NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5285HZ20090309

If the back and forth between the US and China on this and other issues ever comes to blows who do you think would win? Who has the most to lose? Who has the most to gain?

Do you think China would launch a nuclear first strike? What of the US? Considering they can wipe out all of each others cities and population.

Who would win this blockbuster war?

I think it would be the fight of the century.

America would win, because our military is the most modern. While China may have numbers on their side, we can reach the farthest.

I think it would be the fight of the century.
Indeed it would...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2008/20080626.jpg

USA, minus the possibility of a nuclear war, and providing we didn't invade them.

If it goes Nuclear, we're all screwed, so it doesn't matter who launched the most missiles.

All China has is numbers. It's 2009 and they can't even copy our T-72[a tank originally made in the '60s..]

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images//4/4d/Prime.jpg

You Americans best start building Liberty Prime now...

No one thinks that China might be able to send a million into South Korea, Japan and another million into Afghanistan? Remember, Afghanistan actually shares a border with China. So the Chinese would not have to go into anyone's territory if they wanted to attack the US in Afghanistan.

If the US wins, do you think they would demand that China give up say Taiwan or Tibet or both? What would be the consequences if China loses? What are the consequences if the USA loses? Would China force the US to give up all its bases in Asia and the Pacific, possibly even Guam? What are the economic consequences for the loser?

There is no chance of the USA being defeated by China in a non nuclear conflict, our military is just to far ahead of most everyone else's, it wouldn't be hard to shoot down china's air force with Carrier Battlegroups.

No one thinks that China might be able to send a million into South Korea, Japan and another million into Afghanistan? Remember, Afghanistan actually shares a border with China. So the Chinese would not have to go into anyone's territory if they wanted to attack the US in Afghanistan.

If the US wins, do you think they would demand that China give up say Taiwan or Tibet or both? What would be the consequences if China loses? What are the consequences if the USA loses? Would China force the US to give up all its bases in Asia and the Pacific, possibly even Guam? What are the economic consequences for the loser?

If China attacked American troops in Asia then the US would just pull out sharpish. I don't think the US could beat China in it's own back yard without either losing so much of it's military that it'd end up being a second rate power or using tactical nukes.

This isn't the 1940 where sheer manufacturing power could replace the loses, producing modern military equipment requires an workforce with a level of skill that the US doesn't have and couldn't produce in the short period of time they could hold out in a foreign theatre against a military the size of China's.

I think the US would accept the loss of face to preserve it's power.

Err... nukes aside what would happen would be that the Americans invade and China just basically disperses into the jungles/forests/mountains in its territory and the US gets bogged down in a very expensive war to no real good, and the difficulties in training its soldiers for all of the environments in China either results in far-too-valuable personnel it can hardly afford to risk, or a very brittle force which puts the whole operation in danger if a large-scale attack occurs in one particular ecosystem or another.

China has invested too much in the US, anyway. Chairman Mao likes his dollars.

why would the US go to war with China :confused:

also haven't you heard the US doesn't get involved in conflicts until years after they have started

unarmed U.S. Navy ship

what was an unarmed US navy ship doing on its own?

No one thinks that China might be able to send a million into South Korea, Japan and another million into Afghanistan? Remember, Afghanistan actually shares a border with China. So the Chinese would not have to go into anyone's territory if they wanted to attack the US in Afghanistan.

South Korea is one of the most fortified borders on Earth and its pretty much a dead end after that

Japan can sink anything China puts into the water

Afghanistan is pretty much logistically impossible

If the US wins, do you think they would demand that China give up say Taiwan or Tibet or both? What would be the consequences if China loses? What are the consequences if the USA loses? Would China force the US to give up all its bases in Asia and the Pacific, possibly even Guam? What are the economic consequences for the loser?

neither side would win outright South East Asia would just be a mess of craters

I think it would be very silly for two countries to go to war because Blockbuster didn't have enough copies of the dvd they both wanted to watch.

You Americans best start building Liberty Prime now...
Meh, me and my Gauss Rifle could do more damage than that hunk o' junk.

Fuck the Brotherhood.

Meh, me and my Gauss Rifle could do more damage than that hunk o' junk.

Fuck the Brotherhood.

I'm missing something here...

I'm missing something here...
Fallout.

No one thinks that China might be able to send a million into South Korea,I think they would be out numbered by the South Koreans at least 3 to 1. Not to mention the North Koreans would object, they might use china to counter balance the US, but would never let them dictate what to do. Be an interesting way to see peace between north and south though.


Japan and another million into Afghanistan? Remember, Afghanistan actually shares a border with China. So the Chinese would not have to go into anyone's territory if they wanted to attack the US in Afghanistan.

first in the case of invading Japan. China does not have the blue water navy to required to invade Japan. A naval invasion is always very difficult, then a land invasion, if you are invading a power with a modern Air force you need carriers or you will be unable to supply your advanced positions.
Afghanistan.
first if China Invaded Afghanistan Id just leave and tell them to have fun with that, let them try to manage the place. secondly and most importantly the boarder between Afghanistan is very small, and some of the most mountainous terrain in the world, and it juts out 300 miles from the main portion of the country.

If the US wins, do you think they would demand that China give up say Taiwan or Tibet or both? What would be the consequences if China loses? What are the consequences if the USA loses? Would China force the US to give up all its bases in Asia and the Pacific, possibly even Guam? What are the economic consequences for the loser?
I wouldn't force China to give up Tibet. they are stronger without it. Tibet doesn't pay taxes and is a current drain on their resources. If Tibet were free they would likely be a drain on US resources in the form of foreign aid, and we would likely have to station troops there to discourage china from taking the place over again.
As for Taiwan, we would have to convince Taiwan they are not part of China. The current policy is the Guo Min Dong and they believe in a one china, just under their rule.
Not that there would be a winner or a loser. A war with China would mostly be a stalemate. China cant project its forces outside its own boarder. And the US really couldn't over come that large of a military when invading.

China has invested too much in the US, anyway. Chairman Mao likes his dollars.

lulz

what was an unarmed US navy ship doing on its own?





electronic spy vessel.

