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

[Michaelangelica]

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

 

 

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

Will it survive Iraq?

 

Cause is irrelivent

.

No it isn't

 

 

The war in Iraq is not actually a war. It's more an exercise in state building

Weasel words; "exercise in state building" what sort of nonsense is that? It is a bloody war with over 100,000 people- PEOPLE- dead

I am actually thinking like a general.

Yes a WW1, one

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 have to go back to my great-grandfather before you find someone in my family who had not experienced a war- and been stuffed by it.

You are soft.

What sort of redneck comment is that? What nonsese. "Soft" in what sense? no muscles?; no intestinal fortitude?; I don't like silly wars?; Do I need to go into the army so they can "make a man" of me. (as a male gay friend said "If I give them the wool will they make one for me too?")

[InfiniteNow]

Sebby,

 

Michaelangelica raises some interesting points. Buffy did as well. You seem to argue based on emotionally laden terms, presenting as if those who disagree are somehow lesser people.

 

Soft and supple are not necessarily bad. In a powerful wind, the hard pole will snap but the soft grass will bend and survive...

 

Oh, and exactly which general are you speaking like? Since they too are individuals, most will approach war in very unique and different ways.

[sebbysteiny]

Sebby,

 

Michaelangelica raises some interesting points. Buffy did as well. You seem to argue based on emotionally laden terms, presenting as if those who disagree are somehow lesser people.

 

Soft and supple are not necessarily bad. In a powerful wind, the hard pole will snap but the soft grass will bend and survive...

 

Oh, and exactly which general are you speaking like? Since they too are individuals, most will approach war in very unique and different ways.

 

As I said, there is something about missiles landing in schools and playgrounds where your kids study that changes people's priorities.

 

My point is this. War is bad. We all know that. A war with China should be avoided because there are horrific consequences unthinkable in peace time.

 

But once a war has begun, and there is a real existual threat, every moral judgment you have ever made in the classroom flies out the window. Economic growth ceases to be a main priority. The main purpose is to survival for as little human cost as possible.

 

War has a completely different mindset to peace. It is ALWAYS like a game of chess. And the ones that move the peaces around and, where necessary, sacrifice pieces, are the generals. You play to win, and when you do, you look around at the devistation and think, 'thank god I did my duty and there was not more devistation caused to our people'. You get out of your bomb shelters and try to rebuilt your country and make sure war does not break out again (win the peace).

 

It's a brutal game, and if you don't like it, don't be a general. But once the first exchange of amunition occurs, it is completely unavoidable.

 

But the title of this thread is 'A war China vs US - who will win?' And the answer to that is undesputably the US hands down as long as it stays conventional. The losses that would be considered large in peace time, would be extremely small by the standards of war.

 

So what I mean by 'soft' is that you are unable to make the jump in mindset required to understand the rights and wrongs of war. This is not necessarily a BAD thing, as you said. But it does mean that one loses all touch with people under genuine threat. It's like you are in a completely different universe. You are the little boy who was stranded in the middle of a desert with his family, without food and water, and you are crying because you can't find an ice cream shop.

 

Which general am I talking about? All of them. They all play the same game. Just because they all play the game differently does not mean that they interpret the RULES of the game any differently.

 

Cause is irrelivent

 

No it isn't

 

Perhaps you might like to explain why :shrug:

 

Your argument was that objectives are relevant. I agreed. You then said cause determines objectives. I agreed only that cause influences objectives but does not fully determine then.

 

I also said that determining the objectives from the causes is a complex task. And since we only care about objectives, why bother with causes at all when we can just start with 'objectives' and cut out the middle man?

 

Weasel words; "exercise in state building" what sort of nonsense is that? It is a bloody war with over 100,000 people- PEOPLE- dead

 

I notice you are relying on the statistics of a flawed and politically biased survey. There are not over 100,000 people dead from any reasonable study I have seen.

 

I don't understand though your objectives. Dead people does not make a war. Otherwise you could describe cars at war with pedestrians.

 

Perhaps you might also like to explain what you mean by 'war'.

 

I don't like silly wars

 

Neither do we all, but if you look at the title of the thread, the silliness of the war is irrelivant. The ONLY relavant question is, who will win, and winning is judged by the standards of the game, which is war time, not peace time.

[InfiniteNow]

But the title of this thread is 'A war China vs US - who will win?' And the answer to that is undesputably...

:)

 

Okay then. :shrug:

[sebbysteiny]

 

Okay then. :shrug:

 

Don't you love it when emotional ploys replace valid arguments :)

[InfiniteNow]

Don't you love it when emotional ploys replace valid arguments

 

You cannot seriously be claiming that your comment that the US winning against China is "indisputable" is a valid argument. :shrug: In fact, you've cut the "argument" part at the ankles by making such a claim.

[sebbysteiny]

You cannot seriously be claiming that your comment that the US winning against China is "indisputable" is a valid argument. :shrug: In fact, you've cut the "argument" part at the ankles by making such a claim.

 

That's right, I am not. I invite you to deal with the actual substantive arguments contained in my posts and not the summary / signposting statements.

 

Perhaps you might like to suggest a military tactic China can use to stop the F-22 annihilating their entire army.

