taiwan will likely become hell as Chinese rockets fall in the area; China will try and establish naval supremacy, but unless a lot of things go horribly wrong, with a lot of luck in favor of China, the US will send their naval power down to the bottom.

Pakistan may get involved, but likely not, as invading now will just get the ire of America and the EU; who is now taking turns between screaming and crying.

I dunno how South Korea will turn out, if China does do a big push, Japan will re-act rather unfavorably, and with America already in the war, it'll be more than happy to escalate the conflict by letting Japan's Constitutional Constraints go. So Japan will start helping out-

If Japan enters, it'll be pretty much downhill from there, for China that is. A economy that is largely dependent on the American consumer should've thought harder about declaring war on the same consumer; add a new country eager to flex its military might as well as have fun doing the national pastime, raping China, and you got bad news. Yes, the EU may start buying more things, but likely they'll just embargo everybody, so China starts to get strapped for cash.

So, maybe by the 5th year or so, we considerable social unrest in China, maybe in India as well. By the end of the year, likely some peace agreement will be had, and then back to the status quo, just with several hundred million dollars worth of contracts out of China and in India.

Bottom line; draw, yet China will leave a lot more drained and spent then America.

Best case scenario; Chinese politerbro doesn't accept that they are losing, social elements get out of control and China disintegrates, or looks a lot like modern day Russia; wasted.

Worst case scenario; China gets control of Taiwan and maybe gets some concessions from India, maybe.

So you see, it is a lose-lose-double lose situation for China. America will be fighting in Chinese streets, near Chinese interests, not vice versa. The force projection capabilities are just too much for China to honestly think she can come out a un-conditional victor. So I don't know where your teacher got the whole 'America loses' thing; maybe she's gotten so used to 'America wins un-conditionally' that she doesn't know what to think of a marginal victory?

They don't need firepower, they've got over one trillion US dollars in their reserves. If they put that on the market, they could crash the dollar's value overnight. Goodbye US economy.

LOL, you must be a European or something; we can raise interest rates as we see fit, so sorry to disappoint, our economy won't crash. Instead, merely, the dollar will lose enough value that it starts having the same value as the Yuan, which then cuts into all the margins of Chinese companies. Which then means America's economy bounces back as we start to look for our own shores for employess and Chinese economy crashes as they have A: lost all their monetary reserves and B: there isn't anymore American money around.

China's an awfully big country. Even if Russia didn't get involved, the number of nuclear weapons needed to neutralise China would be enough to trigger nuclear winter on their own. Besides, the Chinese nuclear weapons are almost certainly located in underground bunkers, specifically designed to withstand a nuclear attack; they also have nuclear submarines.

Honestly, has no-one watched Dr Strangelove? You can't win a nuclear war!

Well... if the war would break out NOW, it is propable the Chinese alone would loose. If the war'd break out in one or two decades, things'd look different.

Besides, US nukes are in bunkers as well. And they soviets were, too. That is what the Minuteman was designed for.

Unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan, one wouldn't expect that level of insurgent attacks & acts of terrorism to counter an invasion in China. So we shouldn't really be counting how many nukes the country's territory could absorb until it's sterilized. For a comparaby well organized country like China, destroying major economic and strategic centers would be enough to level the advantage they get from their population. I think it is highly likely large parts of the country would break away from the main nation if their command structure is plunged into disarray.


They don't need firepower, they've got over one trillion US dollars in their reserves. If they put that on the market, they could crash the dollar's value overnight. Goodbye US economy.

Well... this is a good method of keeping the US from even thinking to start a war. But once a war has already started, economic factors become utterly meaningless in the short term (were the short term is the time the military can run on the resources under its command. After that point is reached, it becomes increasingly difficult). During this "short term", the military power of the USA would still be sufficient to destroy relevant parts of China. However, after the end of the war, both countries would likely suffer similar economic consequences.


You cant beat China. Not only it has a extremely huge population, but the have an extremely old culture, and as a unified country, they have been around for at least 23 centuries.


Aye. Has being around for 50 centuries saved the ancient superpower of Egypt from being overrun by Alexander the Great, then the Romans and then the Turks?

I don't do this, uh, ever, but could you provide a link with that information please?

Yep. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6106280.stm)

Which results in the West and the US abandoning China. Goodbye Chinese economy.

We can play that game too.

Abandoning China? The US wouldn't be able to afford to buy much from China anyway after that kind of devaluation.

LOL, you must be a European or something; we can raise interest rates as we see fit,

WTF? Don't you think we have interest rates in Europe? :confused:

Abandoning China? The US wouldn't be able to afford to buy much from China anyway after that kind of devaluation.

So China hurts America but in the process kills herself, greater.

WTF? Don't you think we have interest rates in Europe? :confused:

Nah, it's just that we don't to confer with anyone, we're just like, 'Bernake, (or whoever it is) raise 'em high.' End story. From what I know, it is a lot more red tape-ish, with all the countries having to get together andconfer before any action can be taken.

Of course, I'm just explaining what you know...

Nah, it's just that we don't to confer with anyone, we're just like, 'Bernake, (or whoever it is) raise 'em high.' End story. From what I know, it is a lot more red tape-ish, with all the countries having to get together andconfer before any action can be taken.

Of course, I'm just explaining what you know...

Are you talking about Europe or the Euro specifically?

Are you talking about Europe or the Euro specifically?

Is there any differance now?

The Euro-

Is there any differance now?

The Euro-

There's a very big difference. Not every European nation uses the euro

There's a very big difference. Not every European nation uses the euro

Ah, your right, the only countries in Europe that use it are 'merely' Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, and The Vatican City.