There is no need to start a war. The US would be devastated and employment would skyrocket if China just pulls out all its reserves and investment in the US.

And people seem to forget, 1/3 of the smartest people in the US today, from silicon valley or to sciencetic research centers, are ethnic Chinese. Conversely, there is less than a very miniscule percentage of Americans in China. In an all out war, the US will be busy enough trying to fight a war from within.

Your losing in Iraq and yet your still gung-ho to star WWIII!!! Leave it to Americans to fantasize about war

In any case we Canadians will just sit by the sidelines and wait and see who the winner is. Either way Canada emerges victorious! http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/6/16/633492552440829456-canada%27s-army.jpg

Your losing in Iraq and yet your still gung-ho to star WWIII!!! Leave it to Americans to fantasize about war

You can't win a war that has no goals. -.-
Edit: And your post count is 666. :eek2:
Fallout.

*Curses Crappy Computer/Lack of a 360*

And people seem to forget, 1/3 of the smartest people in the US today, from silicon valley or to sciencetic research centers, are ethnic Chinese. Conversely, there is less than a very miniscule percentage of Americans in China. In an all out war, the US will be busy enough trying to fight a war from within.

similar arguments were used during WWII about the Japanese, with not a single incidence of espionage attempted. our allies seemed to have been the main one spying on us.

Your losing in Iraq and yet your still gung-ho to star WWIII!!! Leave it to Americans to fantasize about war

In any case we Canadians will just sit by the sidelines and wait and see who the winner is. Either way Canada emerges victorious! http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/6/16/633492552440829456-canada%27s-army.jpg

challenger appears!

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1651/1220408539188.th.jpg (http://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1220408539188.jpg)

electronic spy vessel.

however this was in international waters there would be no need to forgo any sort of escort

Your losing in Iraq

really?

however this was in international waters there would be no need to forgo any sort of escort



true. but the escort makes it more likely you would be seen. once you know your being listened to you simply cut the chatter in the area. shift it to land lines and what ever else to avoid giving info away. Or knowing fill the air with false information.

You can't win a war that has no goals. -.-


...sure *thats* the reason. Besides you'd be bored of WWIII 12½ minutes after you started it ...as soon as the thrill of radiation wears off. Your a nation afflicted with ADHD.

American
Destructive
Hyperactivity
Disorder


Edit: And your post count is 666. :eek2:


A truly momentous occasion. One which will never come again. Your children will ask where were you when...

The articles about this little tete-a-tete that I read mentioned that the Chinese, in addition to saying rude things and dropping pieces of wood in the path of the US vessel, also came within close visual range, whereupon the Chinese crews proceeded to strip down to their undies and do a little dance. One presumes the dance was meant to be derisive, but who knows?

I'm not at all sure what that suggests about who would win, though.

...sure *thats* the reason. Besides you'd be bored of WWIII 12½ minutes after you started it ...as soon as the thrill of radiation wears off. Your a nation afflicted with ADHD.

American
Destructive
Hyperactivity
Disorder

*sigh* When all else fails, claim America = Epic fail.

Cheney: "Hey, I wonder how I can jack the price of oil up to back my buddies in the industry...T hink, think, think... I know! Iraq! It's a third world country no one cares about with a dictator leading it! if I invade Iraq, no one will care, the price of Oil will go up, and I'll be hailed as a bringer of freedom and democracy!"
Bush:"Yes Master, I'll do as ya command."
Shadow Advisor: "But we still need an excuse... What to use, what to use..."
Cheney: "Snaga, claim that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction! It's perfect!" *evil laughter from Shadow advisor and Cheney, Confused chuckles and 'Wha?'s by Bush*

Russia, and maybe India, would come out winners

China only has 296 nuclear missile launching systems (and about 800 missiles) and we have somewhere around 10,000. If they use them, it'll hurt and we'll count our losses in megadeaths but they'll be counting theirs in gigadeaths...not a game they should risk playing. Of course, once we launch pretty much everything's done for anyways so I figure it doesn't matter if we did win or lose.

challenger appears!

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1651/1220408539188.th.jpg (http://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1220408539188.jpg)

First of all that guys not half as cool as this guy:
http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0810/the-canadian-army-demotivational-poster-1224394955.jpg

China only has 296 nuclear missile launching systems (and about 800 missiles) and we have somewhere around 10,000. If they use them, it'll hurt and we'll count our losses in megadeaths but they'll be counting theirs in gigadeaths...not a game they should risk playing. Of course, once we launch pretty much everything's done for anyways so I figure it doesn't matter if we did win or lose.

Second after everyone is dead and only the undead walk the earth. Which undead will be more dangerous? The undead that didn't know any kunfu in the first-place and survived a mere 800 missiles or an overwhelming yellow army of 10,000-nukes-irradiated undead with superior math and kungfu skills?

http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0810/the-canadian-army-demotivational-poster-1224394955.jpg

thats a US aircraft :tongue:

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/9/21/633576365291792917-allieswithfriendslikethiswhoneedsenemies.jpg

US would probably go for a counterforce campaign against PRC nuclear weapons at the start, which would trigger an attempt by PRC to "use them or lose them", launching as many missiles as possible. It goes nuclear from day one.

First of all that guys not half as cool as this guy:
http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0810/the-canadian-army-demotivational-poster-1224394955.jpg


http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/6863/poster48954226.th.jpg (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=poster48954226.jpg)

:p

The US Navy could just block this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Malacca) and China would be crippled. I think they could probably just leave a few carriers of China's coast and bomb them into submission.

The US Navy could just block this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Malacca) and China would be crippled. I think they could probably just leave a few carriers of China's coast and bomb them into submission.

they would get oil from Russia. or start convert their coal to oil.

The US Navy could just block this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Malacca) and China would be crippled. I think they could probably just leave a few carriers of China's coast and bomb them into submission.

Naive and simplistic thinking in my opinion.

thats a US aircraft :tongue:

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/9/21/633576365291792917-allieswithfriendslikethiswhoneedsenemies.jpg

You think a Canadian is stupid enough to strap himself to one of our own planes? He's only had two beers!

