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: 32
1
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I know you people have more faith in the country that provides the very freedoms you are exercising everytime you post a reply on this site than this...? I mean come on! And besides, I believe this to be very true (sorry if I offend anyone here) but I believe the only way to truly know is to be part of it. I happen to be a United States Marine and I KNOW that without a doubt, we would come out victorious... but not without a hefty price. And there is another factor. War cost money. So I will leave you people with this... those who expect to be both ignorant and free, expect what never was and what never will be -Thomas Jefferson




posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 02:11 AM
link   


The Chinese had something like 2 million soldiers at their disposal when Genghis Khan first came, and he had 25,000. Genghis had no siege equipment. You really think there's an excuse for the Chinese losing?


LOL, 2 million vs. 25,000, reminds me of that NASCAR commercial, except that was 42vs1, this is almost 100 vs. 1. Only you can make up such preposterous numbers and still believe it. I guess the fact that China was HALF CONQUERED and that they'd been in war for the past half a century makes no difference at all. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that to an unwilling ear, nothing is anything but an "excuse." Oh, and please quit debating Chinese history with a Chinese person who happened to live in China for over a decade and did numerous projects/essays back in the high school days on this subject.




Vietnam? America never lost a battle in Vietnam. Our troops were basically just patrolling areas. That's not even close to how a war with China would go.


As the old saying goes, they won the battle, but they lost the war. Now they didn't exactly lose, but they did fail to achieve their objective. The American military will be able to repeatedly defeat Chinese armies, but they will never win the war.




I don't see the Chinese fighting a guerilla war, anyway. When have the Chinese ever done that? That's not their strength, or military doctrine. If they did, better for us. A guerilla war doesn't have that much military capability on its own. It only works in Iraq and Vietnam to a point because America was, and is playing politics. War with China would be taken far more seriously by the American people, as well as government.



This borders absolute ignorance. When has China fought a guerrilla war? Are you kidding me? How about the biggest war the world has ever seen--World War II? The Communists survived and built their base by fighting guerrilla warfare against the japanese. And what do you mean taken far more seriously? Could you have taken it more seriously than the Japanese did in WWII? They killed 300,000+ people in SIX weeks in ONE CITY(rape of nanking). That's an average of of almost 10,000 people slaughterd PER DAY in ONE city. I REALLY don't foresee the Americans doing anything even remotely close to that no matter how "serious" they get.




America was at just 40% of its military strength in Korea. The rest was tied down rebuilding Germany and Japan after WW2.


And China was not even at 50% either. China had roughly 750,000 troops in Korea vs. the 500,000 American troops. The U.S. partly decided to quit the war because 750,000 ADDITIONAL Chinese troops were waiting across the Korean border, waiting to jump in if the U.S. pressed on. I've read 2 books on the Korean war in preparation for a 4,000 word essay a few years back, don't argue with me on this point.




The Chinese did have superior planes. The Migs they got from Russia were better then Sabres in almost every way. Now, the American pilots were of course far superior. Russian sent many of their aces from WW2 to help the Chinese, though. The numbers in the air went to China as well. I think everyone knows already that the Sabres ended up with a 10:1 kill ratio in the air.


I thought I've already made it excruciatingly clear that China did not even have an Airforce and maybe only one or two operational squadrons just 2-3 years before the Korean war. You didn't expect a newly founded airforce during peace-time to even come close to a battle-hardened group did you?




On the ground, the Chinese did drive us back. People just like to forget that they launched a surprise attack on an army that wasn't anywhere near its full strength, and that was spread out across all of Korea. Americans were still fighting the numerically superior Chinese back. Make no mistake about it. Had that war been more popular in America, we would have driven the Chinese right out of Korea, and maybe even continued into China.


That is simply untrue. The surprise attack was at the very beginning of the war. The Chinese was able to drive the American across the 38th and even briefly took control of Seoul I believe or at least came close to it. HOWEVER, the Chinese supply lines spread way too thin at that time, so the U.S. was able to regroup and fight back. After the first few months, everything was even at the battle field. The two fought to a stalemate near the 38th parallel. Also, the popularity of the war would not have made a difference. General MacArthur himself claimed that the war can only be won effectively by using nuclear weapons on the Chinese, which was widely believed to almost certainly warrant similar nuclear assaults on Europe by the Russians had it occurred. That's the reason why Truman fired MacArthur for trying to force the issue of nukes.




