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

[Michaelangelica]

everybody who knows anything about war and military technology will know that America will kick China's *** completely and totally in a conventional war

.

Thats what all the combatants said about all their enemies in WW1.

It seems common to depreciate the military skills of your enemy.

Remeber how the North Vietnamese kicked our ***?

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..

Agreed, but in all wars all loose.

 

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!

Israel vs. Syria- on now, syria is winning

Israel Vs. Lebanon (part II)-on now Israel is winning but Lebanon is getting the sympathy vote.

India Vs. Pakistan-on next week, talks and covert ops on now.

America vs. Cuba O come on! You not going to try the Bay of Pigs thing again? Castro will be dead soon and American Corparations can take over where they left off (There will also be a rush of 1950's US car enthusiasts going to buy all the old Cuban cars)

America Vs. Iran-on now, hard to see how either can win

African middle ground representing East vs west- China now winning, apart from Sir Bob Geldorf & that Microsoft milionaire guy-what-his -name; no-one else wants to know-too hard.

Iraq vs Iraq Vs. Iraq vs. Iraq-on now;Iraq is loosing.

 

You didn't mention Israel nuking Iran's Nuclear Sites-all over the news yesterday. Strangely West Wing (great show by the way) last night was about US trying to stop the UK doing the same thing.

I can't see why Iran can't have a few bombs. All the other kids in the playground have them.

 

Procrastination is the ONLY way to deal with exam stress.

Have you seen the Hypography games area?:hihi:

Good luck

[PsyCho]

Missed that... Just googled and VERY interesting. Damned work, gets in the way of real life.

 

Also America vs Cuba may well happen (covertly or otherwise.. and not all wars require direct combat).. Depends how long and how stable the ethos is Castro has instilled..

 

Also in that list clearly includes tit-for-tat.. By war I guess I was referring to one where they feel the need to inform the masses, and mobilise public opinion for whatever reason..

[sebbysteiny]

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.

 

With respect, I completely disagree with this analysis. I think it makes no military sense.

 

A conventional war simply means one where there are no WMDs. The use of planes does not make a war unconventional even if those planes are far far far superior to that of the opponent.

 

A standing army of 6 million is easily routable. Stage 1) use 6 stealth airplanes to completely irradicate all of the Chinese thousands of airforce. Stage 2) Use 4 stealth bombers to knock out all of Chinese's main air defences. Stage 3) Use hundreds of F16's to knock out almost all of Chinese's minor air defences. Stage 4) Use dousans of B-52s to completely annihilate all visable tanks, infantry concentrations and artillary. Stage 5) Launch a ground invasion and continue to destroy the chinese army until it routs and persue the routers, or at least their equipment. China has no defence to this.

 

Will America then win the peace? Who cares. It has won the war and China will cease to have any foreighn influence on the world any more for a long time to come.

 

China could wage a gorilla war, but America would be completely free to pick off all of China's military and economic infrustructure at will, again reducing China's threat to zero.

 

China has absolutely no defence. Especially since America has not just 6 stealth fighters but more like 60.

 

You bring up Iraq. But is Iraq now an entity capable of threatening neighbours? Now, the problem is that Iraq is too weak AND America needs to win the peace to win the war against terror.

 

Time out.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Honestly, I think the US would win. National pride aside, the United States has a much larger capability for war. China may outnumber us when it comes to PEOPLE who could fight in "hand-to-hand" combat, but our other military systems are so much stronger.

First of all, we have decades of experience, and decades to perfect defense and attack systems. China has not been that active in its defensive and counter-offensive development.

[IDMclean]

Will America then win the peace? Who cares. It has won the war and China will cease to have any foreighn influence on the world any more for a long time to come.

 

China could wage a gorilla war, but America would be completely free to pick off all of China's military and economic infrustructure at will, again reducing China's threat to zero.

 

China has absolutely no defence. Especially since America has not just 6 stealth fighters but more like 60.

 

Ok... I will point out the major issue with this stance, Sebby.

 

America would lose. As it was pointed out, America is economically interlocked with China. We may destroy there military, but all they have to do is refuse to do business with us. We lose. I would imagine that such a senario would lead to a world finicial crisis, as many countries, expecially the US is reliant on the industry and economy of China.

 

So again, we lose the conflict if we win the war. Winning the war and losing the conflict are as different as winning the battle and losing the war.

