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

[IDMclean]

stage 4 is purely rhetorical without emperical basis. the US does not have as Sebby says "Thousands of B-52s" and if the US did, it takes a 5 person crew to operate a single B-52H. (Chosen as minimum implied by plural of thousands) 2000 * 5 = 10,000 crewmembers. Not to mention that not all Airforce Service personnel are qualified to operate a flight craft.

 

However this is mitigated as I have pointed out by the fact of:

Type Strategic bomber

Manufacturer Boeing

Maiden flight 1952-04-15

Introduced February 1955

Status 85 remain in service

Primary user United States Air Force

Produced 1952-1962

Number built 744

Unit cost US$14.43 million (B-52B)[1]

$9.28 million in 1962 (B-52H)

$53.4 million in 1998 (B-52H)

 

85 is significantly less than thousands. In fact it is significantly less than hundreds.

 

67 active, 24 mothballed B-1 Lancers.

21 active B-2 Spirits

 

Altogether total commitment of all of these bombers constitutes 173 bombers.

 

And once again the range on these, though impressive is not sufficient to effectively use all or even most of them at any given time. At any given time we could only count on a tiny fraction of these due to deployability issues.

 

As for 1-4 stages of Sebby's "strategy", they have associated with them unacceptable levels of risk and extreme overexaggeration of the actual combat effectiveness of the technology on which the strategy itself is based on. Followed by a worse underexaggeration of the actual likely hood of combat losses of equipment and personnel.

 

Sebby make many elementry mistakes in his strategy which is where the comment on the Art of War comes from.

 

Sebby has overestimated his side and underestimated his opponent. Both of which are vorpal wounds to any militaristic strategy. He has lost the battle before stepping on the battle field.

 

If this were analogous to a scientific theory it's Not Even Wrong. It's pompous chest beating of the nth degree. I will give that the USAF has significantly greater odds of winning any battle involving air-craft, intially. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the poorly concieved and malformed projections of effectiveness.

 

I don't even know how to fully convey how fundamentally flawed Sebby's "strategy" is to any layperson in such matters. If this is a game what Sebby is saying is numbers win the day.

 

Anyone who plays any amount of Combat Simulator, or Real Time Strategy can attest numbers really are not what wins the game. A person can have thousands of air-craft in Total Annihilation and still have them utterly annihilated to the last plane by a superior player, expecially when Homefield advantage is employed.

 

What Sebby's "strategy" amounts to is mass homicidal suicide.

 

If implemented it would amount to the greatest military debacle.

 

I can tell you an instance of this. Napoleon. Marched 800,000 in to russia. Marched less than 23,000 out.

 

Suicide pure and simple.

[arkain101]

sorry to intercept:

 

Question:

 

Do you think a country such as the usa could effectively defend its borders within its boarders as it could by seaking out those threats to safety?

 

It's been see before, build a wall to protect yourself and your left in your own prison... go out and seek thy enemies and live without boundry..

 

Could usa physically stop terrorists from getting in? Theres already some 11+ illgeal mexicans or wahtever.

[CraigD]

Anyone who plays any amount of Combat Simulator, or Real Time Strategy can attest numbers really are not what wins the game. A person can have thousands of air-craft in Total Annihilation and still have them utterly annihilated to the last plane by a superior player, expecially when Homefield advantage is employed.

It’s important to note, I think, that even though EA’s line of Jane's Combat Simulations games score high marks for realism compared to many PC flight games, they are video games, designed to provide an enjoyable playing experience, not a simulation suitable for actual military planning or training.

 

In particular, nearly all present-day war games – including the impromptu one being played in this thread - suffer from a deficit of information about the weapon systems capabilities. While a serious war gamer has access to accurate data about obsolete weapons, information about state-of-the-art systems such as those on the US’s new F-22 is truly secret. Anyone in the US who provides you with authoritative information about these systems is either lying, or risking serious legal repercussions. In my experience, US servicemen and civilian contractors are very serious about maintain the secrecy about such weapon systems.