[Michaelangelica]

War has a completely different mindset to peace. It is ALWAYS like a game of chess.

People don't die from chess

But once the first exchange of amunition occurs, it is completely unavoidable.

No historically it can still be avoided with talks, diplomacy etc or as in Tibet not firing back

But the title of this thread is 'A war China vs US - who will win?' And the answer to that is undesputably the US hands down as long as it stays conventional.

I think the opposite. the USA has rarely "won" a conventional war.(Kuwait?) They might have a chance wit a few dozen Nukes but then everyone looses

 

So what I mean by 'soft' is that you are unable to make the jump in mindset required to understand the rights and wrongs of war.

one loses all touch with people under genuine threat.

It is difficult to have empathy but not impossible.

 

Perhaps you might like to explain why :shrug:

The cause is WHY the war is being fought. That's what the US needs to find out -Why is it in Iraq?

Your argument was that objectives are relevant. I agreed. You then said cause determines objectives. I agreed only that cause influences objectives but does not fully determine then.

 

I also said that determining the objectives from the causes is a complex task. And since we only care about objectives, why bother with causes at all when we can just start with 'objectives' and cut out the middle man?

it is very late I am V tired. .i have lost one reply to this post already .

Maybe Buffy said something like that.

The us won the war in Kuwait because they defined their objective

 

 

I notice you are relying on the statistics of a flawed and politically biased survey. There are not over 100,000 people dead from any reasonable study I have seen.

you must have a different internet to me.here are som rough some figures on Iraq. It does not include much of Afghanistan.

There have been 3,268 coalition deaths -- 3,017 Americans, two Australians, 128 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, six Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 32 Italians, one Kazakh, three Latvian, 18 Poles, two Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of January 12, 2007, according to a CNN count.

About 50,000 have been wounded or being treated for mental problems.

 

The Lancet says about 100,000 Iraq civilians have died Other estimates hover around 60,000

 

POWs vanish amid the war on nasty images

POWs vanish amid the war on nasty images - War on Iraq - smh.com.au

 

Perhaps you might also like to explain what you mean by 'war'.

war is where people get blown up, killed with bullets, psychologically scared for life; all on adaily basis in one part of the planet

Of course there is a civil war going on in Iraq. Of course, it's not just a civil war. There is also a war going on against the occupying American forces, and there is also an element of the war on terror; that is, both foreign and locally based elements of al-Qaeda fighting the United States and other western armies, including Australia. (Although it should be noted, of course, that al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the Americans arrived.)

The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: News Blog

 

judged by the standards of the game,

It is not a game

good night

[Buffy]

That's right, I am not. I invite you to deal with the actual substantive arguments contained in my posts and not the summary / signposting statements.

So do the rest of us ask that of you. However you continue to dismiss these objections out of hand:

The primary measure of a difficult war is the body count of the armed forces. Then comes the body count of civilians. Then' date=' 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.[/quote']

• You dismiss costs without refering to any scales or numbers whatsoever. What pray tell is "extremely low" or "AFFORDABLE."
  
• You refuse to address the issue of economic war. I have described a scenario in previous posts in which China "wins" without even firing a shot. You won't even say anything about it. Yet its clear that American reluctance to push China is already based on this.
  
• You refuse to talk about theaters even though it would have a huge effect on the outcome: If the objective is to control some piece of territory connected physically to the mainland like Korea, China would have an overwhelming advantage in troop deployments. A sea-based defense of Taiwan favors the US. To dismiss this issue is not just disingenuous its foolhardy.
  
• You dismiss causes because they don't "completely" define objectives, and therefore they are completely irrelevant. Several of us have pointed out that military theory quite clearly defines this sort of thinking as fatally flawed.
  

If General Norman Schwarzkopf were here, he'd say "he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he as a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man."

Perhaps you might like to suggest a military tactic China can use to stop the F-22 annihilating their entire army.

There are currently only 12 of them deployed in the Pacific theater. They are fighters, not strike aircraft, and the amount of weaponry on them would have trouble taking out more than a hundred troops on a sortie, even with extreme luck.

 

How would China stop them? The answer would probably be, they wouldn't really need to, because even the ones that get by with their stealth would not do much damage (heck it would be AFFORDABLE!).

 

It gets really tiresome arguing with you sebby, because you just won't address the objections posed. Simply being the one who posts the most garbage does not get people to agree with you, in fact it does just the opposite. It would be nice if you would engage in some critical thinking on this issue, and realize that the reason I and others keep debating you is to keep up the standards at Hypography for critical thinking: broad unsubstantiated claims are not scientific, and we don't really want this to be a place for blowhards to pontificate about their personal opinions without any real attempt at providing data or engaging in actual debate.

 

The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war, :phones:

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

Sebby - either start using real numbers, with cited sources, or stop this silly, pointless argument.

[IDMclean]

As someone who for a time considered, with utmost seriousness, a military career, and as someone who does not take these kinds of considerations lightly I can honestly report that:

 

Perhaps you might like to suggest a military tactic China can use to stop the F-22 annihilating their entire army.

:D :D ;) :D

 

A F-22 Raptor, a stealth fighter. Titled "Air dominance interceptor", is a strict Air to Air combat Interceptor craft.