In other words, the only countries worth anything that haven't are Norway and GB (Sorry Denmark, Switzerland, you're above all this).

Ah, your right, the only countries in Europe that use it are 'merely' Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, and The Vatican City.

Which are not all of the countries in Europe am I right? Admit your mistake and move on rather than trying to pretend it is a perfectly acceptable one to use

Want to guess how many EU (which isn't Europe btw) member states use the Euro compared to those who don't?

At present its a nice 14:13 split (granted it won't stay that way for long)

so you like to live in a nuclear winter
Hmmm... Global warming + nuclear winter = :)

They don't need firepower, they've got over one trillion US dollars in their reserves. If they put that on the market, they could crash the dollar's value overnight. Goodbye US economy.

If you loan me $100, it is my burden.

If you loan me $10,000,000, it is your burden.

There is no gold standard for USD. It is just a piece of paper. If dollar crashes, US can go back to protectionist trade policies and bring up factories in no time while the money value that China will lose is forever.

China by tying Yuan to USD and betting on an export driven growth model cannot do much about it until they can grow their domestic market to replace the export market. And that is more than a good decade away.

Hmmm... Global warming + nuclear winter = :)

problem solved :)

finally Al Gore has his answer; all we have to do is start a nuclear war.

problem solved :)

finally Al Gore has his answer; all we have to do is start a nuclear war.

... and a happily ever after in a radiated desert a few hundred years after that.

BRING YOUR BOTTLE CAPS!

Why are we mad at China again?

I quite like to have affordable stuff to buy, thank you very much. They win, I win, everyone wins. And the few that don't, well they win in the long term too.

Why are we mad at China again?

I quite like to have affordable stuff to buy, thank you very much. They win, I win, everyone wins. And the few that don't, well they win in the long term too.

child labour? using child labour to undercut world manufacturing costs? using child labour to cause mass structural unemployment through the manufacturing industries of many economies. Destroying the planet by building insane amounts of coal energy plants?

child labour? using child labour to undercut world manufacturing costs? using child labour to cause mass structural unemployment through the manufacturing industries of many economies. Destroying the planet by building insane amounts of coal energy plants?

Oh, but we still get stuff for cheap!!! Isn't that great?! Cheap shit we don't need or the fate of the planet? :rolleyes:

child labour? using child labour to undercut world manufacturing costs?
And child labour is legal where? Hell, child labour isn't even used very widely in China. You're thinking of India.

Actually, even human labour isn't as big a factor as you think. China is losing more manufacturing jobs to automatisation than it is gaining through trade and development.

using child labour to cause mass structural unemployment through the manufacturing industries of many economies.
Lol. Are you going to blame Henry Ford for causing mass structural unemployment in the horse and carriage industries too?

Destroying the planet by building insane amounts of coal energy plants?
That's the one thing where you have a point. And yet, you can't actually argue that they shouldn't do it in a morally consistent way. Fact of the matter is that there is no other way to feed the energy needs of a population of that size developing. Nuclear power stations are being built too but are more expensive and take longer to construct, and renewable energies just aren't efficient enough (though the 3 Gorges Dam and their various "Green City" projects show at least some level of commitment).

So unless you can come up with a better way of solving their problem (that doesn't yell hypocrisy by not allowing them precisely the things we did to develop), communicate it to them and then have them reject it, maybe you shouldn't be criticising quite as much.

If it's just the US vs China, then technically the US would win, but it'd be a long, drawn-out pyrrhic victory that ends with nukes fired at every major US city.

If we have other nations (such as the UK) supporting us but they don't, it'll be a quicker victory, but nukes will still wreak havoc on our cities.

If they have other nations but we don't, it'll be a long, drawn-out war that either (1) ends in a stalemate with no results, (2) turns nuclear, causing unrivaled horror on both sides, or (3) comes to a pyrrhic victory where either side could win (depending on how strong their allies are), but ultimately ends with nuclear devastation.

If we both have allies, any of the three above could happen depending on the strength and number of allies.

In any case, the best result is a long, drawn-out war with many needless deaths and no positive results.

If it's just the US vs China, then technically the US would win, but it'd be a long, drawn-out pyrrhic victory that ends with nukes fired at every major US city.

If we have other nations (such as the UK) supporting us but they don't, it'll be a quicker victory, but nukes will still wreak havoc on our cities.

If they have other nations but we don't, it'll be a long, drawn-out war that either (1) ends in a stalemate with no results, (2) turns nuclear, causing unrivaled horror on both sides, or (3) comes to a pyrrhic victory where either side could win (depending on how strong their allies are), but ultimately ends with nuclear devastation.

If we both have allies, any of the three above could happen depending on the strength and number of allies.

In any case, the best result is a long, drawn-out war with many needless deaths and no positive results.

I seriously doubt nukes (I guess you mean the missile kind) would be used. Tactical is a (gigantic) stretch, but ballistic? No.

They won't all hit, of course, but sadly they don't have to.

China does not have the ability to field a deepwater navy. Anyone who thinks that their million-man army is going to thrash the United States needs to pull out an atlas and check how big the Pacific Ocean is again. To quickly reiterate; the Seventh Fleet is still the big dog in the Pacific, and it can and would make short work of any Chinese attempts to send a deepwater navy into the Pacific to threaten United States interests.

As regards nuclear weapons the actual launch is a political decision and not a military one, meaning that the actual launch authority for nuclear weapons rests with the Chinese political leadership and not with their military. Much the same is true for the United States and the Russian Federation. Incidentally, the long-running theory here is "mutually assured destruction." In short, if the People's Republic of China launched an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) at the United States they would be turned into a parking lot in a matter of minutes, but the United States would also sustain significant damage in and around key targets.