 

The tactical value of stealth, a technology in which the US appears to have clear superiority, is frequently exaggerated by aircraft enthusiasts, writers, moviemakers, the government, etc. That stealth aircraft are more difficult, not impossible to detect and shoot down than non-stealth aircraft was clearly demonstrated by the embarrassing (and technologically compromising) 3/27/1999 downing of a F-117 over Kosovo by an “obsolete” 1960s Russian-made surface-to-air missile. However, in the all-important matter of standoff distance – the distance at which an aircraft can detect an enemy aircraft of theatre air defense weapon and fire a missile at it with a high chance of hitting it – stealth aircraft enjoy a clear advantage that is little offset by strategic or tactical planning, pilot/operator quality, or other factors. It’s also noteworthy that the superiority of present US stealth aircraft are due not only to their stealthiness, but because of their offensive and combat information systems – technologies in which, despite their impressive consumer electronics industry, the PRC military appears to lag far behind the USA.

What Sebby's "strategy" amounts to is mass homicidal suicide.

 

If implemented it would amount to the greatest military debacle.

 

I can tell you an instance of this. Napoleon. Marched 800,000 in to russia. Marched less than 23,000 out.

 

Suicide pure and simple.

The history of encounters between the main aircraft of the PRC and those of the USA evidences the USA aircraft to have kill rations of 2 to 1 or higher (in the case of F-15, 104 to 0). Taken together with numeric superiority in all type aircraft of nearly 3 to 1 or greater, and an impressive history of destroying air defenses of the kind employed by the PRC, “the greatest military debacle” and “suicide pure and simple” seems a baseless analysis of the likely outcome of the unlikely event of a US air campaign against the PRC.

 

While the 1812 invasion of Russia involved one of the great strategic failures (by Napoleon) and successes (by the Russian military) of military histories, I can see no relevance of it to a US air campaign into China.

[IDMclean]

Of course not.

 

I will warn that my analogies are for simplicity not accuracy. People understand video games on average better than War Strategy and other complex systems. I was drawing analogy.

 

I was not drawing parrallels. I was not saying that 21st century airforce = 19th century army.

 

I was saying it would be like Napoleon's crushing defeat at the hands of the Russians. Sebby's strategy is just that malconcieved.

 

I can say with reasonable certainty given time researching, and scientific understanding, that though we would devestate we wouldn't necessarily obliterate China's military. We practically ran out of Big Blue (fuel air, 15,000 lb) bombs in Afghanistan, that is a small country comparitively to China.

 

Impressive though our military is, it is not untouchable in any sense of the word expecially when you attack where it is least defendable. In it's legal, legitimate, economic support. In this case, the pen really is mightier than the Aeroplane.

 

I don't think that I could encompass just how malformed Sebby's so called strategy is in this thread. I think in fact that to make that kind of analysis would go far beyond the scope of this thread. We would need to talk about transporting, delivering, deploying, supplying, and recovering said forces.

 

We would need to talk about percise specifications of the air craft involved, something that I have only lightly touched on, go through the ordinance available and their applicability to each tatical situation.

 

We would need to cover the Military Intellegence Theory and application. We would need to know within reasonable detail the setup of the board from start, cause is non-trivial and mission critical. If China used Nukes to start we know they're serious. That is just one example.

 

The reason we would need this, is because that is what would be required to comprehend just how malformed the purposed "strategy" is.

 

I have already pointed out the immediate short commings of it. For one it's numbers are wrong or non-feasible. We do not have thousands of bombers. We have maybe hundreds of which only a fraction could be commited to the China area.

 

The F-22 though impressive is not in any sense of the word invincible. In fact as Planes go it is rather delicate. A superior interceptor, a piss-poor skirmisher, and when it comes to durability... well it's not meant to take a hit at all.

 

The weapon load out of the feasible force would be harmful, sure, but insured complete obliteration of the entire Chinese Military on Chinese soil? Quite simply, no.

 

Also remember that the foundation principles remain the same, irregardless of the age of war. The tech may change but the tool is only as good as the user.

 

Strategy is as important, if not more so, in modern warfare as it was in previous wars.

[sebbysteiny]

it’s unrealistic, I think, to assume that such a conflict would be non-nuclear.