US would probably go for a counterforce campaign against PRC nuclear weapons at the start, which would trigger an attempt by PRC to "use them or lose them", launching as many missiles as possible. It goes nuclear from day one.

And thats where Chinese zombie superiority come into play.

they would get oil from Russia. or start convert their coal to oil.

okay, but they wouldn't be able to do that overnight, right?

Naive and simplistic thinking in my opinion.

What's wrong with it?

EDIT: Also, wouldn't a more likely scenario be NATO vs China?

okay, but they wouldn't be able to do that overnight, right?





they wouldn't need to. We are not the only country in the world with strategic oil reserves. and i believe they have third largest coal reserves in the world.

WHy would NATO get involved?

WHy would NATO get involved?

only chance is if China was clearly the aggressor. and even then i don't see nato able to send much over to Asia in the way of aid.

WHy would NATO get involved?

I'm pretty sure it depends on the circumstances, If China attacks the USA, AFAIK NATO would have to come to the US's aid.

*Curses Crappy Computer/Lack of a 360*
There are 2 other ones, you know. Although the first is a bit pish, regardless of what people might try to tell you.

I'm pretty sure it depends on the circumstances, If China attacks the USA, AFAIK NATO would have to come to the US's aid.
Well, they didn't help us in the Falklands so they can sorta piss off.

USA, minus the possibility of a nuclear war, and providing we didn't invade them.

If it goes Nuclear, we're all screwed, so it doesn't matter who launched the most missiles.

Not nessissarily. China has hundreds to America's thousands right, and how many of those could actually reach us?

Obviously a nuclear war is something to be avoided if at all possible, and it would reduce a lot of the world to a wreck, but I am offended by any hint of the widespread assumption that nuclear war=end of the world, simply because it discards science for pop culture fear-mongering.

The fact is it does matter who launches the most missiles. I'm no expert on the subject to be sure, but based on my limitted knowledge, I could see the US clearly winning as long as Russia didn't come in on China's side. However, it would still be a horrifically costly war, and it would still no doubt cripple the global economy and lead to massive long term polution and disease.

Speaking in the short term, the United States is in no major military threat from China. While it is true that China has the largest military in the world, it is also irrelevant. In modern conventional warfare, mobility and air superiority are all that matter, and the USM leads in both. Further more, China has no carriers, and a very limited range of ballistic missile subs, and mostly outdated attack submarines. This would give the USN unrivaled control of the seas, allowing them to control the Strait of Malacca, and destroy Chinese shipping. So what we would see within a few months after the start of a war is the destruction of the PLAN, and a severely damaged Chinese economy. This alone would probably be enough to force the PRC to capitulate to American demands, however, if they did not, further military action could be taken.

A ground invasion of China would be a costly, and dangerous move for the USM to undertake, and would (probably) lead to the destruction of a very large part of the USMC and USA. Our best bet would be an extended air campaign, targeted at Chinese military bases; economic centers, and population centers, launched from air bases in S.Korea and Japan, and from carrier groups. Also, submarines could be deployed to launch cruise missile strikes as well. Establishing air superiority over China would be a costly endeavor for the USAF, however, as with the Navy, America enjoys every advantage over the Chinese. Our air force is more modern and larger. So China would be damaged even more economically, and the PRC would be under considerable pressure to make peace, as to avoid the continued growing civil unhappiness that would lead to a revolt.

Assuming a ground campaign became necessary, it would at this point become a less costly campaign for the USM to launch. Enjoying both air and naval superiority over China, and with the PLA having been taking heavy bombardments from the air campaign, the initial invasions, launched from Japan and S.Korea, would land easily, and being the campaign. While losses on both sides would be heavy, air superiority and the superior ground force possessed by the USM would prove victorious, and within a matter of months, Beijing would fall, and the war would be effectively over.

China would deploy the nuclear option only at their own risk, while a strike by their land based nuclear forces would be enough to destroy the United States, MAD would take effect, and both sides would loose. The United States would suffer no such dilemma in deploying such an option, over 50% of our nuclear arsenal exists on ballistic submarines, so we could launch a strike enough to destroy every major city and military base in China from inside Chinese territorial waters. Chinese ballistic subs are not numerous or advanced enough to inflict MAD upon the United States, so our only objections would be moralistic, not military.

In the long term of course, a war between the two powers would be devastating to both sides. Though China would ultimately loose, the economic damage to the United States would allow a nation such as India or Russia to surpass the United States on the world stage.

Well, they didn't help us in the Falklands so they can sorta piss off.

if it had lasted more then 5 minutes I am sure we would have helped.

but you Brits kick ass too hard to need Nato assistance.

From what I've read, China has a relatively small number of nukes, meaning that we would glow slightly less than they would in the end. Stalemate.

In a conventional war: our carriers could reach them, but their silkworm missiles could wreak havoc on our carrier groups. Stalemate.

The option of our invading them is laughable at best, as would them invading us. Again, stalemate.

Ultimately, our mutually entwined economies means it won't come to blows.

if it had lasted more then 5 minutes I am sure we would have helped.
We took weeks to get there though :tongue:
but you Brits kick ass too hard to need Nato assistance.
Fair point.

We took weeks to get there though :tongue:

Fair point.

the main purpose of NATO is to keep France from surrendering to every boy scout delegation sent their way.

... as would them invading us. ...

I've seen Battle Beneath the Earth...they don't need aircraft carriers

WHy would NATO get involved?

Only if you agree to share that stargate thingy more fairly... one token Canadian for comic relief isn't enough.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1166/998660498_dcc067859f_o.jpg

Only if you agree to share that stargate thingy more fairly... one token Canadian for comic relief isn't enough.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1166/998660498_dcc067859f_o.jpg

isnt that the job of Canada to be the US's comic relief?

I've seen Battle Beneath the Earth...they don't need aircraft carriers

I am assuming you are referring to a movie? I can imagine the premise. I've also seen it theorized that the Chinese could march men into the pacific, and have the following troops march over on the bodies until they reach the US.

No, they don't need carriers.:rolleyes:

I am assuming you are referring to a movie? I can imagine the premise. I've also seen it theorized that the Chinese could march men into the pacific, and have the following troops march over on the bodies until they reach the US.


