A war China vs. U.S-who will win?

[infamous]

 

Why the heck would there be a war anyway?

 

 

Actually there is this little issue called Taiwan. China has vowed to someday reclaim it and warned America not to interfere.

 

CNN - War of words escalates between China and Taiwan - July 26, 1999

 

 

 

Conscientiously objecting..................Infy

[Buffy]

Actually there is this little issue called Taiwan.

I know. But that's one that's so well understood that both players have all scenarios worked out to 4 moves. I think if someone does something stupid, its going to be over in 90 minutes...

 

So long mom, I'm off to drop the bomb, :evil:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Why the heck would there be a war anyway?

Ego, ignorance, and hatred.

 

 

BTW, HB, you're a stereotypical bigot. :evil:

[hallenrm]

The U.S.

 

An army travels on it's stomach, and we've got the most arable land which is ready to go.

 

TFS

 

That's passe TFS. modern warefare is not fought or won with infantry alone:)

[Michaelangelica]

In reality neither can afford a war, financially, economically and socially

 

The US depends on China to keep inflation low (cheap goods) and Walmart operating.

China depends on US to buy its goods and therefore develop its economy.

 

The Japanese are edgy about China & expects US support, but when push comes to shove, Taiwan will be re-united with the mainland (This is happening economically as we speak with Taiwanese companies setting up in China). Virtually no county recognises Taiwan diplomatically as "china"

[Boerseun]

Someone made the comment above that neither the US nor China are imperialistic.

 

I beg to differ.

 

The West have largely written off Africa, and this is quite understandable. You won't keep on lending money to folks who simply refuse to pay back. It makes for terrible business. And since the USSR exited stage left, proxy warfare in Africa have largely stopped. The wars you still see are all internal matters.

 

China have very silently and quietly moved in to the void. They are propping up dictatorships like Mugabe's Zimbabwe in return for lucrative mineral rights, etc. They are getting involved in a lot of deals in Africa where they don't want the African countries to pay the loans back, they just want exclusive access to resources. This, of course, makes it incredibly attractive to the African States. In another twenty or so years, when the resources are drying up and the rest of the World tries to woo African States into resource deals, they'll find China has already won this second 'Scramble for Africa', and China have won it because the West was occupied with other things and didn't notice. China's not really advertising the fact, either.

 

So, yes - economically imperialistic, them Chinese are.

[IDMclean]

Which is an interesting facet of the people's republic to note, that and the buying USA debt.

 

In my own Socio-economic model I have been working on recently one of the things that emerges from it is the need to incorporate the current model into it. Which means acquistion of resources. I have been brought to question the very idea that Capitialism and Socialism are mutually exclusive. It came to my attention that one could have a society that has internally Socialistic economics while maintaining externally capitialistic economics.

 

This design lends itself to long term assimilation of exo-societies, expecially if one adds similar internal-external hooks to the Sociological power allocation scheme.

 

Which if implemented correctly would mean that any country (or business) that went international with this scheme and kept it commonplace, could eventually assimilate every other culture by virtue of the buy in.

 

Supporting my hypothesis that China and/or India will be the superpower(s) of this century. Reasoning being that it would seem that China has a internal-external economic hookin scheme and India would seem to have something like the socialization scheme that I have theorized...

 

As for war between the nations? Not likely, in my view. Anymore war is too costly (socially, economic, and technically; in totality and over the long term) for any nation to conduct except on the smallest scale and against vastly insuperior forces. These traditionally, if I remember correctly, are actually called skirmishes.

 

Ah, how to make mountians out of molehills :evil:

[Michaelangelica]

I have been brought to question the very idea that Capitialism and Socialism are mutually exclusive. It came to my attention that one could have a society that has internally Socialistic economics while maintaining externally capitialistic economics.

Only Americans (USA) believe they are mutually exclusive. That is why if I was going to be poor I would do so in the UK or Australia not the USA where food stamps keep you alive to freeze in cardboard boxes, or die of tuberculosis

 

exo-societies

,what's that?

Supporting my hypothesis that China and/or India will be the superpower(s) of this century

. Perhaps, but China could also implode if it does not allow more personal freedoms. They have allowed home 'ownership' (long lease) but not private ownership of rural land. the stress and strains of an all controlling government are showing up.

 

Resource rich nations like Africa, Indonesia, S. America, Australia will also be courted and their economies carried along with the booming Indian and Chinese economies.

As for war between the nations? Not likely, in my view.

I agree but everyone said that about WW1 and WW2

[IDMclean]

Exo-society, a society that is external to the one considered.

 

If you consider the U.S. for example, then any society that is not the U.S. is external.

They have allowed home 'ownership' (long lease) but not private ownership of rural land. the stress and strains of an all controlling government are showing up.

 

I will point out that private ownership of land is likely to phase out. It is non-consecutive to meeting overall societal needs. It is mainly in America that the idea of privately owned land is so prevalent. Paris, 70% publicly owned land. Amsterdam, 90% publicly owned land. Both are low on the homeless issue.