 

Wikipedia has the following to say on it:

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a stealth fighter aircraft. It was originally envisioned as an air superiority fighter for use against the Soviet Air Force, but is equipped for ground attack, electronic warfare and signals intelligence roles as well. Faced with a protracted development period, the prototype aircraft was designated YF-22 and, as F/A-22 during the three years before formally entering United States Air Force service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and is responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems and final assembly of the F-22. Boeing Integrated Defense Systems provides the wings, aft fuselage and avionics integration.

 

----------------------------------

 

The Raptor is designed to carry air-to-air missiles in internal bays to avoid disrupting its stealth capability. Launching missiles requires opening the weapons bay doors for less than a second, as the missiles are pushed clear of the airframe by hydraulic arms. The plane can also carry bombs such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and the new Small-Diameter Bomb (SDB.) It can carry weapons on four external hardpoints, but this vastly decreases the plane’s stealthiness, maneuverability, speed and range. The Raptor carries an M61A2 Vulcan 20 mm rotary cannon, also with a trap door, in the right wing root. The M61A2 is a last ditch weapon, and carries only 480 rounds, enough ammunition for approximately five seconds of sustained fire. Despite this, the F-22 has been able to use its gun in dogfighting without being detected, which can be necessary when missiles are depleted.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

Range: ferry 2,000 mi (3200 km)

 

Armament

 

* Guns: 1× M61A2 Vulcan 20 mm Gatling gun in starboard wing root with 480 rounds

* Air to air loadout:

o 6× AIM-120 AMRAAM

o 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder

* Air to ground loadout:

o 2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and

o 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder and one of the following:

+ 2× 1,000 lb JDAM or

+ 2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or

+ 8× 250 lb GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs

 

 

Take that all together and what you get is minimum effectiveness, without considering how A) Rare :D Sparse in the target area (China) C) Expensive (there is a reason why civilians control the military).

 

What you have here is completely unfounded. If we scrambled every single F-22 we had, we couldn't take out a million soldiers with conventional ordinance.

 

I will note that all the armaments listed above are comparitively SMALL MUNITIONS. They don't make very big booms and weight allot for such a small fighter craft.

 

Your assertion that the F-22 would deal such a vorpal blow shows me several things. 1) you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to aircraft and their battle field effectiveness. 2) you understanding of avionic warfare is severally limited 3) you do not, evidently, know a knife from a bazooka when it comes to air craft.

 

The F-22 raptor is an interceptor. It is meant for dog fighting, and light air-to-ground skirmishing.

 

If we want to talk taking out ground forces with air craft. Then we want to talk bombers. Of which there are a few that come to mind, without going into old or obscure bombers. Simply keeping with new, and better known models. F-117A stealth bomber, B-2 Spirit (can't fly in the rain, must be stored when not in use in a controlled enviroment, and costs 2 billion dollars a piece. We don't have many, and they can not land on any air-craft Carrier (which precludes shore-to-land deployment), the Trusty A-10, and the B-52.

 

Even these illustrious craft could not deal the kind of damage you seem to indicate that our aircraft could. They are severely limited by: Deployment factors, range, ordinance load, detectability, and durability.

 

Stealth doesn't work in areas with adverse atmospheric conditions. If you have ever seen the stupid steven seagal movie with the F-117As and the train you would have an idea of why. All planes, jet craft especially displace air around them, and heat air behind them. In cloudy or stormy conditions, this practically negates stealth capabilities.

 

Once again, two major things come into play. One is position and two is terrain. The reason why these majorly effect our chances for a Military superiority is that if we can not deploy our "super endless death from above machines" and recover them, reliably, then your strategy loses any and all remaining merit that it asserts it has.

 

This is without regard to cause, or objectives.

 

I must ask Sebbystein, for someone who questions the fortitude and density of the proponent side, what qualifies you as anything but soft? I doubt you have seen any kind of military action, or that you intend to enlist or get recruited by any branchs of the military, or even have the intention to engage, personally, in violent warfare.

 

So I would say pot calling the kettle black here.

 

Now for the economics of it? HAHAHAHAHA. Wow.

 

In ages past the adage was "An army marches on it stomach" that was before the second industrial revolution and the current technological revolution. Now "An army marches on it's equipment" would seem more appropiate.

 

You devastate the US economy in a senario such as what Buffy has purposed and the most probable conclusive out come is that we would be slapped so hard we would loose both our teeth and our claws.

 

It is Economicly, and by consequence, militaristically infeasible for the US to attack, for any length of time, China, by military merit alone.

 

We come up with the short stick on this one all over the place. You know who we get our steel, in majority, from anymore? If we clammed up (isolated), it wouldn't be loss of luxuries, it would be loss of economy.

 

We would turn into a third world country overnight, and China wouldn't have to fire a single shot. Once again this is without recourse from the international community.

[sebbysteiny]

As someone who for a time considered, with utmost seriousness, a military career, and as someone who does not take these kinds of considerations lightly I can honestly report that:

 

Credentials accepted. Particularly because your explanations suggest an understanding.

 

The problem with all the criticisms of my statement

 

Perhaps you might like to suggest a military tactic China can use to stop the F-22 annihilating their entire army.