I have to wonder how many men that would actually take

I am assuming you are referring to a movie? I can imagine the premise. I've also seen it theorized that the Chinese could march men into the pacific, and have the following troops march over on the bodies until they reach the US.

No, they don't need carriers.:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXy2hu0BXKg

"Just like ants I tell ya"

Rolling squid;14588768']I have to wonder how many men that would actually take

I would guess more than a few billion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXy2hu0BXKg

"Just like ants I tell ya"

Before I watch it: Army Ants, right?

Edit: Interferes with my music. I'll watch it later.

Rolling squid;14588720']Speaking in the short term, the United States is in no major military threat from China.

What about US allies? Though its true, China is mainly a diplomatic and economic threat to US interests at pressent, since I'm fairly sure both sides are sane enough to realize what a war would cost them.

While it is true that China has the largest military in the world, it is also irrelevant. In modern conventional warfare, mobility and air superiority are all that matter, and the USM leads in both.

Bullshit. Air superiority alone does not win wars. You need ground troops to actually take and hold territory. Infantry is only irrelevant if you plan to fight a defensive war, or bomb your enemy from existence. So barring glassing China, ground troops do very much matter.

Further more, China has no carriers, and a very limited range of ballistic missile subs, and mostly outdated attack submarines. This would give the USN unrivaled control of the seas, allowing them to control the Strait of Malacca, and destroy Chinese shipping. So what we would see within a few months after the start of a war is the destruction of the PLAN, and a severely damaged Chinese economy. This alone would probably be enough to force the PRC to capitulate to American demands, however, if they did not, further military action could be taken.

I'll give you American navel superiority. Can't recall where I heard it, but last I heard the US Navy out gunned all other navies of the world combined.

A ground invasion of China would be a costly, and dangerous move for the USM to undertake, and would (probably) lead to the destruction of a very large part of the USMC and USA.

I think we would lose. And depending on how patriotic the Chinese poplace is, we might have the world's biggest insurgency on our hands.

Our best bet would be an extended air campaign, targeted at Chinese military bases; economic centers, and population centers, launched from air bases in S.Korea and Japan, and from carrier groups.

In this scenario, wouldn't China invade South Korea? I'm thinking North Korea would probably side with China as well.

Also, submarines could be deployed to launch cruise missile strikes as well. Establishing air superiority over China would be a costly endeavor for the USAF, however, as with the Navy, America enjoys every advantage over the Chinese. Our air force is more modern and larger. So China would be damaged even more economically, and the PRC would be under considerable pressure to make peace, as to avoid the continued growing civil unhappiness that would lead to a revolt.

Assuming a ground campaign became necessary, it would at this point become a less costly campaign for the USM to launch. Enjoying both air and naval superiority over China, and with the PLA having been taking heavy bombardments from the air campaign, the initial invasions, launched from Japan and S.Korea, would land easily, and being the campaign. While losses on both sides would be heavy, air superiority and the superior ground force possessed by the USM would prove victorious, and within a matter of months, Beijing would fall, and the war would be effectively over.

Quite the fairytale view of war to assume that its over when the capital is taken.

China would deploy the nuclear option only at their own risk, while a strike by their land based nuclear forces would be enough to destroy the United States, MAD would take effect, and both sides would loose.

Doubtful. Cripple the US, maybe. Outright destroy it, doubtful.

The United States would suffer no such dilemma in deploying such an option, over 50% of our nuclear arsenal exists on ballistic submarines, so we could launch a strike enough to destroy every major city and military base in China from inside Chinese territorial waters. Chinese ballistic subs are not numerous or advanced enough to inflict MAD upon the United States, so our only objections would be moralistic, not military.

Let's not fool ourselves. Such a war would have a good chance of going nuclear. China might employ the nuclear option when it became clear they couldn't win any other way, and if they do, America will retaliate in kind. America might even launch a first strike to preempt China or force them to surrender without the cost of a ground invasion (for God's sake we're overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan). However, that would be both morally and stratgically a very bad idea.

Also, why do you apparently assume MAD if China fires first, but not if America does?

In the long term of course, a war between the two powers would be devastating to both sides. Though China would ultimately loose, the economic damage to the United States would allow a nation such as India or Russia to surpass the United States on the world stage.

Unless they got involved as well.

A major argument for nuclear weapons is as a deterent. Thus, the implications of anyone using them premptively should be clear. I think that if another nation ever uses nuclear weapons premptively, they will probably be dogpiled by a number of the other nuclear nations as they will have become an unacceptable threat to other nation's survival. If America fires first, for example, I have little doubt Russia will blast us and our allies to hell in short order. I'm not sure I could even blame them for doing so. Thus, if such a war, God forbid, should ever occur, it is in our interest not to fire unless China does first. Even at the risk of MAD.

...I'll give you American navel superiority...

Bellybuttons of mass destruction?

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images//4/4d/Prime.jpg

You Americans best start building Liberty Prime now...

Oh yeah? We built this (http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/17/robosaurus_wideweb__430x279.jpg) for fun.

isnt that the job of Canada to be the US's comic relief?

I'd say we're more like your favorite rape victim. We call it a relationship, but thats just because we have no way out.

Before I watch it: Army Ants, right?

Edit: Interferes with my music. I'll watch it later.

No the Chinese tunnel under the pacific...it's a classic

[snip]

A major argument for nuclear weapons is as a deterent. Thus, the implications of anyone using them premptively should be clear. I think that if another nation ever uses nuclear weapons premptively, they will probably be dogpiled by a number of the other nuclear nations as they will have become an unacceptable threat to other nation's survival. If America fires first, for example, I have little doubt Russia will blast us and our allies to hell in short order. I'm not sure I could even blame them for doing so. Thus, if such a war, God forbid, should ever occur, it is in our interest not to fire unless China does first. Even at the risk of MAD.

Having grown up with the cold war US vs CCCP mentality I never thought of this. If America fired first, We would become an unnacceptable threat to everyone. The fact that we already have is why we are feared and hated throughout much of the world.

Bellybuttons of mass destruction?

*spits beer on his monitor. Breaks out his backup.*

No the Chinese tunnel under the pacific...it's a classic

That was my original thought. Cool idea, especially if combined with the "march across the pacific" strategy.