 

Also consider the costs of your strategy. You have any idea how much such a massive military opperation would cost us? Consider Our military efforts in small, flat, desert places, or even lightly mountainious areas like Iraq and Afghandistan. We exhausted our supply of Big blue in bombing Afghanistan.

 

To wage war on China, it would cost us alot due to alone position (we would have to get there in the first place), terrian (highly mountainious, sparse, and covered in forest.), and equipment costs. Then there is the whole question of how much would it cost us interms of lives? I am sorry but China has 6 million in their army. That doesn't include their Militia.

 

What is 1% of 2.2 billion?

 

Then on top of that think of the amount of American overseas economic, and industrial infrastructure we would destory or otherwise make inaccessable by these actions.

 

We haven't even begun talking what the rest of the world would be doing in all of this, or how they would react. Nor have we talked about Allies, Enemies, International agreements, treaties, laws, and otherwise.

 

It's not so simple as you seem to make it sound.

[Buffy]

I'll keep pointing you boys back to the issue I pose above: This kind of discussion is idiotic without stating what the theatre of operations is and what the goals are.

 

On the other hand, I'll point out a "weapon" that China has that no one has mentioned so far: the US debt to China. China currently holds over $250 Billion dollars in Treasury Bonds and a few hundred billion more in currency and investments.

 

If China really wanted to bring the US to its knees, all it would have to do is to dump all of these investments on the market, and simultaneously letting the Yuan float. This would result in a crash in the bond market, the dollar would be worth a fraction of what it is today, and our net foreign revenue from exports would plummet. It would make the Great Depression look like a cakewalk. This would be "expensive" for China, but its better than losing a war that would cost much more, and diplomatically, the Chinese think strategically enough to see this as an obvious alternative if they needed the leverage.

 

Do you think maybe there's a reason that Bush treats them with kid gloves? I give him the benefit of the doubt and say this shows he's not a complete idiot.

 

Strategically thinking,

Buffy

[gribbon]

I think Michaelangelica brought up a good point about Syria and Israel-this leads to another debate: How close are the armed forces of Syria to matching those of Israel? From the impression I get, they are quite close, mainly thanks to that genius Hafez al-Assad. I would hope that they do..Israel needs some violent treatment to get it under control, but the military isn't a speciality for me, so others will need to debate this.

 

Honestly, I think the US would win. National pride aside, the United States has a much larger capability for war. China may outnumber us when it comes to PEOPLE who could fight in "hand-to-hand" combat, but our other military systems are so much stronger.

First of all, we have decades of experience, and decades to perfect defense and attack systems. China has not been that active in its defensive and counter-offensive development.

 

But are American soldiers ever as determined as Asians? Bear in mind that the pain threshold of Vietnam was alot higher than the U.S anticipated.

[Michaelangelica]

Honestly, I think the US would win.

 

What war have they won since 1945?

 

(and that was mainly due to the A-Bomb. An invasion of mainland Japan would have annihilated US forces.)

[sebbysteiny]

People have started to argue that war might cost America some money. Loss of trade, and perhaps a depression for a few years.

 

Erm, my god! How have people of this generation become so god damned SOFT. War is war. Blood, guts annihilation. Having to pay a few extra pennys for luxiary items, is NOT in any way a defeat.

 

America might lose billions. China would lose trillions. The costs to America, are ..... AFFORDABLE.

 

Agreed, but in all wars all loose.

 

Some others have argued this type of thing too. This is a logical fallacy of equivication on the word 'lose'. The sentence is correct if 'lose' means 'suffer a loss'. The sentance is completely wrong if 'lose' means 'not win', or 'defeated'. For a small sacrifice, one civilisation can annihilate another.

 

What war have they won since 1945?

The cold war :)

 

I think Michaelangelica brought up a good point about Syria and Israel-this leads to another debate: How close are the armed forces of Syria to matching those of Israel? From the impression I get, they are quite close, mainly thanks to that genius Hafez al-Assad. I would hope that they do..Israel needs some violent treatment to get it under control, but the military isn't a speciality for me, so others will need to debate this.

 

If this issue was in any way relevant to this thread, I would point out that the moment the Israeli Army is defeated in a conventional war by any Arab force, it will lead to yet another genocide of 6 million Jews. But since this thread is about US vs China, I will not deal with this alarming prospect. If you wish this discussed, I think you must start a new thread.

[Buffy]

People have started to argue that war might cost America some money. Loss of trade, and perhaps a depression for a few years.

