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: 22
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure they used 11 guns, it wasn't cannons.

The Aztecs could've beaten the Spanish. Any army before the time period of 1500, like the Roman Legions, could've technically beaten the Spanish because they mostly used the same weaponry, for the exception of the 11 guns. And yes, they allied themselves with tribes that were hostile to the Aztecs creating alliances that were mutually advantage for both parties except for the Aztecs. One more thing that lead to the destruction of the Aztecs can be said that when the Spanish brought smallpox with them and killed hundred of thousand's of Aztecs; the Aztecs believed that the Gods abandoned them because they were dying in mass quantities while the Spanish were not getting sick at all. So it had a huge psychological effect too on the Aztecs. I don't disagree with any you said Darkside, except with the guns/cannons, I'm pretty sure it was guns, let me get back at that.




posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
What I thought I wrote was ,the Chinese people would take their own country back.--Away from the heavy handed government that has kept them down for so long. You know Tianneman square (check spelling). I did not say we ought to create a country in our image at all. And, of course a war would be catastrophic.China is not all roses and that may be all it needs to change.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Due to the fact that china is just so enourmous America probably wouldn't start a war with trhem w/o very good reason. A reason this great would probably cause americans to join the armed forces and go into to like the mode we were in during WW2. I think US would win even though china is enourmous with tons of people US have superior technology.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
@Xbin:

I totally disagree with you wrt to china's airforce and navy versus india's. Our total naval tonnage surpasses the indian navy by a huge margin. Yes, they have too very old carriers that will retire soon and are nothing but floating coffins while they can't even make their own ddgs and frigates and had to buy from russia. At the same time, China just recently commissioned 4 brand new Aegis-equivalent DDGS and probably one of the best steath frigate. Our naval production capability is far more advanced that that of india. All this is without mentioning our sub fleet which has several nuclear subs while indian sub fleet is both infereior in numbers and quality and has no nuke subs.

As for airforce, both countries have comparable number of Su30s with different roles and we are producing far more Su-27s than they are although both countries began producing Su27 at around the same time. Their LCA has just recently failed an engine test in russia and our J-10 is under mass production and is at least one generation ahead of the LCA. Plus, we have a huge numerical advantage over indian airforce as well as far better maintenance; indian airforce is known as the flying coffin.

Both our militaries have comparable sizes with indian armed forces slightly smaller and we spend about 3X more on military than they do so we completely dominate them.

OUr army and missile/Space technology doesn't need to be compared with that of india because they are entirely two different classes.

Don't be too modest, buddy!



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
@bign

Thanks for the concern. the chinese people are in fact in control in china and we are pretty content with our current situation. We don't want a quick transition into your so-called democrazy. We prefer a gradual process unlike that of Russia which almost killed it. But, aye, thanks for the conern. But I think the Americans should take their country back also from the neocons first. lol



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 03:08 AM
link   
The Chinese army & Indian army can't be compared ...

The Chinese have technological and numerical advantages ... the only way India could take on China is if they had Massive Back up from the U.S.A



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


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.




I dont know about the trianing level of the chinese but 'old russian jets' dont necessarily mean definte advantage for the americans, training, skill level and professionallism have a lot to do with it too. Check out the site to see what i mean:
vayu-sena.tripod.com...
(golly ive used this link in 3 posts already, pretty handy aye?!
)

In terms of stealth, yes unless the chinese have come up with a secret detection method (im sure they're working on one,every self-sufficient country is!) they are in for some fireworks..

To sum it up, besides air superiority at the coastline and maybe a 100ks inland, the US would find it extremely hard to maintain a continued ground presence there.

What would be India's chances on the other hand on liberating Tibet? Interesting quetions according to me, I think im going to open a new topic thread on this!



