Yeah, bu the real deal is:
Will the US be effectively able to push the chinese back?
That itself is not clear.
Tanks included. One must neutralise the taiwanese attack heli force before this though.
I personally feel it will be difficult for the US to do anything significant if the chinese invade taiwan in a pre-meditated,thought-out fashion.
there are loads of threads on ATS regarding this:

I'm too lazy to search for em' but the most prominent was
'Can China Invade Taiwan' or something. Check them out..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yeah, bu the real deal is:
Will the US be effectively able to push the chinese back?
That itself is not clear.

My God are you kidding me? This is in response to all those saying that China could easily take Taiwan as well. What VERY limited Sea Lift capability China has is so sparse that if they could actually take a beachead from the most modern heavily defended coastline in the world, they have absolutely no way of continuing to supply it for any length of time to secure other assets. With this in mind how exactly is it that the U.S. is not going to be able to push them back? The U.S. is afraid of a LAND WAR against China not throwing them out of the Straits which a single CSG could likely do. And at this point I find it unlikely that the U.S. would defend Taiwan with a "boots to earth" type situation, likely just logistical.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
in China's current reach but Taiwan sure is..

Except, of course, for the thousands of thermonuclear warheads preventing this.

Also, lets not make this a US v China thread.

The main thrust is, can the US military be effective, even though its only made up of a small number of people.

I suggest looking at the british empire. Britain is a tiny country really. And yet, with a small volunteer army, they controlled a full Quarter of the Globe itself.

Manpower isn't determinative. Throughout history this has been shown, even when the technologies are roughly the same, its the ability of the commanders that can make a difference against overwhelming odds. And with the US, there is a complete dominance with respect to technology.

The US has invisible robotic missiles. INVISIBLE ROBOTIC MISSILES! That alone doesn't make a critical difference, but its emblematic of the issue, the US is far and above any other nation, certainly iran, when it comes to the hardware. US technology is so far advanced that its often mistaken for alien technology, fer chrissakes! Whens the last time an experimental Iranian jet was mistaken for gravity defying UFOs?

Actually, at that, there have been a reported increase in ufo sightings in Iran, is it the US, or perhaps it is secret iranian projects??

if you think the us does stand a chance then thats a narrow minded view... iraq is huge, so is iran... first they have to navigate the terrain alive then they have to flush out osama himself!? good luck with that youll need it, osama could be hiding in an underground tunnel network while the us is searching the streets for cripes sake.

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
if you think the us does stand a chance then thats a narrow minded view... iraq is huge, so is iran... first they have to navigate the terrain alive then they have to flush out osama himself!? good luck with that youll need it, osama could be hiding in an underground tunnel network while the us is searching the streets for cripes sake.

I think you are greatly misunderstanding this thread, or at least by the terms I understand it by. I don't think it's asking if the United States stands a chance in the War Against Terrorism, but rather, would it stand a chance in hypothetical wars against countries with countries whose militaries have more troops than ours. Or perhaps it's asking if the USA has the power to take on a wide range of countries at the same time. Either way, the weapons we are using in Iraq right now are VERY weak in comparison to the weapons we'd use in a World War or war against China. We are for the most part, using small bombs to combat these 'primitive' armies in the Middle East. Against a technologically advanced, formidable opponent, we would bring out the real hardware, Weapons of Mass Destruction; Nuclear Weapons, Chemical-Biological Weapons, the "Satellite Destroyer" mentioned in other threads, and much more large scale and bunker busting bombs that would affect much larger amounts of people. This would make up for the horrible loss we might suffer in man to man combat. This is not a question about Osama Bin Laden. Capturing Osama Bin Laden, which was originally the pretext of the "War On Terrorism" is now not even recognized as the "goal". I believe the current, 'official' goal is somewhere along the lines of creating Iraq's new government.

What does china invading Tiawian have to do with this topic?

we have one of the lonfest threads in ATS history devoted to that question....discuss it there

^^^
Well that depends on what this thread is all about in the first place..
If its about WWIII and/or the US involved in any future military conflict then its eats intot the domain of loads of threads..

All other factors being equal, numbers will win the day.

However, having a larger force can present more problems than solutions. Having a million man army is impressive at a glance, but it's also a logistical nightmare. Getting all those soldiers in the same uniform is a feat, keeping them well-fed, well-trained, well-equipped, cohesive and responsive is near-on impossible.

Originally posted by Omniscient

I think you are greatly misunderstanding this thread, or at least by the terms I understand it by. I don't think it's asking if the United States stands a chance in the War Against Terrorism, but rather, would it stand a chance in hypothetical wars against countries with countries whose militaries have more troops than ours. Or perhaps it's asking if the USA has the power to take on a wide range of countries at the same time.

He seems to think the same way too..
And the Taiwan problem is one such very probable theatre. Maybe this thread itself is too vague/broad and in the wrong forum itself.

Yes, I'm very confused about the primary purpose of this thread now. It seems as if several different people are understanding it in several differeny ways, and when the thread author started it he gave no personal opinion or specification; just numbers.

taiwan is a small problem...if the us needs china on their side to deal with a problem with iran or n korea...they shld give it up...

make taiwan something like hong kong...ownership change but business as usual...no big deal...