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: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Why attack chinese people? Their food is great! But on topic, any country could "beat" China! Think different, so don't talk about going to war, simply spread an airborne Ebola virus in China... Ohw and don't ever ever admit that you did it.




posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:52 AM
link   
I'm very surprised you said any country could beat china... do elaborate, do you mean directly with the ebola virus example or do you mean invasion terms?



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 06:27 AM
link   
China has their comparative advantage on the ground and the US has the absolute advantage in everything.

Why fight a war on China's terms - why would they conquer

The US would SYSTEMATICALLY destroy all strategic assets and infrastructure. It would be complete 1 way barage. Their navy and airdefense will be destroyed within the first few days. Missiles will win the battle not manpower. Anything that china brings into the play will be hit out of the park.

China and the US are on a collision course - if China doesnt step up it would be a sign of weakness



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 06:47 AM
link   
@browha

I mean why should you talk about U.S. going to war with China? You could also talk about Lichtenstein killing all the Chinese people with an invisible enemy like a disease... Is that considered beating China?



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
i think u underestamate china too much no 1 know thier full potential



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
American Mad Man,

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


Your so pathetic.

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.

I believe it is you who knows nothing about modern air combat. You are the one saying BVR doesn't matter. You are the one saying that the Chinese airforce could take the US airforce.
You are dreaming buddy. Your living in a fantasy world where the US sucks and every one else is great because you are either desire our power for your own country or you hate America. Either way, you suck. BTW - the 3:1 kill ratio was the LOWEST at any point during the vietnam war - AT ANY POINT. Over all, the F-86 saber had over an 8:1 kill ratio. By then end of the war, the Navy kill ratio was 13:1. Vietnam was the worst point in modern US air superiority history, with that being said, lets fast forward to the present. The F-15 holds an A2A combat record of over 100 confirmed kills with exactly ZERO losses. Thats right big guy - NONE! This against mostly the same planes that China fields.


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.

Again, you are right. Currently, like I said, not a single F-15 has been lost to another plane. So in this respect you are right.

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.

And you call ME ignorant! READ what I said -. the 3:1 ratio was the worst point during nam - a war that happened 40 years ago. Stop clinging to the past and get with it jack ass. How can you say that tactics haven't changed that much?! Guns were still more reliable then missles back then! That is not the case today. Get with the times you dult - missles are the #1 choice for every fighter pilot in the world!

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.

You need a history lesson - The US protected our ally and sent China packing - GET WITH IT!

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 don't think that US stuff is perfect. But it is as close to perfect (in terms of air warfare) as any one in the world. Like I said - our missles hit around 90% of the time. That is undisputed FACT! So, incase you are as stupid as you sound, that means 9 out of 10 missles will hit their intended target. You speak of all these resources the US needs - WHAT ABOUT CHINA BUDDY? Oh wait - this falls under your "special" rule in which things only happen to the US. You keep saying they have so many more aircraft - THEN IT MUST COST SO MUCH MORE TO KEEP THEM ALL UP IN THE AIR. AND IT MUST USE A LOT MORE RESOURCES THEN THE US! Keep living in your land of make believe. As for SAMs and AAA - like I said - Stealth missions and cruise missles will take the VAST majority of this out before any other aircraft enter the theatre. So yes, I did take that into account - it would be target #1 for the US from the outset. Don't get me wrong - I am NOT saying that China wouldn't get a bunch of kills, but China in the end would have it's ass handed to it in an air war - it's the simple truth. BTW - in case you didn't know - AAA isn't that great anymore - just look at how many aircraft Iraq shot down in GWI with one of the best air defence networks in the world.

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.

Again - you assume that the US wouldn't drop everything in time of war but China would - Why do you think that? If the US is going to war with a close to super power nation, you better believe that it will be the above all priority. Keep up fabricating your make believe world where the US is going to lose an airwar.

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.

Well, since there would be more then 1 being built at a time, you simply don't make sense. By your logic, it takes 3 years to put 12 F-22s into use. But this accounts for only a single plant producing them! You act like you are a really smart guy, so you must realize that every airfactory in the states would be producing planes for the war. Thus, assuming that there are say, 20 factories building these aircraft, 240 would be produced in total over a 3 year span, with each batch being put into use much sooner. BTW - you assume that there aren't F-22's already in progress - get with it - over 200 have already been ordered, and that number could be increasesd to 750 like the AF wanted with little additional cost.

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


AHAHAHAHA - dude - you are a freaking comedian. You should really do stand up or something

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


ME GET WITH THE TIMES?!!!!! HAHAHAHA - YOUR THE ONE CLAIMING THAT THE US WOULD LOSE TO CHINA IN AN AIRWAR. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
i think u underestamate china too much no 1 know thier full potential


Wouldn't that apply to the US even more? I mean - come on, who knows what super weapons we have locked up in our vaults.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
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.


OK Buddy - I wasn't the one making this a big deal and throwing out terms like "ignorant" "stupid" and "idiot" - but you and your butt buddy browha decided to turn it into a flame war - and i've never backed down from anything before, and I aint about to start now.

I would be happy to take this to a more civil level of conversation if you would like to - choice is yours.

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackout
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

I think you are missing 3 things. First - Russia will not back China. They are not friends to such an extent they would risk their wellfare for the sake of China, so you need to take them out. Second, you forget - all of NATO would be in a war with the US. It is a mutual protection pact, and as such, all countries would be bound to help the US (though I do understand that this does not 100% make them join). Third - a HUGE ally of the US that no one mentions is INDIA! India is a sworn enemy of China, have 700 million people, and have a very capable military. Who ever said China could conquer all of Asia needs to understand that they could not take India - much less all of Asia.