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkssss
@Xbin:

I totally disagree with you wrt to china's airforce and navy versus india's. Our total naval tonnage surpasses the indian navy by a huge margin. Yes, they have too very old carriers that will retire soon and are nothing but floating coffins while they can't even make their own ddgs and frigates and had to buy from russia. At the same time, China just recently commissioned 4 brand new Aegis-equivalent DDGS and probably one of the best steath frigate. Our naval production capability is far more advanced that that of india. All this is without mentioning our sub fleet which has several nuclear subs while indian sub fleet is both infereior in numbers and quality and has no nuke subs.

As for airforce, both countries have comparable number of Su30s with different roles and we are producing far more Su-27s than they are although both countries began producing Su27 at around the same time. Their LCA has just recently failed an engine test in russia and our J-10 is under mass production and is at least one generation ahead of the LCA. Plus, we have a huge numerical advantage over indian airforce as well as far better maintenance; indian airforce is known as the flying coffin.

Both our militaries have comparable sizes with indian armed forces slightly smaller and we spend about 3X more on military than they do so we completely dominate them.

OUr army and missile/Space technology doesn't need to be compared with that of india because they are entirely two different classes.

Don't be too modest, buddy!


Your Su-30s and ours are different. Uv probably got the Su-30 kAs while weve upgraded them wrt avionics and radar. Your air bases are positioned more towards the eastern coast and central region while ours are packed at the chinese border. LCAs are not meant as a frontline fighter, theyre meant to replace the MiG 21s. See "Light" combat Aircraft!
In terms of tonnage, well tonnage doesnt matter dude you cannot support your navy for months at end in our waters while we can do the same in yours. That s the difference between 'brown' and 'blue' water navies. Only your nuke subs are capable of self-sustenance and they dont constitute an offense in conventional terms.
Then comes the experience factor. Weve conducted military operations in the himalayas for the last 20 years (kashmir). I dont know whether your airforce has a numerical advantage or not or whether your aircraft have better maintenance or not. can you validate this claims? In response to your flying coffins remark, all i can say is that we have a 'free media' here and everythings transparent. I doubt you can say the same!

The fact is our pilots conduct exercises with the best airforces(US, UK, Russia,Israel etc.) in the world. Do Chinese airforce pilots conduct such exercises with other airforces?Can you shed some serious light on that?We have seen combat in two wars with another highly professional airforce(pakistan). Plus we have a versatile fleet with planes from the UK and France as well while I think your fleet is mostly Russian.
Infact the only 'news' about your airforce in action recently is that a jet 'bumped' into PC3-Orion a few years ago. C'mon dont you guys know how to 'buzz' a hostile also?In contrast check this out:

vayu-sena.tripod.com...
(4th time ive used this link on ATS!!)
Missile tech, well lets just say India can target any Chinese installation and we have enough nukes to ensure that 'nobody' comes out a victor in a nuclear war.
.

Check out the book 'Dragonfire' by 'humphrey hawksley'. You'll like the ending guaranteed, but read the whole book. Indians have conventional superiority even while fighting on 2 fronts! And in the nuclear scenario, our government is portrayed in a more 'humane' fashion as compared to yours. Thats why theres no tit-for-tat with nukes.

books.fantasticfiction.co.uk...


Ive can backup my claims with validated data. Can you do the same with your claims of 'superiority' in quality/maintainence and even numbers wrt the air force?
Lets talk when you get some data on your claims. Ive already given you a link to view and a book to read.

Any judicators on this? Id like to see more people involved!!



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kenshin
The Chinese army & Indian army can't be compared ...

The Chinese have technological and numerical advantages ... the only way India could take on China is if they had Massive Back up from the U.S.A


ah, but i beg to differ! I dont intend to compare armies. The Air force is the key you see! Please read my reply to hawksss and check out the links. I think theres been too much of US-Russia, US-china scenario discussions. Its more about training and tech than numbers. Infact I am of the opinion that countries like UK, France, Germany would be a match for China if they shared borders.The Indian airforce can nullify any advantage the chinese may seem to possess on the ground. Especially since the chinese do not have a large air presence at their borders with India. Also in case of war I suspect th tibetians will prove a great asset to the Indians if their liberation is foreseeable. What do you say? I think a little research is in order



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Lets hope we don't find out boys...right?