The only way to achieve strategic surprise against the People's Republic of China through the military use of nuclear weapons would be a low-trajectory launch of nuclear missiles from right off the Chinese coastline. Basically this means that instead of the missiles going high up into the atmosphere and then coming down again, as is the case with long-range nuclear missile attacks from deep-ocean or continental bases, they have a much lower arc. Defenders have less time to react and evacuate key officials and personnel as needed, ensuring substantial damage not only against key infrastructure, but against command-and-control leadership.

The occupation area itself is a sketchy one, at best. The United States has the capability to occupy and secure Chinese coastal regions of significant importance (i.e. naval bases, major population centers, etc.); and here I assume that it has no other significant foreign commitments. Occupation of the country itself would be nearly impossible. The thought of logistical lines stretching across all those miles from the coastline to the interior is a chilling proposition and a substantial strategic vulnerability. Add to that the size of the Chinese army, the possibility of a guerrilla resistance, possible use of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons, et cetera, and you have a nightmare waiting to happen.

In short, it's better to contain and deter the People's Republic of China. If by some act of God the United States does go to war with the PRC, then we would probably end up fighting a limited war to cripple and destroy their infrastructure and military without occupying the country itself.

Not really, their delivery system is about effective as black power rifles.

So.....they fill their targets with a sense of black empowerment?

So China hurts America but in the process kills herself, greater.

Not really, no. The world would switch to something else. Most likely the EU or some similarly strong currency to avoid the complete destruction of their markets. Like it or not, China still manages to outproduce on a cheaper basis than any Western factory.

So China will find many trade partners in the EU, SE Asia providing it doesn't alienate them, and the rest of the world. America, with most of its industry already moved offshore, would face a rather large collapse economically until they can get their competitive edge back. Expect massive inflation and goods shortages.

In the event of economic conflict alone, China, as a supplier recovers faster than America, which is a consumer.

There is no gold standard for USD. It is just a piece of paper. If dollar crashes, US can go back to protectionist trade policies and bring up factories in no time


Eh, definitely not with labor costs in the US as they are. And then when wages drop to remain competitive, people will go out and riot. It won't be a smooth transition, or heck, even a successful one.

I have every faith in the average American to screw it up.

I seriously doubt nukes (I guess you mean the missile kind) would be used. Tactical is a (gigantic) stretch, but ballistic? No.

China has stated its nukes will be a first use item in the event of an invasion.

And child labour is legal where? Hell, child labour isn't even used very widely in China. You're thinking of India.

Not denying the reducing but still prevalent child labour in India, but it is not that great in China. Things are open in India so these things get exposed and reported...not so in China.

Only now it is being reported and there is a "scandal" in China about child labour recently.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK147446.htm
BEIJING, June 20 (Reuters) - China will launch a nationwide inspection of labour conditions after a slave labour scandal, the government announced on Wednesday in the highest acknowledgement yet of gruesome exploitation in rural brick kilns.

Premier Wen Jiabao chaired a meeting of the country's State Council Standing Committee, or cabinet, which heard an initial investigation into slave-like coercion of workers and even children in kilns throughout Shanxi, state television reported.

The meeting was the highest official recognition yet of the gravity of the slave labour scandal that has unfolded over past weeks, drawing outrage from local media and citizens.

Hundreds of poor farmers, teenagers and some children were abducted or lured into kilns, mines and foundries in Shanxi and Henan provinces. The government meeting spelt out a litany of abuses and promised action to protect workers' rights.

"In the Shanxi black kilns there were not only grave illegal employment problems, but also criminal forces abducting, restricting personal freedom, using coerced labour, employing children and maliciously wounding to the point of death," said a summary of the meeting read out on the television news.

"This incident must be thoroughly investigated and seriously handled."

Local officials have been accused of ignoring or even helping the trade in trapped workers, and the meeting vowed to "strictly investigate and punish involved officials for any corruption and dereliction of duty."

It vowed a sweeping nationwide inspection to stamp out workplace abuses, with a focus on child labour and coercion in small rural workplaces.

Not denying the reducing but still prevalent child labour in India, but it is not that great in China. Things are open in India so these things get exposed and reported...not so in China.


Not so sure though. I've read about cases in India where in raids and such on these areas, especially in the sex trade, where the police don't even detain the workers for questioning.

No I can't link it either, was a local paper.

I think it's important to realize that the Chinese military is not what is was in Korea, it's no longer masses of ill-organized inspired fanatics with only a rifle and a few rounds per soldiers running human wave attacks (although that actually worked at Chosan) at their enemies, and the closest thing they had to artillery was a 10inch mortar. The Chinese military these days is very much advanced in modern techniques of warfare, but moreover unlike the US they have made due with the money they do have in a resourceful and efficient manner, and have avoided the mass duplication of effort and waste that the US military has in wasting money and resources. This is of course ignoring the fact that the US owes China 1 trillion dollars.

Why would we attack China? Our bilateral trade has been incredibly beneficial for both sides, and China is rapidly rising up in the world ranks in all aspects. We benefit from that because richer Chinese consumers buy the products we make well, like electronics, biotech, and computers (among other things). The Chinese are getting opportunities that they haven't had for a very long time, not since they were the center of world economic output and culture during the Middle Ages.

Comparative advantage...it's a wonderful thing.

Not so sure though. I've read about cases in India where in raids and such on these areas, especially in the sex trade, where the police don't even detain the workers for questioning.

No I can't link it either, was a local paper.

That's the point. Papers in India are free to report (and they do) on these things, while media and news is tightly controlled in China.

Why we won't go to war with China?

