U.S. vs. China

The fact that China is a growing superpower and it's nearly polar-opposites in politics, culture, and ideology means they will clash at some point. America wants to "liberate" the world, but China is more isolationalist. They don't like outside influence despite the fact they are actually quite a progressive country.

That sounds more like America than China.
Why do you wanna start a war? Where will all your corporations that have set up shop in China to exploit the cheap labor re-locate to? India?
Lets just hope that Nature wipes your sad ass little war mongering country out b4 you trigger Armageddon because of your brain washed might is right psychosis. Anyway...the US doesn't want to destroy China...theres too much money to be made selling them the oil you freaks stole. You war freaks are really quite strange, China could lose the equivilent of the entire US population without it even noticing or being dis-advantaged.

Cheap labor! Yes!

Just what we need, more starving kids being shoved into extremely low paying jobs working long hours and getting abused. Perfect! Next we can install hampster wheels in our pre-schools to generate free electricity!

Seriously, I thought the war talk was hypothetical, didnt know someone was trying to toss sh_t into the fan...

Originally posted by SniperWolf762
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.

The whole reason why the allies won WWII was because the Russians helped them,i highly doubt that the British and America could beat the Germans on their own,the Germans lost a LOT of troops on the eastern front.

As for the war,It is hardly about to happen,and the soliders would just uprise against the US government if war with China happened,imagine a billion well trained guerillas defending their country.Only way the US government could get the war started,was to spread propaganda at the right time.An invasion by either country would be unlikely,they are both well guarded.Both countries have lots of nukes,i suppose nukes would be going off if the war was prolonged.Or maybe,it would be like a second cold war.Either way,it would be a lose-lose situation.

As for China having a communist government,truth is,they are not really doing anything communist,just like a normal government,with the tag of the communists carried over from the past generations.

Meanwhile,if you wanted to try and wonder what the war would be like,try Command And Conquer Generals

PS:My first post,don't flame me

[edit on 1/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

[edit on 1/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

Heres my 10 cents on how the USA and allies would defeat china.
1 Economic blockade without oil planes dont fly motor engines dont run.
2 Use Singapore has a jump off point to seize Hong Kong.
3 Use Airpower to destroy Chinese Industries.
4 Use tactical nuclear wepons against naval bases ,air bases , and any other key military targets.
5 Use Taiwan,Japan & Honk Kong has a base for wage war on mainland.
6 Use to WMDs to Poison the rivers,lakes people can go 3 weeks with out food. However people need to drink water every 3 days.
I think the war would be over after the use of tactical nuclear wepons however step 6 would be used to put an end to any resistance.


[edit on 2-11-2004 by xpert11]

If the US were to use nukes,China would do too,and trust me,China are trigger happy about using nuclear warheads or other WMD's.I was born in China before i came to Singapore.

"..Honk Kong has a base for wage wage war on mainland"

Oh, my god, this must be the funniest line yet... This is like saying china will use california for our jumping point to invade the US. lollolol This guy is such an expert. lololol

Originally posted by Hawkssss
"..Honk Kong has a base for wage wage war on mainland"

Oh, my god, this must be the funniest line yet... This is like saying china will use california for our jumping point to invade the US. lollolol This guy is such an expert. lololol

Damn,Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997,I just remembered.The Chinese government can build a stronghold there if they wanted.I suppose Hong Kong will be more like Hawaii than California

EDIT:Most US equipment are "Made in China",if you destroyed the factories,you wouldn't have any weapons or cheap pirated CD's

[edit on 1/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

Wow, this looks like a blue book exam question from college. But I'll give it a shot.

1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?

Being that this is a hypothetical question, yes they can, but is it wise? The Peoples Republic of China (PRC) currently has exellent relations with both the Russian Federiation and the European Union. This might spell out to be a war with the entire Eurasian continent. France and Russia currently back China over the Tiawan issue as well as Russia has sold two Typhoon class nuclear attack submarines (SSBNs) which are interlinked with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces. Effectively, an attack on one would be treated as an attack on both. Let's don't forget France and Germany's nuclear forces. If the situation becomes unglued for either side and nuclear weapons are released, this may trigger a global holocaust. All fun and games aside, any war with a nuclear power runs this risk, so would it be worth it? That's the prime question.

Second, why would we need to invade mainland China when our (USs) main weapon of choice in combating communism has always been economic warfare? What would be gained by occupying the PRC? The PRC would love this scenerio just as much as they delighted in dicing up Gen Mark Clarks forces as they raced towards the Yalu River in North Korea. Americans had better become familiar with the concept of "The People's War" if they are to dabble in such nonsence.