 

I completely agree with this. I also agree that there is no clear military solution to China's nuclear deterant.

 

But, as is typical of scientific minded people, I like to make simplifying assumptions. The extra factor of nuclear deterant can be added at the end.

 

But assuming I'm right, I doubt it will be too difficult to figure out how things will continue in the real world.

 

Stage 5, China's ground army routed. Stage 6, China nukes New York.Stage 7, US nukes shankhai. Stage 8 let the mutant humanoid creatures that now inhabbit the world build a new world order.

 

But as long as the US does not win TOO well, stage 6 can avoided. Still, it is still russian roulette with the fate of the world no matter how diplomatically the US crushes China's conventional force.

 

stage 4 is purely rhetorical without emperical basis. the US does not have as Sebby says "Thousands of B-52s" and if the US did, it takes a 5 person crew to operate a single B-52H. (Chosen as minimum implied by plural of thousands) 2000 * 5 = 10,000 crewmembers. Not to mention that not all Airforce Service personnel are qualified to operate a flight craft.

 

There are 2 assumptions that you have made which I believe are questionable.

 

1) That claiming I have said "thousands" is not a straw man (ie that I actually said it).

 

2) That the current numbers of armed forces reflect the number armed forces the US will have against China.

 

1)

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

 

2) I have made the assumption that America's peace time economy will switch to a war time economy. There will be conscription (increasing America's number of soldiers by at least a factor of 10. And those unable to fight will stop manufacturing private cars and other peace time luxuraires and will start churning out tanks and aircraft; one after another after another.

 

Your posts are wise, KickAssClown. But I think it is unrealistic to suppose that against a serious foe posing an existual threat, America will be restricted to the very limited number of armed forces it has today.

 

I don't even know how to fully convey how fundamentally flawed Sebby's "strategy" is to any layperson in such matters. If this is a game what Sebby is saying is numbers win the day.

 

That is a strawman. I do believe I have infact said the exact opposite: that a small number of F22s numbering about 12 and the 10 or so stealth bombers that will infact win the day. It is those small number of highly expensive but all but unhittable aircraft that will result in an overwhelming numberical air superiority in terms of both enemy fighters AND Sams.

 

If China can make it numbers game, they will undoubtably win for they possess an unbelievable numberical superiority. EVEN IF America switches to a war economy, China will do so also making her numberical superiority even more vaste. But even a huge army like China's will route when confronted with total air superiority on an open battlefield.

 

Cmon KAC, think about it. You know there is sense in what I say.

 

The F-22 though impressive is not in any sense of the word invincible. In fact as Planes go it is rather delicate. A superior interceptor, a piss-poor skirmisher, and when it comes to durability... well it's not meant to take a hit at all.

 

I disagree. Nothing that exists at the moment can touch it. Therefore, by definition it is invincible. Yes it's delicate. But who cares if it isn't going to be seen and therefore touched at all? The proof of the pudding is in the Eating. The Raptor takes out 25 of the very best non-stealth aircraft without being touched.

 

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.

 

I will not pretend to get every aspect of what Buffy is talking about. I'm not an economist. But I do understand this. The net result of what Buffy is talking about lies only in a devaluation of the dollar. A large devaluation, but all it means is that bank accounts and bank notes will lose their purchasing power.

 

I also understand enough to know that the REASON this happens is because the US would be placed into a critical amount of debt which will always mess up an economy. This means that demand in almost everything now becomes greater than supply. The floatation is simply China's method of making this happen. The effective use of rationing could help overcome any shortfall in supply. Harsh, but it is war you know.

 

But perhaps you can understand my point. America is one of the most productive countries on Earth. If it's factories convert to a war economy, tanks will still be made, people will still do their man hours, and the American military will still grow. The use of rationing may also help.

 

Lots of airplane logicistical considerations highlighting difficulties of using the stealth

 

I'm not going to pretend that I understand and fully appreciate ALL the logistical problems of fighting a war. But I do understand this.

 

Logistical problems does not mean a fatal flaw. The problem can be solved.