Despite the fluff and one sided fact presentation, the movie "Thank You For Smoking" actually made a couple of points. And one of them is that Big Tobacco is killing the Chinese for the U.S. military. And belive me, cigarettes are one of the biggest commodities that any modern army can have. No military nation will enjoy cutting off a supply of cigarettes that offers that much variety, efficient production, or quality of smoke. And especially at the prices that you can get them for.

The answer is simple: Cigarettes!!

That's the point. Papers in India are free to report (and they do) on these things, while media and news is tightly controlled in China.

Reporting it is one thing. Doing something about it though, that's a different story. Makes no real difference when the Chinese don't report things, while Indian police sit on their hands when stuff like that goes on, or even worse, cover it up.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10447724

Why would we attack China?

Because, for some bizarre reason we think we need to have a "Big Scary Bad Guy" and the terrorists aren't quite terrifying enough anymore. See Canadian Bacon for details.

I'm fine with Sino-American relations as is. I just tend to go for the idea of letting the things inside China sort themselves out.

Our bilateral trade has been incredibly beneficial for both sides, and China is rapidly rising up in the world ranks in all aspects. We benefit from that because richer Chinese consumers buy the products we make well, like electronics, biotech, and computers (among other things). The Chinese are getting opportunities that they haven't had for a very long time, not since they were the center of world economic output and culture during the Middle Ages.

Comparative advantage...it's a wonderful thing.
Why would we attack China? because some kid in some some economics class wants to "stop China from crippling the world economy"

:rolleyes:

Why we won't go to war with China?because there is absolutely no reason to.

But recently in my economics class, one of my friends jokingly asked "Why don't any major countries just wage war on China, and stop it from crippling the world economy?" Obviously this goes against all human rights, but our teacher replied, "Because we'd probably lose. Even America."

1.Russia and USA have the potential to turn China into a radioactive glass flat surface.
2.No one has interest to do so: most of the world's largest economies rely heavily on China: cheap labour, huge market for luxury goods, huge market for gas and oil.
So, yes, if China was destroyed, most countries would suffer a major economical disaster.

This, of course, doesn't take into account the radioactive winter, of course.
Do you think you can take on China WITHOUT using nukes? Good luck.

they were the center of world economic output and culture

I challenge your "output" claim.
Back in 1500 China had a huge GNP, ok, but it produced no "output". It was almost totally excluded from the great commercial routes (like those between Europe, the ME and Africa down to India), because its internal market was self-sufficient - and the Chinese culture has always been quite xenophobic and self-centered.

This, of course, doesn't take into account the radioactive winter, of course.
Do you think you can take on China WITHOUT using nukes? Good luck.

Tactical nukes, son. You don't need the Tsar Bomba to cripple a nation.

Well no one is going to do this. The political consequences will be just as devastating as the environmental. But would you agree that after that kind of attack they'd probably be pretty screwed?

There would be no political consequences. We'd all be dead. All of us.

Tactical nukes, son. You don't need the Tsar Bomba to cripple a nation.

Because China wouldn't respond to tactical nukes, would they? Oh, no...

China does not have the ability to field a deepwater navy. Anyone who thinks that their million-man army is going to thrash the United States needs to pull out an atlas and check how big the Pacific Ocean is again. To quickly reiterate; the Seventh Fleet is still the big dog in the Pacific, and it can and would make short work of any Chinese attempts to send a deepwater navy into the Pacific to threaten United States interests.

As regards nuclear weapons the actual launch is a political decision and not a military one, meaning that the actual launch authority for nuclear weapons rests with the Chinese political leadership and not with their military. Much the same is true for the United States and the Russian Federation. Incidentally, the long-running theory here is "mutually assured destruction." In short, if the People's Republic of China launched an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) at the United States they would be turned into a parking lot in a matter of minutes, but the United States would also sustain significant damage in and around key targets.

The only way to achieve strategic surprise against the People's Republic of China through the military use of nuclear weapons would be a low-trajectory launch of nuclear missiles from right off the Chinese coastline. Basically this means that instead of the missiles going high up into the atmosphere and then coming down again, as is the case with long-range nuclear missile attacks from deep-ocean or continental bases, they have a much lower arc. Defenders have less time to react and evacuate key officials and personnel as needed, ensuring substantial damage not only against key infrastructure, but against command-and-control leadership.

The occupation area itself is a sketchy one, at best. The United States has the capability to occupy and secure Chinese coastal regions of significant importance (i.e. naval bases, major population centers, etc.); and here I assume that it has no other significant foreign commitments. Occupation of the country itself would be nearly impossible. The thought of logistical lines stretching across all those miles from the coastline to the interior is a chilling proposition and a substantial strategic vulnerability. Add to that the size of the Chinese army, the possibility of a guerrilla resistance, possible use of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons, et cetera, and you have a nightmare waiting to happen.

In short, it's better to contain and deter the People's Republic of China. If by some act of God the United States does go to war with the PRC, then we would probably end up fighting a limited war to cripple and destroy their infrastructure and military without occupying the country itself.

Best post of the thread so far.

China is fully aware that they are sorely lacking in power projection. Their naval build up over the last decade is quite impressive, but they still have a long way to go to match the U.S.

They are still two or three decades away from even being able to contest other regional powers (Russia, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan) in an offensive war, much less conduct extensive operations far from their own shores.

Their army, while large, is not about to cross the Himalayas, the Tibetan Plateau, Siberia, or the Jungles of SE Asia. China is hemmed in by geography. The army is a defensive force designed to help the political leadership of China retain control of the country.

Until China has a navy and an air-force capable of defeating it's neighbors, they are of no concern as a military rival.