Dude Chinese people don't need a tunnel. Didn't you see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? They can run on water - it's one of their fancy kung-fu tricks.

Having grown up with the cold war US vs CCCP mentality I never thought of this. If America fired first, We would become an unnacceptable threat to everyone. The fact that we already have is why we are feared and hated throughout much of the world.

Well, that's part of it. I'd say our propensity for propping up dictators and our disregard for interational laws and treaties plays a part as well.;)

Note I'd be against ever using nuclear weapons unless it was a choice between that or extinction, but using them preemptively is about the most stupid thing a government could do. Its about the geopolitical equivallent of walking into a police station with twenty on-duty officers and shooting the guy at the front desk.

America would win, because our military is the most modern. While China may have numbers on their side, we can reach the farthest.

You forget that China is propping us up like an economic Atlas.

What about US allies? Though its true, China is mainly a diplomatic and economic threat to US interests at pressent, since I'm fairly sure both sides are sane enough to realize what a war would cost them.


Very true, see the last paragraph of my initial post.



Bullshit. Air superiority alone does not win wars. You need ground troops to actually take and hold territory. Infantry is only irrelevant if you plan to fight a defensive war, or bomb your enemy from existence. So barring glassing China, ground troops do very much matter.


Air superiority does not win wars outright, however, they play a large part. The army that is dominant in the air will enjoy a massive tactical advantage on the battlefield, giving their infantry forces a much easier job. Also, our ground trooper are superior to China's.


In this scenario, wouldn't China invade South Korea? I'm thinking North Korea would probably side with China as well.


The DMZ is the world's most fortified border, with current levels of manpower, it would take a significant portion of China's air and ground forces to invade S. Korea, leaving their home front open to attack.



I think we would lose. And depending on how patriotic the Chinese poplace is, we might have the world's biggest insurgency on our hands.

Quite the fairytale view of war to assume that its over when the capital is taken.


True, but in this case it is more than likely. Don't forget, at this point, China will have been suffering months of air raids and blockade, combine that with an American invasion and capture of Beijing, it would not be hard to see the PRC falling apart under civil pressure, even before the fall of Beijing. Don't forget, a large portion of the Chinese middle class has rebellious sympathies. With the PLA crippled and distracted due to war, a democratic rebellion could become a real possibility.


Also, why do you apparently assume MAD if China fires first, but not if America does?


China would have to fire from its land based launchers, giving the United States enough time to reply in kind. America's ballistic submarine forces, on the other hand, pack enough firepower to destroy China without using land based missiles; and furthermore could be launched from inside Chinese territorial waters, not giving the Chinese enough warning to fire back.


A major argument for nuclear weapons is as a deterent. Thus, the implications of anyone using them premptively should be clear. I think that if another nation ever uses nuclear weapons premptively, they will probably be dogpiled by a number of the other nuclear nations as they will have become an unacceptable threat to other nation's survival. If America fires first, for example, I have little doubt Russia will blast us and our allies to hell in short order. I'm not sure I could even blame them for doing so. Thus, if such a war, God forbid, should ever occur, it is in our interest not to fire unless China does first. Even at the risk of MAD.

True, for the most part. Russia would have no reason to blast us except to avenge China, the two nations aren't exactly close bedfellows.

Well, that's part of it. I'd say our propensity for propping up dictators and our disregard for interational laws and treaties plays a part as well.;)

Note I'd be against ever using nuclear weapons unless it was a choice between that or extinction, but using them preemptively is about the most stupid thing a government could do. Its about the geopolitical equivallent of walking into a police station with twenty on-duty officers and shooting the guy at the front desk.

Right. When we had the monopoly on them, their preemptive use was a viable option. Now it would be suicide, with the only consolation being taking most of the world with us.

You forget that China is propping us up like an economic Atlas.

Echoing Big Jim P's post:
*We are also China's major consumer. It's a weird symbiotic relationship.

We are also China's major consumer. It's a weird symbiotic relationship.

See my first post in this thread. Especially the part about our entwined economies.

We are also China's major consumer. It's a weird symbiotic relationship.

This is somewhat of a falsehood. While both nations do trade vastly with each other, both nations could survive without the other. They'd both suffer, but they'd make it through.

Rolling squid;14588846']
True, for the most part. Russia would have no reason to blast us except to avenge China, the two nations aren't exactly close bedfellows.

If America launched the bomb unprovoked against China it would be seen as an intolerable threat to world security. The USA would be see world-wide as a rouge nation and a threat to national security by all nations. Russia would not attack to avenge China but in a desperate bid to maintain sovereignty - after all if the USA attacked China unprovoked, the Russians might naturally assume they'd be next.

If America launched the bomb unprovoked against China it would be seen as an intolerable threat to world security. The USA would be see world-wide as a rouge nation and a threat to national security by all nations. Russia would not attack to avenge China but in a desperate bid to maintain sovereignty - after all if the USA attacked China unprovoked, the Russians might naturally assume they'd be next.

I"m not saying the USA would launch an unprovoked attack. I'm saying that if, in a war situation, the USA launched a nuclear attack on China after China refused to capitulate, even when their navy and air force crippled, Russia would have nothing to fear. And even if we launched a full scale unprovoked attack on China, we'd face sanctions like that on N. Korea today. Neither Russia nor NATO would want to initiate MAD.

If America launched the bomb unprovoked against China it would be seen as an intolerable threat to world security. The USA would be see world-wide as a rouge nation and a threat to national security by all nations. Russia would not attack to avenge China but in a desperate bid to maintain sovereignty - after all if the USA attacked China unprovoked, the Russians might naturally assume they'd be next.

The US probably still has the 2 to 1 advantage in warheads and delivery systems that it always had against all possible enemies. Any time we attack preemptively, the rest of the nuclear club responds, and we now have MAD squared.

The US probably still has the 2 to 1 advantage in warheads and delivery systems that it always had against all possible enemies. Any time we attack preemptively, the rest of the nuclear club responds, and we now have MAD squared.

