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.

 

U.S. vs. China

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:
D

posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by drunk

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
China will never be defeated because they have entered the space race. That would mean they're technology taking leaps and soon would devlop even better stuff. They were able to send people to space a long time ago but just never wanted to. The Chinese can overpower the US army easily with just a gajillion people. China has taken over a lot of MiG production and i would say MiG's are second best fighters to the F22 Raptors but they have numbers of MiG's. Besides it wouldn't be the US attacking China 1st it would be China attacking US 1st. China will have the element of surprise on their side because they are the ones striking 1st and probably take over Hawaii 1st (strategic base to capture also closest to china) They would have allies too...I'd say China would win...Maybe Canada might make a surprise attack while were fighting over at China


I agree with in some way but i ahve to admit the U.S army is better equipped the Chinese army i think still use AK 47's i'm not sure though.


They use the Type 81 7.62mm. It's an improvement of the AK-47.




posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo


Dude... the U.S. fought undertrained, outdated fighters in Korea and Vietnam and we still got our @$$es handed to us.

Ummmmmmmmmm no. N. Korea we were fighting RUSSIAN pilots in BETTER planes. But still, we didn't get our asses handed to us. As one pilot said "I've never seen an Asian with red hair." As for Nam - that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. OUR ASSES HANDED TO US? We had a kill ratio of 3:1 as in for every one we lost, we killed 3. Get an education.

Turkey shoot? Dude, your ignorance is astronomical!Missiles are not guns. Chinese pilots are not as stupid as you think. Yes, many missiles will hit, but many will also miss. And you only have so many missiles you can carry on a plane. You must think missiles come from a tree! And if the U.S. enters Chinese airspace, the way Chinese fighters fight, BVR is going to be a non-concept. It's going to be guns or nothing. On bombing missions, how are they going to drop their ordnance if there are fighters all over them? Sure, you can brag about fighter cover, but our reliance on missiles and the amount of fighter escort is not too promising. You only have so many aircraft. Seriously, brush up on the doctrine of air warfare. It's not all pressing buttons and using night-vision. It actually requires technique. Technique that has little to do with BVR combat (something that'll become useless in crowded combat skies). And believe me, it will not be a Turkey Shoot. I rarely say this, but that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Missiles don't last forever and aircraft against more aircraft is nothing to be proud of.

First off - don't call me ignorant boy. You believe you are right, and thats all well and good, but hearing your arguments, you are in no position to throw the word ignorant around. And yes, it would be a turkey shoot for the US. Chinese pilots are every bit as bad as I claim! You know that "spy" plane they were so happy about bringing down? You wunna know how that happened? One of their pilots RAN INTO our plane! Killed himself. I'd call that stupid. The fact is that they don't get the flying time that the US does. I't is just a fact. They don't have the training we do. Another FACT. You talk about technique - thanks for proving my point! The US has BETTER PILOTS - MUCH BETTER! You say that BVR isn't important? Tell that to the man who dies without ever seeing his enemy. American missles hit at around a 90% clip - depending on the missle. Most aircraft can carry around 10 missles. So i would say we would probably be shooting down 6 or 7 aircraft (if not more) for evey one of ours - I'd call that a turkey shoot.

Backtracking, the only fighter capable of the safest BVR is the F-14 and the Phoenix missile. All other fighters carry medium-range Sparrows and AMRAAMs, meaning they'd have to enter Chinese airspace anyway before engaging. And it's not like China's a place they can just dump U.S. aircraft onto. So BVR isn't much of an advantage from the start.

Well, the Phoenix is a stand off missle is our longest ranged, but it is not the only BVR missle. Like you said there are these things called AMRAAMs - they hit at over 90%. So yeah I'd say we could fight a BVR war quite well, thank you very much. As for not being able to enter their airspace - you are joking right? The US could go in there when ever it wanted, without too much problem. Again - if you don't think BVR is much of an advantege, you need to do your homework! There is a reason that every single aircraft built for the last 30 years has placed more and more importance on BVR combat. Why? Because it is a very good thing to be able to kill the enemy before he kills you! Get with it dude - this is how modern battles are fought by planes. We are not in WWI with dogfights anymore (though it is important to have a gun on board for backup).

Dude, WWII is over. We are in different times now. Get with it. You also totally ignore the fact that in a war (especially in an all-out conventional war), the budget will be strained beyond the breaking point. It costs too much even without any stealth fighters or advanced weapons systems. And your Cold War arguement is irrelevant - we were never at war. That's a totally different situation, if you don't realize. Wartime budget is very different from peacetime budget.

