Discussed somewhat in this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Or those Super Dooper AEGIS systems which apparently can stop anything including the kitchen sink.




Doesn't mean they would have achieved those goals. More than 100 nuclear missiles on Mach 4 Anti-ship missiles from every direction. The US tactics were to wipe out Soviet Boomer pens before they were able to launch their missiles in a First/Second wave missile attack. A suicide attempt

Oh, The US had it easy with the Soviet missiles in those days, Big, Hot and Fast. New generation missiles have much smaller RCS and skip on the water, impossible to detect at long ranges.


Just like those cold war fairy tales about USN subs pinging the whole Soviet Navy. How much times again is it when the the US was unable to find the Swedish sub?. Lots of rambling propaganda from the USN and their mighty ASW capabilities with no substance



LOL,

Intercepting short range low tech SCUD missiles which were detected even before they were launched. They are treater missiles designed to shoot down the missiles during the launch phase when they have not reached their altitude.Proven, NO. Just like the mighty M1 tanks destroying lots of crew less 40 year old T-55 and calling the M1 a "proven" combat tank.



Immediate NUCLEAR retaliation

And, to be fair, you should insert, 'a nd destroy in relatively short order'. The problem is not that the US could not destroy significant proportions of the current standing Chinese army but that the Chinese , like the Soviet Union in WW2, will quite likely be able to recreate , from reservists, the same number of destroyed devisions in about the time it takes to destroy them. Remember that while the Germans were rampaging accross Russia for the first SIX MONTHS the SU were able to create devisions from reservists with those who were recruited just after the invasion only being deployed against Germans after 5 or 6 months of training. It really comes down to space and while you have that you can always mobilize your remaining resources to the best of your abilities.

Stellar

The Russian military is nothing more than a glorified paper army.

I didn't read most of this thread. But, I'm putting this up here anyway.

Propoganda that inspires revolution is probably the best way to fight. Have someone else do it for you. Though, China would probably win. Maybe they're winning right now?

The new objective is to disregard Patriotism and Pride as they're a virtue of the vicious.

China is mostly Athiest, I guess. They'd lose a Physical battle because they're not fighting in the name of God. I'm not particularly religious, but I know if people believe they have a cause to fight, they're more likely to win over those who don't. Athiests are just kind of, Eh.

I'm agnostic.

reply to post by chinawhite

---

and by that note the chinese army is a gloryfied target practise.


`hey bud lets go to that new range - called china , shoot up some red chickens and be home for beer and bbq`

Chinawhite -

The USN is not invincible. However I believe it is a lot harder to kill than you have made it out to be.

First of all, there would be a mutiny well before the commander of a CVBG put his ships anywhere near a position in which he would face 400 mythical mach 4 missiles. Come on, give the americans a bit more credit than that, were not idiots.

Secondly, even if a CVBG were to get into a position where it was in range of cruise missiles, they would not come from all sides.

Thirdly, the SM-3 IS a proven system against seperating, sophisticated BMs launched and detected at times and places not exactly known by the ship that intercepts them. The same would be true for Chinese missiles, but its not that hard to figure out the general angle of launch. THAT WAY. from CHINA. It's in every way a better ABM system than PATRIOT will ever be. And it has a range upwards of 300 miles.

Fourthly, I while I do not doubt the vast quantity of missiles China has I do doubt that China has quantity AND quality. I don't know exactly where you are getting this idea of wave after wave of massed, hyper super mach 12 evading sea skimming supercavitating missiles that have a new capability where they can drop cows in front of them to stop interceptant missiles. Are you referring to the KH-41? So what if it can evade at 10G, the ESSM can track and hit things turning significantly harder than that.

Fifthly, the USN organizes its CVBGs to have overlapping fields of fire. Its not like there would only be one missile intercepting each cruise missile. Add more than one CVBG to the equasion and I believe it would create a fairly comprehensive missile shield against BMs and good protection against the few cruise missiles china manages to get up and over taiwan.

reply to post by StellarX

---

fred raised the point on oil supplies - but its the price that really would cripple the us warmachine , which is right of course , how would the us pay for oil when its 3x the price now?


opening a war on 2 fronts:

you raise a good point actually :



whilst that might be true - in the case of afghanistan/iraq - the meer presecence of counter forces is affecting the balance - and thats the crux of the way the war is being fought against the US

Entropy based warfare;

Entropy based warfare is based on three factors: Lethality, Disruption, and Friction.
Lethality is the effect of damaging attacks on the enemy.
Disruption is anything that decreases the combat effectiveness of the enemy.
Friction is anything that causes the opponent to use up his own resources and not cause damage (or to damage himself), or the inability of the enemy to recover from a given tactic.


now whilst the `opposition` might not be aware of the war they are fighting , the effects are the same , road-side bombs for lethaility , sporadicness and not consitance for disruption and the rapid errosion of the US warmachines fighting ability - look at the outcry over the increased cossts , the failing aircraft and broken down vehicles.

i honestly think that the US war machine would be broken down before the expedition to iraq is over.


sorry gone off topic

Plenty plausible.