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.

They have over a million man army, great Intel and US equipment. They are perhaps a top 5 military in the world.

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.

A China-Russia tag team would be very tough to beat - I'll give you that. But like I said - they have nothing to gain by going to war with a country that currently gives them Billions in aid every year.

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.

Korea has a HUGE army, but doesn't have the logistics to implement them against the US. They would have to invade the south to divert the US - but when this happens, then the UN would probably get involved.

---
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.

Both have very a very large economy, but understand that the US economy is around 5 times the size of China's - I'd say that falls into an advantage.

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.

The technology gap is greater then you say. China does not have the precision, communications, intel, or logistics that the US has.

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

I agree - this is a good point. One thing that must be taken into account though, is who "started" the war. If China starts it, then I don't think that it is as big a problem for the US. If the US starts it, the president better have a damn good reason!

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.

SDI defence is NOT up right now. We have a few 747s with lasers that can shoot down cruise missles. SDI defence will come in about a decade with many lasers put up in space that shoot down nukes upon launch.

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.

Just one thing - PLEASE tell me you don't believe in John Titor - he has been debunked many times! But I agree - if we are overtaxed over a long period of time, then civil unrest would show it's self.

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).

I'd say China would have less moral. Imagine missles hitting your city every night and you can't do a damn thing about it.

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.

Agreed - this is a "what if" situation - not reality.

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).

You really need to reconsider your position on India - they have almost as many people, have a decent military, and HATE China.

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, 22 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
"Your living in a fantasy world where the US sucks and every one else is great because you are either desire our power for your own country or you hate America. "

I'd just like to point out that I'm 99% sure sweatmonicaIdo is an American.

I am not his 'butt buddy', sorry to disappoint.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
china has huge armies but not the tech so i would think the US would have to resort to a bite and hold technique
the chinese would just swarm u guys man even with the tech u couldnt kill them all
i mean come on ud be fighting an enemy on a 2:1 basis not an easy war



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
china has huge armies but not the tech so i would think the US would have to resort to a bite and hold technique
the chinese would just swarm u guys man even with the tech u couldnt kill them all
i mean come on ud be fighting an enemy on a 2:1 basis not an easy war


Agreed


I don't think an occupation would be easy at all. The air war is a different story though



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
"Your living in a fantasy world where the US sucks and every one else is great because you are either desire our power for your own country or you hate America. "

I'd just like to point out that I'm 99% sure sweatmonicaIdo is an American.

I am not his 'butt buddy', sorry to disappoint.


Just because he lives here doesn't mean he doesn't dislike it. You should read some of the mud pit discussions - there are plenty of Americans that hate the US.




I am not his 'butt buddy', sorry to disappoint.


Nice to know we are playing on the same team.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
hey i hate people that dont like thier country its so unpatriotic!



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
hey i hate people that dont like thier country its so unpatriotic!


your in scotland right??
take a walk down south and its unpatriotic heaven. Someone always has something new to complain about England



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
hey i hate people that dont like thier country its so unpatriotic!


Agreed


You would be suprised - you've got people all over the states making 150 grand a year driving the best cars living in great homes with food on the table and booz in their glass, and they complain. Even side with our enemy (I've seen way too many people take the side of terrorists to have any respect for them). But then you say "ok, then go somewhere else" but of course, they don't want to leave.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
i hear ya guys! rock on patriatism!

i think this thread is well spent u no think?



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
OK Buddy - I wasn't the one making this a big deal and throwing out terms like "ignorant" "stupid" and "idiot" - but you and your butt buddy browha decided to turn it into a flame war - and i've never backed down from anything before, and I aint about to start now.

I would be happy to take this to a more civil level of conversation if you would like to - choice is yours.
[Edited on 22-4-2004 by American Mad Man]


Wow, you really can't read!


Find out where I called you stupid or idiotic. From what I've seen, you've used the phrase "you suck," words stupid and idiotic towards the person themselves. At least once. Even if you were referring to brownha, that's irrelevant, because your post was directed at me, nor have I spoken to brownha at all.

Listen to yourself: you're the one calling someone else another's "butt buddy." Find out where anybody said something like that - besides YOU. So if anybody's flaming, it's been you from the start! Talk about your all-time backfires!

You won't back down? You won't back down! Awesome... I ain't backing down either!
It's disappointing, ain't it?

Your final paragraph showed once more you don't read. I, I was the one calling for a civil discussion. Something you never achieved at any point. So everything you write shows you'd probably never choose to take the civil discussion anyway. Unless they kiss your feet, right?


Good try. I do respect your audacity!


As for your arguements on the subject, they are too ridiculous for me to even make a response. Changing your arguement or adding words to change the meaning has been going on so much with you, I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish!

Fortunately for others, I don't act smart. There is no need to. Like Socrates said, "To know that you know nothing is true wisdom." That's good advice - take it.

(Also prove that I hate the U.S. False allegations are VERY unhealthy to you, you know that?)

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
i hear ya guys! rock on patriatism!

i think this thread is well spent u no think?


Patriotism is a VERY good thing.

The problem is, people have no idea what true patriotism is. Therin lies the biggest problem of all.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by devilwasp
china has huge armies but not the tech so i would think the US would have to resort to a bite and hold technique
the chinese would just swarm u guys man even with the tech u couldnt kill them all
i mean come on ud be fighting an enemy on a 2:1 basis not an easy war


Agreed


I don't think an occupation would be easy at all. The air war is a different story though



air-war over china is impossible? as they have one of the best air-defence systems in the world. (bought from russia)



the patriot system is nothing compared to this.

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by Flanker]




top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join