OK - you know what - you use every attack against the US you can but don't apply it to China! If the US budget is strained, HOW IN THE # WILL THE CHINESE BUDGET NOT BE STRAINED? THE US HAS A LARGER MILITARY BUDGET THEN THE NEXT 25 COUNTRIES COMBINED! So if the US budget is strained, then China will just fall apart! The US budget will not stain beyond breaking point - it could by increased by 2 to 3 times with little problem. The US has like 3 trillion dollars of tax money - they could easilly put a 3rd of that into the military if they were in a war with China. My cold war argument is not a totally different situation - the US was spending 3 times more on our military budget then they are now. So why in the hell coudn't the US do it again - in a time of war WHICH WOULD DEMAND IT MORE THEN PEACE TIME! You are right - war time and peace time budgets are totally different - IN WAR TIME THEY ARE HIGHER! USE YOUR LITTLE BRAIN HERE! WHEN ANY COUNTRY IS IN AN ALL OUT WAR THE BUDGET FOR THE MILITARY IS ALWAYS MUCH HIGHER THEN IN TIMES OF PEACE!

You get even more comedic. Do you realize just how different WWII fighters are from today's fighters? No, you obviously don't. WWII fighters are much simpler, therefore easier to build and takes less time (I did not say less cost). Today's fighters are incredibly complex, difficult to build, and thus take more time. They would not rush things, otherwise we'd lose them in transit. The moment they build a fighter, they must test it THUROUGHLY. One mistake with a complex fighter and BOOM. For example, America's most primitive attack helicopter in service today, the AH-1S Super Cobra, requires 38,500 hours just to build a single copy. Not including testing. Imagine the time it would take to build a single F-22. How many do you actually think they can build in time to make a difference in the war? Let's say the war lasts about three years, they probably wouldn't get a new shipment of F-22s until the middle of the third year (assuming they ordered a new batch at the beginning of the war). They are complex war machines, and you cannot rush building them. That's how they turn against you. We might get them for cheap, but busting them out and building and rushing them into service is a very inefficient and dangerous way of doing things. Complex aircraft require more time to perfect. I cannot stress that enough.

Yes, I realize the difference in the technology! Yes, I understand the time it takes to pump them out. However - UNLIKE in peace time conditions, in times of war, every aircraft manufacturer in America would be making military planes. Thus, instead of getting shipments of say 25 aircraft at a time, it's more like 300 at a time. But again - how can you so blindly not apply this to China as well? While the US gets no attack on home soil, every manufacturing plant in China is getting a cruise missle up it's ass! So I'd say that advantage falls to the US as well. The US would be able to replace it's aircraft, unlike China. If you think it takes 3 years to build a single fighter plane, you need to get your head checked out by a shrink man. get real.

Wartime is different from peacetime, you must realize that. Assuming you are correct (I really hope so), the wartime budget would be strained beyond belief. It's not like they can separate military and civilian budget, it all forms a symbiant circle. Imagine the stress it would cause the civilian budget if we purchased and purchased these stealth fighters (even if we could get them for cheaper). And you still deny the fact a conventional war budget is very pricey even without the stealth fighters. It is just not very efficient or wise to pump out fighters like these when money must be spent on everything else.

I realize the difference in wartime to peace time - but obviously you don't. During a war, the military gets all the money it possably can at all costs to other sectors. That is why there are things like gas rations during war - so that the military has more gas to work with. I say again - our budget would not be strained beyond beliefe - calm down dude. The US would probably spend close to 2 TRILLION dollars a year on the war - THE ENTIRE CHINESE ECONOMY DOES NOT EQUAL 2 TRILLION DOLLARS! It doesn't matter what kind of strain it puts on the civilian sector - in times of war everything else has to make due!. I'll say it again - you need to rethink your train of thought here, because you are acting like all of these financial problems would only happen to the US - how about CHINA? Are they exempt from this for some unknown reason? Or is it the only way you can justify your position?

Again, get with the times. The Persian Gulf War of 1991 was smaller than WWII, but the U.S. spent more money on it than they did in the Gulf War, in relative terms. World War II cost America $1 trillion, but over a period of roughly 48 months. Operation: Desert Storm cost $60 billion in a span of only two months. And the advancements we've made since 1991, the costs are unbearably high. It all costs money and with our military, it takes time and time and time. Nothing comes from a tree. Sorry.