And the training of the American military was hardly good at the time. Most the military was made up of draftees, not professional soldiers like America has today. It wasn't really until the 80's that America's military excelled here.


That's just complete BS. They came off a friggin World War after defeating two of the BEST militaries in the world in a drawn-out war. How can ANY type of military training get better than real battle experience against VERY excellent enemies?





China mass producing tanks wouldn't be so simple. China's industrial capability would be all but gone by the time America gets done bombing the place.


Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough when I said " China would've mass produced its more advanced tanks(the T-90 series) long before then" A war between the two countries would take time to escalate, countries of these magnitudes don't just go to wars rashly. China would have built up its military considerably long before the war. And again, Tanks probably won't matter much since it will become a guerrilla war.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teufelhunden
I know you people have more faith in the country that provides the very freedoms you are exercising everytime you post a reply on this site than this...? I mean come on! And besides, I believe this to be very true (sorry if I offend anyone here) but I believe the only way to truly know is to be part of it. I happen to be a United States Marine and I KNOW that without a doubt, we would come out victorious... but not without a hefty price. And there is another factor. War cost money. So I will leave you people with this... those who expect to be both ignorant and free, expect what never was and what never will be -Thomas Jefferson



The French/British/German soldiers were all confident that the war would be over in months at the onset of WWI. Hitler's soldiers were pretty confident they would come out victorious. Most within the Japanese army expected China to be conquered within 10 months during WWII.

Oh, and please don't mind the subject of analogy here(Hitler, Japan), I appreciate your service in the USMC, but those were the best recent analogies I've come up with right now.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 02:25 AM
link   
First off, anyone claiming that American troops coult easily walk over chinese infantry are only fooling themselves... It's sort of easy for one to prevail if they are fighting on their land that they know and that is close to their bases...




Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough when I said " China would've mass produced its more advanced tanks(the T-90 series) long before then" A war between the two countries would take time to escalate, countries of these magnitudes don't just go to wars rashly. China would have built up its military considerably long before the war. And again, Tanks probably won't matter much since it will become a guerrilla war.


And we would have/will be mass producing hellfire and small LGBs to counter those tanks... Expect an F-16 to take out roughly 4 or so per sortie ~2 or 3 times per day...
Oh what was that? SAMs? Oh dear lets pack up and move out as those advanced Hornets and Vipers with highly advanced physical and electronically decoys, and HARMs are no match for a SAM radar painting them



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 02:35 AM
link   

LOL, 2 million vs. 25,000, reminds me of that NASCAR commercial, except that was 42vs1, this is almost 100 vs. 1. Only you can make up such preposterous numbers and still believe it. I guess the fact that China was HALF CONQUERED and that they'd been in war for the past half a century makes no difference at all. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that to an unwilling ear, nothing is anything but an "excuse." Oh, and please quit debating Chinese history with a Chinese person who happened to live in China for over a decade and did numerous projects/essays back in the high school days on this subject.


Well, I don't think any of your research helped too much:


A major goal of Genghis was the conquest of Jin, both to avenge earlier defeats and to gain the riches of northern China. He declared war in 1211, and at first the pattern of operations against the Jurchen Jin Dynasty was the same as it had been against Western Xia. Genghis Khan had only 150,000 men with the total population of 700,000 while the Chinese army had well over 2,000,000 men (possibly 3-5 million) and their population was well over 80,000,000. The Mongols were victorious in the field, but they were frustrated in their efforts to take major cities. In his typically logical and determined fashion, Genghis and his highly developed staff studied the problems of the assault of fortifications. With the help of Chinese engineers (who were captured by Genghis), they gradually developed the techniques that eventually would make them the most accomplished and most successful besiegers in the history of warfare.


Well, I was a little off with the numbers of his first invasion. It changes almost nothing, though.


As the old saying goes, they won the battle, but they lost the war. Now they didn't exactly lose, but they did fail to achieve their objective. The American military will be able to repeatedly defeat Chinese armies, but they will never win the war.


