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: 16
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   
that was a frigate ? i was told it was a supply tanker .
hmm strange




posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flanker

Originally posted by Laxpla





Stop spamming, read the rules. Think before you speak in ALL of your posts.



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   
All-Father,

Good post. Most of what you said makes sense.

However, I do have one qualm. The U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile has a large stand-off range. Given the size of the Third and Seventh Fleets combined, wouldn't those cause some serious damage to the Chinese? In other words, wouldn't it destroy things like airfields, seaports, etc.?



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I want to discuss China's guerrilla warfare capability.

I was always under the imrpession that Mao Tse'Tung's warfare doctrine "Local People's War," and eventually Deng Xiaoping's revised version, "Local People's War Under Modern Conditions," was talking about guerrilla warfare. Obviously, it's more than that.

First off, China has massive numbers of conventional forces, so who exactly will be conducting the guerrilla warfare? Will they fight like the Mujahadeen, Viet Kong, or Iraqi insurgents? Obviously, they will be better equipped, so I'm guessing they would be like the Mujahadeen and Viet Kong.

Any thoughts?



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Think Viet Cong with Iraqi insurgents on occupied terroritry.
The Chinese army will probably end up 'invading' nearby countries to use as bases to operate out of
Or every farmer will be given a gun and 30 bullets



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Allfather, you are quite wrong in your post. Your estimates of China's manpower reserves are grossly overinflated. Your claim that the US is 7 quadrillion in debt is grossly overinflated. Your claim that you yourself rule is grossly overinflated.

In fact, i find roughly 95% of your post to be an gross exageration of reality.

The 5% i dont is the part where you stop. I found that to reflect quite nicely on reality.

G



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   
According to the US National Debt clock (which I have posted about extensively earlier) the debt is $7.18 trilion. goto google.com and type in US National Debt Clock



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Think Viet Cong with Iraqi insurgents on occupied terroritry.
The Chinese army will probably end up 'invading' nearby countries to use as bases to operate out of
Or every farmer will be given a gun and 30 bullets


The thing about Iraqi insurgents is that they are more like people who do things just to piss the U.S. forces off. The Viet Cong actually had some tactical and strategic goals they wanted to accomplish.

As for "invading," does China even have any allies? Is Vietnam or Laos an ally? I doubt they'd use North Korea, because by then, North Korea's probably at war with the U.S.



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I found something very interesting recently. It's a speech to the U.S. Army War College by Lt. General Li Jijun, Vice President of the Academy of Military Science, PLA. In it, he describes what China's traditional military thinking has been, and has pointed out that the Chinese are not aggressive people. They are peace-loving (should not be confused with peaceful). This means that if they had to choose, they would rather live eternity in peace.

However, they are also a very unified people, ones that have a strong sense of their culture, tradition, history, and have lots of pride. For those who don't realize, China is 180 from America. China actually has a culture and it has nothing to do with music, movies, sports, cars, and McDonalds. China's culture is based on the very substance of how they live, not the material things. They are very proud of that and are willing to protect that to the very end.

One thing constant throughout history is how China has always been the defender, and almost never the aggressor. Therefore, their doctrine is based on the idea they would always be defending, never attacking. In fact, their military build-up over the last 20 years has shown very little sign of improving their offensive capability. They will fight the war on their homeland, and they will win the war on their homeland. For anybody to even suggest China would cowardly hide because of U.S. airpower is sadly mistaken.

The point? If somebody doesn't attack China, don't expect a war with them.

But there are things to consider. Let's say they are truly loyal to North Korea. If North Korea is attacked, what would China's response be? Second, a basic lesson is that if you take the fight to the enemy, your chances of winning increase. However, China's doctrine has always been to let the enemy take the fight to you. How does that help them?

FInally, I found this quote pretty true: "If you treat China as an enemy, you will have 1.2 billion enemies with which to contend. The price for that will be very high."

Yes, 1.2 billion people makes all the difference.


D

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I found something very interesting recently. It's a speech to the U.S. Army War College by Lt. General Li Jijun, Vice President of the Academy of Military Science, PLA. In it, he describes what China's traditional military thinking has been, and has pointed out that the Chinese are not aggressive people. They are peace-loving (should not be confused with peaceful). This means that if they had to choose, they would rather live eternity in peace.

However, they are also a very unified people, ones that have a strong sense of their culture, tradition, history, and have lots of pride. For those who don't realize, China is 180 from America. China actually has a culture and it has nothing to do with music, movies, sports, cars, and McDonalds. China's culture is based on the very substance of how they live, not the material things. They are very proud of that and are willing to protect that to the very end.

