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: 17
1
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Wow, extreme pro-Americanism has actually taken command of many of these posts!

Let me ask you a question, and it's a kicker: who has the bigger stomach for war? Americans or Chinese?

In fact, let's narrow it down to civilians. Who'd crack first?




posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
americans id say cause most chinese wouldnt be bothered or know about it wi all the propaganda and stuff



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
sounds like wargames to me Devil

i recall one of some british planes against the germans - in the end the Brits thought they had won with some short range missiles but the germans said they shot them down beyond visual range.

The frigate might of just done its mission and found out at the end if it was successful or not - same with the harrier.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
americans id say cause most chinese wouldnt be bothered or know about it wi all the propaganda and stuff


Leads me to my next question: How much impact would media play on such a war?

Most Americans do not know much, and one thing they do not know a lot about is what war is REALLY like. Movies such as Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down have not really given me a taste of true military warfare. In fact, PC games do it FAR better. Most of the time, Americans see highly sanitized versions on TV, mostly only successes. However, show them one nasty piece of footage like they did in Vietnam, and do it over a long period of time, and people will start to oppose the war, because they find out war is war and politics doesn't mean squat.

As for your propoganda statement, I highly disagree. Propoganda would be totally unnecessary. If China is being invaded, that is more than enough motivation to fight. I mean, you don't think they'd actually give up?

Chinese are Chinese, not Iraqi or French.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Being part Chinese, I think I can help answer your questions here..
The people themselves are highly motivated, my grandfather (on my Chinese side) along with most of the rest of people like him fought against the Japanese when they invaded in World War 2..
Without prompting.
It's a simple issue, when your home is being invaded you will do whatever it takes to fend it.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Vanguard, it's one thing to be patriotic, it's quite another to be deluded. You, O smoker of pole, are the latter. Chinese coastal patrols would quickly end any amphibious assaults, while the US aircraft carriers would find themselves at the bottom of the South China Sea. Coordinated, concentrated retaliation would end any potential air support for an invasion.

The US cannot simply... "knock down" "anything they build". By the time the US forces were in place to launch any offensive against strategic, mainland targets, be it from aircraft or missiles, they would be pulverized. US ships can't just appear out of nowhere. The Chinese would see them coming before they even had a chance to put any offensive action into motion. I say it again, those aircraft carriers would find themselves sitting on the seabed.

Also, if you're going to criticize me because I don't spell things like you do (for example, I spell colour properly, with the "u", and pronounce aluminium as... aluminium), then check your God damn grammar: it's "might have", not "might of", you assclown. We British, who INVENTED the very language you slaughter, spell it...

O-P-P-U-R-T-U-N-I-T-Y. Oppurtunity. You cultureless, crass, rat-like bastard.

And of course, you were right about one thing. I rule beyond your ability to grasp.

For the benefit of the entire human race, go wrap the stars and stripes around your throat and hoist it up to the top of the flagpole.

!!!
!!!



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard
sounds like wargames to me Devil
yeah they were. i thought i said that?
i recall one of some british planes against the germans - in the end the Brits thought they had won with some short range missiles but the germans said they shot them down beyond visual range.
ah but thats the royal airforce there diffrent there pigeons
The frigate might of just done its mission and found out at the end if it was successful or not - same with the harrier.
no seriosly it got through with out being destryoed and got home undamaged
the harrier thing im doubting cause frankly u need to be pretty good to get through ur anti air net
that is the USAN's speciality



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
All-father.

First, your last post was rude and didn't show a lot of class.

Second, I'm going to throw 2 numbers at you in regards to US vs China in military terms:

1998 Military Spending from China's National Defense

USA: 267.10 Billion
China: 9.80 Billion

Now with the US outspending China by a factor of almost 30:1 how can you actually believe that China could "pulverize" any US asset, much less an Aircraft Carrier? We don't have those out sailing around the ocean by themselves, ya know.

As for the Chinese Navy, well they don't have a seperate Navy. It's part of the Army or People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). The purpose for which it was desinged was to support a landing of ground forces on Taiwan. As a oceangoing tactical force, it is woefully inadaquate.

Reprinted from: www.navyleague.org...


....the backbone of the PLA surface fleet remains its 16 aging Luda-class destroyers (3,250 tons) and 30 Jianghu-class frigates (1,425 tons) that are largely inadequate to meet the requirements of modern warfare. The planned acquisition of two 7,940-ton Russian-built Sovremenny-class DDGs in the 2000 to 2001 period will improve the PLAN's surface-combatant capabilities. These units are likely to be equipped with an advanced SAN-7 air-defense system, the KA-28 Helix Helicopter, and SSN-22 cruise-missile technology. The PLAN's HQ-61 and HQ-7 systems are based on the French Crotale land-based surface-to-air missile system, and they do not provide surface units with an effective area-defense capability. This deficiency makes PLAN surface units extremely vulnerable to air attack.

Pay close attention to the last sentance in the above paragraph. 16 Destroyers and 30 Frigates do not a Navy make. Just one of our Carrier groups packs a bigger punch. China's "Navy" (more like a coast guard) vs. the most advanced Airforce in the world, which using our Aircraft Carriers, we can park right off China's coast if we need to.

Get a grip and a clue. I don't think you know or have researched what you are talking about.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by All-Father
Vanguard, it's one thing to be patriotic, it's quite another to be deluded. You, O smoker of pole, are the latter. Chinese coastal patrols would quickly end any amphibious assaults, while the US aircraft carriers would find themselves at the bottom of the South China Sea. Coordinated, concentrated retaliation would end any potential air support for an invasion.

The US cannot simply... "knock down" "anything they build". By the time the US forces were in place to launch any offensive against strategic, mainland targets, be it from aircraft or missiles, they would be pulverized. US ships can't just appear out of nowhere. The Chinese would see them coming before they even had a chance to put any offensive action into motion. I say it again, those aircraft carriers would find themselves sitting on the seabed.