 

Erm, my god! How have people of this generation become so god damned SOFT.

Its hardly about being "soft." This argument made by "people" is all about the fact that its very effective blackmail: keeps even the bloodthirsty neo-con *hawks* at bay. Not talkin' 'bout no steeeeking pansy liberals here. Cheney's buddies at Exxon and Chevron would kill him first. Honest.

America might lose billions. China would lose trillions. The costs to America, are ..... AFFORDABLE.

Without any context as to what's being fought over and where, this is a meaningless statement, and isn't really even true in the abstract. China actually could afford to lose all of their dollar denominated assets because so much of their trade is now *not* with the US. Burying the US economy without a shot in order to become the major superpower is a distinct possibility. Would the US really attack militarily over what most economists *have been telling them they should do anyway*? In fact even Bush's last two treasury secretaries have told China to let the Yuan float, even though it would be *horrible* for the dollar, and would probably cause most OPEC countries to switch oil trading to the Euro, which in combination could quadruple the price of gas in the matter of a month or so.

 

No, this is all minor. Right?

 

Details,

Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

 

America might lose billions. China would lose trillions. The costs to America, are ..... AFFORDABLE.

 

For a small sacrifice, one civilisation can annihilate another.

You can't afford the war you have going in Iraq and Afganistan now.

 

You sound like the bloodthirsty Idiot Generals in WW1 who put a whole generation of young males though the meat grinder of a tecnological war

 

The cold war :)

.

Or did Russia just stop playing?

 

Buffy

Bush's last two treasury secretaries have told China to let the Yuan float

Really!?

Do they want double-diget inflation?

[Buffy]

Bush's last two treasury secretaries have told China to let the Yuan float

Really!?

Do they want double-diget inflation?

They're not members of the "reality-based community." Fortunately for the US, the Chinese are very conservative and don't want to give up the huge export advantage pegging the Yuan to the Dollar affords them, so they've only allowed small adjustments. Its only a matter of time though: right now the Communists are greedy (think about that for a minute), and as long as they'd rather have trade advantage, the US will survive....

 

Dollar denominated oil,

Buffy

[sebbysteiny]

America might lose billions. China would lose trillions. The costs to America, are ..... AFFORDABLE.

It seems some people didn't like this quote much :)

 

Without any context as to what's being fought over and where, this is a meaningless statement, and isn't really even true in the abstract. China actually could afford to lose all of their dollar denominated assets because so much of their trade is now *not* with the US. Burying the US economy without a shot in order to become the major superpower is a distinct possibility. Would the US really attack militarily over what most economists *have been telling them they should do anyway*? In fact even Bush's last two treasury secretaries have told China to let the Yuan float, even though it would be *horrible* for the dollar, and would probably cause most OPEC countries to switch oil trading to the Euro, which in combination could quadruple the price of gas in the matter of a month or so.

 

No, this is all minor. Right?

 

Right but with 2 corrections.

 

The US economy will be hit, but it will survive without too much difficulty.

 

Much of what you say is about the potential CAUSES of war. I'm only talking about what happens when a military conflict breaks out. Cause is irrelivent.

 

You can't afford the war you have going in Iraq and Afganistan now.

 

You sound like the bloodthirsty Idiot Generals in WW1 who put a whole generation of young males though the meat grinder of a tecnological war

 

The war in Iraq is not actually a war. It's more an exercise in state building and I have always said America is notoriously bad at state building. And against China, they would not even need to worry about state building. Total military and economic destruction is a sufficient goal before pulling the troops safely back home.

 

If I sound like the 'bloodthirsty' generals it is because I am actually thinking like a general. I sense your problem is that, coming from a generation that has not experienced a real war, you have no understanding of the attitudes of a population under a real and existual threat. You are soft.

[Buffy]

America might lose billions. China would lose trillions. The costs to America, are ..... AFFORDABLE.

It seems some people didn't like this quote much :)

Doesn't that tell you something? :)

 

You might also want to consider that its not a matter of "like."

The US economy will be hit, but it will survive without too much difficulty.