The goal of America was to protect South Korea, and control the spread of communism. We achieved that. It was the North that launched the attack, and they were the ones who lost because they failed.


This borders absolute ignorance. When has China fought a guerrilla war? Are you kidding me? How about the biggest war the world has ever seen--World War II? The Communists survived and built their base by fighting guerrilla warfare against the japanese. And what do you mean taken far more seriously? Could you have taken it more seriously than the Japanese did in WWII? They killed 300,000+ people in SIX weeks in ONE CITY(rape of nanking). That's an average of of almost 10,000 people slaughterd PER DAY in ONE city. I REALLY don't foresee the Americans doing anything even remotely close to that no matter how "serious" they get.


The guerilla warfare used during WW2 was fairly limited. The Chinese never fought a solely guerilla war. It alone could never have held the Japanese off.

And what I meant about taking China more seriously was from the American stand point. We don't take war with Iraq as serious. We weren't there to crush them, but to help them.


And China was not even at 50% either. China had roughly 750,000 troops in Korea vs. the 500,000 American troops. The U.S. partly decided to quit the war because 750,000 ADDITIONAL Chinese troops were waiting across the Korean border, waiting to jump in if the U.S. pressed on. I've read 2 books on the Korean war in preparation for a 4,000 word essay a few years back, don't argue with me on this point.


If you were right, I wouldn't argue.

America never had half a million troops in the region. That was about what we had on our side if you throw in the South Koreans.

Our forces were significantly smaller. Half a million (with only about 40,000 American troops, and 10,000 more with allies), plus the South Koreans against 2.8 million Chinese, and North Koreans. Don't believe me? Here's a source:

en.wikipedia.org...


I thought I've already made it excruciatingly clear that China did not even have an Airforce and maybe only one or two operational squadrons just 2-3 years before the Korean war. You didn't expect a newly founded airforce during peace-time to even come close to a battle-hardened group did you?


You made a statement. That's not making something clear. That doesn't constitute a real argument.

The Russians built you an airforce. They sent their best pilots from WW2. The Chinese had about a 1,000 superior Migs.


That is simply untrue. The surprise attack was at the very beginning of the war. The Chinese was able to drive the American across the 38th and even briefly took control of Seoul I believe or at least came close to it. HOWEVER, the Chinese supply lines spread way too thin at that time, so the U.S. was able to regroup and fight back. After the first few months, everything was even at the battle field. The two fought to a stalemate near the 38th parallel. Also, the popularity of the war would not have made a difference. General MacArthur himself claimed that the war can only be won effectively by using nuclear weapons on the Chinese, which was widely believed to almost certainly warrant similar nuclear assaults on Europe by the Russians had it occurred. That's the reason why Truman fired MacArthur for trying to force the issue of nukes


The surprise attack was everything. We had no ability to fight back such a large force coming so suddenly. Most of our equipment wasn't working, we had few troops, and they were spread out. Winter was coming, as well.

As for MacArthur was gotten rid of for a number of reasons. I've never heard it was because he suggested using nukes. The only reason we didn't use them was because the Russians had just developed their own weapon.

The popularity of the war was weak at home. People didn't want to send more troops over there to win a war they didn't believe in. We had achieved what we sought out to do, so we ended it.


That's just complete BS. They came off a friggin World War after defeating two of the BEST militaries in the world in a drawn-out war. How can ANY type of military training get better than real battle experience against VERY excellent enemies?


We had begun to demobilize our army after WW2. We were spread thin, with many of our long standing soldiers being stationed in Europe and Japan. Most of our equipment didn't even work.

We were no superpower.


Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough when I said " China would've mass produced its more advanced tanks(the T-90 series) long before then" A war between the two countries would take time to escalate, countries of these magnitudes don't just go to wars rashly. China would have built up its military considerably long before the war. And again, Tanks probably won't matter much since it will become a guerrilla war


The same could be applied to America. We'd see troop numbers rise to the size during the Cold War, more F-22's being pumped out, and more Abrams.

The difference is, America has more cash to spend, and will produce a lot more. We'll also be able to keep that production up after the war begins, while China can't.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Lucretius
China's economy is growing at the moment by .5 trillion a year so in 7 years they will have caught the US

who says that will hold? you cant judge things like that.