Besides...why would the U.S. fight China, or vice versa? We're making each other rich! :p

Tactical nukes, son. You don't need the Tsar Bomba to cripple a nation.

You seem to be missing some decisive clues about nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare.

1.Tactical nukes have an enormously greater fallout/yield ratio than the Tsar Bomba. This is because tactical nukes are FISSION weapons (U or Pu - based), while the Tsar Bomba (in the form it was fired back in the sixties) had a small fission detonator, but was mainly FUSION (H). Look it up in wiki for decay of heavy elements.

2.How many sites you have to nuke in China to cripple it effectively? You'll have to fire a damn huge volley of nukes at it. Oil reserves, major cities, military AB, ICBM sites, seaports. It's a lot of things in a large country.

If I were to attack China, I would go with a covert biological attack.

If I were to attack China, I would go with a covert biological attack.SARS or Asian Flu? (yes I know ;-) )

Because China wouldn't respond to tactical nukes, would they? Oh, no...

Only with angry words. Again, China's delivery system is useless.

Good to see the 'God bless America' crowd out in force on this thread acting like 'naaaaa china cant nook us we have SHIELDS!!!11' children.

can only destroy china with nukes.but first find out whre china stores its nukes and bomb those places.then,bomb BEIJING and SHANGHAI.:)

can only destroy china with nukes.but first find out whre china stores its nukes and bomb those places.then,bomb BEIJING and SHANGHAI.:)

C'mon, US intelligence wasn't even able to tell the Air Force the difference between the Jugoslav Interior Ministry and the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade!

Only with angry words. Again, China's delivery system is useless.

You really should rename yourself potato head. It seems to go hand in hand with your mental faculties.

Do you seriously believe China would use only "angry words" in response to a nuclear attack? I'd bet my last dollar that somewhere in Beijing, there's a plan on how to get nukes into US soil in case some half baked potato brained dunderhead decides to 'tactically nuke' China.

Hell, even Russia wouldn't sit still. Not when it's been given an opportunity either to sit back and watch itself get more 'tactical strikes' from a stupid US, or teach whatever dunderhead who fired the nukes the meaning of MAD.

Don't bother arguing with Potato, his logic flies in the face of reason.

You really want to know how this will all end?

Simple...

1. Launch a strike against China. (Nuclear or non nuclear, your pick).

2. Wait for response.

3. ???

4. Profit!!!!

I visit a lot of Chinese forums, and threads like this come up when discussing the US. Just exchange the terms 'US' and 'China'.

:sniper::mp5::gundge: china will kill every one

can only destroy china with nukes.but first find out whre china stores its nukes and bomb those places.then,bomb BEIJING and SHANGHAI.:)I am going to assume that since our trusted CIA/NSA knew exactly where were Saddam's WMD.. They also know where all the Chinese silos are.

:rolleyes:

You seem to be missing some decisive clues about nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare.

1.Tactical nukes have an enormously greater fallout/yield ratio than the Tsar Bomba. This is because tactical nukes are FISSION weapons (U or Pu - based), while the Tsar Bomba (in the form it was fired back in the sixties) had a small fission detonator, but was mainly FUSION (H). Look it up in wiki for decay of heavy elements.

2.How many sites you have to nuke in China to cripple it effectively? You'll have to fire a damn huge volley of nukes at it. Oil reserves, major cities, military AB, ICBM sites, seaports. It's a lot of things in a large country.

If I were to attack China, I would go with a covert biological attack.

For NBC attacks, I'd go chemical, personally. A lot less chance of that shit coming back over here to bite us in the ass.

If I were to attack China, I would go with a covert biological attack.

For NBC attacks, I'd go chemical, personally. A lot less chance of that shit coming back over here to bite us in the ass.
Um, sociopathic much?

They might have the largest standing army in the world.

But they have no way of projecting their power. They arn't actually a threat.

EU + American forces would stop them easily...

:sniper::mp5::gundge: china will kill every oneNo, they can probably only kill 25% of what France can kill or 10% of what Russia can kill..

But after such a nuclear hit.. US would be a beggar Country with a destroyed economy.

Leaving EU as the sole economic superpower.. and India taking the place of a destroyed China.

Um, sociopathic much?

What? Would you prefer if we said nuclear?

For NBC attacks, I'd go chemical, personally. A lot less chance of that shit coming back over here to bite us in the ass.

Chemical weapons are typically useless against hardened installations and military assets due to pre-existing NBC protections. At best, they're limited to civilian strike use as terror weapons.

Biological weapons, well, a particularly virulent plague strain has a high chance of crossing the globe and mutating into something that no vaccine can cure. At the end of the day, you all die.

SARS or Asian Flu? (yes I know ;-) )

No, too light. I'd think of:
Viral epatitis, modified Yersinia Pestis, smallpox, the Marburg virus,

or a good lot of E.coli into Beijing's aqueducts.

Um, sociopathic much?

Killing people, regardless of how you do it, is pretty sociopathic.

Only with angry words. Again, China's delivery system is useless.

There are a couple of these arguments in this thread. It's almost amusing, but it is certainly scary.

See, the thing about nuclear destruction is: It is neither targetable NOR selective. If you push a nation into a corner, and that nation has a nuclear deterrent, they don't have to deliver a payload to you. If you've got them hemmed in that tightly, they just drop nuclear devices ANYWHERE... on their neighbours, on themselves, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter where you START a nuclear winter. It's still the end. For all of us.

I challenge your "output" claim.
Back in 1500 China had a huge GNP, ok, but it produced no "output". It was almost totally excluded from the great commercial routes (like those between Europe, the ME and Africa down to India), because its internal market was self-sufficient - and the Chinese culture has always been quite xenophobic and self-centered.