Again - you are talking money here andd only applying it to the US. How is china going to be able to pay for this huge cost when they can't even export goods to other countries? Or does this fall under your special rule that money problems only apply to the US and no one else? The US has more stuff in it's arsenal then China does - and since they won't be able to build anything after a few weeks, I'd say their stuff with take even more time and time and time. Your right though - nothing comes from a tree - THAT INCLUDES CHINA!




posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by D

Originally posted by drunk

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
China will never be defeated because they have entered the space race. That would mean they're technology taking leaps and soon would devlop even better stuff. They were able to send people to space a long time ago but just never wanted to. The Chinese can overpower the US army easily with just a gajillion people. China has taken over a lot of MiG production and i would say MiG's are second best fighters to the F22 Raptors but they have numbers of MiG's. Besides it wouldn't be the US attacking China 1st it would be China attacking US 1st. China will have the element of surprise on their side because they are the ones striking 1st and probably take over Hawaii 1st (strategic base to capture also closest to china) They would have allies too...I'd say China would win...Maybe Canada might make a surprise attack while were fighting over at China


I agree with in some way but i ahve to admit the U.S army is better equipped the Chinese army i think still use AK 47's i'm not sure though.


They use the Type 81 7.62mm. It's an improvement of the AK-47.


Wouldn't even matter - the AK is a fine weapon. It is the more advanced weapons that they are lacking.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster000

you must be kidding me. you think china is still in the ancient times? god damn you must be really misinformed havent you seen the china rocket go into space? you idiot if they can make that dont you think they can make industrial weapons? i must deny your existence because you are just an ignorance


I guess you are the idiot for not following the post. They could make them now - but not 2 or 3 weeks after the war started. There is this thing that the US has - cruise missles. Hence - no more industrial foundation in China smart guy. Sorry, but I just had to deny YOUR IGNORANCE idiot.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
China will never be defeated because they have entered the space race. That would mean they're technology taking leaps and soon would devlop even better stuff. They were able to send people to space a long time ago but just never wanted to.

OK man, I'm not trying to start a flame war with yet another person, but really - this has nothing to do with a war with China. OK, so they sent a man to space. Great. I guess they could use this tech to flee when the bombs start falling on their country.


The Chinese can overpower the US army easily with just a gajillion people. China has taken over a lot of MiG production and i would say MiG's are second best fighters to the F22 Raptors but they have numbers of MiG's.

I'll take the undeafeted in A2A combat F-15 over any Mig in their arsenal. They are much more advanced. By the way - the Raptor would be shooting down around 10 aircraft for every one that was lost.

Besides it wouldn't be the US attacking China 1st it would be China attacking US 1st. China will have the element of surprise on their side because they are the ones striking 1st and probably take over Hawaii 1st (strategic base to capture also closest to china) They would have allies too...I'd say China would win

Wow man - I guess you don't realize that China can't project it's forces to Taiwan, much less Hawai. As for allies - who? Who will side with them vs the US? France? Germany?

...Maybe Canada might make a surprise attack while were fighting over at China


ok, now i am assuming that this was a joke post, so i commend your sense of humor



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
American, I want a "big" war in a way in terms of technology, but not in men lost. Like, imagine all of the black projects will get released? that would be amazing. Like the Afgan war brought about the Predator which is advanced but this wasnt a war for bigger black projects



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
D> Well i did say i wasnt sure, thanx for the update though



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
How to defeat China.

STOP SHOPPING AT FRIGGIN WAL-MART.

I'm only half kidding.

Cheers



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Wal-mart is from China?



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Wal-mart is from China?


Nope i'm guessing most products are from China.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Oh, no. But nearly everything it sells, is manufactured in China.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   
My apologies,
I sometimes forget that there is an international audience on this Bulletin Board.
For those who don't know:
Wal-Mart is a huge company, with Warehouse-style stores. They are very successful in the US. Everyone jokes about the place being Low-brow, yet nearly everyone shops there. Lots of CHEAP GOODS..



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
American Mad Man,

I don't need to throw "ignorance" around. I used it very properly in your case, thank you!


You obviously know nothing about modern air combat. Ask any Vietnam aviator and they'll tell you that a 3:1 kill ratio is horrendous. Especially when it comes to a technologically advanced air force vs. a largely primitive air force using guns. Considering we had a 12-1 ratio in Korea and dropped to 3:1, is that something to be proud of? You need to do the homework. And lots of it. If a 3:1 kill ratio is that good in your book, then Top Gun was never a necessity, according to your flawed philosophy.

Hell, ask a modern-day F-15C pilot. He'll tell you that if the U.S. doesn't achieve a kill ratio of at least 5:1, something has gone TERRIBLY wrong.