Thats like saying a 12 year old grew 3 inches last year, and you assume that he will keep growing 3 inches every year, which he wouldn't, or he would be a giant.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 03:15 AM
link   
He might be


ChrisRT... just wanted to mention china has some of the most advanced SAM technology in the world... with their anti-radiation systems they have 95% kill probability... even if the ground station is destroyed.

SAMS are one area of china's millitary you don't want to underestimate.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Just curious Luc, are you from China or have anything to do with China?You seem to be pro-China. Anyway,China's air defense systems are very advanced,having the best defenses in the world helps (USA's missle defense shield might be better,but who knows),and some of their latest systems can detect stealth aircraft. You do not want to be flying in a F-16/F-18 over China,trust me.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 03:21 AM
link   
SAM's may have been overestimated more than any other weapon in the past 50 years.

They've never proven to be all that effective. It's doubtful China and Russia have radar that can detect stealth, so its not likely they'd be shooting down our B-2's.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   


China's air defense systems are very advanced,having the best defenses in the world helps (USA's missle defense shield might be better,but who knows),and some of their latest systems can detect stealth aircraft. You do not want to be flying in a F-16/F-18 over China,trust me.


As soon as he lights up, a HARM (preferably the newer longer ranged ones) will be up its dome...
I recon a very agile light fighter with highly advanced physical, towed, and electronically decoys and counters have a good chance against an immobile SAM site.
Also, Moscow probably has the most defended and advanced defense system beside our Missile Shield.

Also, why must people continue to believe in these magic SAMs and radar sites that can detect stealth aircraft? I can understand if it was an IRST station the size of Tokyo Tower but it isnt, and it uses conventional radar like all other SAM sites...



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   
just commenting on all the posts saying there will never be a nucleur war, china wont launch against US, and US wont launch against China.

Sure.....thats logical, we all know what will happen, including the dudes with the button. But when your desperate (ie, your country is in shatters), it does stuff to your brain
and you dont think like a normal person



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   
China's FT-2000 can track stealth aircraft and up to 50 targets at once.




For the detection and localisation of hostile radar emissions and jammers the FT-2000 makes use of four ground-based Electronic Support Measures (ESM) sensor posts, each of which is mounted on wheeled vehicles and can together track 50 targets simultaneously. The ESM sensor posts are deployed at a distance 30km from each other. The missile launchers are deployed near the central ESM sensor station at a distance of 150 metres.

The FT-2000 can also be used in conjunction with surveillance and target acquisition radars of the 3-D non-phased-array type. CPMIEC is now developing an active phased-array radar will be used for fire-control of future variants of the FT-2000.

A complete FT-2000A Battalion consists of a Command Platoon and three Batteries, each equipped with one central ESM sensor station and three auxiliary ESM stations, two power supply vehicles, 12 mobile launchers equipped with missiles in three motorised vehicles (with four launchers each), and 12 transportation and loading vehicles.


No i'm not chinese, nor do I have any affiliations with china apart from a mutual interest in the countries progression in world affairs



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
To that guy that said USA 3 china 2 for one the USA doesnt control the air everyware in the world nor the sea its forces are so wide spread that america's fleets would just be wiped out one by one same with its infantry if they invaded china. the fact china mobilised 150,000 men including armour in just 3 days kind of proves it. i mean how many men does the USA have not engaged in war, or placed in other countries. even britain have realised that we are under threat by having just over 3/4 of the army over seas INC 25,000 in germany so we are bringing a lot of them back. wheer as america only brings the occasional 2 units here and there. THE USA is too far spread and would be wiped out unit by unit. It really is that simple. I know i keep going on aobut china indusrial revolution happening right now which it is but once thats finished america wont be the top dog no more. and also how can you say that China and every other country for that matter has such a weak army you cant prove that. the USA doesnt know what the others countries do behind locked doors and the USA is the most un free country in the world as quoted by george washington 200 years ago "A country where the people are not informed, is a country where the people are enslaved"



