It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:41 AM
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Star for that!

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:43 AM
All China needs to do is to surrender.
Declare every chinese citizen as prisoners of war,
they will eat any country into oblivion.
edit on 26-8-2015 by LionOfGOD because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:44 AM
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

The figures vary depending on source -

Korean War Casualty Information North/South Korean & Chinese Casualties

South Korea:
◾SoKo Military
◾47,000 KIA (Encyclopedia Americana)
◾46,812 KIA + 66,436 MIA (Wallechinsky; also Clodfelter, citing Defense Dept.) [=113,248]
◾59,000 (Summers)
◾70,000 (Clodfelter's own est.)
◾100,000 (Leckie)
◾113,248 (COWP)
◾212,500 KIA (Pentagon: ¼ "KWM")
◾225,784 (Nahm93)
◾281,000 (Rummel)
◾281,257 to 400,000 (Lewy - the latter citing the ROK Defense Ministry)
◾415,000 (S&S; Hastings)
◾[MEDIAN: 113,248]

◾SoKo Civilian ◾315,000 (Rummel)
◾244,000 killed and 303,000 missing. (Nahm88)
◾373,500 killed and 387,740 missing (Nahm93)
◾[MEDIAN: 547,000]

◾SoKo Military + Civilian
◾415,004 killed (Leckie; Wallechinsky; Clodfelter, citing Defense Dept. incl. k, exec., dis.)
◾591,285 (Compton's)
◾596,000 (Rummel)
◾600,000 (Dictionary of 20C World History)
◾987,024 (Nahm93)
◾1,300,000 (Britannica)
◾[MEDIAN: 595,000]

North Korea:
◾NoKo Military
◾130,000 KIA (Pentagon: ¼ "KWM")
◾294,151 (Nahm93)
◾214,899 KIA + 101,680 MIA (Wallechinsky; Clodfelter, citing ["highly suspect"] Defense Dept. est.) [=316,579]
◾316,579 (COWP)
◾350,000 (Rummel)
◾520,000 (Small & Singer, FAS)
◾[MEDIAN: 316,579]

◾NoKo Civilian ◾406,000 killed + 680,000 missing (Nahm93)
◾Up to 1,000,000 (Wallechinsky; Clodfelter)
◾1,185,000 (Rummel)
◾[MEDIAN: 1,000,000]

◾NoKo Military + Civilian ◾500,000 (Britannica)
◾700,000 (Dictionary of 20C World History)
◾926,000 (Compton's)
◾1,316,579 (Wallechinsky; Clodfelter)
◾1,380,151 (Nahm93)
◾1,535,000 (Rummel)
◾[MEDIAN: 1,316,579]

◾110,000 KIA + 35,000 other (FAS citing "Chinese sources")
◾225,000 KIA (Pentagon: ¼ "KWM")
◾401,401 KIA + 21,211 MIA (Wallechinsky; Clodfelter, citing ["highly suspect"] Defense Dept. est.) [= 422,612]
◾422,612 (COWP)
◾500,000 (Rummel)
◾900,000 (Compton's, S&S, FAS)
◾1,000,000 (Britannica)
◾[MEDIAN: ca. 460,000]

Combined Chinese and North Korean military dead
◾400,000 (from disease, Wallechinsky; Clodfelter [in addition to KIA est. above])
◾500,000 (from battle, Summers)
◾0.5M (generally, Lewy)
◾1.5M (from all causes, Hastings)

◾33,000 (Dictionary of 20C World History)
◾33,625 (Nahm93)
◾33,741 battle + 2,827 other = 36,568 (DIOR [official])
◾36,940, incl. 3275 non-combat (FAS)
◾54,000 (Britannica, S&S)
◾54,246 (COWP)
◾33,629 KIA + 20,617 other = 54,246 (Summers, Wallechinsky, Lewy, Encyclopedia Americana)
◾33,629 (Compton's; Hastings)

UN: 2,186 (Nahm93); 2,630 (S&S); 3,063 (Hastings, Summers); 3,194 (Wallechinsky)
◾By nation
◾UK ◾11 Nov. 2000 Times [London]: 1,078 British
◾Clodfelter, COWP, Wallechinsky: 710
◾Leckie, S&S: 670