 

You seem to base much of your criticisms ENTIRELY on the idea that America will find it impossible logistically to get it's F22's over Chinese airspace. But with the prospects of mid flight refueling and other friendly US airbases in the region, I find the idea that the 2000 mile range F22 will not, despite all the engenuity of the entire American military, be able to get into Chinese airspace for enough time to make difference bizaar to say the least.

 

If I were the Chinese government and my generals told me that my entire defence strategy was built apon a 'certainty' that America surely can't get many stealths into Chinese airspace for want of range, I would be extremely worried indeed.

 

Also remember that the foundation principles remain the same, irregardless of the age of war. The tech may change but the tool is only as good as the user.

 

Where in my plan did I make it a requirement to use an incompetant general? But it would take a pretty useless general to squander total air supremacy in a symetrical conventional war.

[IDMclean]

My contention is not with the F-22 in getting it there, of the planes the f-22 and other Aircraft Carrier capable cousins they are not my worry.

 

It is the larger, non-aircraft carrier capable cousins that I am talking about. The B-2 Spirit, B-1 Lancer, and B-52H Stratofortress. These are quite capable of causing devistation if they can get to the target area and if they can be commit to the target area.

 

See my contention is that you could not get all of the planes over there. Not just because it is logistically troubles some but because it is strategically suicide. What happens if you have no planes to defend what means the most, home? THat is what I mean, in part, by a tiny fraction.

 

Now as for conscription, you make the assumption that the American people would simply jump on board and allow their men of age to be drawn away for a suicidal war. Also you skip the part about training these conscripts. Sure you might get +1-30 million men, but only a small percentage is going to be trained adequately. Even smaller will be the percent of people capable of operating a sophisticated piece of tech like our bombers.

 

Training takes time. Even so these conscripts will likely be ground troups.

 

Once again, outside of the war itself one must consider economy, and citizen morale.

 

It's not so much devaluation of the dollar by debt, it's pulling out the finicial support for a company. Imagine if Bill gates sold all of his Microsoft Stock in one day. The other shareholders would panic and sell their Shares and the result is that Microsoft would belly up over the course of a week or less.

 

Same thing but with america. China sells there stock to the lowest bidder. Massively devaluing the US economy itself. Other countries react and sell off their shares in the US economy. China floats it's own economy (represented by the Yuan). The Euro takes the place of the dollar in OPEC trading.

 

We suddenly can't afford our very expensive military industry. We can't buy fuel/oil. We belly up while moving pieces around the board.

 

Sure we can go to war under such circumstances but we would need resources, that we get in majority from outside markets. All these resources that we would need would be extremely expensive.

 

We probably couldn't make thousands (what the heck is dousans if not a typo of thousands?) of bombers and train enough people to man them all.

 

Like I have said, it comes down to a lack of expressibility that would be understood by all involved here and now. Hypographers are apt in the world of science, and philosophy. I don't think the average Hypographer has studied history and war in depth. I scratch only the surface. War is big, complex and very very messy.

 

What you purpose as a simple solution is not. It would be ugly. I can tell you that. We would lose before we hit the battle field. Expecially if we took time to get the re-inforcements. China would pull the rug out from under our feet. Even with insuperior Tech. If we can conscript, they can conscript more. If we can build thousands of bombers, they can build tens of thousands.

 

American Population: 286,000,000 (Including women and children)

Chinese Population: 1,313,973,713 (including women and children)

 

War is won not on the battle field, but off of it. When we presume to be the best by virtue of gadetry, and other such. We have over estimated ourselves and under estimated our enemy. This is to lose many times before even stepping foot into the combat arena.

 

One should never neglect the enemy in the calculations of war.

[sebbysteiny]

See my contention is that you could not get all of the planes over there. Not just because it is logistically troubles some but because it is strategically suicide. What happens if you have no planes to defend what means the most, home? THat is what I mean, in part, by a tiny fraction.

 

I never said you get ALL your planes over China. Obviously you leave a few fighters (including F22s) back at home to defend the homeland.

 

Having said that, I'm not sure what use a B52 will be against a military strike. They are really only offensive weapons as far as I know, so sending everyone America has does no seem to me to be a weakness.

 

Your looking too much at the small details rather than the big picture.