One thing constant throughout history is how China has always been the defender, and almost never the aggressor. Therefore, their doctrine is based on the idea they would always be defending, never attacking. In fact, their military build-up over the last 20 years has shown very little sign of improving their offensive capability. They will fight the war on their homeland, and they will win the war on their homeland. For anybody to even suggest China would cowardly hide because of U.S. airpower is sadly mistaken.

The point? If somebody doesn't attack China, don't expect a war with them.



Not doubting you on this but do you have a link for this? It sounds pretty interesting and I would like to read it. And what the Chinese general said is true. China is very defensive. The only time China went majorly offenssive was during its own civil war between the nationalists and communists.



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by All-Father
*coordination

One typo without proof-reading. I still rule.


__
Since you asked:

exluding
oppurtunities

Next time, try spellcheck.

You're welcome



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
only cause u rule the skies JUST NOW mad man u just wait we'll be back with aircraft someday!



Well, seeing how any war would probably involve us on the same sides, I think it is fair to say that WE own the skies



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
D,

It's actually a PDF file for download on fas.org (awesome website):

Chinese Doctrine

Look under Chinese Sources for Traditional Military Thinking.

Check out everything else. Very interesting because China's miltiary strategy has only been revised, but little has been changed.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I think it comes down to the circumstances that would lead to a U.S-China war.

If the conflict arises over Taiwan, then its likely the objective of the U.S will be to stop the invasion and then negociate an end to conflict. If it acts quickly enough the U.S could hit the invading forces, and supporting areas in China hard enough to make them consider a withdrawl. A limtied conflict would render the advantages China has less effective, and it would allow the U.S to win without engaging the full might of the PLA and the Chinese mainland. However if we act too late, after the PLA entrenches itself in Taiwan, then things would get much harder.

Looking at the current political situation in China, the Taiwan senario seems to be the most likely for a future conflict, but there are however factors which could lead to a wider more dangerous war.

If the leadership of China refuses to grant further rights, and continues its reppresive internal policies, then they will have to feed the growing nationalist feeling in China in order to keep the people in line. This has already happend to a degree since the idea of communism no longer holds any ground, and the government has had to replace socialism, with patriotism. Combine this with growing econimic, and military strength and you might see a situation similar to Germany in the 1930's.

If this happens, then a conflict between the U.S and China could occur as China seeks to establish regional supremacy, and global superiority in all areas of international relations. For example China could start to reclaim territories historicaly under their control such as the region where Vladivostok is located where in recent years a huge migration of Chinese has occured. They could expand south into Indochina, or the disputed Islands in the South China sea, or perhaps the western border with India. If the U.S and its allies decided to stop China from forcebly claiming any of those areas, then a major conflict will occur because at this point, 15-20 years in the future China will be too powerfull, and too nationalistic to simply leave alone, total war would be the only option for the a U.S seeking to maintain global leadership.

In that senario the fight will be devestating to both sides, China may even be able to hit the U.S through its increasing conrol of the panama canal, and presence in Cuba, and the Bahamas. Further, the task of fighting and then occupying over 1 billion people would be almost impossible without a huge international coalition. However, if the people of China would after a long period of conflict turn against the government, or at least not defend it, then I think the U.S could eventualy win although with huge casualties and high cost. Remember though, that this conflict would occur 15-20 years from now with a much more powerful, and capable Chinese military.

I only hope that the nationalism of China is tempered by an increase in human rights, prosperity, and full engagement by the U.S and the international community to that end, in a completely non-hostile way.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   
About the defensive doctrine of the Chinese military, I found this article. Its from 97, but it makes some interesting point about the nature of Chinese foreign policy, and its claim of being defensive.

www.theatlantic.com...


D

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
D,

It's actually a PDF file for download on fas.org (awesome website):

Chinese Doctrine

Look under Chinese Sources for Traditional Military Thinking.

Check out everything else. Very interesting because China's miltiary strategy has only been revised, but little has been changed.



Thanks mate.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
All-Father


1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?
Yes. The US can invade, but that's not to say that such an invasion would be successful.
2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the long run against 1 billion people?
I wouldn't consider them "advantages". China has as much firepower, and has many contingencies in place to undermine US technological means. Also, I've seen a lot of people quite simply bullsh**ting about what manpower and firepower China has available. China has 2 million soldiers? That would be false. China has over 200 million men ready to be deployed immediately in the event of war. That is 80% of the ENTIRE population of the United States. On top of this, they can muster almost another 200 million men for service. This is, of course, exluding women, who make up a significant portion of the Chinese military/security forces.
3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?
Given landmass, and the sheer logistics on the side of China, from their air force to their anti-aircraft measures, The United States could not establish any kind of air dominance.

