U.S. vs. China

Series of questions on this nightmare scenario:

1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?
2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the long run against 1 billion people?
3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?
4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight?
5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?
6. Any other thoughts?

I think China is one enemy the U.S. will need a miracle to defeat. I see it sort of as a whole bunch of people lining up against the Chinese coast to prevent an amphbious assault. An airborne assault is pretty dumb as well. The only advantage America will have is our airpower and sea-launched missiles, but that won't last forever.

In the end, I think it's a lose-lose situation for the U.S.

Also, does anyone know of any tactics or warplans the U.S. has in store regarding China?

This should be interesting.

Even if the US won the war, they would probably screw up the occupation afterward. What makes you think the US is going to fight China?

Nukes. THe only way to deal with that many soldiers, even if you out tech and firepower them, is to use mass area destruction. If the US would have to nuke most of china to actualy win (end of combat) against china in a war.

This is of course given publicly known military tech. The US may already have a better method that isn't public. I'm sure the war monger prepare for everything.

I reckon the winner would be the ones who take advantage after they are both severly weakened (If everyone else stayed out of it)

Come people first let US win Iraq then we can talk Korea or China.

Look what happened after 600 military people die in a year.

Think what will happen if you lose that much people every 12 hours?

The US citzens themselfs will overthrow the US government.

Out,
Russian

That'd be AWESOME.

Now that people have seen that their honorable Bush Adminstration lied about WMD's to go into Iraq and sacrifced 600+ lives, America will have troubles stirring up another war.

Lol. I can tell your from America, because that is everyones first response. Bomb them back to the stone age.

The most effective way to defeat China would be to topple the government and start an uprising against it. Then we could make powerful allies with the Chinese as another democracy.

1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place? The US is able to invade China, but it would have to be very well orchestrated and hidden from public view. US forces couldn't really launch beach head strikes because the Chinese seaboard is pretty well-fortified. US forces would have to enter through the Asian countries, which is not very feasible without force. Forgive the pun, but the Chinese have lots of experience keeping barbarians out over the thousands of years...

2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the long run against 1 billion people?Yes, in the short term. But lets not forget that China's military isn't just people with bows and arrows; they have a pretty modern military, as well. Also, the Chinese would be more motivated to fight because they are on the defensive. In the long term, the technological superiority may be rendered useless, because not only do the Chinese forces have many technological applications that are designed to specifically counterattack US tech, but they also have the superior culturual upbringing that will eventually assure them victory.

3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?Not very effective, because both Russia and China have been watching the US throw its military around. They both have been working around the clock to improve their air defenses, and they both know the heavy reliance the US places upon its forces in the sky. This would have to be a war won by land and sea, and not by Shekinaw/Shock-and-awe tactics.

4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight? Most likely yes, because the government could easily impose a universal draft, though I doubt that they would need to. They already have the largest army in the world.

5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare? No. They are barely holding onto Iraq which is defended by 1980's style guerrilla warfare.

6. Any other thoughts? This is the kind of war that TPTB want to have because they know it would be big. They know that the end results would be disastrous and pivotal in the installment of a one-state-world. This is also the kind of situation that may or may not prove the effectiveness of MAD (mutually assured destruction through nuclear weapons), as if the US launches a few nukes, so will China. In either case, the end result wouldn't be pretty, and this is the kind of war I would rather not see or read about. Well, to be honest, I would rather not see or read about any other wars again, but as long as there are greedy kids running things...

Very interesting. Thanks, that was really educating.

But, I think you misinterpreted this question:



What I was referring to was not a draft. Rather, would it have civilians take up arms? I mean, why draft when all you have to do is arm about 600 million civilians? China is not America, obviously, so they seem like a country that would have men, women, and children not in the military take up arms to defend the "Land of the People." Is that a fair assessment?

I mean, if my nation was being invaded, I would issue weapons to every able-bodied man, woman, and child and have them defend the land at all costs! The military is 2 million men. Why not have all 1 billion fight?