Yes, but it was a huge trader during the Tang, Song, and Han dynasties and they commanded the dominant share of the world output. So yes, it is correct that China hasn't been the world's biggest trade partner in a long time.

No, too light. I'd think of:
Viral epatitis, modified Yersinia Pestis, smallpox, the Marburg virus,

or a good lot of E.coli into Beijing's aqueducts.

Eh, given most standards for quarantine control, those are more likely to be double edged swords.

There are a couple of these arguments in this thread. It's almost amusing, but it is certainly scary.

See, the thing about nuclear destruction is: It is neither targetable NOR selective. If you push a nation into a corner, and that nation has a nuclear deterrent, they don't have to deliver a payload to you. If you've got them hemmed in that tightly, they just drop nuclear devices ANYWHERE... on their neighbours, on themselves, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter where you START a nuclear winter. It's still the end. For all of us.

True. They would bomb Japan, South Korea, India and pretty much anywhere they can reach.

Interestingly, I have heard from many Pakistanis, that their doctrine is to bomb India if they get attacked by anybody. So if the US bombs them in an unlikely scenario, they will surely bomb India because they cannot get to the US. This posturing makes India having a vested interest in not allowing things to escalate .

or a good lot of E.coli into Beijing's aqueducts.

I think most Chinese boil their drinking water, especially in the aftermath of that wonderful benzene spill.

Okay lets go over some points about the in-evitable war.

1. More than likely it will be started by the Chinese with them going after Taiwan. The Government of the United States and Japan have already warned China not to do so, but China has already passed a bill through their assembly that legalises an invasion.

2. It will not be a ground war. What is that line from the Princess Bride about the second stupidest thing you can do is wage a ground war in aisa? Anyways, it will be a Naval and Aerial War, very similar to the war we fought against Japan in WWII. That goes in our favor, as Taiwan has one of the best Air Forces in the world, and the Japanese Self Defense Navy alone out-weighs and out-guns the Chinese Fleet. So the war will not last long.

3. There is already a civil war, or at least civil unrest, brewing in western China. They have seven internal military districts, the only military divisions they have, and these are used because more and more civilians are getting annoyed with the way that the Chinese Govt. is pushing them around. Therefore, even if we did have to fight a Ground War, the Chinese Army would not be able to drown US and Japanese forces with bodies the way they did in the Korean War.

4. The Chinese Military has a very weak link in the Straights of Malacca. These straits, located in Indonesia and Singapore, are where 80% of the Chinese Oil flows. With a single Carrier Battle Group from the 5th Fleet could blockade the straights and prevent China from getting any oil with the exception of Overland.

5. A Nuclear Exchange is highly unlikely, do to China's Two-Hour response time. The Chinese Nukes are in Rockets that use a corrosive fuel, which means they cannot be kept fueled and ready the way that our own ICBM's can be. Also, the Chinese Missile pads are not buried, but are open air. Therefore, the delivery vehicles have to be kept in a seperate location and hauled to the launch site. And, when it comes to the PLA Air Force, their bombers cannot fly fast enough to outrun our Carrier Fighters.

6. Many have commented on Russia, however, do to their constant border skirmishes, Russia would probably take advantage and try to carve away bits and pieces of China along their border.

7. The Chinese Government has a big problem in terms of the little failed state of North Korea. Many have speculated that the only thing keeping N. Korea together is the electricity that China pumps in, as North Korea cannot make any themselves. Therefore, should North Korea's powe be taken out, the Chinese would have to deal with millions of refugees as the country breaks down.

Now, the resulting economy will not be good, and we could hit a bad depression. However, more than likely, the war will not be as bad as many thinks, and while it will take some time, it will not be a long war.

It really scares me when I hear people talking about a Third World War like something that "wouldnt be so bad", "we can win it easily" or "is the best thing that we could do"... thats exactly the way the idiots that started the first two though.... "the Germans are only going for Poland", "Rusia wont dare to intefere", "its going to be a short war, that will be decided in the first combats"...

You guys living in super powers, with right to vote for the world leaders that have control over the nukes and the big armies of the world should think twice before talking about world war as a viable solution for...what? child labor problems!?!?!?! inflation!?!?!?!

Think about this: The US Army, the most powerfull of the world attacks a crippled nation like Irak thats only a danger to itself...and they can barely control the situation... but now you want to go against China.... yeah...very intelligent.

War is sweet to those who have never been in one.

If a war between US and China stars, Im going to the Antartida...and hope all you warmongers have horrible deads. :mp5:

Snippet

It really scares me when I see today's generation being largely unable to comprehend basic English skills.

It really scares me when I see today's generation being largely unable to comprehend basic English skills.

Don't know about you but I'm booking tickets for that "Antartida" place he was talking about.

Seems like a nice place to get away from it all....

What? Would you prefer if we said nuclear?
No, I'd prefer if you didn't calmly talk about launching any sort of weaponry against anybody. Of course, you're perfectly within your rights to talk about it, but it strikes me as a little odd.

As Wallonochia says:

Killing people, regardless of how you do it, is pretty sociopathic.

5. A Nuclear Exchange is highly unlikely.if there is a war between US and China?

my vegas-betting line runs around 90%

90% chances of massive radiation from nukes.

if there is a war between US and China?

my vegas-betting line runs around 90%

90% chances of massive radiation from nukes.

Fallout is only radioactive for only about 2 weeks. Not long enough to get across the pacific, and not long enough to harm Japan that much.

As usual this PRC vs US thread is full of people who have idea what they're talking about.