Also, considering the fact that Chinese patrol boats will be helping sabotage any Marine units or naval vessels trying to secure a beach-head offensive, or amphibious operations, the meat of the Chinese navy could be committed to destroying the US aircraft carriers. That is if China's missiles haven't already done so.
4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight?
Yes. Very safe to say that. The Chinese are culturally very self-contained, and patriotic. They wouldn't take kindly to having their country invaded by dull foreigners.
5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?
No. Absolutely not. I shouldn't even have to explain this, but I will. In Vietnam, which is a tiny country in comparison with China, guerrilla warfare forced the US to recall its forces (and no, I won't even discuss the advances in technology from then to now because they just would not be sufficient). Given the fact that the Americans would already be getting slaughtered by the Chinese forces, due to the latter's sheer numbers and knowledge of their home country, guerrilla warfare could quickly cripple US forces from behind the lines and completely disrupt supply-lines.
6. Any other thoughts?
Given economic factors, the United States, as a country, would collapse into bankruptcy as a result of a war with China. In case you weren't aware, the United States is currently in 7 quadrillion dollars (that is $7,000,000,000,000,000) of debt. The cost of maintaining such a war, once waged, would utterly destroy the US economy.

Let me also point out that China, whose culture differs quite a lot from America and Europe, has not and will not be "infected" with capitalism. As a country, they have already INTEGRATED effective capital-generating policies, and are a rapidly-growing economy, given the opening of Tibet to new business oppurtunities.

Taking into account geographical factors, the US could not maintain a parity of forces. China differs from province to province. It has everything from jungles and cities, to desolate regions like the Gobi Desert, and freezing mountainous regions.

To address another popular point on this thread: an embargo would not work because China will have stockpiles of food, will be prepared to rely on its own resources, and at the very least, it can gain relief from North Korea, with whom China shares a BORDER (even though I'm willing to acknowledge North Korea herself has had problems with food shortages). Given China's mainly rural nature, it would be easy to have as much food as is NECESSARY, although I'll concede there'd be few if any commodities.

As if I had to point it out, China would own the United States forces, and then promptly retaliate with justified vengeance, swiftly and brutally. With the loss of morale suffered by the people of the United States at seeing their aggressor forces destroyed, and without the coordiantion or reference to begin guerrilla warfare, it would be only a matter of time before the United States of America became the United Bitches of China.

Thank you for asking those questions, dude. Braniacs like me live for these oppurtunities.



1 - Why would they invade ? Anything they build the US will knock it down. Firstly strategic assets
silos-power stations-dams-factories

If its all out war the US could deal out serious pain - value assets
Towns - People

2. 1 billion people - where is the US going to put all them POW's


2 million soldiers?? lucky to find 2million guns never mind 200 million. Men woman or child - war doesnt discriminate

3. You touched on logistics - the US will be projecting force half way around the world - US logistics is of a different class to what you are comparing.

The level of air dominance will be dependent on the Chinese missile technology - the US will be using stealth, unmanned attack vehicles and cruise missiles. Stealth will not make their defence redundant but will reduce their operating range. The B-2 and other similar aircraft fly in between the vastly reduced radar umbrellas of the opposition.

Patrol boats
id say in wartime nothing is going to be allowed within 500miles of a carrier group. (including China's numerous redundant subs)

5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?

Id have to agree - although I dont think the US would be silly enough to engage china in the only relative advantage as you have suggested. Why would the need to occupy - just knock everything over that they put up. (it would be a sight seeing the 3 gorges dam going - supposed to provide one-ninth of China's output of China's electricity)

6. Any other thoughts?
This would be a one sided war with china taking all the hits while American production remaining unscratched.

Finance wise I think biggest and strongest economy on the planet will be able to cope the best given world war 3.

P.S - opportunities its a O not a U twice as well yes you rule

(Get your head out of your ass)


[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Vanguard]



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Patrol boats
id say in wartime nothing is going to be allowed within 500miles of a carrier group. (including China's numerous redundant subs) there isnt that bad also i do rem that a british OUT OF DATE firgate sailed through the US CBG unchallanged and unharmed blew up the cariier and sailed home safely
secondly never underestimate ur enemy always over estimate the germans realised this badly in ww2



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
any links of that incident - i heard you on about that before - thought it might of been a sub - was it in a NATO wargame?

Would be an interesting read anyways

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Vanguard]



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   
no i havnt any links it was in a paper
a mate told me a simliar story about a harrier doing a run on the carier with a nuke




top topics



 
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join