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.

 

China's military Strength?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
All you need to ask is:

"Where would an American-chinese war take place."

There is only one answere - CHINA. They can't get to the ME, much less the US. In a war, it would go something like this (assuming non nuclear, because that's the only chance China has)...

1) war is declared
2) US achieves air superiority
3) Every strategic site in China is destroyed
4) secondary targets are struck

Then, the US has a choice to make.

A) Invade
B) ask China to surrender for their own good
C) punish China from the air/sea for an indefinite period of time untill they sue for peace




posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I live in China, and I hear that the chinese millitary power is usually very underestimated. Needless to say, I feel rather safe here.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by POTO
I live in China, and I hear that the chinese millitary power is usually very underestimated. Needless to say, I feel rather safe here.

I think that there overestimated.
But...yeah, you should feel safe...since odds of China and the US going to war is very very very slim...the only possible way is if Taiwan declares that there there own country and not apart of China...then it could be possible...But I think the US would play a more "Defend Taiwan from China, rather then going on the offensive (except of course for our stealth bombers that would bomb missile sites in China that are firing on Taiwan).



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Well, if the US and China get into a scuffle it will be over oil resources and control over them I think.

And American Mad Man, your post is assuming that America would be the victor.
China covers a lot of territory and would be hard to conquer.
If your hindquarters were licked in Vietnam, how would you beat China?

[edit on 16-2-2006 by Toadmund]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
Well, if the US and China get into a scuffle it will be over oil resources and control over them I think.

And American Mad Man, your post is assuming that America would be the victor.
China covers a lot of territory and would be hard to conquer.
If your hindquarters were licked in Vietnam, how would you beat China?

[edit on 16-2-2006 by Toadmund]


2 things...

first, I assume nothing. It is obvious to anyone with an inkling of military understanding that any US-Chinese war would be fought in China. China has no force projection abillity what so ever. No blue water navy (much less carriers), no long range logistical system, nothing. The US mean while basically has China surrounded, and has more force projection then the rest of the world combined, along with the greatest logistical system ever known to man. Our air force is heads and shoulders better then Chinas.

Secondly, our hind quarters licked?


We had over a 20-1 kill ratio in Vietnam, and that was without the abillity to invade our enemy!


This Vietnam example has been covered, go back and read others posts if you want, but suffice it to say that the only reason we lost that war is because we DIDN'T invade our enemy.

In this case, we wouldn't need anything more then special forces on the ground if we didn't want. And if we did put an army in China, that would be one more army then we used to invade the North in Vietnam.