 

It's like the idea of Intellectual property and incentive to innovate. The only reason copyright exists, is to give creative persons incentive to innovate, so that the knowledge and understanding of society maybe increased.

 

It was hoped that eventually intellectual property would be phased out entirely when a better system came along.

 

Same kind of idea.

[Michaelangelica]

I will point out that private ownership of land is likely to phase out. It is non-consecutive to meeting overall societal needs. It is mainly in America that the idea of privately owned land is so prevalent. Paris, 70% publicly owned land. Amsterdam, 90% publicly owned land. Both are low on the homeless issue.

Do you think so?

There is a grass-roots (pardon the pun) push in China for rural land ownership rights.

Australia also has over 70% home ownership.

Land in ACT is sold only on a 99 year lease. I don't know about rural land. The Chinese and Japanese and English(famously Lord Vesty) seem to be buying a lot of it.

Aborigines have land rights as a group.

We have a government low-income housing scheme,(underfunded) and a good/reasonable social security system but there are still homeless people.

 

It's like the idea of Intellectual property and incentive to innovate. The only reason copyright exists, is to give creative persons incentive to innovate, so that the knowledge and understanding of society maybe increased.

 

It was hoped that eventually intellectual property would be phased out entirely when a better system came along.

 

Same kind of idea.

Do you think so?

It certainly doesn't look like that is happening- What with US firms patenting every bit of genetic material they can get their hands on

and arguments and

raids in China against pirated US films and software.

[IDMclean]

That patent thing is rather humorous. Given that it resulted from a seemly innocent ruling by the less than scientificly educated Supreme court. When Shell brought forth a Oil cleaning bacteria before them to be reconsidered against the rulling of the Patent office. The Patent office made it clear that life could not be patented.

 

The supreme court saw it as little more than a cleaning detergent and ruled that it could be patented, which forced a change in the patent office that "Everything and anything with the sole exception human life maybe patented".

 

The bacteria was featured in the movie Phantoms.

[Michaelangelica]

That patent thing is rather humorous.

A lot of people are finding very un-funny. See ethnobotany thread

India screamed recently as US firms tried to patent Neem an insecticide that has been used by indians for thousands of years.

But bioprospecting is mostly unregulated and there are mounting calls to establish legal frameworks for such work.

 

The Convention on Biological Diversity produced at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro entitled nations to a share of the profits from substances yielded by their flora and fauna.

It was ratified by 188countries _ but not the United States, which argues that such a requirement stifles innovation and would undermine the patent system.

(AP) Peruvian Root in Bioprospecting Dispute | WKRN.COM

 

Brazil does not have the tecnology to find what micro-organism/bacteria/fungi are important in Terra preta soils. They might even make soil "grow"! However Brazil won't let the soil out of the country either, because they fear that the USA will genetically patent anything they find.

 

;)

Back to the topic

Who is to say war is not possible with this person (notice I was not derogatory to another nation's chosen leader) in charge

 

 

Bush Hides U.S. Report Card

 

CRAWFORD, TX—According to White House sources, following yet another disappointing grading period for the nation he leads, President Bush hid the national report card in his bedroom sock drawer Monday.

"We, as a nation, got a D in international relations, a D in economics, and an F in military history,"

Bush reportedly said. "We must work hard to make sure no one finds out about this."

Critics say the report-card-hiding effort is immature, and point out that the sock drawer is the first place The New York Times will look.

The Onion - America's Finest News Source | The Onion, America's Finest News Source, is an award-winning publication covering world, national, and local issues.)

And MEANWHILE back in the "real"(?) world :rant:

China hits plan to defend Taiwan | The Japan Times Online

Friday, Jan. 5, 2007

China hits plan to defend Taiwan

 

BEIJING (Kyodo) Beijing was quick to lash out Thursday over a proposal by Japan and the United States to coordinate the actions of their armed forces in the event of a military conflict between China and Taiwan.

 

"We have taken note of the report and we express our grave concern over it," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a regular news conference.

 

"Taiwan is an inseparable part of China, and whatever arrangements, discussions or considerations between Japan and the United States should respect and firmly adhere to their (stated) one-China policy," Liu said.

 

Japanese and U.S. government sources said Wednesday that defense and diplomatic officials from the two countries will begin examining various scenarios for a confrontation in the Taiwan Strait.

. . .

Both Japan and the United States have a "one-China" policy recognizing Beijing as the sole government of China, but they maintain unofficial ties with Taiwan. Washington is also legally obliged to defend the island if it is attacked. :hammer:

This is a well written article discounting the Chinese bogeyman and about how wars start with threads like this

The Japan Times Online

. . .we now have an army of Japanese and U.S. hawks -- Foreign Minister Aso included -- ramping up China as an alleged threat to Japan and the Far East.

 

Much is made of Beijing's recent increases in military spending. But those increases began from a very low level; until recently its military were more concerned with running companies and growing their own vegetables.

 

And Beijing faces a U.S.-Japan military buildup in East Asia that is avowedly anti-China and that spends a lot more than China does.