And as a question to everybody, what would be the impact on American society (assuming we went there for a self-proclaimed "noble cause," such as freeing the Chinese people, and disarming them of WMD which they beyond the shadow of a doubt have)? Would America have any allies besides Britain? What would our economy be? How will Asian-Americans be treated?

[Edited on 13-4-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]

The fact that China is a growing superpower and it's nearly polar-opposites in politics, culture, and ideology means they will clash at some point. America wants to "liberate" the world, but China is more isolationalist. They don't like outside influence despite the fact they are actually quite a progressive country.

The US could starve the Chinese out. China is extremely dependent on grain imports now adays for both people and cattle (they are eating a lot more meat per person than they used to say 20 years ago). China i believe imports half of their grain from other countries...The US and Canada are responsible for roughly 65 percent of the grain that goes into the world market.

Not to mention embargos placed on them.. With the extreme desparity in terms of Naval power between the two nations, there is no way China could stop the US from sealing off thier shores.

I think China would be a very tough opponent.
I remember the Chinese pilot flying so close to US spy planes that he was able to flash his email address.

I believe they know almost every move the US makes over there.

They have very advanced technology and are very good at intelligence operations.

I remember an interview on TV with an Ex-Spy from China talking about how easy it was to get information from the US men. She just played on their ego, and they talked willingly about many things.

Your scenario highlights why war is never good for political use, but that's a totally different story.

Disregarding a nuclear-type defense, China could be taken easily by a US military with an inspired strategy.

1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?
Yes, unequivocally the U.S. could invade China. By "could" I am assuming you are questioning the capacity of the US to deploy a large enough force overseas and sustain high-tempo military operations for a protracted campaign. This, the US can do. If by "could" you are referring to the political ramifications of an invasion, then likely no, the US could not invade China without severe provocation.

2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the long run against 1 billion people?
Of course America's technological and firepower advantages are helpful in the long run against 1 billion people. They are also helpful in the short run against 1 billion people. They also happen to be helpful in the short and long run against 50k, 5m, 500m, or 10b people.

1 Billion people, to me, should be read "target rich environment". This is in no way a liability. It merely dictates a different method of conducting the military campaign against China.

3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?
US airpower would be effective. Not "highly" effective, not "very" effective, but not ineffective either. Certainly, the US would have and maintain air superiority for a military campaign against China. I do not believe that air dominance could be achieved over the entire country, but certainly, the coastal regions of China would be a wholly owned subsidiary of the US Airforce.

4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight?
It is ridiculous to say every Chinese citizen would fight. Certainly, a poorly conducted military campaign could lead to every Chinese citizen fighting, but again, inspired strategy could have the vast majority of the citizenry of China idle.

5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?
The US would be insane to pursue a guerrilla war on the Chinese mainland, however, a guerrilla war should be easily averted.

6. Any other thoughts?
Many people will undoubtably claim that a war with China is suicide. This is far from the truth. It is important to consider that a war with China does not need to be fought according to traditional US doctrine. Indeed, if it were me dictating US strategy, any invasion would be prefaced on a sustained total embargo on all goods going into and out of China. Also, it would be absolutely critical to not make the war with China about regime change... rather make it widely known it is instead an imperial venture.

If you want to get into the actual strategy that would make a war with China winnable, we can, but thats not gonna happen in this post. Briefly, it should be quite possible to keep a front-line from forming. If the war starts to develop a front, things would go south quickly. With this in mind, most combat units would take on the form of decentralized, highly mobile raiding parties, supplied and supported by airpower. Heavy armor would be of little use except in assaulting the largest and best equipped Chinese military units.

Cascadego,

I'm not so sure about what you're saying. You seem to be underestimating China's defensive capabilities.

You also seem to have neglected the fact that the Chinese are far different from Iraqis.

And are you seriously saying our troops will mow down the enemy despite the fact we'd be outnumbered almost 20-1?

Let's hear your strategy. I still think you're making China look like a big Iraq. Discombobulated, etc. "Decentralized raiding parties?" Are you still under the impression the Chinese military is still in it's earliest development stages?