Either way, your analogy is inherently flawed, as the basic reasons why the North one would all be different in a US-Chinese war.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
In his new book "New Glory" by Ralph Peters, he actually discusses just such a war.
He lays out the very scenario most of you assume the war would take place in: A naval/air war.
His thought is it would be Jutland 1916 all over again.
The Chinese would surprise the US fleet by actually going out to meet it. Thanks to recent scientific gains (thank you Slick Willie Clinton) and a generous arms trade with Russia and Israel, the Chinese fleet would be better equipped than the US naval intell surmised.
The battle would be a draw, US losses would be heavier than they've been since the battle of Surigao Straits and the Chinese fleet would be nearly crippled.
Then they would simply retreat into their harbors were they wold be relatively protected by their massive air defense umbrella.
The US air force, afraid to risk heavy losses among it's incredibly expensive air fleet, wouldn't risk a head on collision with the Chinese air force over mainland China. Instead they would try long distance shooting via cruise missiles and an occasional stealth attack. But these would be ineffectual.
The war would eventually peter out with maybe some skirmishing over some of the islands next to Nam with special forces, but no real bloodletting. A new cold war would take its place.
I have to admit I don't know what would happen. Read military history to know that stranger things have happened.
Rome was defeated on the field of battle by ill equipped Barbarian hordes several times, the Scot's whipped the English more than once (and the English were the absolute best at that time) and in our own history, the Confederacy fought magnificently despite beign extremely outnumbered and under equipped.
I also remember reading how in Kosovo, the NATO air campaign was pretty much useless, Serbia fell to internal pressure not to NATO's occasional swat on the hand air strikes. Nazi Germany actually increased it's wartime output at the HEIGHT of US and British air bombardment.
I'm not trying to defend China, just merely trying to say that no war goes exactly as planned. If it was fought today, it might go exactly as many have said it would.
But ten years from now....thats a different story.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   
A lot of people earlier in the thread had a quantity over quality discussion.
Consider the Second World War.
That war (In Europe anyways) was won on the ground. THe mighty US fleet didn't mean jack if the German troops on the beaches had repelled the Allied landings at Normandy.
Read or listen to interviews of survivng allied tank crewmen, they'll tell you the vast superiority of the German armor. Russia made the consience decision to simply use quantity over quality. The Wehrmacht had the better tanks and the better trained and equipped soldiers, the Soviets had more of everything. And they won the war.
Even the Western allies decided to have quantity over quality on the ground and an overwhelming superiority in the air. Well, the air superiority didn't mean jack, you still had to dig the Germans out of the cities and bunkers and forests by infantry and tank. And on many occasions, German forces inflicted heavier losses on the allies than they themselves sustained. (Anzio, Salerno, Monte Cassino, Hurtgen Forest, Caen, Arnhem)
Right now China has the quantity department locked down. It's not a bad strategy when you think about it.
The Soviets (who really did win the war by the way, not the Western allies, just look at the disproportionant amount of force the Wehrmacht arrayed against the Soviets as opposed to the Western allies and the gargantuan losses on the Eastern Front. The Ardennes counteroffensive was the bloodiest battle in the western theater...by Eastern Front standards, it was a skirmish) realised that they had the greater manpower pool, the larger industrial capacity and of course the will to win. They took these assets and also realised that the German Tigers and Panthers were notorious for breaking down. THe more high tech a vehicle, the higher the demand for maintenace on it.
Soviet tanks were simple to build, easy to maintain and very fast. Unfortunately for their crew they were total # on crew protection but the whole point was to get the gun to the flank of the German tank fast enough to burn a hole through it, the Soviets were willing to take those losses.
A war with China would most likely be fought under the same circumstances. Consider how much of the US industrial base has eroded and that of the Chinses has progressed. Also consider how much of the technology sector has moved to the far east to India and hmmmm... China.
Again, I don't think China would win a war hands down....but stranger things have happened.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Check out: www.globalsecurity.org...
This should answer all you questions if you can plow thru the 52 pages.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Interesting read that one was. Its obvious(in my opinion) Chinas strategy is to sit back and study the wars being fought by western nations. By doing this I believe they will create their new doctrine for combat, seeing the west(most notably the US) as their one obsticle in the Taiwan situation. By rewriting their doctrine according to this, they feel they will be able to counter any future conflict that may take place between China and the US/NATO. It states something similar to this in the document, interesting, I wonder what our think-tanks here in the states and other NATO countries are doing to counter that move, if anything at all.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Interesting read that one was. Its obvious(in my opinion) Chinas strategy is to sit back and study the wars being fought by western nations. By doing this I believe they will create their new doctrine for combat, seeing the west(most notably the US) as their one obsticle in the Taiwan situation. By rewriting their doctrine according to this, they feel they will be able to counter any future conflict that may take place between China and the US/NATO. It states something similar to this in the document, interesting, I wonder what our think-tanks here in the states and other NATO countries are doing to counter that move, if anything at all.


Imo, the Battle of Jutland analogy could turn out to be accurate; with advancements in anti-ship missiles whole navies may go the way of the battleship. There may not even be a hot war if Taiwan is annexed, along with South Korea and Singapore.

The Chinese leadership may hold the view that most of Asia (including Australia) is rightfully theirs as they are the superior civilisation that is entitled to energy reserves and living space due to it's population and super-power status. Perhaps a co-ordinated blockade of piped energy to Europe and Asia (via a naval blockade of the Straights of Malacca) at the same time as shooting US satellites out of space would be used?

If there's a wider conflict in the Middle East and even Europe the US military might be too overstretched to help anyone in Asia.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I think it's pretty obvious that China is turning from a Communistic state into a fascist state much like 1933 Nazi Germany. They are now turning towards a free-market economy, have a rapidly expanding military and industrial base, and are beginning to make statements to prepare the way for territorial demands based upon the premise of living space.
To not view China with at least some apprehension is quite honestly moronic. The US should begin preparing the way now to prepare for the coming war with the superpower dragon.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
All you need to ask is:

"Where would an American-chinese war take place."

There is only one answere - CHINA. They can't get to the ME, much less the US. In a war, it would go something like this (assuming non nuclear, because that's the only chance China has)...

1) war is declared
2) US achieves air superiority
3) Every strategic site in China is destroyed
4) secondary targets are struck

Then, the US has a choice to make.

A) Invade
B) ask China to surrender for their own good
C) punish China from the air/sea for an indefinite period of time untill they sue for peace


well i would like to point out that US INVADED iraq,n they arent exactly winning are they?
their major allies britain infact are in a much better position despite the fact that they have lesser forces n military might.
remember david n goliath ,well rite now its like david vs goliath with donald ducks brain(read dubya).
wot is the use of alll the force projection n other crap if instead of pointing the gun right u point it in the left direction.
the american intelligence agencies considered the 'best' in the world showed how good they were when they predicted the presence of "WMDS"
the iraq invasion is like a perpetual thorn in americas foot, which they cant remove,its minute but constantly hurts them, then would the china invasion be like???