Here's what would likely happen, if this ever happened (it proably won't but whatever):

Within days of the outbreak of open war the PLAN would cease to exist.
The PLAAF would last a little longer but would suffer horrible losses and lose combat effectiveness very fast.
The PRC can not land sufficent troops on ROC soil to seriously threaten the island. What forces they do land would be slaughtered by the ROCA.
The US has no reason to land troops on Chinese soil or even to conduct anything more than air and cruise missile strikes on key targets. Without US troops coming ashore China's vaunted million man army mean exactly nothing in this scenario.
The biggest threat actually comes from a PRC supported push from the DPRK into the ROK. As the US Army is currently stretched in Iraq, it'd be tought o reinforce the South Koreans quickly. If this war occurs in a few years when force levels in Iraq are down then reinforcements will arrive much sooner. Either way the DPRK forces will be decimated, though the PRC could throw sizable forces into the fray, but they wouldn't fare much better.
On the subject of PRC nukes, the Xia class SSBN isn't seaworthy and it's missiles can't hit the US from dockside, if it does by some miracle set sail it will be sunk very quickly. The PRC's ICBM arsenal is fairly small and completely obsolete. Hell the warheads and missiles are actually controlled by different units and stored completely seperately.

This site (http://www.china-defense.com/) is run by an associate of mine from another board who happens to be a retired Canadian Lt. Colonel of Chinese descent and one of the foremost experts on the PRc and its military anywhere.

As usual this PRC vs US thread is full of people who have idea what they're talking about.

Here's what would likely happen, if this ever happened (it proably won't but whatever):

Within days of the outbreak of open war the PLAN would cease to exist.

Assuming a conventional war...the opening shots would be Stealth Bomber and Sub lauched cruise missile strikes against PLAN bases.

Most of the Chinese fleet would be destroyed in port.

The PLAAF would last a little longer but would suffer horrible losses and lose combat effectiveness very fast.

Very true...China lacks the AWACS and mid-air refueling capacity to sustain an extended air campaign.

Their ground based air defense network is a far larger threat. U.S. air forces would undoubtedly sustain heavy casualties...but it wouldn't stop the selective destruction of key military and industrial targets.

The PRC can not land sufficent troops on ROC soil to seriously threaten the island. What forces they do land would be slaughtered by the ROCA.

They could saturate Taiwan with missile strikes from the mainland, but considering that they kind of want the island, it doesn't make much sense for them to do so.

The US has no reason to land troops on Chinese soil or even to conduct anything more than air and cruise missile strikes on key targets. Without US troops coming ashore China's vaunted million man army mean exactly nothing in this scenario.

Very true...although if we could convince a neighboring country to allow us to stage forces there, I could see the U.S. conducting some ground operations in Tibet. The PLAF will be far too busy to do anything about it, and our air forces can destroy incoming ground forces due to the restricted routes that large forces can utilize in the area.

We'd have to start cranking out more cluster bombs though...we'd need a lot of em.

The biggest threat actually comes from a PRC supported push from the DPRK into the ROK. As the US Army is currently stretched in Iraq, it'd be tought o reinforce the South Koreans quickly. If this war occurs in a few years when force levels in Iraq are down then reinforcements will arrive much sooner. Either way the DPRK forces will be decimated, though the PRC could throw sizable forces into the fray, but they wouldn't fare much better.

S. Korea isn't exacly a pushover. They would do well enough with the current U.S. forces, provided they get the proper air/naval support. Japan could be of immense help in this situation as well.

I doubt China would directly aid such a move. If China does support a North Korean invasion of the South, you can bet that there will be numerous Asian nations who will quickly ally with the U.S.

None of China's neighbors would be too keen on the idea of an expansionistic Chinese government.

Japan, Philippines, Thailand, India...hell, maybe even Vietnam. China doesn't want that many enemies, and they are smart enough to let their puppet do the dying for them.

On the subject of PRC nukes, the Xia class SSBN isn't seaworthy and it's missiles can't hit the US from dockside, if it does by some miracle set sail it will be sunk very quickly.

I'd be very surprised if their SSBNs aren't shadowed by at least two U.S. SSNs every time they leave port.

The PRC's ICBM arsenal is fairly small and completely obsolete. Hell the warheads and missiles are actually controlled by different units and stored completely seperately.

There is also the fueling issue mentioned earlier. If we were to hit their silos early and hard, it is doubtful they would remain operational. That wouldn't stop the use of nuclear weapons by China, however, it would simply eliminate their ability to directly target the United States. They could still use shorter ranged missiles or aircraft to deliver nukes to any number of targets.

Far safer to leave their strategic assets alone, lest the Chinese government feel threatened enough to commit to such a course.

As usual this PRC vs US thread is full of people who have idea what they're talking about.

SNIP

This site (http://www.china-defense.com/) is run by an associate of mine from another board who happens to be a retired Canadian Lt. Colonel of Chinese descent and one of the foremost experts on the PRc and its military anywhere.

But you haven't thought of the most simple mad-cap plan that every totalitarian state would adopt when threatened.

BLOW THEMSELVES UP,... which in this case,... would also produce sufficient fallout fallout and radiation in the region,... or maybe even the world,... to cause mass pain and suffering.

But you haven't thought of the most simple mad-cap plan that every totalitarian state would adopt when threatened.

BLOW THEMSELVES UP,... which in this case,... would also produce sufficient fallout fallout and radiation in the region,... or maybe even the world,... to cause mass pain and suffering.

Ridiculous.

The principle goal of the Chinese leadership is to retain power.

Blowing themselves up hardly achieves this goal.

Ridiculous.

The principle goal of the Chinese leadership is to retain power.

Blowing themselves up hardly achieves this goal.

Ridiculous comments are what you usually get in ridiculous arguments.