China would be willing to lose many 100's of millions of it's citizens to establish a Chinese controled globe. They see this as THEIR RIGHT--THEIR TURN. They expect to make this the chinese century and many speak of THE CHINESE MILLENIUM.

They expect to take over Australia and such other spheres as suit them while establishing more or less effective empire control over the rest of the planet.

They do not really care if they are top dogs on a heap of ruins initially. They figure they have the manpower to survive in a top position. Coupled with our advanced technologies and the robustness of their new capitalism . . . they figure that the 'superior' Chinese Culture will certainly be tops.

Part of it is ethnic pride and part of it is arrogance and pride of long arrogant Communist leadership mentalities.

Nevertheless, many millions will die on all sides because of that pride.

And that doesn't even get into the NWO aspects of it all.

Of course, thankfully, God has His plans that will . . . adjust . . . the Chinese plans wholesale. But not before great amounts of blood have been shed, if my guesses are near right.

BTW, check out Dimitru Duduman's dreams and visions. I think his grandson has the site.

www.whatsaiththescripture.com...

He had some very specific and vivid dreams and visions about China's attack on the USA.

lol

theres only one way to find out really!!!


and IMHO china would get is ass handed to them, there no match in any deppartment fact, thay just have a big easy to hit army i wouldnt get to tied up with the proppergander, from iraq & afghanistan the only problem america faces is the people back home if the millitary had it there own way without all the polatics and public opin, thay really could do some damage to a conventional up to date army like chinas after all thats wot it was designed for, i served 6months in helmand province with the royal anglian regt, british army... and have seen the USAF kick ass on a regs thay sure have some nice new silent aircraft because im sure we was out of the rang of the artillery so we called in a airstike the USAF supports us in operations but apparently it was artillery

Okay, first of all if this turns into a "no my countries forces are better than yours." "Oh yeah well we have super missiles that will do anything." kind of thread then I'll just have it closed down. Theres no need for that. So lets not let this turn into a patriotic bickering place.

But I think that people here significantly underestimate the US forces. Come on, you think that we would just put a CBG into the straits and start bombing things? Do you think that the carrier would be there alone without any kind of protection other than some sea sparrows and CIWS? Its not like its a carrier, they have a bunch of subs, multiple aegis cruisers, destroyers, among others. Thats when theyre patroling a coastline with no notable navy ie Iran and the Persian Gulf. Imagine how they'll be protected in a full blown war scenario.

As amateurs like us will never be able to forecast the outcome of a war.
even those politicians are always misforecast it.
for example, the leader of a hegemony believe they could conquer Iraq
in a walk, but now...
So, people of that hegemony should learn from the past, think twice before
supporting those bellicose policy.

reply to post by BlackWidow23

---

the whole problem with keeping your ships out of harms way is effective range of your combat aircraft - Yahkont has a range of at least 250 km`s and thats the entire way at wave skimming height , throw in a hi-hi-lo profile and you can add at least another 100 km`s to that , so were at 350 km`s at least - your now really imprinting on combat aircrafts ability to drop ordnanace , as thats at least 700 km`s there and back (around 450 miles) , the airforce won`t put tankers in harms way to refuel the navy without a heavy escort , and the nearest useable bases would be diego garcia in teh indian ocean and guam - both of which arn`t exactly close.

A war with China would hopefully be fought using weapons made in the USA.

Well the massive increase in foreign demand for dollars will allow the US to do far more deficit spending and the current high oil prices are in the main due to the fact that the US regime is employing every and oil strategies to create artificial demands for Greenbacks...



Something that is not commonly admitted so i suppose i should thank you for your honesty.




Absolutely but the Germans ( and Napoleon in his day) were occupying France, the low countries, Norway, much of central Europe as well as Eastern Europe. The thing is the US could occupy Iraq with far less physical equipment if it's willing to accept higher casualties that foot and unarmored patrol tends to result in.