In 2001 India sent the INS Mumbai to Australia, thier newest DDG. It was an impressive vessel. It was a co venture design with Russia and had problems with supply from Russia in the early 1990s.

The Indians have apparrently overcome these problems and put in place measures to avoid the problem. A follow on class with stealth features (and possibly a AEGIS type radar) is supposedly under construction (?? confirmation denial please?)

The Indians also have 50-60 years of successful carrier operations skills under thier belt including two wars. (Sniff! I miss the old HMAS Melbourne....we should have built a new one when we had the chance)

India might be at a disadvantage in Chinese waters (why would they go there.....who would they need to be supporting) but the PLA-N would (if you pardon the pun) be out of thier depths in the Indian ocean, at the wrong end of thier supply lines.

I hate to admit it, unlike Australia, not everyone in our region would need US assistance to execute a miltary campaign.

[edit on 12-10-2004 by craigandrew]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?
U.S. can but why WOULD the U.S. do it? Can China invade U.S.? yes they can, by creative means. Umm incase you do not know, most mortage lenders are Chinese banks, yes, the U.S. borrow money from the Chinese! not to mention other foundings. Besides, both markets would crash like a Central African designed jet. Oh, how can the U.S. produce more war machines when all the factories are in China? China is not some small poor country like Iraq or Afgan, and why would the U.S. strech it's forces so thin, the homeland will be vernerable to attacks from Cuba and associates? Come on! THIS War will bankrupt both countries, and perhaps the world.

2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the long run against 1 billion people?
Technology yes, firefpower no, unless you include nukes. The smart way to win the war is to 1: spread propaganda, remind people the Red are bunch of queers. U.S. will be successful if the Chinese people are behind them. 2: send in naked ladies. If not, don't think about it or this will be another Vietnam X1000000! If Chinese can also bomb oil depos, with out oil, the war machines are useless.

3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?
*a F117 was shot down during Kosovo.. umm... THe U.S. air power look very impressive but not proven against powerful opponents. Yes the kill rate will be somewhere around 1/15, that's still lots of U.S. planes lost.
Just not a good idea. but, effective until the hardware and fuel runs out! U.S. jets tend to require more maintenace compare to Eastern jets. Plus, China has way more Anti-air weaponary. I mean people should stop being spoiled.. Look at whom the U.S. has fought in the past? China would send ICBM to the blood line, fuel stations around Indo China & Far far east. What happened to the Russians in Afgan (ouch) and Chechnya(ouch)
? I felt bad for the Russian soldiers.

4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight?
Well, it all depends on why the 2 big idiots are fighting! U.S. would have to plan on how to spread propaganda that will turn the people against the RED. It would have to be in perfect timing.. or the Chinese government would kill the resistance before they can offer any help to the U.S.
*how many of you know about the Hmong people during Veitnam? well, to make the long story short, the Hmong people got screwed at the end.. some Hmong were able to escape to the U.S., most were not invited and got killed in sick mannors.
Most Chinese would radther live in democracy.Most of them want a change in the government anyway but are afraid. Most Americans are ethnocentric just like the Chinese.. that ideology can be bad some times.

5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?
Hell no! Does Iraq(ouch, 1300 of our troops dead from guerrillas), Somalia (ouch), Veitnam(ouch) ring the bell? Ok may be no so Iraq and Somalia.. they did not have a real military. Guerrillas will be better armed, coordinated, not to forget the anti-US insurgents that will help them.

6. Any other thoughts?
It is an interesting discussion. Frankly, I think there are some sick countries that would love to see China and U.S. fight to the death as they would 1: laught their ass off, 2: benefit from such destruction. Russia with out its number 1 customer of weaponry could turn into the new "World's factory.
THe Chinese were oppressed by the west and they think they are as well, they would have something to prove. The West think the Chinese government are freaks. I think we are all freaks. Only human can be so such idiots. We are just a bunch of morons sometimes arn't we?


I would like to see some respones to my opinion.