 

My 5 stage plan was not intended to be that detailed. It was a gameplan that I believe even a half compitent general can carry out. Obviously a general incharge of carrying out the plan would be competant enough to make simple obvious troop allacations.

 

Now as for conscription, you make the assumption that the American people would simply jump on board and allow their men of age to be drawn away for a suicidal war.

 

Firstly, I doubt the war would not be suicide for anybody but the Chinese (unless it goes nuclear). But more importantly, yes I make that assumption. I think it's pretty safe since every ime a country has been exposed to an existual threat, this is exactly what happens.

 

China is not Iraq. Against China, if America does not make that shift to a war time way of thinking, hundreds of thousands may die or worse.

 

Besides, all out war does include conscription. And an army of badly trianed conscipts can become a seriously tough foe by a combination of on the battlefield training and evolution.

 

China sells there stock to the lowest bidder. Massively devaluing the US economy itself. Other countries react and sell off their shares in the US economy. China floats it's own economy (represented by the Yuan). The Euro takes the place of the dollar in OPEC trading.

 

We suddenly can't afford our very expensive military industry. We can't buy fuel/oil. We belly up while moving pieces around the board.

 

But the factories will still run and the people will still work so ammunition and weapons will still be made and training will be done. Nothing made of paper can stop this.

 

Your best argument was about fuel, since that must be imported. America has two solutions. 1) commence fuel rations. 2) Abandon the dollar and do business in Euros. America is the most productive country on Earth. It can almost certainly afford the fuel to power their tanks and aircraft. Perhaps they may have to fight with 1 or 2 less F22s. But they have enough F22s anyway.

 

We probably couldn't make thousands (what the heck is dousans if not a typo of thousands?) of bombers and train enough people to man them all.

 

Wow, you have never heard of dousans. Amazing. That must be one of those words that never crossed the pond.

 

1 dousan = 12.

2 dousan = 24.

 

So

 

12 <= Dousans <=120

 

Definately not thousands.

 

Like I have said, it comes down to a lack of expressibility that would be understood by all involved here and now. Hypographers are apt in the world of science, and philosophy. I don't think the average Hypographer has studied history and war in depth. I scratch only the surface. War is big, complex and very very messy.

 

Agreed, but I have, so lets get dirty with details, but only if you think they will help illuminate the issue rather than confuse it.

 

Even with insuperior Tech. If we can conscript, they can conscript more. If we can build thousands of bombers, they can build tens of thousands.

 

I respectly disagree. As far as I know about economics, China is the fastest GROWING economy. It is NOT, the biggest economy yet. America is. America will thus be able to build more bombers than China.

 

It is also irrelivant how many bombers China builds. Their entire airforce will be taken out by the F22 in stage 1, and stage 2 will leave all their airfields and airplane manufactuing plants destroyed and unusable. They can have all the men in the world but without air superiority they cannot have war factories and without war factories they cannot build more armed forces.

 

China does enjoy an enormous numerical superiority on the ground though. But again, America can still build tanks faster, especially if China has lost all their war factories. Leaving what? 500 million untrained men with rifles taking on a fully modern army? Sure, 500 million untrained men can do a lot of damage, but ONLY if America gets cocky. If America is careful, sensible, and avoid large scale ground war without air support, the Chinese army, huge though it may be, will be routed.

 

The hardest part of the plan, though, is using the air supperiority to hit the tanks and guns that would now be hiding. I propose using the ground forces to attack sensitive areas whereby if he Chinese army do not come out from hiding, they will suffer significant losses in infrustructure or elsewhere, and if they do, they will get annihilated by B52s.

 

When we presume to be the best by virtue of gadetry, and other such. We have over estimated ourselves and under estimated our enemy. This is to lose many times before even stepping foot into the combat arena.

 

One should never neglect the enemy in the calculations of war.

 

Agreed, but as long as we do not do that, America should have a crushing victory.

[Boerseun]

Personally, I don't see the US and China going head-to-head as in Sebby's version of events panning out. They will come to blows, but not like that.