2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the long run against 1 billion people?

As history will show you, having a technological advantage does not always spell out a military advantage. The PRC, without France, Germany and Russia as allies can fight a war in the sea, air, land and space. Imagine the effects to the US military if the PRC were to randomly detonate neutron bombs in space. This would effectively blind the Giant. The US's domination of space is paramount to the fighting of any war, even in Iraq. This leads to the next question.

3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?

How best to deal with the US's airpower. Well, look at Vietnam, how effective was the US's air campaign against the North? It was very much in the order of Vodoo bombing. Sure we killed people, but killing civilians only improves the morale and fighting spirit of the enemy, that is, unless you virtually exterminate them all, as was our plan in Japan in 1946. Precision strikes, if there is such a thing, is the only option the US has, that is to destroy key elements of the PRC's economic infrastructure. This is ofcourse, after the US destroyed the PRC's nuclear forces.

Now, if I were the PRC and was being overwhelmed by US airstrikes coming out of Tiawan, South Korea and Japan I would view all three of these countries as hostiles and devistate them with theater tactical nuclear weapons. Now, prior to the onset of hostilities, I would assure South Korea, Tiawan and Japan that if any US airstrikes originated from their countries that it would be meet with utter devistation. No if's, and's or but's, total annialiation! This policy would ensure that the US would have extreem dificulty in launching any air campaign against the PRC. Now, here were are again, back to a nuclear confrontation. Any war with the PRC must include a pre-emptive strike on all of the PRC's nuclear assets. But the PRC has two Russian Typhoon SSBNs under their nuclear unbrella. If the US attacks these two subs the Russians have garunteed that a response would be in the order of that of an attack on Mother Russia. Thus, strategically, the US allows the PRC to clobber 500 US cities with these two subs or the US jointly takes out the Russian and PRC's nuclear assets. And what about France's and Germany's nuclear arsenals? Yes, France has aided the Germans in building and testing nuclear weapons covertly. Will the US also have to make moves to liquidate these two countries arsenal's? As you can see, this scenerio can get very ugly, very fast.

4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight?

Remember when the US "accidently" bombed the Chinese Embasy during the Yugoslav campaign? The outrage in the PRC was nearly 100% unanimous. Now, imagine the outrage if the US were to bomb a Chinese city. I don't think that they will respond with stones.

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

I really don't think it would come to this. To occupy the PRC is only a fantacy, the strategic situation at present dosn't allow for it. As stated earlier, take away their nukes, bomb them back into the stone age, ie., hit economic targets as well as industrial and military facilities. Distupt food production perhaps with the introduction of several strains of rice blight, embargo the country and sieze or freeze all foreign held assets and accounts. A balanced combination of economic warfare and military degredation of critical infrastructure would foment the collapse of the PRC.

6. Any other thoughts?

The singular objective of any US lead war against the PRC is to de-nuke them. These are the only scenerios the US entertains. This along with the eventual mop up of the Russian Rocket forces is the end game of the cold war. Now, if both objectives can be met at once, well the better then. Several hundreds of millions, if not billions, of you may have to sacrifice your lives in order to help consolidate the US's hegemony over the world and to reinstate Amerika's monopoly over nuclear weapons, but this is a nominal risk that our corporate sponsors are willing to take.

That sounds more like America than China.
Why do you wanna start a war? Where will all your corporations that have set up shop in China to exploit the cheap labor re-locate to? India?
Lets just hope that Nature wipes your sad little war mongering country out b4 you trigger Armageddon because of your brain washed might is right psychosis. Anyway...the US doesn't want to destroy China...theres too much money to be made selling them the oil you freaks stole. You war freaks are really quite strange, China could lose the equivilent of the entire US population without it even noticing or being dis-advantaged.

Good to see ya in this thread. You hit strait to the point, but, as I may point out there is still a handful of us Americans who arn't warmongering freaks, although the stereotype fits most Americans pretty well. I should know this well, I've lived in the breeding ground of Fascism most of my life, Indiana. Peewuuu, Indiana is like Bavaria in the late 1920's. Tons of your run of the mill nazi's, kkkers, white supremacists, Republicans and Darwinian styled corporate evolutionists. My dream is to leave this country and live in a democracy. I lived in Germany as an exchange student in 1980 and was truely impressed with how politically involved and informed the average German citizens were. I've never seen that in this country. The people here are like lemmings diving off a cliff, me, I've found that it's alot of fun going to the cliffs and setting in my lawn chair and watching them leap by the droves.