I can go along with that.



But the thing is you hardly need vehicles if you do a proper occupation where only GPS indentifiers prevents any moving car/truck from being blown to bits. If the enemy can't move very fast you don't have to either. The Germans managed to occuppy all those countries because you can in essence use second rate ( older, less able and even infirm) troops with formerly warehoused equipment to fight the sporadic running battles. Obviously you will have a few heliborne or paratroop type rabid response forces to bail out garrisons or encircle any larger scale formations but these need hardly be a noticable strain on a first rate industrialized army.



There is some links ( and info lifted from a prior post of mine) about equipment attrition in here somewhere but i don't want to work trough all of them ATM. If you care to you should find some good numbers for around mid 2007...

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.slate.com...

www.atimes.com...

www.opportunity08.org/Files/FD.ashx?guid=8a57c0a1-820d-4b52-bfff-cfd22b6f949a

Sour ce

www.americanprogress.org...

www.americanprogress.org...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.heritage.org...

The following shows the strain the men are under and what sort of effect this is having on homeland security and the capacity of the US to fight another war this decade.

www.strategypage.com...

observer.guardian.co.uk...

www.washingtonpost.com...

Source





I think we are very much on topic and while i have seen the actual equipment losses in numbers as well as tens of thousands of wounded it just wont be a problem if the US public can be convinced ( and if it's obvious i feel sorry for the targetted country) that the threat is real. A few staged nukes will more than do the trick if China continues to play dead and the US leaders feels that they are losing their capabilies too fast.

So in closing i am very much a critic of imperialism and despite the fact that i believe that i understand some of the flaws in the US war machine i am by no means ignorant enough of history, or stupid enough in general, to think that the USA will simply be overmatched if it can gain public support for a long and extended war. I simply don't buy into the notion that the American people , or any other, are incapable of fighting ( due to decadence or some such other absolute nonsense) and dying by the millions if external threats are either obvious or engaged in a aggressive war against US citizens elsewhere. The fact that it has near 300 million people and a few million more than would happily risk their lives for citizenship ( mass graves in Iraq filled with US style uniformed men?) means that no country in a century has , or will soon again , declared war on the US without massive provocation ( Japan,Germany last time round) or any real choice.

Stellar

heres 1 factor that hasn`t been covered -the native chinesepopulations within conus -what would the likely reply from them be if there was a full on attack against there homeland?

I also think Russia's military is now a joke, though the SU-27 is very impressive. I don’t think the U.S. has a fighter yet with a full 360 degree vectoring thrust, though the SU-27 is old school having no fly by wire. They probably don’t have enough anyways to make a difference.

It would be an air war. I don’t think we have the man power to invade and control China's or the Russian homeland.

And if they tried to invade the U.S. the same thing would happen to them as the British in the Revolutionary War. When you have the entire backing and support of your country things are very different, which is not the case with Iraq.

My hometown Framingham sent two divisions to the Battle of Lexington, giving the Brits a proper New Englander's welcome as well as introducing them to guerilla warfare.

As far as Russia goes, they aren’t a big fan of the U.S. right now reverting back to cold war bomber runs and they dont like our missile shield, so I think they could very well take China’s side, it would be the neighborly thing to do.


[edit on 14-3-2008 by jojoKnowsBest]

I wouldnt doubt that China has spys and sabateurs for this exact situation. However I'm pretty sure the US has covered their bases just like they did in world war II. If youre confused go to wikipedia and look up interniment camps.

I think everyone fails to recognize how strong the US military really is. Everyones saying how this war would be an easy win for the Chinese because the US isn't doing so good in Iraq. What everyone forgets is that the US is actively trying to rebuild a country and win the hearts of the people WHILE waging a war. So we have like 3 fronts going. If the US wasnt trying to be so politically correct in waging the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq then if there was someone shooting from a mosque, goodbye mosque. We would just level towns, the problem is it isn't that simple. In China we wouldnt give a damn about their citizens or their well being, so we'd blow up as much as we could to try to shock them into submission.

I would say they would do pretty much what all other people in human history have done when their homeland comes under attack. It seems to be that few dictators have been so hated that people would rather have foreigners run their country than their own local tyrants.

Stellar

a poster above mentioned internment camps - but unllike ww2 , the populations of chinese in the US is somewhat larger than the japanese in usa ww2.