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
All you need to ask is:

"Where would an American-chinese war take place."

There is only one answere - CHINA. They can't get to the ME, much less the US.


I would have to agree China lacks even the logistics to move a fraction of its massive army to Taiwan some 90 miles away. To think that they could get any large number of troops across the whole pacific is fantasy for the time being.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2smart2curious

Originally posted by American Mad Man
All you need to ask is:

"Where would an American-chinese war take place."

There is only one answere - CHINA. They can't get to the ME, much less the US. In a war, it would go something like this (assuming non nuclear, because that's the only chance China has)...

1) war is declared
2) US achieves air superiority
3) Every strategic site in China is destroyed
4) secondary targets are struck

Then, the US has a choice to make.

A) Invade
B) ask China to surrender for their own good
C) punish China from the air/sea for an indefinite period of time untill they sue for peace


well i would like to point out that US INVADED iraq,n they arent exactly winning are they?
their major allies britain infact are in a much better position despite the fact that they have lesser forces n military might.
remember david n goliath ,well rite now its like david vs goliath with donald ducks brain(read dubya).
wot is the use of alll the force projection n other crap if instead of pointing the gun right u point it in the left direction.
the american intelligence agencies considered the 'best' in the world showed how good they were when they predicted the presence of "WMDS"
the iraq invasion is like a perpetual thorn in americas foot, which they cant remove,its minute but constantly hurts them, then would the china invasion be like???


Wrong, wrong, wrong, jeez man, WMDs are kind of hard to find; they found an entire field's worth of buried aircraft in Iraq about a year ago; if the Iraqis could bury a whole field of aircraft, hiding WMDs isn't too hard.

People love to be all judgemental, saying "there are no WMDs" when they aren't the people who actually have to trudge through the blistering heat of the desert or up the freezing cold mountains actually looking for them.

BTW, contrary to popular belief, WMDs were NOT the main reason the U.S. invaded iraq. They were just one reason.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Anyone ever read "The Bear and the Dragon" by Tom Clancy? It kind of paints a different picture of a conflict with China. If you havent read it, the book depicts a conflict in which China decides to invade Russia for the massive oil and gold reserves in Northern Siberia. To make a long story short, they catch intel before hand, tell Russia, Russia is voted into NATO and the US provides air and naval support, NATO countries send troops and the Chinese are defeated in their effort. Decent book, anyone see it possibly happen this way if China decides it needs more living space and resources?



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Interesting sounding book ludaChris not totally far fetched IMHO Russia has never fully trusted China. Having a Billion people on a land border could do that. While China was trying to limit its population the USSR was awarding medals to Mothers for bearing and rearing many children.

If you pumped out ten you got the "Order of Mother Heroine"

link

Russia and the US combined though that was a impressive force in WW2 and would be a juggernaut today



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
We are also forgetting this little fact about history. Those who fail to control the seas, fail in war. The Spanish Armada, Napoleon, and Hitler all failed in one area eventually, and that was controlling the seas. And we all see where that got them. This is really where the UK succeeds, in their Navy. Its not huge or anything, but highly effective.

[edit on 2/10/2006 by ludaChris]


Precisely, others have mentioned force projection in this debate, and that was exactly what the British (My lot) were so good at doing in the days of the Empire. Hell, I'd go so far as to say that the Royal Navy is the British Empire for all intents and purposes. We may have been outnumbered in the areas that we conquered, we may have been a smaller nation when fighting the Spanish Armada and Napoleon but we succeeded due to the power of the Royal Navy.
I think it is a shame that are military is a shadow of it's former self.
Obviously, the Americans took our place when it comes to force projection quite some time ago.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
man give each chinese soldier a sharp stick and they could take over the world.
though they lack air superiority

[edit on 25-2-2006 by TidalWave]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
China had the second- largest military budget in 2004, according to the CIA world factbook:

www.cia.gov...

But here's the fun part:

www.cia.gov...

On account balance, look at who's made it to the second place again. But scroll down to the bottom of the list and guess what you'll find.

My guess is that China is making their threats towards Taiwan now, because of the war in Iraq. (And because of a possible conflict in Iran in the future) Maybe China thinks that not even the U.S. could fight two or, in the worst-case scenario, even three wars at a time.

Chinas available military manpower is about 281 million, while in the US, it's about 55 million.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Yup, that was what my history teacher said, US has all these fancy F16 M1 Abrahams continental missiles aircraft carriers etc, the list goes on....While China has these million troops each given a gravel and viola it's a stalemate.

If only China can somehow pump 1/13th of its population into US each given a butcher knife US would be owned hands down.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join