Not nessissarily disagreeing with the rest, but I don't think the US has the 2 to 1 edge you describe. In fact, I had heard a few years back that Russia alone had more nuclear weapons than America. America probably has newer and more advanced ones though.

Not nessissarily disagreeing with the rest, but I don't think the US has the 2 to 1 edge you describe. In fact, I had heard a few years back that Russia alone had more nuclear weapons than America. America probably has newer and more advanced ones though.

I think the US has always had about a 2 to 1 edge, and just used the "missile (good use of mis-direction) gap" as a way to get it's citizens to finance even more nukes.

A 2 to 1 advantage isn't of much use when both the US and Russia have enough nukes to wipe out their entire populations + east and west Europe. Tests of the American missile defense shield have proven less than effective so I think the conventional wisdom that we're all fucked if there actually is a nuclear war between two major world powers is correct. Even if your talking about war with China and you did win it - if even a few nukes made it over you'd loose millions of people, all of your major cities and you would be cleaning up the mess for a generation. Economically you would be fucked and would end up being a third rate world power... Best way to win WWIII is still not to fight it.

I think the US has always had about a 2 to 1 edge, and just used the "missile (good use of mis-direction) gap" as a way to get it's citizens to finance even more nukes.

I can be fairly open-minded to conspiricy theories, but I like to hear at least some evidence.

A 2 to 1 advantage isn't of much use when both the US and Russia have enough nukes to wipe out their entire populations + east and west Europe. Tests of the American missile defense shield have proven less than effective so I think the conventional wisdom that we're all fucked if there actually is a nuclear war between two major world powers is correct. Even if your talking about war with China and you did win it - if even a few nukes made it over you'd loose millions of people, all of your major cities and you would be cleaning up the mess for a generation. Economically you would be fucked and would end up being a third rate world power... Best way to win WWIII is still not to fight it.

Again, you're focusing on MAD, under which the scenario you lay our holds true, and in a nuclear war with Russia, it probably would. However, such a war with China would not necessarily go that way. If the USA struck first, we could use our ballistic subs to strike from a distance that wouldn't give the Chinese time to reply. If the Chinese launched first, we would have warning, so we would have no option but MAD.

Rolling squid;14589166']If the USA struck first, we could use our ballistic subs to strike from a distance that wouldn't give the Chinese time to reply. ...

Mabey yes mabey no. You really have no way of being sure that you will hit all of China's missiles in the first shot and if you missed even a few - well say goodbye to New York, Washington, Los Angeles ...

Gambling with the populations of cities isn't a very wise ...also if you nuked the china in a first strike like you propose you can bet that it will change the world wide perception of america for the worse. You think people hate you now! Wait till you have more blood on your hands than the Nazi's and see how well loved you are?

Mabey yes mabey no. You really have no way of being sure that you will hit all of China's missiles in the first shot and if you missed even a few - well say goodbye to New York, Washington, Los Angeles ...

Gambling with the populations of cities isn't a very wise ...also if you nuked the china in a first strike like you propose you can bet that it will change the world wide perception of america for the worse. You think people hate you now! Wait till you have more blood on your hands than the Nazi's and see how well loved you are?

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I'm saying it can be done. Though our best bet in any nuclear war is to use a ballistic missile sub to detonate one war head high over the target country, creating an EMP, and knocking out all electronics. Very effective, and limited loss of human life or chance for retaliation.

Rolling squid;14589238']I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I'm saying it can be done. Though our best bet in any nuclear war is to use a ballistic missile sub to detonate one war head high over the target country, creating an EMP, and knocking out all electronics. Very effective, and limited loss of human life or chance for retaliation.

Doesn't really work. Highend military hardware can be shielded from even a strong EMP. There is no way you can knock out electronics all over china with a single nuke. You would need tones of them. I know this because even Canadian CF-18's are hardened against EMPs. Thats the reason why the computers inside them are so fucking expensive despite being ancient and slow.

Rolling squid;14589238']I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I'm saying it can be done. Though our best bet in any nuclear war is to use a ballistic missile sub to detonate one war head high over the target country, creating an EMP, and knocking out all electronics. Very effective, and limited loss of human life or chance for retaliation.

wouldn't war you can harden electronics.
It is a nice way to take out communications. and to my knowledge the US has the only system to maintain command and control after such a blast.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5285HZ20090309

If the back and forth between the US and China on this and other issues ever comes to blows who do you think would win? Who has the most to lose? Who has the most to gain?

Do you think China would launch a nuclear first strike? What of the US? Considering they can wipe out all of each others cities and population.

Who would win this blockbuster war?

I think it would be the fight of the century.


First of all, there will never, and I mean NEVER!!!!!!!! be another war with China. Their economy is directly tied to ours, and such a war would be completely unprofitable and useless. Wars are fought over economics.

BUT! In a purely hypothetical scenario where such an event did occur, the United States would win without question. Infact, the victory the United States would have over the Chinese would be EPIC. Having been to China and knowing several Chinese General Staffers, I can tell you that I have discussed this possibility ad nauseum with them. One morning I had breakfast with a General and his Aid de Camp, a Colonel, and we discussed this very thing.

First of all, it would have to be a conflict similar to the American War against Japan in the 1940s. Likely the Chinese would strike at Taiwan, assist the Peoples Korea Army push across the 38th Parallel, as well as a Naval infantry landing on the island of Hokkaido. With the Military Assistance Pact that they have with Russia now, the Russians would likely strike the Kuril Islands for their own interests. If they did not get involved, the Chinese would cede those islands to the Russians immediately following. Then, the Chinese Navy, assuming that it has updated itself away from being coastal only and is now blue water capable, would likely proceed along with the Chinese Naval infantry to strike at Guam, the Phillipines Guadalcanal, Okinawa, Wake Island, Midway, and ultimately Hawaii. Meanwhile, they'd have a defensive wall established along the Chinese-Kazahk border to prevent an American assault through there (basing rights in Uzbekistan, we would be allowed to move through Kazakh), as well as station troops along the Nepalese border lest the Indians attack and allow American force to attack as well.