Not a flame post, just don't know where your info came from.

off topic

there's a joke about china that if they jump
at the same time we will be experiencing
earthquake with a magnitude of 7 and if they
piss at the same time, they will flood the world

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is: Never get involved in a land war in Asia!, and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

Oh boy, here we go again............

OK, first off - we need to decide if it is a conventional or nuclear war. If it's Nuclear, game over for both countries, but more so for China - so I guess the US wins that in some sick kind of way.

Now, no nukes is a dif baalgame....
1) Yes, we are able to launch an offensive attack into China. We have the coordination, equipment, funding, ect ect bla bla bla.

2) Yes - even more so. You see, Chineese military philosophy has their 2 million man army broken up into 60 thousand man regiments. Massed, traditional forces are what the US kills best. If we have a clear target, we can kill it. Thus, they march their 60 thousand man army, and we destroy it with a few B-2's dropping MOAB bombs (if you don't know what it is, it's a bomb that has a HUGE yield - nicknamed Mother Of All Bombs).

The problem arises when they go to gaurilla warfare - that negates our tech a lot. But as long as they want to fight a war with their army, they die. You see, we wouldn't send in our army at first. Remeber 'Shock & Awe' - imagine that for months. We would destroy all their infrastructure, their food supply, weapons factories, comunications - everything. All well before the first American Stept foot on the soil (excluding Spec Ops).

As far as the long run, once they turned to hit and run/non conventional war we loose some of our advantage. But keep this in mind: If we are going over to China, we are byond playing footsy with the UN/international community. At this point, we are preatty much killing first, asking questions later - so I doubt you would see what is going on in Iraq - ie the US sitting outside a city trying to talk it over. If their was a riot, we'd send in C-130's and strike aircraft and just level the city.

3) US air power would dominate. We would be flying sorties from carriers, Japan, probably have F-117's and B-2's coming out of Australia. I doubt they would have much aircraft left after a week or 2 - they'd either be shot down or too afraid to fly. You must understand that their air craft are all old. They have a huge fleet, but for every plane we lost, they would loose like 20 if not more. Their AF does not get much time in the air as well, and they don't have any experience. I seem to remember a Chineese pilot crashing into a US servelence plane.

4) I doubt it. A lot would - no doubt. But think about it, they don't have enough guns in that country to arm 100 million people, much less a billion. Then you can take out all children, elderly, most women, wounded from airstrikes ect ect ect. You'd end up with a few million, still a lot more then the US would send over - but no where close to that billion.

5) I would say so. Their regular military fighting a conventional war has no chance - they'd have to go guarilla style. The problem is, there is no way the US could occupy a country that in it's own right has more land and people then the continental United States.

6) :
Cascadego - you make some very valid points - especially on embargo. If we took this action, the war is over before a shot is fired. They would all starve to death untill they surrendered.

I believe you are wrong how ever on how effective our airpower would be. They use old Russian planes without modern avionics, have poor training and flight time, just developed an AWACs. and have no experience to my knowladge. Also, what Air fields would they use? Do you really think that we wouldn't use cruise missles and destroy all of their airbases?

SweatmonicaIdo - your assesment of arming 600 million chan men is wrong. They have about 50 million guns over there so where do the other 550 million guns come from? Factories are destroyed from air raids remember? can't import them because of imbargo.....you get the idea.

I'd also like to point out that if the US were to attack China, it would most likely NOT be to occupy. I don't think we could do that in the long run.

wheeeeeeewwwwwww..........*out of breath*
I hope you all actually read all this crap I wrote

Screw up?...i believe after WW2 Germany was largely rebuilt by the US...as with S.Korea after the Korean war...and I dont care what BS people say...i have numerous friends in Iraq...and from what they tell me...Iraq a year ago and Iraq now is like night and day...for the better...still far from perfect....but progress is slow when youre dealing with a country thats mostly sand and its people have been oppressed for 30 years...