TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- China vs. the US
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

China vs. the US

Who do you all think would win in a war. China with its numbers or the U.S. with its tactics? This is assuming that the war is to be fought on Chinese soil.

There is no way US forces could control a land area the size of China without a huge increase in numbers. We could probably decimate much of their infrastructure, but a full scale invasion would be a very futile endeavor.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter There is no way US forces could control a land area the size of China without a huge increase in numbers. We could probably decimate much of their infrastructure, but a full scale invasion would be a very futile endeavor.

Hmmm it depends on what the objective is and what kind of logistical scenario there is. If the objective is to secure land and hold it in some kind of occupation then the answer is obviously the US cannot win. However, if the objective is to destroy the Chinese army, I would say it would come to be pretty close under several assumptions.

1st Assumption: US armed forces are not occupied in Iraq
2nd Assumption: US buildup of armed forces have consolidated a large buildup of arms and equipment on the Russian border of China, with several carrier air groups in the area
3rd Assumption: US logistical supply line from Europe through Russia is a strong pipeline.

I think that the Iraq war demonstrated the weaknesses of relying upon numbers against superior technology. Granted the Chinese have many many more numbers but at the same time, US forces would be significantly larger against the CHinese army. Although the CHinese have been attempting to modernize their army they still possess several signficant weaknesses:

A) They still lack a blue water navy
B) Their air force is in desperate need of modernation and they primarily import their air force equipment.
C) Many of their tanks are cold war era and wouldn't last long against an Abrams tank.

I think the US could clearly establish dominance in the skies over China depending upon the quality of China's air-defense forces. However, the US would most CERTAINLy have control over the night skies which means bye bye factories, and bye bye logistical supply dumps. The air force could pretty much starve the Chinese army from its weapons and food.

Crap I must work but I'll continue this later. Good topic!

thanks! The only reserve I have is if the Chinese civilians were sent into action. We would most likely immediatly see Guerilla style warfare and maybe even a re-employment of the tunnel system like in Vietnam. I do agree with the point of the bye-bye factories becasue the night skies would obviously be held by the U.S. I'm a little bit catious to say that it would be dominated by the U.S. because of the above reason. There are mulitple people saying that the U.S. could just role through with the abrhams and wipe the slate clean, but the second the tanks hit the villages they would be vulnerable IMO. I don't know, this is a hard one to call.

If there were actually some real modern day confrontation between the USA and China I would predict it be very similar of the US-Japan war of WWII.

Of course US forces would have to be much more numerous for a real battle in China, a draft would be needed in the USA. Most likely in response to that a draft would also be done in China.

I think technology and tactics will eventually win it (don't forget GPS), but it would be a long bloody war for sure, and a quaqmire for sometime.

I could envision the US however controlling most of costal China, and since it is coastal supply lines would be very strong.

funny you should ask...

well im taking a class on China now (not that i think i know everything there is to know...) but my prof Ken Lieberthal (Clinton's Asian Sec Adviser 98-00) was in China during the 91 Gulf War at a high level meeting of officials - some from the PLA. He said they just ignored him as the war began on TV, and after the meeting he rode back to his hotel with his representative from the CCP - a PLA official. at that time the official said that the invasion of Iraq showed that the PLA was a 'sitting duck' (in that English phrase).

since then the PLA has been reformed but as far behind the US as it was in 91, it is at least as far behind today regardless of the sheer numbers of cavalry.

beyond this, control of China means the control of the Eastern Seaboard, not the entire country (for the most part - since the US cant even run Iraq, China would be a clusterfuck).

China has really only made progress in advanced weaponry within the ICBM realm. all other attempts to catch up to the US have been largely unsuccessful.

quote:

Originally posted by priveye03 thanks! The only reserve I have is if the Chinese civilians were sent into action. We would most likely immediatly see Guerilla style warfare and maybe even a re-employment of the tunnel system like in Vietnam. I do agree with the point of the bye-bye factories becasue the night skies would obviously be held by the U.S. I'm a little bit catious to say that it would be dominated by the U.S. because of the above reason. There are mulitple people saying that the U.S. could just role through with the abrhams and wipe the slate clean, but the second the tanks hit the villages they would be vulnerable IMO. I don't know, this is a hard one to call.

not likely on the tunnels. the Vietnamese gave the Chinese hell with the same tactic - China never employed it to a large scale. if anything the war would be like Korea, as that was basically US vs Chinese on Korean soil|

The US is struggling with a bunch of Iraqi peasants. I'd love to see it going against china.

I think after Vietnam, Americans had a very hard time trying to come in terms with the fact that the US is a declining military power.

In a straight out old school war like WW1 and WW2, the USA could beat every other country in the world put together.

But that is unlikely to happen because the major economies are far more integrated than they were before World War 1. The corporations who really call the shots in the world would never allow governments to go to war with countries that they have major markets or production facilities.

quote:

Originally posted by Illusion ... I think after Vietnam, Americans had a very hard time trying to come in terms with the fact that the US is a declining military power.

And what? A declining military power that is still at least 40 years ahead of the most advanced military technologywise elsewhere?

The yanks have all the best toys in the world, but they don't know how to use them.

Fair enough, China probably would not even be able to hit America where it hurts, but no way America would be able to occupy China.

America would do their notorious bombing rades left right and centre, and not only have their army to deal with, but a resistance from civilians.

....Would be very nasty all the same.

save the pandas?

It really depends on what the US wants to do?

If it wants to elimate the population of China, they have more than enough weapons for that.

If they want to bring down their economy, they will probably have to elimate infrastructure such as power, key buildings and their satelittles.

If the US is fighting on Chinese land, that would be invasion of territory and other Chinese allies would be in support to eliminate the US invasion by taking out US support from sea, and if they are good enough, to take out satelites in space.

The US would not dare to make a move like you are suggesting on the Chinese, especially in invasion. A war would be extremely costly to the US economy, the world economy and the stability of world peace.

Probably of occurance: 0.00001%

quote:

Originally posted by Dmatrox save the pandas? ... Probably of occurance: 0.00001%

hehe, yah we should think about that, and yah there is no likelyhood of the US wanting or needing to invade China. its fun to postulate i guess. the infrastructure is quite weak, but i doubt we could occupy anything very well...unless its western China...or not|

quote:

Originally posted by Illusion The US is struggling with a bunch of Iraqi peasants. I'd love to see it going against china. I think after Vietnam, Americans had a very hard time trying to come in terms with the fact that the US is a declining military power.

yet at the same time have the technological weapons to wipe any country off the face of this earth.

If a full scale war was to break out, forget this primative style of deploying ground forces to take over a country (only reason it was done in Iraq, was due to the fact that the US evidently had other interests besides riding the world of Saddam) they would most certainly call upon their far superior air force (last time I read it was three times more effective than its closest competitor) to win a war. However, I think that the Chinese would not hesitate in launching a couple of nuclear bombs, which would certainly make things interesting !lol

first off why are we even speculating this? there really is no need to go bomb the fuck outta china is there? the possibility of this remotely even happening is .00000000000001 percent...besides china is slowly becoming the future of the world's economy...investment towards businesses in china have increased and will increase even more in the future

quote:

Originally posted by TuanAnh213 first off why are we even speculating this? there really is no need to go bomb the fuck outta china is there? the possibility of this remotely even happening is .00000000000001 percent...besides china is slowly becoming the future of the world's economy...investment towards businesses in china have increased and will increase even more in the future

Hmmm a China supporter have we...

yes, China has experienced growth nearing the double digits for the last ten years, and may continue to do so. But the massive peasant population and unbelieveable environmental damage among many other things will surely impede 'the future of the world's economy'

yah, we already stated its unlikely too. we are just guessing|

The real question is, IMO,

Who would shoot off the first Nuclear bomb?

Good post Occ btw

quote:

Originally posted by biznology Hmmm a China supporter have we... yes, China has experienced growth nearing the double digits for the last ten years, and may continue to do so. But the massive peasant population and unbelieveable environmental damage among many other things will surely impede 'the future of the world's economy' yah, we already stated its unlikely too. we are just guessing|

china supporter? so am i a communist?oh sue me for having chinese heritage and not wanting any kind of war or bloodshed with china (im actually from taiwan)

obviously ill take my economics proffesor with the PHD and who works for the federal reserve's word on china over yours about their economic future

quote:

Originally posted by TuanAnh213 china supporter? so am i a communist?oh sue me for having chinese heritage and not wanting any kind of war or bloodshed with china (im actually from taiwan) obviously ill take my economics proffesor with the PHD and who works for the federal reserve's word on china over yours about their economic future

i didnt say you were a communist.

i did assume you have Chinese heritage but so what?

ok, take your 'proffesor' with 'the PHD'-

Im simply relating facts from my professor who was the Security Adviser to Asia under Clinton. China may be growing substantially, but there are deeper rifts within Chinas development outside of economics that threaten its growth and stability. thats all|

Re: China vs. the US

quote:

Originally posted by priveye03 Who do you all think would win in a war. China with its numbers or the U.S. with its tactics? This is assuming that the war is to be fought on Chinese soil.

Meine liebe, liebe Freundin das ist eine Katastrophe. Who would care to see such a conflict, I realise that you are being hypothetical, but there is no way that a nation the size of China could be controlled today with its population and weapons. Imagine someone trying to do that on U.S soil, absolutely not, way too large. Look at the Korean war after China(without major weapons, but troop numbers) supported North Korea, can you say war of attrition.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology i didnt say you were a communist. i did assume you have Chinese heritage but so what? ok, take your 'proffesor' with 'the PHD'- Im simply relating facts from my professor who was the Security Adviser to Asia under Clinton. China may be growing substantially, but there are deeper rifts within Chinas development outside of economics that threaten its growth and stability. thats all|

then what the hell is the point of going " oh we have a china supporter eh?" what should i being a china supporter have anything to do with this?

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade The real question is, IMO, Who would shoot off the first Nuclear bomb? Good post Occ btw

Thanks . Yes the nuclear bomb issue would be the iffy of the situation. My last post completely disregarded nuclear weapons for obvious reasons ... it's virtually impossible to predict a "victory" with their use. If nuclear weapons were to be used two questions must be asked:

A) Is it going to be a strategic nuclear war?
B) Is it going to be a tactical only nuclear war?

In a strategic nuclear war China would only "win" if they initiated a first strike. The US would lose in the sense that the loss of 15-30 large US cities would be relatively unacceptable to the US despite the complete obliteration of China. If the US were to initiate a first strike China would have no chance at all. Simply put, the US strategic arsenal is so much more adept at first strike scenarios (it was designed to defeat russia) than China could ever hope to match. What makes the US arsenal so lethal? The 12-14 or so Ohio class SSBNs submarines that carry a whopping 50% of the US's strategic arsenal of nuclear weapons. Each submarine carries 24 trident missiles whereby EACH MISSILE contains 5 MIRV (Multiple Independantly Targetable Reentry Vehicle) warheads ... therefore each submarine contains up to a 120 100 kiloton nuclear warheads. One submarine, launching off the coast of China ... its warheads would probably make landfall in 5-10 minutes, relegating the 24 or so Chinese long range ICBMS to radioactive dust.

Second scenario ... a tactical only nuclear exchange. Again I would say the US would "win" such an exchange. The reason I say this is because, once again, the US posseses a far superior arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. The US possesses thousands of tactical weapons: tomohawk or standoff attack missiles, bombs, artillery, shit there are even nuclear torpedoes. Compared to China's approximately 300 tactical nuclear weapons and there's no competition. Additionally bear in mind that the US nuclear weapons delivery systems are significantly better than the Chinese. Just about the only chinese warheads that stand a chance of getting through are its missile launched warheads ... all of which are quite succeptible by attack from the air. Anyway further info on US/Chinese weapons systems can be found at:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html

A good analysis of Chinese military modernization compared to US modernization can be found at:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa465.pdf

Yea sorry for babbling ... I'm a huge study of military technology.

Why is this even being discussed?

Do you people want a war?

In today's world, war is unacceptable. Why are we still fighting each other? Don't people realize we're all one species? Why can't we live together? This is ridiculous ... we're even speculating about a war that, if it came to pass, would be incredibly tragic and devastating.

quote:

therefore each submarine contains up to a 120 100 kiloton nuclear warheads.

This is disgusting. Why do nuclear weapons still exist? Even setting aside one's very humanity and sense of compassion towards one's fellow man, why can't a rational person see that there is no good out of a nuclear weapon? You destroy your target and you irradiate the atmosphere and the planet. Doing that is like chasing a thief out of your house, and setting it on fire at the same time.

Why do some people find war speculation and studying military technology so fascinating? I wonder how fascinating that technology would be, if they were in the shoes of the receiving end of the plethora of killing machines.

This is not meant as an insult to anyone, and I *do* understand the fascination with technology, especially military as it is the technology that is being developed the most today (and often the "coolest"). But remember, the ONE and ONLY purpose of that technology is to kill other human beings. If it was up to me, I would destroy every last tank, gun, fighter, bomber, missile, ship, submarine, and military satellite in the world today without a second thought.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology Hmmm a China supporter have we... yes, China has experienced growth nearing the double digits for the last ten years, and may continue to do so. But the massive peasant population and unbelieveable environmental damage among many other things will surely impede 'the future of the world's economy' yah, we already stated its unlikely too. we are just guessing|

Why does this perceived "competition" with China exist? Thinking like this can ONLY lead to a war! Don't you see? Especially with today's nuclear weapons ... war is out of the question!

Is everyone insane or am I? (Yes, you are. Har har.)

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode Why does this perceived "competition" with China exist? Thinking like this can ONLY lead to a war! Don't you see? Especially with today's nuclear weapons ... war is out of the question! Is everyone insane or am I? (Yes, you are. Har har.)

Ugh.

i never stated anything about 'competition' tho China is becoming in some ways more capitalist, so therefore there will be competition. hell China is in the WTO which theoretically stresses 'perfect' competition whatever that may be.

war is out of the question, but i think everyone here is confounding the original question. the original question had to do whether military tech could overcome the sheer numbers of ground forces in China. there was nothing about occupation, nukes, or that we WANTED war.

beyond that i hoped people had information beyond 'jeez, the nukes will kill us all!'

as i said in my original post, China is worried about its failing expansion into the more technological spheres of national defense - where the US is the worldwide leader (even tho these techniques arent used for 'defense' much anymore)

and TuanAhn213 - i simply said it because you made the proclaimation of China being 'the future' of something. this completely disregards India or Pakistan, for example in world power struggles and because of this you seemed like a China supporter. its really not a big deal, but I like to see that you have made it one|

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.