 

is that they took that statement as if the F22s alone would do all the killing. Infact, the statement was a summary statement referring people to my original plan

 

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.

Unfortanately, all the criticisms were based on that particular misunderstanding and no actual criticisms of the stratagy I put forward have been made.

 

Sebby - either start using real numbers, with cited sources, or stop this silly, pointless argument.

 

What's with the agro. I'm in Brazil at the mo. So lets relax and samba.

 

Numbers. Okay. I like numbers.

 

War is a game. A dangerous game none the less. So to win, technically, all you need to do is 'checkmate' and it does not matter how many pieces you have left. However, this is not quite true. A pyric victory is still a defeat.

 

So to not win, China must either survive as a conventional military power, or America must cease to be the global super power.

 

So if America loses about half its possible armed forces, then we could say America has lost. But that's not just the current armed forces. At war, America would have conscription. This will result in millions of sioldiers. So to lose America would have to lose between 6 and 30 million soldiers in my view.

 

However, I think America will lose between 500 and 10,000 soldiers with a war against China. In terms of war, this is affordable: horrific but affordable.

 

Likewise, if sufficient American infrustructure and industry is destroyed, it would lose it's economic power (at least for a decade) and that may be sufficient for America to not win. I say, at least $1-2 trillion must be lost before America can be considered 'beaten' economically. In a war with China, almost no infrustucture will be lost and the total loss will be between $1-50 billion.

 

Again, under the standards of war, this is affordable: horrific but affordable.

 

 

And Buffy, please appreciate that it is not always possible to address every point and if you wish some point addressed, just repeat them, don't criticise my methodoligy.

 

I will make another post especially for the 4 points you raised, but I'm out of time :doh:. Surf awaits. :D

[Buffy]

The problem with all the criticisms of my statement is that they took that statement as if the F22s alone would do all the killing. Infact, the statement was a summary statement referring people to my original plan.

Fair enough, but you have to remember it was you who took yourself out of context! Is that our fault?

 

But nonetheless the stages you describe are so abstract and so lacking of any supporting data as to be quite humorous.

Stage 1) use 6 stealth airplanes to completely irradicate all of the Chinese thousands of airforce.

The US has at best maintained a ten-to-one kill advantage at best *over years* of combat in Korea and VietNam. How do you support a 500-to-1 ratio in the first day? Our guys are good, but this is silly.

Stage 2) Use 4 stealth bombers to knock out all of Chinese's main air defences.

Do you know how many there are? Does the Pentagon? Is their accuracy any better than on finding WMDs in Iraq? Do you have *any* justification whatsoever for this statement?

Stage 3) Use hundreds of F16's to knock out almost all of Chinese's minor air defences.

Hundreds? Where are they going to come from? Just like the F-22, the F-16 is an air-to-air fighter and does not do ground attack. F/A-18s do, but they are limited in their carrying capacity, and neither plane has stealth to avoid even low-end SAMs. If you want to go to A-10s, where are you going to base them? They have a limited range, and would not be able to reach more than the coast of China from Taiwan or Japan or South Korea. They are also susceptible to low-end SAMs.

Stage 4) Use dousans of B-52s to completely annihilate all visable tanks, infantry concentrations and artillary.

Do you know where they all are? If you didn't get every last SAM, those B-52s are toast, even based on precisely satellite-targeted data. What about the stuff that isn't visible? Do you realize how much stuff they've got and how long this might take? How many sorties? How many bombs? Heck we started to run out of bombs even in the Gulf War, and Iraq is *tiny* and has far fewer targets that China!

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.

Tell that to the boys who took Iwo Jima. The Japanese had nothing we had far superior fire power and total control of air and sea, they took out one of our men for every 3.5 that they lost. Those are numbers. What have you got to support this?

And Buffy, please appreciate that it is not always possible to address every point and if you wish some point addressed, just repeat them, don't criticise my methodoligy.

Its not just your methodology, its your modus operandi: This is troll-like behavior and its not appreciated. You make broad unsupportable claims and then cry you're being persecuted. Awwwww. The nicest thing about your posts is what great evidence against your own conclusions they are, so they're not completely unappreciated! :D

 

Surf awaits. :doh:

 

Totally dude,

Buffy

[IDMclean]

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.

 

Actually my post included reference to this orginal catastrophe waiting to happen. Your strategy is invalid by virtue of limitation of as I have said now twice, Position and Terrain. I know you have no appreciation for those two major factors, but the are mission critical for many reasons. Least of which is proability of equipment recovery.

 

It's not good enough to get the Fighters, Bombers, Interceptors and Reconnaissance aircraft in to the enemy territory. If your strategy precludes reliable recovery of multi-million and/or multi-billion dollar(remember what has been said about the value of the dollar) aircraft, then it is infeasible.

 

To take for example the F-22. It's range as I have shown is 2,000 miles (cruising). If it has to afterburn (like in combat to avoid enemy Anti-air capabilities), then that range decreases by quite a bit.

 

This means that if the Craft takes off, it can go cruising (non-afterburn), 2,000 miles. Which means that if it takes off from an airforce base and travels 950 miles, then it will have to turn around to return for fueling (exception: Mid-air fueling in non-active hostile airspace).