Your own words proved you wrong. You talk about America's technologically advanced airpower, BVR, missiles, all that jazz. You talked about modern aircraft carrying 10 missiles and being able to shoot down 6 or 7 aircraft all at once. A huge kill ratio. So how is a 3:1 kill ratio acceptable (believe me, we haven't changed in terms of AIR-TO-AIR combat THAT much since 1975). If an advanced force such as the U.S. Air Force (it was advanced in Vietnam) garners tight numbers like that, it's bad. You'll agree, the U.S. must dominate every situation.

As for Korea, we got our asses handed to us because we were matched for every move despite a 12-1 kill ratio. So we failed because despite destroying more of their planes, we still didn't beat them. A kill ratio means nothing if we never achieved anything.

It's funny how you think U.S. fighters can just waltz into Chinese airspace, put up a barrage of missiles and boom, a whole chunk is gone. Absurd. You must still think missiles are fool-proof, U.S. aircraft are invulnerable, we have more aircraft than them, we have unlimited resources in the theater, and they're too stupid to see us. Wait, did SAM and AAA ever enter your mind, in addition to aircraft?

I would like to argue against your other points, but you know little about wartime vs. peacetime economics or any history for that matter (talk about bringing up WWII is a totally different time!), I would be running in circles should I attemped to try again. You still have little idea the cost of a modern war.

I am leaving China out for a good reason. Why? China is the DEFENSIVE nation. Another example of lack of knowledge. China is not going to wait for several million yuan to become availiable to put up a fight. Economics is going to be the least of their worries. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING ATTACKED BY A FOREIGN AGGRESSOR! It's called PRIORITIES. The U.S. at least has the benefit of being able to concentrate everything on offensive strategy, since they're not suffering any invasions or air strikes. China must fight at all costs and they're not going to be apprehensive. They're going to get down and dirty, and force U.S. fighters and bombers that do penerate deep inside enemy territory to get up close and fight.

Dude, I don't need a shrink. But you need to go back to elementary school. Where did I ever say it was going to take three years to build a single F-22? I said it would take three years to build an entire batch (meaning more than one, since you probably don't know), test it, and send it into combat. Let's say, 12, which is a minimally safe number to produce stealth fighters all at once to fill up a specific combat unit in an all-out war situation.

Man, not only do you not know, you can't even read!
Astounding!


All I can say is, get with the times, or build a time machine and go back to the good ol' '50s.


[Edited on 21-4-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
i wish people would act according



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
American Mad Man,

You need to calm down. There is little need to call anyone idiots or stupid. If you're going to call someone ignorant, fine. That's cool. But resorting to calling someone an idiot, that's pretty damn pathetic. Almost like you have nothing to say.

Same goes for everyone else calling American Mad Man an idiot. But hey, at least they're not ignorant.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Well this seems to be a pretty interesting debate (although some of you are taking it to far BY TYPING IN CAPS AND SHOUTING). Anyway, here are my views on the matter:

---
Alliances
---
U.S.: Britain, Israel, (Spain?), (France? Doubtful, remember "Freedom Fries"?)
China: Russia, North Korea

Let's review the power of the allies now. Let us subtract Spain and France for now b/c I'm not sure about them.

Britain: As far as Britain goes, their power has been greatly reduced due to the absence of their empire. Stranded on their island, Britain may be powerful but without U.S. assistance China by itself can dominate its ex-conquerer.

Israel: A country still in development. It lacks the size and power to really pose a threat to China. However, do realize that the J10 Fighter built in China was aided by Israel. The chances of Israel going to war with China are low.

Now for the "Eastern" side:

Russia: Although they have lost a bit of power at the collapse of the Soviet Union, they are still a formidable enemy today. Nearly on par with the U.S. and holding vast amounts of territory, Russia may be one to reckon with.

North Korea: The Koreans are known for their tunnel network. Read up on North Korea, they are capable of taking on the U.S. They've taken many measures to ensure that they can somehow defeat the U.S. Much of the U.S.'s technology is negated as far as NK goes (E-Bomb: they limit their use of electronic devices, air: they spend a lot of time in tunnels, etc.). Realize that NK is willing to take on the U.S. alone without the help of allies and from what I've read they are capable of it, but the outcome is too early to determine as of now.

---
Strengths
---
US: Air, nukes, technology
China: Land area, population, largest military, less political problems

Realize that both countries are economic buffs so I don't really think that either side has an advantage here.

Due realize that although the U.S. has a slight advantage in technology, the Chinese are not far behind. They are assisted by Russia and also have spy satellites, average fighters, etc.