◾Turkey ◾S&S: 720
◾COWP, Clodfelter, Leckie, Wallechinsky: 717

◾Canada ◾Clodfelter: 291
◾COWP, Leckie: 309
◾S&S: 310

◾France ◾COWP, Clodfelter, Leckie: 288
◾S&S: 290

◾Australia ◾Leckie: 265.
◾COWP, S&S: 281
◾Clodfelter: 291
◾AWM: 339 Australia

◾Greece ◾S&S: 170
◾COWP, Clodfelter, Leckie: 169

◾Columbia ◾Clodfelter, S&S, Leckie: 140

◾Ethiopia ◾Clodfelter, S&S: 120

◾Neth. ◾S&S: 110
◾COWP, Clodfelter, Leckie: 111

◾Thailand ◾S&S: 110
◾Clodfelter, Leckie: 114

◾Belgium ◾S&S: 100
◾COWP, Clodfelter: 97

◾Phillipines ◾S&S: 90
◾Clodfelter, Leckie: 92

◦TOTAL ◾1,333,060 killed + 1,067,740 missing (Nahm93, not including Chinese)
◾1,892,000 (S&S, not including civilians)
◾2,454,000 (Compton's)
◾2,488,744 (Wallechinsky)
◾2,854,000 (Britannica)
◾2,889,000 (Eckhardt)
◾3,000,000 (D. Smith)
◾3,000,000 (B&J)
◾3,062,000 (Rummel)
◾3,500,000 (Lewy, incl. 2-3M civilians)

◦[MEDIAN of TOTALS: ca. 2,950,000] or [TOTAL of MEDIANS: ca. 2,470,000]

If I am not mistaken I believe Mao's son, Mao Anying, was killed in the Korean war.

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

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:44 AM

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: NewzNose

I already explained Vietnam.

Not in this thread, you didn't. You essentially said the US won Vietnam, or would have if they hadn't lost.

That is not an explanation that's a spurious claim based on, well, nothing tangible.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:47 AM
They get propaganda on how great they are; we get propaganda on how great we are; while the truth is nobody would win such a war. Both countries would lose dismally. What a horrible thought.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:54 AM
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

Its based on a false report that General Giap (General for Vietmihn forces - North) stated that the North recognized the war was unwinnable and were preparing for a negotiated end of the war. It goes on to state that the US proposed an end before the north, allowing the north to claim victory.

The problem with that is that particular segment attributed to General Giap never was stated. As a matter of fact General Giap was interviewed in 1996 where he explained how the north won the war. The US lost because we allowed our politicians to run the war instead of listening to our ground commanders.

The only reason we went in was because of the idiot ass theory on the Communist Domino effect, where once one country fell to communism it would create a domino affect with our countries in the region who would face communists forces internally and would subsequently fall.

Vietnam was a prime example of how corrupt and how much of a coward Johnson was and how our military leadership at the time were scared of their own shadows while pushing a failed agenda.

Kennedy was right and no one listened.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:25 AM
a reply to: PresidentHeston

Sounds more like a ploy to continue the lopsided funding the military receives. I also think there are to many variables to determine who the winner would be in a war between the U.S. and China.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

Completely sucessful combat engagements aren't tangible?
NEW one on me.
ALL we had to do was extend the 'Linebacker" program to saigon and BYE,BYE north Vietnam as an adversary.
We don't like killing civilians as a people really which is what we would have HAD to do to win so our leadership pulled out instead.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:49 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra

Actually we were to "Secure" a French asset they wanted to keep.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:51 AM
a reply to: PLAYERONE01

I'm not American, and I don't think the U.S.A would remain unscathed in a WW3 scenario.


posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:13 PM
Why is it inevitable?

And if it would happen it would be the allies who make the difference, if trades woud go on like normal it might be true and china would have better chances, given the US seems to be on the brink of a revolution a bit... China has it's people better under control and therefor more inner stability.

But like i said, most of the US allies would stop trading with China immediately and no money = no food, nowadays, especially because they woud have to send their men abroad, i don't think it would be US soldiers going over there in this case and if it is a war on American ground... a good thing so many have weapons at home, inner city fighting is the ugliest for the aggresive army.

Unless it would be just nuclear bombing with the aim to just eliminate the other nation, but then the bombs would be taken down over (swallows) the middle of Europe. And...
hey you assholes STOP IT!!!!!

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:50 PM
a reply to: PresidentHeston

Chinas has been getting its ass kicked by the rest of the world for centuries. I mean, sure....the Cleveland Browns could win the Superbowl. LOL

China could not win a war with the US. They do not have the strategic reach to affect us in a significant way on our mainland.

In 20 years? Maybe. Maybe not. But not today. And not for at least another decade. Then they still have to get passed the fact that they haven't won a war in centuries.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:50 PM
Hmmm. There will be no winner in a war like that. There will be lots of losers. If a war between China and the US starts, there will be a lot of other countries involved. No winners allowed except maybe a few people at the top. We will all suffer except those few who will inherit the earth or what is left of it.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:53 PM

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Still doesn't come close to accounting for it all. Or are you telling me you honestly believe what we see is what we get? When in the history of the U.S has that EVER been the case?