Also, if you're going to criticize me because I don't spell things like you do (for example, I spell colour properly, with the "u", and pronounce aluminium as... aluminium), then check your God damn grammar: it's "might have", not "might of", you assclown. We British, who INVENTED the very language you slaughter, spell it...

O-P-P-U-R-T-U-N-I-T-Y. Oppurtunity. You cultureless, crass, rat-like bastard.

And of course, you were right about one thing. I rule beyond your ability to grasp.

For the benefit of the entire human race, go wrap the stars and stripes around your throat and hoist it up to the top of the flagpole.

!!!
!!!


STOP THE INSULTS NOW


There is no need to get personal.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   
umm ambient u have to realise that 30 frigates could cause some serios damage 30 diffrent targets floating around somewhere in the china sea with and 16 destoyers wating to ambush u i mean come on the royal navy hasnt even got 20 frigates i think but we still do good in combat so id wouldnt underestimate them just cause u out spend them doesnt mean ur better it just means u have more money to spend anyway hows america going to get its fleet there? the us navy is in the middle east many miles away from china



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   


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?



1.Why would we want to invade China?
2. We have plenty of firepower and if planning a large scale invasion I sure hope that we stock up on practical wartime weapons.
3. Extremly
4. I doubt it, i think many women would try to find husbands for their US citizenship.
5. Yes if it was well planned, any mililtary force can be defeated by their own poor planning.
6. Again why would we want to mess with China the c an inflict massive casualities on US and there is NO legit reason that Im aware of for us to invade them.


edited for typos

[Edited on 27-4-2004 by jrod]



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
People, listen up
I am half Chinese.
everyone I know would form up a part of active resistance opposing any invasion threat.
Even if not wielding a gun, They would be producing the gun, or making the bullets for the gun, or reconnaitering for the gun. Trust me, take that as near a fact as you can. Dont expect to invade a Chinese person's homeland without 99% of the population going up against you.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
DW, you read the part saying that their surface fleet is extremely vulnerable to air attack, right? We are all about air attack. How long do you think those 46 ships are going to remain floating?

A cruise missile has a range of 900 to 1300 nautical miles, which means we can target those ships from a pretty good distance away and there is little they can do. They will run out of missiles and boats long before we do.

Like I said, in 1988 (no reason it has changed enough to matter since then) the US was outspending China 30 to 1. I'll remind you that the US won the cold war the very same way. We outspent the enemy, and look at the USSR now. That's right. You can't because it no longer exists.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Who said i was American

uk.search.yahoo.com...




posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard
Who said i was American

uk.search.yahoo.com...



This link takes me to "home based opportunities" what am i looking for then?



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Yes, but look at the US National Debt. 7.17 Trillion US, see earlier posts.
China? 80 Billion US. The US didnt have a reliance on the USSR for all of the high-tech aka blue chip companies' imports like it does on China..
All this has been discussed earlier



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
look up top
- i searched for oppurtunity

i got - Did you mean : opportunity ?

I cant find a Scottish dictionary


[Edited on 27-4-2004 by Vanguard]



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Yes, but look at the US National Debt. 7.17 Trillion US, see earlier posts.
China? 80 Billion US. The US didnt have a reliance on the USSR for all of the high-tech aka blue chip companies' imports like it does on China..
All this has been discussed earlier


You are correct. This all has been discussed but I wanted to reply to the rude poster above.

7.17 triilion huh? Well, come try to collect it.


Seriously though, I'm with the group that believes that it is not in the interest if either country to go to war with each other. There is really no reason. China, regardless of how well they might defend themselves could not hope in anyone's wildest dreams to mount a successful invasion of the US.

This entire very long discussion has been from the viewpoint of the US invading China, which implys that even the America haters on the board realize that China invading the US isn't even worthy of consideration. My closing point is that the US has no need or desire to invade China. Why would we want another billion or so mouths to feed? China has serious problems. What would we want to take those on for? China's history shows that they are not particularly agressive or imperialistic (compared to others), so I don't really understand why we would be worried at all.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Agreed.. I think it would be very.. stupid.. to say the least if America invaded China.
America is too dependant on China...
The 7.17 trillion debt increases by just under 2 billion a day

In the long run, the government will literally run out of money. It wont have any more bonds to sell, any more assets to loan against.
China, on the other hand, has almost no national debt in comparison and would be able to raise a lot more funds.. Especially if it just moved a bit and took over Afghanistan, Khazakstan, etc, which wouldnt be too easy but would be safe enough to exploit the oil and things, a lot of money to be made there especially if they undercut the market.
America's national debt has, I believe, grown by 4 trillion in 8 years.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
DW, you read the part saying that their surface fleet is extremely vulnerable to air attack, right? We are all about air attack. How long do you think those 46 ships are going to remain floating?

u need to find them first! u can blow them up just fine but the chinese are realy good at covert ops

A cruise missile has a range of 900 to 1300 nautical miles, which means we can target those ships from a pretty good distance away and there is little they can do. They will run out of missiles and boats long before we do.
oh really ? well u do know that china has lots of bays and rivers to hide ships in and frankly finding a single ship in over serveral thousand miles of coastline is not easy

Like I said, in 1988 (no reason it has changed enough to matter since then) the US was outspending China 30 to 1. I'll remind you that the US won the cold war the very same way. We outspent the enemy, and look at the USSR now. That's right. You can't because it no longer exists.
no one won the cold war . it was a rattleling of sabres by both sides and any way if any one won it was UK we got free tech form the usa! ha ha na na ! ok ill stop
u couldnt outspend china cause they have trade routes well outside ur reach thier borders are massive



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join