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuanshao101
To that guy that said USA 3 china 2 for one the USA doesnt control the air everyware in the world nor the sea its forces are so wide spread that america's fleets would just be wiped out one by one same with its infantry if they invaded china. the fact china mobilised 150,000 men including armour in just 3 days kind of proves it. i mean how many men does the USA have not engaged in war, or placed in other countries. even britain have realised that we are under threat by having just over 3/4 of the army over seas INC 25,000 in germany so we are bringing a lot of them back. wheer as america only brings the occasional 2 units here and there. THE USA is too far spread and would be wiped out unit by unit. It really is that simple. I know i keep going on aobut china indusrial revolution happening right now which it is but once thats finished america wont be the top dog no more. and also how can you say that China and every other country for that matter has such a weak army you cant prove that. the USA doesnt know what the others countries do behind locked doors and the USA is the most un free country in the world as quoted by george washington 200 years ago "A country where the people are not informed, is a country where the people are enslaved"


You talk about modern US things, then you bring up a 200 year old quote.


first of all, they wouldn't all be knocked out one by one.

Whats your strategy? Put all your men in one area so that way one bomb could kill all of them.


and why would we need large amount of troops in the US? We know that no one can invade us with troops, we also have homeland security, coast gaurd, cops, then everyday people. There is no need to have a large army here, every ship coming towards america is monitored, and I dont think Canada or Mexico will try something.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   


A major goal of Genghis was the conquest of Jin, both to avenge earlier defeats and to gain the riches of northern China. He declared war in 1211, and at first the pattern of operations against the Jurchen Jin Dynasty was the same as it had been against Western Xia.


It's so great that you show your ignorance again by providing a quote that defeats your own argument. Do you even know who the Jin is? They're the people who CONQUERED the northern half of China. It's ruled by the Nuzhen(Jurchen) people, NOT the Chinese Han people. The Chinese Han people was called the Song dynasty(South Song dynasty after they were pushed below the Long River). Thank you for proving my point that China was half-conquered and that Ghengis Khan attacked when the Jin and the Song were at war with each other(and the Song at war with the Liao much before). So there are two things you should notice: 1)The Jin isn't even Chinese. 2)The Jin could not concentrate all their forces on the Mongols since they're also at war vs. the Song. 3)The Mongols caught them by relative surprise. 4)The Jin did not have the support of the Han people(90% of Chinese population is consisted of the Han people).




The goal of America was to protect South Korea, and control the spread of communism. We achieved that. It was the North that launched the attack, and they were the ones who lost because they failed.


My fault on this part. I don't think I made myself clear enough that I meant the Vietnam war. In Vietnam, as you claimed, the U.S. never lost a battle, but they failed to achieve their objectives of preventing the south to fall from communism.




The guerilla warfare used during WW2 was fairly limited. The Chinese never fought a solely guerilla war. It alone could never have held the Japanese off.


No, it was not fairly limited. It was EXTREMELY widespread. Of course it's not a solely guerilla war, even in Vietnam there were relatively large battles fought(Tet offensive). It alone held the Japanese off. Not because it could stop any Japanese assaults, but because they made occupation a living hell for them. The more areas they conquered, the more they had to stretch their troops 'cause guerrillas were everywhere. Most of the conventional Chinese armies during WWII were held by the Nationalists, and they retreated into the mountainous areas of China in Sichuan and watched as the Communists fought the Japanese in a largely guerrilla warfare.




And what I meant about taking China more seriously was from the American stand point. We don't take war with Iraq as serious. We weren't there to crush them, but to help them.


And I will again draw up the Japanese analogy. Their policy in China, after the guerrilla warfare started becoming a VERY big problem for them, is what the Chinese call a "three nothing" policy. That is, whenever they enter a new, troubled area, they would "kill 'till there's nothing left, loot 'till there's nothing left, and burn 'till there's nothing left". I don't think the American army can get any more "crushing" than that.




Our forces were significantly smaller. Half a million (with only about 40,000 American troops, and 10,000 more with allies), plus the South Koreans against 2.8 million Chinese, and North Koreans. Don't believe me? Here's a source:


I read your source, NOWHERE did it say 2.8 million troops. And I think you meant 400,000 Americans, 100,000 with allies. That was the figure at the beginning of the war, the American involvement increased afterwards as it steadily became an American war and less an UN war. The South Korean troops were especially useless. The Chinese made it a habit to consistently attack the South Korean part of the line whenever a combined American and Korean forces engaged the Chinese. I've read books on this conflict, I'm pretty sure my figures of eventually 750,000 vs. 500,000 are quite near accurate.