Just to make it clear, I'm not advising or supporting any kind of warfare against China or its people.

But recently in my economics class, one of my friends jokingly asked "Why don't any major countries just wage war on China, and stop it from crippling the world economy?" Obviously this goes against all human rights, but our teacher replied, "Because we'd probably lose. Even America."

What do you think. Do you think that even though China is still a developing country it could hold out in the long run with its economic and population advantage?

Contrary to popular belief and Hollywood drivel, research indicates that even American ubermenschen are not immune to radiation.

Far safer to leave their strategic assets alone, lest the Chinese government feel threatened enough to commit to such a course.

Also, attacking their strategic assets means kissing goodbye to local US allies in the region. China may lack large numbers of long range ballistic missiles, but they've got plenty of short range ones and fighter carried nukes.

What kind of country would want to remain allied to the US afterwards when being an ally means taking the brunt of a counterattack?

Just to make it clear, I'm not advising or supporting any kind of warfare against China or its people.

But recently in my economics class, one of my friends jokingly asked "Why don't any major countries just wage war on China, and stop it from crippling the world economy?" Obviously this goes against all human rights, but our teacher replied, "Because we'd probably lose. Even America."

What do you think. Do you think that even though China is still a developing country it could hold out in the long run with its economic and population advantage?

Yeah. China has a shitload of factories and mines. A war runs on coal and steel. And how is China crippling the world economy?

Also, attacking their strategic assets means kissing goodbye to local US allies in the region. China may lack large numbers of long range ballistic missiles, but they've got plenty of short range ones and fighter carried nukes.

What kind of country would want to remain allied to the US afterwards when being an ally means taking the brunt of a counterattack?

Good point, except its wrong.

The PRC only has about 20 DF-5 ICBMs and a few other missiles as a strategic option.

Their SLBMs are a nonfactor considering the terrible shape of their Xia class SSBNs.

They do have about 100 nuclear gravity bombs, but only about 200 aircraft that can even carry them. These are prime targets for the first day of the strike and any that do sortie would have a hard time penetrating the air defense nets of Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea, though Vietnam could be vulnerable.

They also have a lot of Scud clones, but there is no evidence to suggest they possess any warheads compact enough to fit on them.

I do think that a war against China would require a LARGE coalition.


Also, we would probably help train guerilla fighters in Tibet and Inner Mongolia.

The PRC only has about 20 DF-5 ICBMs and a few other missiles as a strategic option.

Which will most likely be primed for launch in the inevitable build up to war.


Their SLBMs are a nonfactor considering the terrible shape of their Xia class SSBNs.

They could probably launch from port or one of the coastal areas under their control. Not enough to launch to the US, but plenty to wipe out Taiwan or Korea.


They do have about 100 nuclear gravity bombs, but only about 200 aircraft that can even carry them.


I suspect this number is in fluctuation. I wouldn't put it past China to have more than publicly available numbers.


These are prime targets for the first day of the strike and any that do sortie would have a hard time penetrating the air defense nets of Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea, though Vietnam could be vulnerable.

Well duh. Nobody ever said it would be a walk in the park. But in an all or nothing situation, I figure they'll put up the biggest air assault they can muster.


They also have a lot of Scud clones, but there is no evidence to suggest they possess any warheads compact enough to fit on them.

The only way to tell for certain is certainly not something I would like to test.

Either way, minus nukes, they could plaster Taiwan with enough conventional missiles to ruin it completely.

The whole political factor depends on who's the aggressor here. If it's the US, the subsequent destruction wrought to US allies in Asia will rapidly see them dumping any ties with it for the sheer self-preservation factor.

If it's China, the nations will more likely ally with US against an expansionist China.

Just to make it clear, I'm not advising or supporting any kind of warfare against China or its people.

But recently in my economics class, one of my friends jokingly asked "Why don't any major countries just wage war on China, and stop it from crippling the world economy?" Obviously this goes against all human rights, but our teacher replied, "Because we'd probably lose. Even America."

What do you think. Do you think that even though China is still a developing country it could hold out in the long run with its economic and population advantage?

Hellos,

The following is a personal opinion, i am no military or economic thinker, its just a thought exercise...

Other then helping the Mongolians, Manchurians, and Tibetians get their homelands back, and bit#$-slap them for their human rights violations; why we hating on China again?

I personally think it would be "pyrrhic" (a victory, but was so costly to you in terms of soliders and resources, it would have been better to fight someone else)...

...but only if we (the country you are sitting in) fought with bullets.

BUT, changing our (meaning non-Chinese) economic model to be the same, or similar to China's; meaning 0.5-3% G.N.P. (or is it G.D.P.?) would redistribute currency internally, e.g. more public works...schools, law-court houses, post offices, dams, museums, ad nauseum.

if buying anything from China, make sure it is non-renewable; iron, steel, concrete mix, glass, their trash (recycle it, sell it), better yet, gold and silver (in ANY form).

meaning, we are economically stable even if no one trades with us.
we export (never food, medicine, metals or oil) more then we import, China would have to pick up what ever it could to clothe, feed, house, teach, and medic every citizen. if all they are sold is pom-poms and pomerianian's (those blond dogs), they are hopeless.

the yuan would devalue at an order of magnitude.

with the country side biologically dead from being eaten by the people, canibilism would take care of a percentage, disease, heat/cold, and old age would further minimize the population.

In +/- 50 years, they would have a city-state empire again. trigger never pulled.

*snip*

Not going to happen. Americans like their cheap goods.

Those trading sanctions would have to be enforced too.

*looks at China's land borders*

Can't see it working, rafe.

We'll get Japan to fight them for us. *nod*

*shivers remembering Nanking*