 

I doubt you have any appreciation for how much it costs to build, maintain, supply man, and arm these aircraft that are so central to your military might strategy.

 

Now as I have said. How do you purpose to get the Stealth craft (fighters and bombers) into China in the first place? You must get these craft within a range of the target location before a strategy to use them can even be considered.

 

As I have further said, the B-2 Spirit is severely limited in it's effectiveness outside strict circumstances. It is to wide (wing tip to wing tip) to even consider loading or land on any US Aircraft carrier. This precludes a Land-to-Ship mission.

 

Also, 4 stealth bombers (I am assuming you mean the B2 Spirit and not the F-117A Nighthawk) is roughly 5% of our stealth bomber capabilities. Each costing, just to build between 1.5 and 2.2 billion dollars. That does not include it's maintainence, storage, supplying (fuelling), manning, or arming costs. Therefore if 4 B2s are sent out, then 4 must be recovered. Losing even 1 is not an option.

 

Now, storing and moving a B2 is a funny proposition, of which happens to be absolutely necessary to your strategy. How do you purpose to ship 4 of the 21 B2 Spirits from their selectively controlled enviroments to within range of China, and without comprimising their stealth capabilities?

 

Remember, you can't ship these things through the mail or by aircraft carrier.

 

Then let's consider your assertion regarding the ease with which the enemy Aviation forces would be annihilated. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the Republic of China's Air Force:

The Republic of China Air Force (中華民國空軍; pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó Kōngjūn) is the aviation branch of the armed forces of the Republic of China on Taiwan, and is often viewed as one of the most professional and capable branches of the Republic of China's armed forces.[1] The ROCAF's primary mission is the defense of the airspace over and around Taiwan against an attack by the People's Republic of China. Current priorities of the ROCAF include the development of long range reconnaissance and surveillance networks, integrating C4ISTAR systems to increase battle effectiveness, procuring counterstrike weapons, next generation fighters, and hardening airfields and other facilities to survive a surprise attack.

 

As of May 2005, the Ministry of National Defense has indicated its intention to transfer command of all defensive missile systems to the ROCAF, while future offensive missiles will be placed under an as yet unformed missile command.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The ROCAF's armament includes over 400 combat aircraft, the mainstay being the F-16 and F-CK IDFs, with the Mirage-2000s being its most formidable defense fighter. The older F-5s are being phased out slowly, but still make up a small component of the total fighter force and some are expected to be upgraded. Because of the greater technology curve in the ROCAF, it has been experiencing some of the greater systems integration challenges of the armed forces.

 

Most of the ROCAF's armament is purchased from the United States which also assists in the training of some ROCAF pilots at Luke AFB in Arizona. The Mirage-2000 fighters were purchased from France in the early 1990s. Some of the ROCAF's aircraft and weapons are also developed domestically such as the F-CK IDF fighter and the Sky Sword series of missiles.

 

In January 2006, the Air Force announced it wished to buy planes with VSTOL capability, especially the US F-35. It also wished to upgrade its current F-16s and Mirage 2000-5s, and perhaps purchase second-hand F-15s. However, the US has rejected the sale of F-35s or F-15s. France may also not agree to upgrades, as China is now a large customer for Airbus and French military contractors. Later in 2006, the Air Force announced plans to buy 66 F-16 C/D block 52 aircraft from the US for $3.1 billion USD.[1] However, on October 2nd 2006, the US has suspended the purchase of the 66 F-16s. According to sources cited by National Defense Minister Lee Jye, the U.S. stance is that until a long-stalled arms purchase package consisting of six Patriot Missile Batteries, 12 P-3C Orion anti-submarine aircraft, and 8 conventional submarines clears the legislature, it does not see Taiwan as having a consistent military procurement plan and has temporarily blocked the sale.

 

Well... interesting. This seems to indicate that the Chinese Air force uses almost equal equipment, and due to their hold on the area of interest, I don't think our stealth capabilities will give us the emphatic no loss advantage you seem to indicate.

 

let's see what the CIA fact book has to say about China:

Geography China

Location:

Eastern Asia, bordering the East China Sea, Korea Bay, Yellow Sea, and South China Sea, between North Korea and Vietnam

 

Geographic coordinates:

35 00 N, 105 00 E

 

Map references:

Asia

 

Area:

total: 9,596,960 sq km

land: 9,326,410 sq km

water: 270,550 sq km

 

Area - comparative:

slightly smaller than the US

 

Land boundaries:

total: 22,117 km

 

border countries: Afghanistan 76 km, Bhutan 470 km, Burma 2,185 km, India 3,380 km, Kazakhstan 1,533 km, North Korea 1,416 km, Kyrgyzstan 858 km, Laos 423 km, Mongolia 4,677 km, Nepal 1,236 km, Pakistan 523 km, Russia (northeast) 3,605 km, Russia (northwest) 40 km, Tajikistan 414 km, Vietnam 1,281 km

regional borders: Hong Kong 30 km, Macau 0.34 km

 

Coastline:

14,500 km

 

Maritime claims:

territorial sea: 12 nm

contiguous zone: 24 nm

exclusive economic zone: 200 nm

continental shelf: 200 nm or to the edge of the continental margin

 

Climate:

extremely diverse; tropical in south to subarctic in north

 

Terrain:

mostly mountains, high plateaus, deserts in west; plains, deltas, and hills in east

 

Elevation extremes:

lowest point: Turpan Pendi -154 m

highest point: Mount Everest 8,850 m

 

......