Why "without too much difficulty?" This is an issue of scale, and its undoubtedly true that the US would "pull through" (we're pretty hardy folk), but the result would be to completely rend assunder the basic architecture of the US economy. A 50% drop in the valuation of the dollar in conjunction with oil being denominated in Euros (and most economists directly link these two things no matter which comed first) would cause gasoline to go to about $10/gallon. Sure, Europe deals with $5, but they've done it slowly and mostly with very high taxes. This is just one effect of China taking the drastic actions to manipulate the dollar and the US economy which they can, based on their ownership of dollars and assets. And we haven't even gotten to the cascading effects of what these changes would do to the rest of the economy. It is true that our government here has been avoiding thinking about the problem, but even conservative publications like the Economist have been long pointing out the peril here.

 

You might want to respond here with some of your theories about why we'd have nothing to worry about.

Much of what you say is about the potential CAUSES of war. I'm only talking about what happens when a military conflict breaks out. Cause is irrelivent.

If you don't have a military objective, your war will be lost. Cause determines objectives. You ignore them at your peril.

 

"War is a continuation of politics by other means," sez von Clauswitz. Even chess has a well-defined objective. If you don't have an objective, how do you know when you've won?

And against China, they would not even need to worry about state building. Total military and economic destruction is a sufficient goal before pulling the troops safely back home.

Oh, don't bother thinking about the political consequences here! No point to it! So, we turn China into a burning cinder having killed half their population, and we "go home?" And what's our moral standing in the world if the "cause" (see above) was "self-serving"?

 

If I sound like the 'bloodthirsty' generals it is because I am actually thinking like a general.

Yes, an armchair one. Most generals would be shocked at such shortsighted thinking!

I sense your problem is that, coming from a generation that has not experienced a real war, you have no understanding of the attitudes of a population under a real and existual threat. You are soft.

So we just don't know what we're talking about huh? You don't know who "we" are! Broad assumptions like that, are not only offensive, but wrong (do we see a theme here folks?).

 

But wait! Here's the real question for ya: is cause relevant or is it not? "existual threats" (real, not made up of course! Nuke cruise missles are on their way from Iraq!) sure do justify war. And define scope. And methods. And objectives.

 

Still just into randomly moving pieces around a chess board with no purpose? Odd.

 

If you don't know where you're going, you'll never get there,

Buffy

[PsyCho]

The "Art of War" details why America will loose, fascinating how wisdom can be ignored

[InfiniteNow]

The "Art of War" details why America will loose, fascinating how wisdom can be ignored

 

This is a curious post considering America was not yet formed when that text was written. Perhaps you will clarify your meaning, or quote the exact text that says this? Thanks.

[sebbysteiny]

The US economy will be hit, but it will survive without too much difficulty.

 

Why "without too much difficulty?"

 

In war, 'difficulty' has an entirely different meaning to peace time.

 

The primary measure of a difficult war is the body count of the armed forces.

 

Then comes the body count of civilians.

 

Then, and only then comes money.

 

For both the first two measures, the losses will be extremely low. China will be utterly beaten in the symetric part of the war very quickly indeed. The third measure only becomes significant if America is so bankrupt that it cannot afford to be a military power any more. A depression for a few years and an increase in unemployment really does not cut the mustard.

 

The cost of a conventional war with China, once started, really will be affordable.

 

If you don't have a military objective, your war will be lost. Cause determines objectives.

Cause influences objectives but does not solely determine them in my view. So instead of dealing with that can of worm, I think we should start at the objectives and not focus on how those objectives came to be.

 

Oh, don't bother thinking about the political consequences here! No point to it! So, we turn China into a burning cinder having killed half their population, and we "go home?" And what's our moral standing in the world if the "cause" (see above) was "self-serving"?

 

Again, I think this is soft reasoning. In war, the primary goal is survival and the achievement of your objectives. If leaving China in a functioning state is not an objective then the only moral decision that can be made by a country at war is to achieve your own objectives to minimise the costs to your selves.

 

No population at war against an existual threat has ever thought otherwise. One has to be in that situation before what I am saying seems as clear as day.

 

Yes, an armchair one. Most generals would be shocked at such shortsighted thinking!

 

A general's job is to win the battle and achieve the objectives. The rest is down to the politicians. Long sighted generals do not belong on the battlefield: they belong as military advisors to the government. Winning the war does not require long sighted vision. Infact, such visions are usually the first casualty of war when the bullets begin to fly and survival instincts take over from deep phisosophical discussions between Plato and Descart.

 

There is just something about deadly missiles landing in the garden in which your kids play that completely changes a persons political and military priorities.

 

Broad assumptions like that, are not only offensive

 

Appologies. I did not mean to be offensive. I think you have made an excellent contribution :phones: