It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"74 per cent of Chinese think they would win in a war with the US military [NOW]"

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Peter Singer - military analyst and member of the US State Department's Advisory Committee on Communications - has written a well-researched novel detailing the vulnerabilities of the U.S. in a (so far) hypothetical future war with commensurate adversaries. His insights are both intriguing and portentous, and highlight a point that's often slurred over by military lionising Americans -- the technological gap that's long existed between the U.S. and its enemies, has narrowed greatly and any future theatres of war will not entail the generational advantage the West has enjoyed for decades.


One is to understand it's a risk, it's something we certainly don't want to happen, I certainly don't think it is inevitable - I would note that Chinese media, for example People's Daily, recently wrote "a US-China war is inevitable".


By now we're al well aware of the cyber espionage which has resulted in the Chinese catching up in leaps and bounds; in particularly such areas as stealth technology, cyber warfare, naval capability et al.. Any future conflict involving a China (or a similarly capable adversary) won't be something that can be using by past metrics. The nature of war has changed so vastly that we simply do not know who would win out in air, land or sea based battles.


So one is this warning of the once-unthinkable is now being thought of by too many people.

The second is how such a war would be different than the conflicts of today that we've grown used to. They've been non-state actors who only fight on the ground. We haven't - the air and sea have been supporting, but we haven't seen battles at sea for nations like Australia and the US, for 70 years.

The same thing, battles in the air against pure powers for 70 years.


F-35 Joint Strike Fighter vs. J-31
Peter Singer interview (podcast) download (MP3 format, 4Mb)
Original transcript (ABC, AU)
Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War (Amazon)
edit on 26-8-2015 by PresidentHeston because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:25 AM
link   
So is war with China the new thing? Cause I'm struggling to catch up. For a while it was Russia due to the whole Ukraine thing, we all talked about their bucket of bolts and out-dated equipment.. However, the middle east has been the main focus, where we had a war in Iraq over ten years, not to mention Afghanistan. Both of which had no where near the military hardware the U.S. has.... Regardless, all of THAT is coming to a close.. But we have the whole Syria/Iraq ISIS thing to deal with now...

Just over the weekend we were talking about NK and their threats against the south. The outcome of this was weird to say the least, because SK basically said "uncle" to NK looking REALLY weak. To the point where, the terms of "apologize" were given as a clear out to NK, influenced by the U.S.!! NK never even had to actually take responsibility for anything.

Then, we can mention Iran, and the deal we gave them, wow. The U.S. is really appearing WEAK lately. There is no WAY we can have a war against CHINA, that would be insane!!

If I were a foreign nation, looking at when the best time to strike the supposed strongest super-power in the world, I would say right NOW would be the time. Western leaders right now are looking like total pansies, and that is NOT a good thing, IMO.

No wonder the Chinese are confident they could destroy the U.S.

edit on 26-8-2015 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: PresidentHeston




the technological gap that's long existed between the U.S. and its enemies, has narrowed greatly and any future theatres of war will not entail the generational advantage the West has enjoyed for decades.


But the gap the ocean provides has not gotten any smaller . For china to win a conventional war with the US first they would have to get there .



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   
All of these scenarios make the fundamental mistake, of thinking the US and China are enemies.

Are they enemies? hardly, the US, France, Britain, China and Russia are the victorers of WWII. They share the spoils of war, and even if it isn't written on paper, any man can see that they have shared technology. Of course, it's all spying ... but don't be stupid. Literally speaking, there may be some basic differences between these players ... but Afghanistan is the biggest tell-all of the situation. The Soviet Union failed to bring Afghanistan into control ... now the western countries, with the US in forefront are doing what the Soviet Union failed to do.

Translation: They have the same goal, there methods differ. They're not enemies.

These scenarios assume a pure number is an advantage

Wrong again. Yes, in WWI and WWII we all remember Chamberlains words. "When their men are all dead, and all our men are dead. We will have more men then they.". An extremely brutal way of viewing a war. Germany lost, because of lack of numbers, and the lack of controlling oil.

Does this still apply? No ... with modern weapons, numbers are a disadvantage. Imagine the consequences of a nuclear bomb or a hydrogen bomb in China. China is built of huge cities ... a few dozen hydrogen bomb, and there is no more China. The consequences would be famine and utter destruction of that entire civilisation. China has concentrated itself into "cities", for the purpose of making the most of it's territories for food production and industry.

The bottom line, China can't wage wars that will result in any attacks on it's own soil.

Translation: Assuming the Chinese government has an ounce of future vision. They apparently are relying on a non-conflict with rigid adversaries. The US and China, are not enemies.

Neither is Russia ... and enemy

Yeah, I know how everyone feels. But bottle your feelings, and stop that "wishful" thinking. "Wishful" thinking is not logic, it's stupidity. 90% of the human race, can't think beyond their "wishful" thinking.

If I were the Russians, and Yugoslavia was back yard, or Ukraine. I'd stop the conflict, with nuclear weapons if need be. AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

You think you'd risk hundreds of millions dead, over Ukraine? or Yugoslavia? Of course not. If the Russians played their cards, in a contemproray aggressive manner ... meaning, aggressive but confined. They'd win ... Europe might not like it, China might not like it ... and the US might not sleep at night. But hey, # happens.

Bottom line: Are they doing this? No ... why the hell not? They're supposed to be our enemies, and we're supposed to be at war? ... and they don't use their advantage?

Any moron, who can think beyond his wishful thinking will see it's a hogwash. BS of the highest sort. They are NOT the enemies they're made out to be.

Translation: The 5 superpowers are playing "Good cop"/"Bad cop" against the rest of the world.

Commentary

Look at the current status of affairs in Syria and Iraq. You have thousands of European and American citizens, streaming into the middle east to fight on the side of Islamic state.

Just this fact alone, should make you stop and pause. But, let's continue.

The enemy there is supposedly the Islamic state, while the US is bombing selective large targets in Syria. Any man should comprehend, that such bombings are done to target Syria's infrastructure. Areal bombings are not to target individual dispersed rebels ... they're there to target the larger infrastructure, that keep the countries together.

Any man should realize that to defeat the rebels, you need mobile army on the ground. An army, not instructors for the Iraqi or Syrian soldiers. You need to use an army on the ground, ground troops to drive the rebels into hiding in specific territories where they can't get out ... so easily. But it's not being done, instead the Iraqi and Syrian soldiers are being instructed and given weapons to keep the battle on going.

Does that make sense, to anyone who thinks "ending the war as quickly as possible should be the goal"? No, it doesn't. Training the locals, is only done when you think you've got it under control. Unless the current state of chaos, is actually the goal.

Bottom line: The goal in the middle east, is "divide and conquer".



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: PresidentHeston

But the gap the ocean provides has not gotten any smaller . For china to win a conventional war with the US first they would have to get there .


Not if they are not the ones who need to start it.

We have all our allies right up against China. South Korea, Japan..

In any case. I'm looking at no ww3. If anyone is with me, let's figure that out. Maybe we run out of time, and people in power go for it. Well, then everyone is in danger..

What we need to solve is international finance, in some way that no one feels shafted. Failing that, it looks like the US will go to war, some way, some how.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   
China's press is controlled, so it'll hardly say anything that questions the one-party State's supremacy in all things. The West is weak and corrupt - China is strong under the Communist Party.

Control and indoctrination is how the Chinese authorities keep China together.

War isn't going to happen. If China really pushed one of their outrageous territorial claims then there are other ways to harm China - and they know it. Look at "poor" Russia for proof. Russia's a failed state.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Both these nations are so vast that, if there was all out war, we'd be looking at a mass extinction event. Too scary to comprehend. However, would they really go to war?



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: PresidentHeston

Based on known technologies the U.S has a superior arsenal.

It may not be a huge gap but its a gap.

Based on unknown tech, the Chinese will be destroyed.

The U.S is pushing for a war with China to eliminate a growing threat to their hegemony.

74% of Chinese people are deluded it seems..........



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
74 per cent of Chinese think they would win in a war with the US military - wheres the problem?

100 percent of Americans think they would win a war against all other countries. Thats why the US is the most war like country on eaarth. Their invasion rate proves it. In the last 100 years Amerian has invaded latin American 37 times and they have bombed 11 countires since the Clinton era.

I cant see that 74 per cent of Chinese think they would win in a war with the US military, is a problem for Americia, what goes around comes around.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: PresidentHeston

Based on known technologies the U.S has a superior arsenal.

It may not be a huge gap but its a gap.

Based on unknown tech, the Chinese will be destroyed.

The U.S is pushing for a war with China to eliminate a growing threat to their hegemony.

74% of Chinese people are deluded it seems..........


the funniest thing about reading the comments here is about how assuredly the Americans are of not getting touched, I mean A win in the eyes of the American Government you understand is merely if the bunker they are in doesnt get hit right! so while all of you are...cheering on the hill when the rockets go out then you see rockets start heading back in that will mean, you won because you had superier weapons but you will all be dead anyway,
but never fear the elites can rebuild.

edit on 26-8-2015 by PLAYERONE01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
At the end there would be two Chinese soldiers sitting on a cinder. Is that winning?

I always thought they were not as bright as some people thought. I overestimated.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
At the end there would be two Chinese soldiers sitting on a cinder. Is that winning?

I always thought they were not as bright as some people thought. I overestimated.


pretty much what downtown USA would look like i think.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
The Chinese have been going nearly 4000 years I don't think they would start any war...what would be the point?.
I do find it funny when people say "We would beat them because we have better tech"....Vietnam.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Scaremongering and warmongering works on both sides it seems.
WWIII isn't a conventional war and it already started, or at least it will be seen as already started if it ever becomes a military conflict.

70 years of war against the 3rd world with the boogieman of WWII as a scapegoat. It won't start unless one of the player is heavily debilitated.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
You don't vote who gets to win a war.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: PresidentHeston

Only the radiation would win.

That is the only outcome of war between super powers.

Kabooom!!!



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Thanks a lot Donald Trump. All that damaging rhetoric is really helping us.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Right because I fully believe the US real toys are the ones we all know about. That what we know about is really all we've gotten from that insanely high black budget we've been throwing at research. That the money we've put into research that dwarfs any other nation's, and damn near all nations combined has produced JUST the crap we've seen.

I mean, it's not like it's a tactically sound idea to keep your good # under wraps and just show the stuff that's competitive with everyone else.

Don't like my country, but get real.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

We won Vietnam, or we would have had we not pulled out. The straw that broke the camels back was actually the final gambit of our enemy. They were devastated, but instead of countering and finishing it, we pulled out due to the devastation of that final attack and immense pressures from home.

Also, if we didn't care about innocents or preservation of Vietnam we could have just leveled the place with no casualties on our side. The only reason Vietnam was a fight at all is cause it was a guerrilla war on their home ground.

We lost Vietnam cause we pulled out too soon, and weren't willing to annihilate them and their country.
edit on 8/26/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   
In a conventional war I see no reason why china would not win, especially if china was the country being invaded.

If nukes were used both countries would lose.

In modern economic times, however, it makes no sense for either country to go to war with each other and that is why they never will.
edit on 26-8-2015 by Nexttimemaybe because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join