China also has less political problems as they don't try to go in and keep casualties at a minimum.

If this turns out to be a nuclear war, America will be sending more nukes. However, neither side will win. Russia has a huge supply of uranium and is capable of more nuclear destruction than the U.S. I doubt either side will risk a nuclear war though.

---
Unrealistic Arguments
---
Just thought I would address some of the unrealistic arguments circulating here.

1. China will not draft 1 billion people out of it's 1.3 billion population. Yes they are underequipped, but during wartime the money they gain will go more to the military rather than anything else. China is one of the strongest economies, it can afford to stick a gun in every man's hand whether you realize it or not.

2. The US will not risk a nuke war. In fact, neither side will. Even if they are losing, their allies will pressure them not to send nukes. Why? Because if they send nukes not only will they be nuked back, but their allies will be stuck in the nuclear situation as well.

3. The US does have nuclear defense but don't expect that to protect you. The SDI Defense (might not even exist yet, haven't been catching up on this) is costly and I believe it is only situated in Washington D.C. as of now. Perhaps the SDI Defense is also present in government/military properties but they aren't going to protect your life.

4. Rich as the U.S. may be, a lot of it has been wasted on the past two wars. You do realize that the Daisy Cutter bomb cost us tons of money and missed Osama right? Deployment of B2 Stealth Bombers and such bombs are going to drown our treasury quick.

5. U.S. might have the best technology, but to make use of such technology will require a lot of money. I recall a post in these forums about John Titor predicting a civil war. If citizens are overtaxed, civil unrest/war is a possibility.

6. The overall population of China resent the U.S. more than the general U.S. population resent China. Conclusion? Chinese soldiers will possibly have better morale (also include the fact that morale will be boosted if they are defending their land).

Might have missed some factors, but I was just clearing up some ideas there. Sorry if they weren't mentioned and I decided to "clear it up," but that's all the more information you're able to consider lol.

---
Possibilities
---
1. There won't be a war. Neither side wants nukes sent at them. Even if China has less nukes, I'd say it has about 200 nukes now. It does not take 200 nukes to scare or demoralize your enemy.

2. China can conquer all of Asia if intimidated to take more land in the event land is lost. The only country able to compete with China in population is India. You think people in China are living in poverty? Realistically they are not and their living conditions aren't much worse compared to the US. There are a bit more homeless over there than in the US but I can assure you that living in China with the many Chinese restaurants everywhere is not "poverty." India, on the other hand, is pretty much a country where many suffer. China can dominate India with ease. Once the Asian countries and India have been dominated, the push through the M. East is pretty easy due to all the chaos revolving around there. Western Europe might be able to take them on but it would be like taking on Hitler during the early stages of WW2 with an extra ally (NK).

3. Both sides would be weakened. Especially if they do in fact use nukes. Then even a barbarian horde armed with wooden sticks can take over either side.

Well I'm just providing some info. Thanks for reading.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
One more thing, for those that think this is a war between good and evil, you're wrong. First of all, many US citizens will probably presume they're good just because China is ruled under communism. Let me state that China is not pure communism. Many would probably point to the fact that communism is evil due to their bloody revolutions and removal of religion. In China, the revolution is already over. Religion is permitted.

Mao Zedong may have had his faults (such as the famine) but that was not due to communism.

Take this into consideration when you voice your opinion.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Blackout,

Hey, I'm using caps for emphasis. Our American patriot is the one shouting.


I agree with most everything you say, especially about North Korea. They are very underestimated.

However, there is one thing, regarding all of China fighting. It's a "think outside the box" situation. If China was invaded, you think everyone would just sit there and leave it all up to the military? Probably not. China is a type of nation where everyone contributes. So a draft isn't even an order, because everyone will fight one way or another. The only difference is that one has an AK-47, the other has a butcher knife.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackout
One more thing, for those that think this is a war between good and evil, you're wrong. First of all, many US citizens will probably presume they're good just because China is ruled under communism. Let me state that China is not pure communism. Many would probably point to the fact that communism is evil due to their bloody revolutions and removal of religion. In China, the revolution is already over. Religion is permitted.

Mao Zedong may have had his faults (such as the famine) but that was not due to communism.

Take this into consideration when you voice your opinion.


Very good. I applaud you.


But America will see this as a good vs. evil war, no doubt. The corrupt ideology against the free, humane, "right" ideology. Like you said, it'll come down to politics and doctrine.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Edit:
Can no longer be bothered to do a big post, I think i've made my point more than enough times

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by browha]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join