First of all, that is the CHINESE plan of action. Here is how it would play out inevitably:

First of all, the American Heavy Division stationed in Korea would hold off the Chinese-Korean Advance with a delaying action along with the ROK Army/Marine Corps. The North Korean forces, acting as shock troops for the PLA, would break and be annihilated though would likely reach Seoul. The better part of the NK Air Force would be wiped out within three hours by the Air Force units stationed in Korea and Japan. Marine Corps units in the Pacific would redeploy in Korea within 15 hours. The US Navy would begin cordoning off Chinese military harbours and working to break their offensive strikes on other islands, specifically Taiwan. Within two-three days, several brigades (at least) from the 1st Infantry, 1st Armor, 4th Infantry, 10th Armor, 82nd Airborne, at least two battalions of the 75th Regiment (Ranger), 101st (Air Assault) and 1st Cavalry would redeploy to Japan, and then to Korea, after breaking the assault on Hokkaido assuming that the Navy hadn't already prevented this. Week One is drawing to a close. By this point, I'd estimate that the PLA have lost 10,000 men, the North Korea Army is almost annihilated, and the first of the PLAR (Reserves) are being called up. They surge forward sending division after division of troops into Korea, ultimately driving US Forces out.

The US was counting on this. As most Chinese military divisions move in close formation, several appropriately placed tactical nuclear bombs are detonated at Yuan (a major crossing junction of seven bridges...Underwater Demolition Team sailors effectively halted the NKPA advance south of Seoul by destroying these), and on known command centers. The Air Force begins dropping BLU-82 20,000 pound bombs on PLA Command Centers in the North, as well as Kim Il Jung and his Son's Palaces, killing everything. The Chinese, horrified and broken, begin an immediate retreat as American forces threaten to unleash a wave of strategic hydrogen bombs on Beijing and Shanghai immediately after. American, British, Canadian, Australian, Japanese, and South African Forces, who have by the end of week two all deployed to this theater, are in pursuit. Peyongyang is occupied, the North is annexed into the south, and the NATO Armies sit on the Yalu River. From there its all specultion, but this is the general plan for how a war with China would work out under NATO General Staff Officers.

I'd like to add that the PLA General I spoke with said that what would break China's chances of victory was their failings in Naval power and air power. The ground battle would be a close one, but only because of China's vast numerical superiority. They have 5 million men in the standing army, about 7 million in the reserves, and 350 million men in the inactive reserve ready to be called up at any given time. These men are, of course, cannon fodder and are totally combat ineffective. Only about 1/5th of the Chinese PLA Ground Forces are worth a damn and have modern equipment.

The only way they could have a chance is with Russia's "promised" involvement. That throws the entire scenario off, but thats for another time. If you would like, I'll tell you MY opinion of how that would go, but it isn't official.

Rolling squid]
True, for the most part. Russia would have no reason to blast us except to avenge China, the two nations aren't exactly close bedfellows.


Not true at all. They've patched up the Sino-Soviet Split of the Cold War. They have whats called the "Shanghai Cooperational Organization", an eastern Russian/Chinese venture and "answer" to NATO. They're on very good terms now, even considering themselves military allies.

wouldn't war you can harden electronics.
It is a nice way to take out communications. and to my knowledge the US has the only system to maintain command and control after such a blast.

No of course it isn't. An EMP simply overvolts electronics by causing a momentary voltage spike over just about anything metal. It's effects can be mitigated by proper shielding, overbuilding the electronics to accept voltages far over tolerance, circuit breakers, etc. Radios which survive are often cut off by atmospheric interference caused by radiation but this is temporary and dedicated telephone lines, as long as the lines remain intact and the systems were overbuilt to 'take it' will still work. I don't know what the type of systems Russians or Chinese have but assuming they'd loose all command and control just because a few radios go out would be a tactical error. I'd think they'd at-least have a network of telephone lines connected to radios which would bridge any breaks.

The US was counting on this. As most Chinese military divisions move in close formation, several appropriately placed tactical nuclear bombs are detonated at Yuan (a major crossing junction of seven bridges...Underwater Demolition Team sailors effectively halted the NKPA advance south of Seoul by destroying these), and on known command centers. The Air Force begins dropping BLU-82 20,000 pound bombs on PLA Command Centers in the North, as well as Kim Il Jung and his Son's Palaces, killing everything. The Chinese, horrified and broken, begin an immediate retreat as American forces threaten to unleash a wave of strategic hydrogen bombs on Beijing and Shanghai immediately after. American, British, Canadian, Australian, Japanese, and South African Forces, who have by the end of week two all deployed to this theater, are in pursuit. Peyongyang is occupied, the North is annexed into the south, and the NATO Armies sit on the Yalu River. From there its all specultion, but this is the general plan for how a war with China would work out under NATO General Staff Officers.


I'd have to call B.S on this bit. The United States wouldn't risk setting off an exchange of tactical nuclear bombs, which would lead to an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons. The general strategy is a good, but the nuclear parts would never happen.

And on a sub note, I envy the degree of knowledge/connections you have regarding this. May I ask how you came by these?

China has invested too much in the US, anyway. Chairman Mao likes his dollars.

Mao has been mouldering in his grave for decades now and it certainly wasn't that crackpot who opened up Chinese markets to foreign investment.

Rolling squid;14589433']I'd have to call B.S on this bit. The United States wouldn't risk setting off an exchange of tactical nuclear bombs, which would lead to an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons. The general strategy is a good, but the nuclear parts would never happen.

And on a sub note, I envy the degree of knowledge/connections you have regarding this. May I ask how you came by these?

Extreme levels of research as part of job training (Officer of Marines), as well as being EXCEPTIONALLY lucky. I visited Beijing about a year ago. The Hotel I was living in was down the road from a Chinese Government Center which, I was told, was the office for the Chinese General Staff. I did not know who all was in there, but apparantly there was an annual meeting occurring at the time. When the Chinese General and his staff learned that an American was staying in the building, they wanted to treat me to breakfast in the, I might add exquisite, breakfast lounge in the hotel. We talked over breakfast and tea and finally he asked me what my job was, and I told him, "At the moment I am a student, but I am going to training to be an Officer in the United States Marine Corps," and this got him going on wanting to discuss tactics, and hypotheticals between us fighting them. It was all good natured fun and very enlightening.

Since I do a lot of military research for fun (I am, despite being an infantry officer, an intelligence specialist) I know what to look for, who to talk to, and what questions to ask to learn things. I was taking a train from St. Petersburg to Vladimir (About, I'd guess...two hundred and fifty miles to the west of Moscow). This train had been commissioned by the Russian Federal Ground Forces to take their army to an Army Junction along the way to Vladimir, where they would proceed by motorcade to Chechnya. I was in first class along with the other officers and I made friends with a Senior Lieutenant I believe his rank was, or maybe he was their version of a captain, I really couldn't tell. He had three stars on his shoulder board which is representative of one or the oher, I'm not sure which. But anyhow, he was a very interesting man, exceptionally intelligent, and quite fluent in English. I talked to him during the twelve hour ride to his destination about his time in Chechnya and similar things to the Chinese Officer's discussion with me. It was equally enlightening. He actually gave me a spare Russian Federal Ground Forces patch he had, which I presently use as a book mark. Something I definitely treasure. I do hope he's survived...I never heard from him again.


As for the tactical nuclear weapon: that was, of course a hypothetical. I only said that because that is OFFICIAL Doctrine for that situation. It is purely situational, and it is one of three possibilities...the others being withdrawal from the penninsula and surrender respectively which would not happen. The tactical nuclear weapons are risky, but generally speaking what would, supposedly, happen is this:

We'd message their command center right before the event occurs and tell them what is about to happen to give them heads up. We do this as a kind of courtesy of sorts, because otherwise they'd flip a shit in confusion. Kind of an ironic chivalry. I don't know if it would be used, but we had similar plans for the Fulda Gap, hence why I said that. Last time we tried to halt a Chinese/NKPA advance through Yuan, those UDT guys BARELY manged to do it, and only halted them for a little while. It allowed, of course, the UN Coalition to regroup and drive them back to the 38th, but it was a closey. With TACNUKES availible, I do believe they would be considered or even utilized. It depends on the Commanders and the politicians and if they have the stomach for the risks. *shrug*

;)

Extreme levels of research as part of job training (Officer of Marines), as well as being EXCEPTIONALLY lucky. I visited Beijing about a year ago. The Hotel I was living in was down the road from a Chinese Government Center which, I was told, was the office for the Chinese General Staff. I did not know who all was in there, but apparantly there was an annual meeting occurring at the time. When the Chinese General and his staff learned that an American was staying in the building, they wanted to treat me to breakfast in the, I might add exquisite, breakfast lounge in the hotel. We talked over breakfast and tea and finally he asked me what my job was, and I told him, "At the moment I am a student, but I am going to training to be an Officer in the United States Marine Corps," and this got him going on wanting to discuss tactics, and hypotheticals between us fighting them. It was all good natured fun and very enlightening.

Since I do a lot of military research for fun (I am, despite being an infantry officer, an intelligence specialist) I know what to look for, who to talk to, and what questions to ask to learn things. I was taking a train from St. Petersburg to Vladimir (About, I'd guess...two hundred and fifty miles to the west of Moscow). This train had been commissioned by the Russian Federal Ground Forces to take their army to an Army Junction along the way to Vladimir, where they would proceed by motorcade to Chechnya. I was in first class along with the other officers and I made friends with a Senior Lieutenant I believe his rank was, or maybe he was their version of a captain, I really couldn't tell. He had three stars on his shoulder board which is representative of one or the oher, I'm not sure which. But anyhow, he was a very interesting man, exceptionally intelligent, and quite fluent in English. I talked to him during the twelve hour ride to his destination about his time in Chechnya and similar things to the Chinese Officer's discussion with me. It was equally enlightening. He actually gave me a spare Russian Federal Ground Forces patch he had, which I presently use as a book mark. Something I definitely treasure. I do hope he's survived...I never heard from him again.


As for the tactical nuclear weapon: that was, of course a hypothetical. I only said that because that is OFFICIAL Doctrine for that situation. It is purely situational, and it is one of three possibilities...the others being withdrawal from the penninsula and surrender respectively which would not happen. The tactical nuclear weapons are risky, but generally speaking what would, supposedly, happen is this:

We'd message their command center right before the event occurs and tell them what is about to happen to give them heads up. We do this as a kind of courtesy of sorts, because otherwise they'd flip a shit in confusion. Kind of an ironic chivalry. I don't know if it would be used, but we had similar plans for the Fulda Gap, hence why I said that. Last time we tried to halt a Chinese/NKPA advance through Yuan, those UDT guys BARELY manged to do it, and only halted them for a little while. It allowed, of course, the UN Coalition to regroup and drive them back to the 38th, but it was a closey. With TACNUKES availible, I do believe they would be considered or even utilized. It depends on the Commanders and the politicians and if they have the stomach for the risks. *shrug*

;)

holy crap. :hail:

regarding the tacnukes, couldn't you do the same thing with a payload of conventional explosives, say, five or six BLU-82 equivalents (they're decommissioned), and avoid the side effects of a nuclear detonation?

Rolling squid;14589623']holy crap. :hail:

regarding the tacnukes, couldn't you do the same thing with a payload of conventional explosives, say, five or six BLU-82 equivalents (they're decommissioned), and avoid the side effects of a nuclear detonation?


You CAN...but you don't have the psychological effect. Remember! One thing that the Marine Corps instills in you: a love for overkill :tongue:

Additionally, tactical nuclear weapons do not have the same atomic yield as a hydrogen bomb, hence the smaller size, smaller blast radius, and within a week or a month at the most, the radiation effects will be basically gone. Yuan is also in the middle of nowhere.

Anyhow, if you envy my knowledge on the subject, there is a way you can become just as well informed as I am, if not more so. I didn't learn that much at Quantico, they simply taught me how to use the information I already knew and how to learn more efficiently.

I'd start at www.globalsecurity.org thats what I did. www.amazon.com is great too...hehe...type in anything you want to learn and there is literature on it. My best hub for additional sources is wiki believe it or not...there are plenty of brilliant links to reliable information pools. I learn by reading ;) Watching BBC and CNN are also major sources of intel.