 

Land use:

arable land: 14.86%

permanent crops: 1.27%

other: 83.87% (2005)

 

................

 

Natural hazards:

frequent typhoons (about five per year along southern and eastern coasts); damaging floods; tsunamis; earthquakes; droughts; land subsidence

 

Environment - current issues:

air pollution (greenhouse gases, sulfur dioxide particulates) from reliance on coal produces acid rain; water shortages, particularly in the north; water pollution from untreated wastes; deforestation; estimated loss of one-fifth of agricultural land since 1949 to soil erosion and economic development; desertification; trade in endangered species

 

Geography - note:

world's fourth largest country (after Russia, Canada, and US); Mount Everest on the border with Nepal is the world's tallest peak

 

What this all serves to say, is this. We do not have land superiority, nor would we likely obtain without multiple other smaller wars, land superiority in the considered target area. They have homefield advatange, they are relativitely geographically isolated and fortified. They have modernized Airforce capabilities, and a relativitely modern military. This reminds me of Russia and their MIG-29s.

 

Now there is one part which is equally perposterious. I will admit that we could, if absolutely necessary get "hundreds of F16s" within range of China by sea. however we could not realistically get "thousands of B-52s" within range of China. As once again the B-52 is precluded from Ship to Shore Deployment.

 

We'll not even go indepth about the numbers you are flinging for US Aircraft reserve and leave it at:

The USAF is the largest and most technologically advanced air force in the world, with about 15.000 aircraft in service and about 352,000 personnel on active duty, 72,000 in the Ready Reserve, 102,000 in the Air National Guard and 57,000 auxiliarists.

 

Number of B-52H?

 

Inventory: Active force, 85; ANG, 0; Reserve, 9

 

I hope you have a better understanding of just how absurd your "strategy" is Sebby, surely even you are not so blind to such constraints.

[sebbysteiny]

I promised this post to you Buffy, and because I'm too damned honourable for my own good, I will keep that promise :hihi: .

 

But you have made 4 points which I wanted to respond to AND made a complex military challenge to my plan and I don't know if I can deal with them ALL now. So don't cry if I don't tackle ALL your points, please. I hate it when a strong girl like a vampier slayer cries. It really gets to me emotionally.

 

# you dismiss costs without refering to any scales or numbers whatsoever. What pray tell is "extremely low" or "AFFORDABLE."

# You refuse to address the issue of economic war. I have described a scenario in previous posts in which China "wins" without even firing a shot. You won't even say anything about it. Yet its clear that American reluctance to push China is already based on this.

# You refuse to talk about theaters even though it would have a huge effect on the outcome: If the objective is to control some piece of territory connected physically to the mainland like Korea, China would have an overwhelming advantage in troop deployments. A sea-based defense of Taiwan favors the US. To dismiss this issue is not just disingenuous its foolhardy.

# You dismiss causes because they don't "completely" define objectives, and therefore they are completely irrelevant. Several of us have pointed out that military theory quite clearly defines this sort of thinking as fatally flawed.

 

1) I dealt with that one in my earlier post. :rolleyes: Post 63, second half.

2) This one is a complex argument so you might want to think about what I say before responding.

 

You were saying something like China can float their currency and this will bankrupt America somehow.

 

I think your complex mechanism was an unnecessary complication in describing China's economic power over the US.

 

Lets keep it simple. America gets its money from its factories, industry and infrustructure. It can also get into lots of debt. If it borrows too much, then it's supply / demand ratio does not add up and eventually it's economy will crash in some way. Now I think what you are saying is that America has gone into debt and it is in China's power to make that debt disrupt the supply / demand ratio causing economic chaos (by making the floatation).

 

But the industries will not stop and tanks, guns and planes can still be produced. People might have to sell a few homes. In war, this really does not matter. Those that don't sell their houses often get their houses bombed anyway. But then they will enter the factories and make more bombs. So the economic damage caused by China physically bombarding the American mainland will be by far the greater, at least regarding economic damage to America's military power.

 

So your point is a very valid PEACE TIME threat, but the psychology of war completely changes the game to the point that card is all but irrelivant. Afterall, nobody will not elect a war presidant again simply because, during a war, there was an economic depression. It's kind of the norm. But in peace time ......

 

3) The theater of war is relevant, but not largely. I say that my plan will work equally over Chinese territory as it will in American territory. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. The latter may have a few more casualties (but not enough to make a substantial difference in the end result) and the latter will not wish to HOLD on to territory. The object is simply to encircle, smash and destroy as much as possible, and withdraw leaving a broken country. On the other hand, if it is the former, there may be less casualties, but civilian casualties may skyrocket and China all bombs dropped will cause damage to American infrustructure and industry.