 

The way I see it, China is filling the void left by the USSR as the next undisputed Superpower. They are already projecting their culture globally, and taking in a tougher stance with Taiwan might simply be the first steps toward projecting their military on a bigger scale, too. But in the final analysis, the two (US and China) can never confront each other face-to-face, for the very same reasons the US and USSR couldn't. Any conflict that ends in stalemate will make both sides' nuclear trigger fingers itch like hell. But they have to secure their influence in the rest of the world in order to control the most resources. Which means they have to butt heads militarily, without actually being involved.

 

So how does that work?

 

Easy.

 

Do what the USSR and US did! Find a resource-rich Third World country, arm them to the teeth, and engage in proxy warfare with your arch-enemy, using the proxy country's military that you so generously supply. Your arch-enemy (in this case the USSR), is playing along, because they can't afford to loose influence in this specific resource-rich region. So they either arm your proxy country's neighbours to the teeth, or they support insurgents or terrorists, if you will, inside the country you're active in. Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, givin' them Russians hell comes to mind. He was generously supplied by the US, and that was, in effect, the US and USSR coming to blows. Same in Angola, where the US was supporting and arming a very undemocratic terrorist movement to give the Russian-sponsored government crap, which was, of course, reinfoced by Russian-sponsored Cuban troops and hardware. Hey - Fidel's boys needed a holiday, okay? And Russia was more than happy to foot the bill, because apart from diamonds, there are some serious oil finds in Angola, and they needed to keep those resources in the Russian sphere of influence. That was, in effect, Russia and the US fighting. Those kind of conflicts, I guess, are the closest that China and the US will ever get to to fighting. Well, we might see a couple of scares like the Bay of Pigs, but with an effective MAD in place, that shouldn't be really a possibility.

 

The only question is:

 

When the US and China have finished destroying a specific Third World country for its resources, or to keep it under its sphere of influence, will they please remove their munitions once they're done, this time around? Wherever the US and the USSR have come to blows via proxy, arms and ammunition are left behind, making very nice toys for little kids. The video footage of the specific country blowing itself to pieces years later makes for great TV, though, and enforces the idea that the Third World is a craphole.

 

Lookie! Mozambique's got an AK47 on it's flag! How did that get there? You can't walk in the countryside, because there's millions of landmines planted there! How did that get there? Lookie all the kids with no legs, arms blown off, eyes lost through shrapnel! How did that happen? Have you ever seen a Russian wash his hands in innocence? "Nyet. Ve had nothingk to do with dat! Ve did not supply arms to zthis zuppressive regime, zis FRELIMO!"

 

...and have you ever seen a US general do the same?

 

"Nah. Wasn't us! We never supported the oppressive and racist South African regime in order to get them to support RENAMO in Mozambique! Mozambique is run by FRELIMO, which is a Russian puppet government! You have to get them out of there, whatever it takes. You have to ignore arms embargoes and bypass trade boycotts against the racist Apartheid South African regime in order to pay Pretoria to use South African troops and specialists to build up RENAMO, a completely artificial resistance movement, created specifically to protect US and South African interests - regardless of the cost in human life! Matter of fact, what you should actually do, is to make the country completely ungovernable, start up a civil war with a death toll in the millions, and then wait for Communism to collapse and then withdraw completely, leaving this once-beautiful country to its own crippled devices. But this is all hypothetical, of course, because we didn't do it.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, the US and USSR were at each other's throats since the very start of the Cold War. The Cold War actually turned out to be not so cold, after all. People died. The death toll of the Cold War, world-wide, through this kind of proxy warfare, runs in the millions. And it's raging still, in quite a few places. Whether the US and USSR have made peace, means nothing to artifically created resistance movements who have tasted power and have access to vast arsenals of outdated, but still quite deadly, munitions.

 

The dick-measuring between the US and USSR have effectively nailed the biggest part of the Third World to the very first step in the ladder of economic success, and they can't, for the most part, rise any further. Largely because of this. And now, with the USSR exiting stage left, the same ugly thing rears its head with China slowly filling the gap. I'm a Third World child, so to speak, and I can already see the first moves China is making on the chessboard which is Africa. Tinpot dictators like Robert Mugabe is sitting pretty, largely propped up by China who don't give a rip as to his human rights record. They simply want exclusive mining rights. How long will the USA tolerate this? There's a lot of oil from Angola further up the west coast. Will the US accept it falling under Chinese influence? China have clearly stated its intent of going there.