Thank you

[edit on 17-10-2004 by Inhotep]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inhotep
5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?
Hell no! Does Iraq(ouch, 1300 of our troops dead from guerrillas), Somalia (ouch), Veitnam(ouch) ring the bell? Ok may be no so Iraq and Somalia.. they did not have a real military. Guerrillas will be better armed, coordinated, not to forget the anti-US insurgents that will help them.


Inhotep,

I have to disagree with you on this point. Vietnam is NOT proof that the US Armed Forces cannot "hold up" against a modern military supported by guerilla warfare. Just the opposite. The American's NEVER lost a major battle in Vietnam. Furthermore, one must consider how the war was waged. Unfortunately, (for South Vietnam and the US) the politicians constrained the warriors. If the US had been allowed to fully bomb the North Vietnam manufacturing sector early in the war, the North would have had an extremely hard time equipping it's troops. As it was, North Vietnam had plenty of equipment, but found major difficulties in getting that equipment down the "Ho Chi Min" trail to it's fighters in the South. Imagine if the Americans had not only cut the North's capability to manufacture weapons, but also struck at the heart of North Vietnam with ground troops.

No, I'm afraid that no matter how tenaciously the NVA and VC fought, in the end, it was politics and the fear of China entering the war that spelled defeat for the Americans and South Vietnam.

JMHO

-Cypher

Edited for spelling and punc.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by Cypher]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cypher

Originally posted by Inhotep
5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?
Hell no! Does Iraq(ouch, 1300 of our troops dead from guerrillas), Somalia (ouch), Veitnam(ouch) ring the bell? Ok may be no so Iraq and Somalia.. they did not have a real military. Guerrillas will be better armed, coordinated, not to forget the anti-US insurgents that will help them.


Inhotep,

I have to disagree with you on this point. Vietnam is NOT proof that the US Armed Forces cannot "hold up" against a modern military supported by guerilla warfare. Just the opposite. The American's NEVER lost a major battle in Vietnam. Furthermore, one must consider how the war was waged. Unfortunately, (for South Vietnam and the US) the politicians constrained the warriors. If the US had been allowed to fully bomb the North Vietnam manufacturing sector early in the war, the North would have had an extremely hard time equipping it's troops. As it was, North Vietnam had plenty of equipment, but found major difficulties in getting that equipment down the "Ho Chi Min" trail to it's fighters in the South. Imagine if the Americans had not only cut the North's capability to manufacture weapons, but also struck at the heart of North Vietnam with ground troops.

No, I'm afraid that no matter how tenaciously the NVA and VC fought, in the end, it was politics and the fear of China entering the war that spelled defeat for the Americans and South Vietnam.

JMHO

-Cypher

Edited for spelling and punc.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by Cypher]


Yes, there were "restrictions" and zones on where the bombs can and can't land.. The NVAs took advantage of the "restrictions". Things could be different. But the thing is that the NVA would also have fought to the death, they were not intimidated.

The Vietnamese even put up a fight with China during the thime they invaded Cambodia. China also fought India for a really short time, India got spanked.

I think urban warfare is more atrocious than jungle. People seem to forget that China's land is extremely diverse and near the size of U.S..
Well, CHina is composed of 50+ minority groups. With the the attack of U.S., China could split and civil wars can occur: North, north east, south and western china could get into it. Kinda like how the southern people of US don't like the yanks. With the one child policy, most chinese parents would protect their young from going to war. Also, lots of the "only child" are spoiled anyway. I know because I visited China few weeks ago. I went to Shanghai, Hong Kong and coupld of other cities.. Most cities are like Metropolises.. their cities don't usally have "down Towns", instead, the centers are spread out. So imagine fighting in those big cities, assuming US are able to land massive amount of troops. THe people there like nice things, want to be content etc.

I don't want to change the suject but China's "white people" are called Hans, they make up more than 90% of the population.. The Han people took over lands as comparable to the early americans, when they took lands from Native Americans.