 

But the F22s should clear the skys and, (combined with other aircraft) sink all navy boats quickly enough to end the threat. And that's not even thinking about the possibility of a counter attack on the Chinese mainland.

 

4) Please explain where military objectives are not sufficient information for a general and where knowledge of the causes of the conflict takes over. Simply saying 'military theory says so' is not really enough and you know it.

 

Okay, I think I can deal with some of your plan queries.

 

Stage 1) use 6 stealth airplanes to completely irradicate all of the Chinese thousands of airforce.

The US has at best maintained a ten-to-one kill advantage at best *over years* of combat in Korea and VietNam. How do you support a 500-to-1 ratio in the first day? Our guys are good, but this is silly.

 

Korea and VietNam are out of date. In those wars, Russia actually had better planes. But the training of the US pilots produced the 10-1 ratios. Stealth changes everything.

 

So we must rely on the latest tests. When I first heard about the stealth, I thought it was 'pretty cool being invisible and all'. But then I later heard that it is not. It has the flight signiture of a fly travelling at beyond the speed of sound. Then I thought it sucked.

 

But I completely changed my mind when I saw a documentary on stealth. Complete invisibility is not really relavant. In today's air-air war, it is all about seeing the enemy before they see you, and the F22 beats every other technology at this completely. The F22 can let off 25 air-air missiles and retreat back to base before any of those planes has even seen it. Result, 25-0.

 

The reason so few Raptors (F22s) need to be used is because there will be approximately no Raptor casualties. Yes they are expensive, but they will almost certainly kill the air battlefield and return home with the ease of level 1 Mario brothers.

 

In the documentary, they put the F22 to the test. They told 25 of the Navies best pilots into the US's best non-stealth combat plane, which I think was the F16, but I might be wrong, and put them into battle against 1 stealth. Result, time and again, 25 kills - 0 to the F22. 6 F22s will kill 150 aircraft in one sortie. That is ALOT of aircraft. 10 sorties would make 1500 aircraft. That can be done in less than a weak. And it makes no difference that China has very good non-stealth aircraft and well trained pilots. Now add about 5 times more F16s mixed with some Raptors and you have a completely unbeatable airforce, but this must wait for after the stealth bombers.

 

Stage 2) Use 4 stealth bombers to knock out all of Chinese's main air defences.

Do you know how many there are? Does the Pentagon? Is their accuracy any better than on finding WMDs in Iraq? Do you have *any* justification whatsoever for this statement?

 

The MAIN air defences will NOT be mobile. They should be locatable by satalite or other types of reconnancence.

 

Yes intelligence will be important, but just as it can be wrong, it can also be right. And much more often than not, it is right.

 

And if 1 is missed, then they will eventually have to show themselves by firing. Then, they may take out 1 or 2 planes (an affordable loss) but they will then become sitting ducks. 1 or 2 planes for a major SAM sight is NOT a good exchange.

 

I don't know how many stealth bombers there are, but I know there should be more than about 10. This would be sufficient. The modern ones can fly thousands of miles. Remember also that China is not that far away from America. So the bombers, with a stupidly large range should be able to fly over china, let off their bombs and fly back to their American base. They may though need their bases in UK and other places, but I'm not sure.

 

Stage 3) Use hundreds of F16's to knock out almost all of Chinese's minor air defences.

Hundreds? Where are they going to come from? Just like the F-22, the F-16 is an air-to-air fighter and does not do ground attack. F/A-18s do, but they are limited in their carrying capacity, and neither plane has stealth to avoid even low-end SAMs. If you want to go to A-10s, where are you going to base them? They have a limited range, and would not be able to reach more than the coast of China from Taiwan or Japan or South Korea. They are also susceptible to low-end SAMs.

 

I think I am wrong about the F-16. What I meant was the F-35, also a strong fighter. But just like most good fighters, the F-35 has shown a great capability as a bomber also. The A10 should be sufficient for the task. As would a large number of ANY anti-sam, ground attack aircraft. Since the main air defences are down, China should now be relying on mobile SAMs and large numbers of conventional (and much cheaper) ground attack air planes should be sufficient.

 

Sure America may suffer losses, but their losses will almost certainly be far less than the replacements being built at home, ie affordable losses.

 

Stage 4) Use dousans of B-52s to completely annihilate all visable tanks, infantry concentrations and artillary.

Do you know where they all are? If you didn't get every last SAM, those B-52s are toast, even based on precisely satellite-targeted data. What about the stuff that isn't visible? Do you realize how much stuff they've got and how long this might take? How many sorties? How many bombs? Heck we started to run out of bombs even in the Gulf War, and Iraq is *tiny* and has far fewer targets that China!

 

You won't know where they all are, but you will know where a lot of them are, possibly even a quater. That is ALOT of casualties. Further, you can take out almost all the major production plants, important roads, key bridges, power stations, and oil refineries. Maintaining this pressure for over a year will be absolutely devastating.

 

Sure there will be losses, but not that many. Maybe 10-50 B-52s if sustained for a year. Sure that's a lot but it's nothing comparted to China's damage, which will be bombed back to the stone age. It's 'war economy' will almost certainly by now be crippled. It will not be able to replace losses and their technology will become less and less sophisticated.