[sebbysteiny]

At the risk of being boring, everybody who knows anything about war and military technology will know that America will kick China's *** completely and totally in a conventional war. The only question is, will America lose 10 thousands of serviceman or only hundreds?

 

The single reason is the stealth fighter. China's entire airforce will be destroyed by a half douzen of those things. There really is no military response, not for China, or anybody.

[Boerseun]

At the risk of being boring, everybody who knows anything about war and military technology will know that America will kick China's *** completely and totally in a conventional war. The only question is, will America lose 10 thousands of serviceman or only hundreds?

 

The single reason is the stealth fighter. China's entire airforce will be destroyed by a half douzen of those things. There really is no military response, not for China, or anybody.

That's a bit presumptuous.

 

A standing army of more than 6 million is a heck of a lot of cannon-fodder, in anybody's language - regardless of how many Stealth Fighters the opposition has.

 

It's also an open question of whether the usage of Stealth Fighters by only one of the two sides will still qualify such a war as 'conventional'. Personally, I don't think so.

 

The US has a hard enough time keeping the peace in Iraq. Even after withdrawing from Iraq, with all its forces ready and available, I think going head-on against a 6-million strong opposition might be biting off a bit more than it can chew at this stage.

 

It all depends on the theater of war. If the fight is in Asia, the US is sure to loose. They simply won't be able to shoot down the enemy as quickly as the fallen will be replaced by eager and patriotic local countrymen.

Similarly, if the conflict were to take place on American soil, China is sure to loose, not only for the same reason, but also because China has very limited experience in fighting battles with extended supply lines.

 

In my view, however, the battle will be fought by proxy in Third-World resource-rich countries, similar to what happened between the US and the USSR in the Cold War. The closest they came to having their two countries "fight", was via shouting matches in the UN; meantime, they were at each other's throats in countries all over the world. Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique comes to mind. I think exactly the same think will happen between the US and China in the next twenty-thirty years.

[IDMclean]

I have to serious question what constitutes win and lose in such a war.

 

If we killed all of china, all that would show is how brutual and dangerous the U.S. and would likely start a coalition to stave off further American aggression. If we beat out China's military, we can't control the populus for any appreciatable amount of time. They out number us something like 10 to 1.

 

What would constitute win and lose, and what would be the objective of such a war?

[Buffy]

What would constitute win and lose, and what would be the objective of such a war?

This is all kind of like counting the number of angels that can dance on the end of a pin unless you're more specific about the scenario. To me, the most likely "conflicts" are:

• China attacks Taiwan because they're getting to uppity. Our objective would be to stop the invasion and no more. Because of the reasons you cite, we'd probably pelt their armed forces trying to invade or attack only: this means the theatre is the Sea of China, and is Naval only. If they escalate beyond conventional forces or attack other countries, its a whole new ball game (see below).
  
• China invades North Korea because it collapses due to coup or chaos. We'd probably do nothing except tell the Chinese that they'd better stay out of South Korea and work toward "assimilation" by the South. China *really* does not want to pay for this, and they'd do this "peacefully" and demand that the West and SK helps "pay" for it in return for it being eventually ceded to Korea (I know of no claims China has on it, amazingly enough).
  
• China or India invade the other: In spite of our "friendship" with India, we don't have a mutual defense pact with them, while they *do* with Russia. So again we'd stay on the sidelines.
  
• China vs other Mainland neighbors: Like India, no defense pacts: Vietnam, Laos: they're on their own.
  
• China asserts control over China Sea Islands: this has been going on for ages. If it escalates its going to be a very tiny version of the Taiwan scenario.
  
• Escalatio: If any of these conflicts spills out into other regions--including an attack on Japan--all hell would break loose, and be prepared for WWIII. The Chinese Army is so capitalist these days though, its hard to imagine them being stupid enough to do this. We've come a long way from Mao...
  

Can you think of other conflicts?

 

Note that I think even if Bush attacked N.Korea, China would probably protest vociferously but do nothing because they'd love it if they could say--channelling Colin Powell--"you broke it, you've bought it."

 

Counter-strike,

Buffy

[PsyCho]

Depends who else gets dragged in. Look at the powers currently aligning and allying themselves with one another (I look to Russia, Iran, Korea etc.,)

 

US vs. China... We all loose, question is how much..

 

However that fight is not looming yet..... The build up of American troops in a "final push against insurgents" at time that just happens to be leading into presidential elections with increased numbers securing the "Iran-Iraq" border (as well as coninciding with the passing of UN resolution 1737....... Let's wait and hope I'm a cynic huh)

 

Another interesting question from above is.... Which war will happen next

 

Israel vs. Syria

Israel Vs. Lebanon (part II)

India Vs. Pakistan

America vs. Cuba

America Vs. Iran

African middle ground representing East vs west

Iraq vs Iraq Vs. Iraq vs. Iraq

 

etc., etc., Any takers?

 

Note to self... Must stop procrastinating with exams a coming!