The Russians built you an airforce. They sent their best pilots from WW2. The Chinese had about a 1,000 superior Migs.


OK, so it's the Russians vs. Americans, I could care less then. Whatever the case is, the airforce of the communist side played a very minor role in that war.




The surprise attack was everything. We had no ability to fight back such a large force coming so suddenly. Most of our equipment wasn't working, we had few troops, and they were spread out. Winter was coming, as well.


In no where did I deny that. However, as I emphasized, it was at the BEGINNING of the war. The war did last 2-3 years after Chinese intervention, don't tell me that isn't enough time to get ur equipment, get reinforcements, regroup, and pass a winter.




We had begun to demobilize our army after WW2. We were spread thin, with many of our long standing soldiers being stationed in Europe and Japan. Most of our equipment didn't even work.


The troops the U.S. sent to Korea were mostly battle hardened troops. And the U.S. was a de facto superpower after WWII.



The difference is, America has more cash to spend, and will produce a lot more. We'll also be able to keep that production up after the war begins, while China can't.


In a state of Total-War, "cash" is entirely irrelevant. The production capabilities does not hinge on the economy in the case of a Total War. However, with the war fought on Chinese soil, it IS highly likely that China will not be able to keep the production high after the war. Then again, it's irrelevant since it'll be a guerrilla war.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago


Lucretius
China's economy is growing at the moment by .5 trillion a year so in 7 years they will have caught the US

who says that will hold? you cant judge things like that.


Thats like saying a 12 year old grew 3 inches last year, and you assume that he will keep growing 3 inches every year, which he wouldn't, or he would be a giant.


The growth rate have been at 7-10% per year for the past 2 decades or so, and it does not show signs of slowing down any time soon. I believe it will continue for another decade or so, and start slowing down dramatically as the Chinese economy starts to reach the level of the Americans. Remember, even when China's GDP reaches the U.S.' level, the Income per person for China will still be about 1/5 of U.S.'s, so the cheap labor will still be there.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   

For the detection and localisation of hostile radar emissions and jammers the FT-2000 makes use of four ground-based Electronic Support Measures (ESM) sensor posts, each of which is mounted on wheeled vehicles and can together track 50 targets simultaneously. The ESM sensor posts are deployed at a distance 30km from each other. The missile launchers are deployed near the central ESM sensor station at a distance of 150 metres.

The FT-2000 can also be used in conjunction with surveillance and target acquisition radars of the 3-D non-phased-array type. CPMIEC is now developing an active phased-array radar will be used for fire-control of future variants of the FT-2000.

A complete FT-2000A Battalion consists of a Command Platoon and three Batteries, each equipped with one central ESM sensor station and three auxiliary ESM stations, two power supply vehicles, 12 mobile launchers equipped with missiles in three motorised vehicles (with four launchers each), and 12 transportation and loading vehicles.


I must be missing the part where it says anything about anti-stealth capabilities.
I remember this FT-2000A or something similar being mentioned a while back by the Russians as an anti-stealth weapon. Of course, they also said it depended on a) an initial visual sighting, b) the stealth to be on a predictable path, and then c) they'd essentially be "guessing" when and where to fire. I'm not impressed, as all of the above are unlikely at best...

Again though, the idea of conventional warfare between two nuclear powers is about as unlikely as two guys armed with loaded machine guns tossing them down in favor of a knife fight...



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
In any "World War 3" style war with China, Canada and Mexico would aid the United States, because they know they'd be goners if the U.S. goes. The U.S. and China would never duke it out solely in a real war that involved the two if each considered the other a desperate threat. It would be the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Britain, etc....versus China and whatever allies it would have.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Rather the opposite im sure the british public wouldnt want to help the USA against China so we probably wouldnt enter the war. if we dont the commonwealth doesnt. Japan bums us so they would wanna get wiped out by china so yeah im sure you be pretty much aloen in it



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
everybody seems to have a good idea of who will ally with US.....but wha about China?
have you though who will be its friend if war arises.

[edit on 29-12-2004 by chensta]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join