 

How manyh sorties? lots. How many bombs? lots. But they will not run out if America is in a state of war with a proper war economy. They may, though, have to resort to using slightly less smart bombs despite the higher collateral damage caused.

 

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.

Tell that to the boys who took Iwo Jima. The Japanese had nothing we had far superior fire power and total control of air and sea, they took out one of our men for every 3.5 that they lost. Those are numbers. What have you got to support this?

 

That's a good point. The main point of the ground invasion will be to FORCE China to commit it's army, and when it does, bomb it to smithereans.

 

A couple of encirclement manouvers should do the trick.

 

Of course, like the Japanese, they could hide in tunnels. But China will not be as fanatical as the Japanese, but that just makes a kill ratio of about 1:6, and since China has over 1 billion citizens, this may result in a win for China.

 

However, if they hide rather than fight, America will still be free to destroy China's economy even further.

 

If China goes on the attack in the open, it's suicide.

 

So this will be the hardest stage of the war. But with complete air superiority, America should win.

 

Of course, America could simply wait patiently and wait for the Chinese economy to run dry. Perhaps it could blockade China and bomb the food sources. Brutal but effective.

 

But I agree, stage 5 as written above has weaknesses. However, winning a war with total air superiority is not really a challenge.

 

Also, if China is fighting anywhere other than on Chinese territory, all the above wouldn't work and they would be sitting ducks.

 

Sorry to anybody I havn't answered, this was to Buffy because she shouted the loudest.

 

A stitch in time saves 9,

 

Sebbysteiny.

[IDMclean]

Sebby, it is once again evident that you do not understand Buffy's very valid point regarding China owning significant shares of the US Debt and therefore significant portions of the value of the US Dollar.

 

What is meant by floating the Yuan against the value of the US dollar is simple. They own significant (as in CEO or Board member) portions (like shares of stock) of the US dollar. If they withdrew their support unilaterally, the value of the US dollar would plummet (think defunct company). They could compound the problem by floating the value of the Yuan (Thereby increasing the value of the Yuan well above the value of the Dollar).

 

What this amounts to is systemic economic failure. The US would suddenly be in economic free fall. Like I said, the scenario that Buffy put forth is a doomsday scenario for the US. We would drop to second or third world status in a matter of a few months.

 

Giving China and India the boost they would need to jockey for the position economic global superpower.

 

As she said, it would make Black Tuesday look like a cake walk.

 

The phrase Black Tuesday refers to October 29, 1929, five days after the United States stock market crash of Black Thursday, when general panic set in that everyone with investments in the market tried to pull out of the market at once. This week and its aftermath marked the start of the Great Depression in the United States. While Black Tuesday is often cited as the worst day for the Dow Jones Industrial Average, in terms of percentage loss, the largest occurred on December 12, 1914 (after the outbreak of World War I and the subsequent five-month close of the market), while the greatest point loss occurred on September 17, 2001 (after 9/11 and the subsequent four-day close of the market).

[CraigD]

A conventional war simply means one where there are no WMDs.

A very important, and, if I may say so, somewhat sneaky point, which I’ll return to later in this post

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.

While I think some of Sebby’s plan is very exaggerated, doctrinally unrealistic, and contain minor errors in details, any projection of mine of the outcome of an attack on the PRC by the USA not involving the use of nuclear weapons doesn’t differ significantly from his.

 

A comparison of the PRC’s and the USA’s combat aircraft types and number reveals a tremendous disparity: the USA has about 3 times as many aircraft, about 500 of which are state of the art air superiority fighters. While the PRC’s 175 best air superiority fighter, the SU-27 and variants, were arguably a match for an equal number of their US counterparts in the 1980s, their weapon systems have improved only slightly in the past 25 years, while the USA’s have been expensively, effectively, and almost constantly upgraded. By most analyses, PRC pilot quality is substantially lower than USA.

 

I can imagine no realistic scenario in which the PRC could maintain air superiority over its own airspace. The stages 1-4 Sebby describes seem to me inevitable.

 

However, it’s unrealistic, I think, to assume that such a conflict would be non-nuclear. The PRC has 60-2000 deployable nuclear weapons – effective secrecy makes the actual number uncertain, but 400 is a reasonable guess. Doctrinally, these weapons are intended to be used against the scenarios we’re considering – a land invasion of China by an air-superior enemy. This doctrine holds - correctly, I believe – that even a massive air campaign would be unable to destroy enough of their short-range nuclear missiles to make it possible to concentrate combat and support troops and materials on land or deliver them by sea without substantial casualties. No invader, it holds, could politically accept such casualties.

 

So, although it’s interesting to consider the military strategy and tactics of a open USA-PRC war, it is, I think, an academic exercise, because such a war is politically unlikely.

 

Though I’ve not analyzed the actual numbers, I suspect it’s also economically unlikely. A USA invasion of china would be very expensive, but much of the USA’s ability to spend more than it collects in taxes and tariffs is the sale of bonds and other credit instruments to the PRC. Were the countries to be at war, the PRC would almost certainly not buy more US dept. More, they could sell it, devaluing it, discouraging other countries and companies from buying it. Sebby’s stage 4 and 5, while tactically feasible, might simply not be affordable.