I'm not suggesting there ISN'T hidden tech that America has that the public at large doesn't know about. I'm just trying to bring things into perspective here. We all know that the government outspends all other nations, but if you take what I said into consideration, how much does it balance out? That is something one must consider as well. You can never get to the bottom of a situation if you refuse to account for all the variables.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:54 PM
a reply to: rickymouse

The result would be starvation.

I don't think the world, in general, can handle another world war without losses in the billions. Our supply chain is pretty tight as it is right now, with most nations relying wholly on global trade to provide basic essentials like food, energy, medicine, etc.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:55 PM

originally posted by: EA006
a reply to: PLAYERONE01

I'm not American, and I don't think the U.S.A would remain unscathed in a WW3 scenario.


Would any of us go unscathed in a WWIII scenario?

We so easily pick up the idea of war, and allow our egos to run with the idea of winning due to our superiority, instead of facing the truth, that war is never about the people winning. There is no superior race or country. The country that wins is just the country with the most people left standing at the end of the carnage. It is not about the few, the elite that win; it is about all of the rest of the world that loses. The only way we win is to fight against wars against the people. We have to fight against, the thirst for greed, power, and control. We don’t secure a positive future for ourselves by destroying the future of others.

War is a business, a very lucrative business, a business that profits on blood, sorrow, death, and destruction. A country that wages war for profit, ownership, dominance or resources, is a country that does not value life. Not the lives of the people they attack and not the lives of their citizens they send to die. It is up to the majority, the ones that will be sent to their slaughter, to stand up and just say, “Hell no!”

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:06 PM
a reply to: PresidentHeston

I guess that just means that 74% of Chinese people haven't heard of "Mutally Assured Destruction" or it's implications.

There are no "winners" in wars between super-powers, plain & simple.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:24 PM
A war with China would not be with out its risks to the United States. The Western Coast of the United States is with in missile range of Chinese ICBMs, so in a worst case scenario the US West Coast would get totally animated, but at the same time China would be totally destroyed. US casualties would be in excess of a 100 Million, Chinese casualties would be around 1-1.5 Billion dead.

Now in a purely conventional war, the United States would clearly be the victor. This is due to our ability to project force anywhere in the world, and the fact the the US Navy can dominate the seas anywhere on the planet. In many respects China is similar to World War Two Japan in terms of resources. China my be the worlds factory, but factories require resources, many of which need to be imported. Any War between the United States and China would ultimately involve a naval blockade. And with China's Limit Naval Forces, the US Navy would have total annihilate the Chinese Navy with in 2 months.

So a US Naval Blockade of China would do the following, cut of China for import of raw materials, oil and food. China would not be able to sell good to the rest of the world, so no money would be coming in. The Chinese Economy would be totally devastated. Very quickly resources in china would become scarce, food shortages would began almost immediately, massive unemployment, etc...

China may have a massive military, but its huge, slow to move, and has not been battle tests since the Vietnam Era. While on the other hand, the United States is well trained, battle hardened, and has a lot of experience at defeating the type of weapons China has in its arsenal.

Not saying it would be an easy fight and that the United States would come out unscathed but the US would Win, and China would Lose.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:36 PM

originally posted by: boymonkey74
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.

Actually according to the top surviving commander/general of the Vietnamese the us HAD the win if they would had stuck it out a few more months and told the hippies to stuff it.

As for the chinese Blockading them would be easier and more effective to defeat them. They have no real navy,or airforce and are locked in except for a few places they can cross out of. Starvation would take care of CHina when its army gets tired of starving to death while the leadership eats well.

ANd here we go about ooh chinas is 4000 yrs old. country yes,th e leadership isnt though.

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 02:03 PM
Well wars do not occur in a vacuum. First why would the US and China go to war? China and the US would not attack each other directly because they have no reason to. So a war would be caused most likely by a Chinese attack on Taiwanese, Japanese, Philippine, or another nations territory in the South China Sea. Or I Chinese war with India could draw the US in along side Japan as part of their new found coalition. China's ability to project force does not go much beyond its own border areas. So a conflict if it were to happen would be in those areas.

China's large but not very mobile armies are designed to fight the other large non mobile armies along its borders. With India, Burma and Vietnam fielding more large armies as well China would have to keep most of it forces to deal with these states. At sea it would be dealing with the navies of half dozen nations along with the US who all see China as huge threat. If the US chose to it could simply shut down China's sea lanes ending exports and cutting off its oil and China could nothing about it.

China is just positioned in a bad way. Surrounded by other large or advanced militarys most which are hostile. China's lack of diplomatic skill and aggressiveness in the South China Sea have unified most Asia against it. It has no real friends or allies beyond two nearly failed states Pakistan (who has divided loyalties) and North Korea. And it has no ability to project any meaningful military power across the globe. A war not be in China's best interest. Nor does the US have any want to start a war with China that would play havoc with the global economy.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in