 

I see a very bleak future for the Third World. And I see the US and China changing blows there, using puppet countries and puppet resistance movements, to secure resource access. And I see all of this starting within the next ten years. How long it'll last this time around, is anybody's guess.

 

And the only people to suffer the consequences, will be the same people who suffered the consequences the last time around. The poor suckers living in the Third World and willing to tolerate this bullshit.

 

This war, this Second Cold War, will be won by the country supplying the most arms to the most countries, with the least restrictions or counterperformance expected in return. And as it stands now, China is already winning hands down. At least in Africa. The US will have to counter it by sinking once more to the unscrupulous levels it reached when battling the USSR by proxy.

 

Get the hell out of my country, and take your damn guns with.

[gribbon]

Lookie! Mozambique's got an AK47 on it's flag!

 

That's actually a Kalshnikov (there is some significance in this), and it was actually FRELIMO's idea....(Which is the better of the two parties).

[Boerseun]

That's actually a Kalshnikov (there is some significance in this), and it was actually FRELIMO's idea....(Which is the better of the two parties).

Regarding a Kalashnikov, what do you think the 'K' in 'AK47' stands for? :doh:

[sebbysteiny]

Very Pessamistic Boerseun. Personally I can't see America and China coming to blows either directly OR indirectly.

 

Think about it. China depends on trade with the West. If it starts to throw it's military weight around (and not just it's economic and diplomatic weight), they may lose trade with half the world. It's just not good buisiness.

 

And do they really want to face an army with stealth fighters and bombers?? I seriously doubt it.

[IDMclean]

I all have to say in continuation of the previous converstation is:

Economy [math]\not=[/math] Industry.

 

America has a strong economy, but does not have a strong industry. We used to but we have been shipping our industrial intrests abroad, because it's cheaper economicly.

 

The US has compartively fewer mines, material foundries, assembly plants, and so on. We do not have the factory capabilities that you ascribe to us. We did in the 1940s to the 1970s. We do not however any longer. Most Industrial needs are met anymore by import from Mexico and China.

 

If China stopped supplying our industrial needs and fired the nuke that they can into our economy, we wouldn't be able to muster much of a economic or industrial resistence.

 

China on the other hand can. They control a significant Industrial workforce. They have more people and more factories. It's why they have rapiditly industrialized in the past 50 years. Much like Japan's rapid switch from feudalism to Industrial power in the late 1800s, except on a bigger scale.

 

Sebby, as I have said, your "strategy"/"gameplan" whatever is so malformed that it isn't even wrong. As we have seen with past argumentation, this point will not be accepted. The only recourse is to allow you to "win", as you will not accept that you are not only not right, but you are also not even wrong by virtue of malformed argument.

 

I could argue this for many pages more and it would not change your outlook. See "Philosophy truely sucks" to understand my meaning.

 

If it did come down to a win-lose type game for argument, you, Sebby, are the kid who when the other kids say "I shot you" you reply with one of two things "No you didn't." or "I have Pseudo-science super anti-gravity neutronium armor, your bullets do nothing to me. Hahahahaha!".

 

To which I can only reply with "I'm not playing with you anymore. You cheat."

[Michaelangelica]

Is the USA paranoid about China?

 

This is worth a listen, maybe a couple of times

Big Ideas

 

Sunday 01 July 2007

 

Listen Now - 01072007 | Download Audio - 01072007

Will Hutton on The Chinese Bubble

 

China's titanic rise is the biggest news since the Industrial Revolution. Developed nations are in awe.

Some, like the United States, are in fear. However, according to writer and long time China-observer Will Hutton Western anxieties are misplaced. Hutton sees China sitting on the edge of a very deep precipice.

He cites endemic corruption, environmental depredation, widening inequality, and insufficent job creation as just some of the challenges threatening to bring China undone.

Join us for a spirited naysaying of the Chinese revolution, with Will Hutton at a business breakfast in Sydney.