Anyway, as you may have read, others in this chat forum feel that I am anti-american. Let me clear the air, I am anti-american , because what Americanism stands for globaly is slavery and injustice for all! I guess that is equality in a way, threat everyone like a field slave. If you are intrested, read how the US spread democracy in Central America in the 1980's. I can assure you that this is the style of warfare the US is wadging in Iraq today. It is, perhaps a scaled down version of Aktion Reinhart.

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Originally posted by Hawkssss
Damn,Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997,I just remembered.The Chinese government can build a stronghold there if they wanted.I suppose Hong Kong will be more like Hawaii than California

You are a goose. read this line from my post.
2 Use Singapore has a jump off point to seize Hong Kong.
Do you have a point other then comparing Hong Kong to a state of america?

[edit on 1/11/04 by W4rl0rD]

Originally posted by Hawkssss
"..Honk Kong has a base for wage wage war on mainland"

Oh, my god, this must be the funniest line yet... This is like saying china will use california for our jumping point to invade the US. lollolol This guy is such an expert. lololol

I hate breake this to you but read the post again I never said that Hong Kong would used to stage a landing on mainland china.

5 Use Taiwan,Japan & Honk Kong has a base for wage war on mainland.

Who says you didn't?

And,to say Singapore would let America be based there would be bull#.They are totally neutral and would not support anyone

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
If the US were to use nukes,China would do too,and trust me,China are trigger happy about using nuclear warheads or other WMD's.I was born in China before i came to Singapore.

China may be trigger happy. After the use of tactical use of nuclear weapons I doubt they would have the means to launch nuclear warheads. Of course this depends on having good intelligentsias on the where abouts and abilities of Key military targets.

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

5 Use Taiwan,Japan & Honk Kong has a base for wage war on mainland.

Who says you didn't?

And,to say Singapore would let America be based there would be bull#.They are totally neutral and would not support anyone

Assuming Singapore stays netrual the attack the USA would still be able to use its bases in Japan and the Philippines to seize Hong Kong.

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

5 Use Taiwan,Japan & Honk Kong has a base for wage war on mainland.

Who says you didn't?
Mate you are reading something that isnt there. You have to base your agrument on what has been said. Nuclear weapons are a better option the then making a landing on mainland china.

Well, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan have all tested and have secret nuclear arsenals now thanks to the US. South Korea and Taiwan along with Israel covertly tested nuclear weapons with India in the May 1998 tests. Japan pulled off a covert de-coupled test in south-west Australia in 1994. Boys, asia is armed to the gills! It's a powderkeg ready to go off. It will either be Taiwan or North Korea where the fireworks start to fly. When George jr. has himself re-elected then the gloves will come off, hell- the American people didn't even elect him the first time, it was a flat out military coup.

If you do a little research into US war planning you might find out something rather startling about Iraq. According to CENTCOM planing any prelude to a general war with Russia and China would be preceded by the securing of the middle-eastern oilfields and the release of the Strategic Federal oil reserves in Alaska. Both have been accompliched. This has been the cornerstone of CENTCOM planning ever since it's inception under the Carter Doctrine. The US's strategic reasoning for being in Iraq is for oil to fight the "Big One." It's armed all of it's allies with nuclear weapons, now the US is ready to provoke it's way into WWIII, and just you watch how eloquently our little F�hrer und Reichskanzler does it.

xpert,just forget it.Take it as my bad.


The whole world of smaller countries hates the USA,especially in the middle east.The USA seems to poke its nose into everything.If World War III did happen,most countries would side with Russia/China,the rest with USA only because they are pointing a gun at their heads.If they were really prepared to go to a war,it would still be a lose-lose situation,nobody can invade the other,air power wouldn't be so effective in the long run because of the defenses,only other option would be for Nukes which would spell D-O-O-M.

TO Sweet...--ordinarily down

Scenario???

US. vs. China-- is little detail. You are allready-- US. vs. EARTH.

Not all of you -- just 1 million hardcore psychopats. No ??

chapo

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
xpert,just forget it.Take it as my bad.
No worries.


.If they were really prepared to go to a war,it would still be a lose-lose situation,nobody can invade the other,air power wouldn't be so effective in the long run because of the defenses,only other option would be for Nukes which would spell D-O-O-M.

I believe airpower would be a very important if the USA was to defeat china. Airpower would be needed to support the economic blockade and for the destruction of chinese factories. If used properly nukes would bring a quick victory to the USA .

Originally posted by xpert11

I believe airpower would be a very important if the USA was to defeat china. Airpower would be needed to support the economic blockade and for the destruction of chinese factories. If used properly nukes would bring a quick victory to the USA .

If China used nukes correctly it would have the same effect.In the end it all boils down to nukes.