No one here in the US want to think about being drafted, especially drafted to goto war with China.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Inhotep

Again, I agree with you that the NVA and many of the citizens of North Vietnam would have fought to the death. They were an admirable foe. However, you need to remember that you don't always have to defeat every person in the country to win a war. You just have to project enough force to convince them that THEY cannot win.


But back to China. You do have a point that urban warfare is a nasty business. It provides unique problems for any aggressor force. Once again though, it is not necessary to take every city to win a war. A country's ability to wage war can be crippled by only securing MAJOR cities, bridges, and roads. Obviously this would not be an easy task by any means in China, but it IS possible.

Plus, your assertion that China could easily break into separate factions actually plays into the aggressor's hands, as it would be easier to make deals with a number of separate leaders to ensure that parts of the country remain "in control". Some local governments could and/or would, capitulate, and thus control their own population, allowing occupying troops to concentrate on more inhospitable areas. For an example of this, look at the German's occupation of Europe during WWII.

One last thing, about the draft. Your right again, in that US support for an aggressive war against China would be almost nonexistent. But if China attacked the US first, even if it was during a limited conflict over Taiwan, I think the draft would suddenly become a lot more viable.

-Cypher


[edit on 17-10-2004 by Cypher]

[edit on 17-10-2004 by Cypher]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Considering how well the US did in Vietnam i would say that it's unlikely that they could invade and hold China. On the other hand there is no way China could invade and hold the US. Who would win depends on who the agressor is and who is trying to invade the homeland of the other.



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Inhotep

The Vietnamese even put up a fight with China during the thime they invaded Cambodia. China also fought India for a really short time, India got spanked.


Yes the 62 war was a wake-up call for then Indian militaryand political structure which until then was seeing 'dreams' about India leading the world under the banner of 'non-violence' reminescent from the 'Gandhi' ideology. That war could have been avoided even won by India if the ground commanders were allowed to work themselves and not at the behest of some whacko politician.

Also the IAF was not used at all! in this war. They wouldve definitely give nIndia the upper hand as the PLAAF was based far away and was pretty-young then while the IAF had training of theRAF from colonial times. Infact some RAF pilots who'd been stationed in colonial India decided to stay on and serve with the IAF and PAF as they'd gotten atteched to the surroundings!



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Ok that would be messed up if we go to war with them, cuz they make most of the stuff we buy. So the economical impact alone on us would be great. Needless to say there would be a lot of deaths on both parts. I dont think that would happen though, because I saw a thing a cspan where the pentagon was talk'n about plans to merge our military with china and russia. This would form the world military the new world order needs to take over the world. However, strong nations are threat to the new world order. So if they cant pull off this merge of milliary like they want to because of mass disaproovale, then we might be looking at a war between usa and china becuase it would result 2 of the most powerfull nations on the planet would destroy themselfs. Then it would be a peice of cake for the united nations to come in, and consolidate everything into a one world gov'nt system........VERY SCARY INDEED.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 08:03 PM
link   
oh common, US is strong and powerful and everything but as some of you said It is barely holding on in IRAQ in which the US didnt even suffer takeing over. and now more than a 1000 soldiers are dead. I am wondering what will happen to our troops in China after we Occupy it.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Think of this for a moment USA is not the most powerful nation in this moment. If usa go to a war vs Cina, USA have a great disadvantage. USA have a lot of soldiers in Iraq, China have more soldiers and I think well trained too. USA have bad relations with other nations by cause of the war in Iraq USA is almost alone, and now that China have their own satelites. I don't thin this is a good time for USA to go to a war with China



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
But think- China is communist, and with the oppression going on there (Teitman Square- unforgotten) there are many more countries that would join in for the sake of stopping them.

In WWII, we knew Russia was communist. We (USA) hate communist. At the same time, Russia gave over 27 Million souls in the war and is the soul reason why we faced so few soldiers at Normandy- at least, few compared to what it could have been if the Nazis didnt have so many on the Eastern Front. We buddied up with Russia like a 4 year old trying to find his mommy, then reared our sharp teeth after the conflict.

I predict the same would happen in the other instance- they hate us but hate China more.




top topics



 
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join