[CraigD]

This is worth a listen, maybe a couple of times

Big Ideas

I agree. Hutton is a bit chatty – though that’s to be expected at a breakfast speech – and assumes a familiarity with business and economic terms and ideas beyond mine, but says what seemed to me many sensible things about the Chinese and world economy and future, as well a brief but intriguing description of recent Chinese economic history.

 

In particular, I found interesting his use of GDP “purchasing power parity” rather than “nominal” GPD in ranking the Chinese economy at $7T, second after the US’s $11T, rather than $2T, fourth, after the US, Japan, and Germany, and his emphasis on the significance of 3 generations of very high (40%+) average personal savings in China for its economic growth.

Hutton sees China sitting on the edge of a very deep precipice.

I think this characterization exaggerates Hutton’s actual statements. He directly states that he believes China will experience an economic downturn, but that it will be more of an adjustment than a collapse.

Is the USA paranoid about China?

According to Hutton, unequivocally yes. My impression is that he attributes this paranoia to scaremongering by US politicians, and considers it a primarily American phenomena.

He [Hutton] cites endemic corruption, environmental depredation, widening inequality, and insufficent job creation as just some of the challenges threatening to bring China undone.

More pointedly, I believe, Hutton stresses the lack of institution to address these problems. For example, in the US, a company may corrupt law enforcement agencies, allowing them to ignore US law, but this practice is expensive, uncertain, and subject to failure as regulators, appointed and elected officials change. In China, Hutton contends, corruption is a much easier and more reliable business technique.

 

I was impressed by Hutton’s numerous repetitions that “people in Beijing know” everything he spoke of, and are attempting to resolve these issues. They, and people everywhere, face a huge challenge, which, IMHO, nationalist alarmism makes more difficult. The very question posed by this thread – “a war China vs. U.S-who will win?“ – though interesting as a specialized question to a military strategist/tactician/historian, is more typically an emblem of the sort of attitudes that make this and other social challenges more difficult.

[Michaelangelica]

WOW Great intelligent, reflective comments Craig

[PetsTheCatfish]

A war with China is unfeasible. We rely too much on each-other economically to start a war. And by win, what do you mean? We need a scenario. Where are these two parties fighting? Both parties could never take the other's homeland. China's large army is all well and good but it couldn't travel 3000 miles across the Pacific. And on the subject of precedence, last time we fought China, the Korean War, it became a standstill; however, I don't believe we attempted many attacks or any for that matter on the Chinese homeland during the Korean war. I will say that our infrastructure is better. They claim to spend 48 billion on military operations vs. the U.S. 528 billion(Wikipedia is my source.) And we have 11 active aircraft carriers, 6 of which are and ready to be deployed as a buffer between our homeland and theirs. So to summarize, China has a very limited operating range.

 

Side note: The option of destroying the Three Gorges Dam would kill thousands of people and leave a lot of the country in disarray.

[Buffy]

In some ways, we have bin Laden to thank for avoiding a war with China recently....

"U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century," aka the Hart-Rudman Commission.

 

Early in 2001, the [u.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century] presented a report to the incoming G.W. Bush administration warning that terrorism would be the nation's greatest national security problem, and saying that unless the United States took proper protective measures a terrorist attack was likely within its borders. Neither the president nor the vice president nor any other senior official from the new administration took time to meet with the commission members or hear about their findings.

 

At the first meeting, one Republican woman on the commission said that the overwhelming threat was from China. Sooner or later the U.S. would end up in a military showdown with the Chinese Communists. There was no avoiding it, and we would only make ourselves weaker by waiting. No one else spoke up in support.

 

The same thing happened at the second meeting -- discussion from other commissioners about terrorism, nuclear proliferation, anarchy of failed states, etc, and then this one woman warning about the looming Chinese menace. And the third meeting too. Perhaps more.

 

Finally, in frustration, this woman left the commission.

 

"Her name was Lynne Cheney," Hart said. "I am convinced that if it had not been for 9/11, we would be in a military showdown with China today." Not because of what China was doing, threatening, or intending, he made clear, but because of the assumptions the Administration brought with it when taking office.

 

Neo-cons are scary,

Buffy