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: 33
1
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
If China was in times of war with USA, North Korea would definitly join, since during that war it can take South Korea from U.S.

Iran and Russia look doubtfull but they could be possible allies.
But still, Great Britain and USA vs China and North Korea, its gunna be a hell of a fight...

And if Iran and Russia join in, ooooh all hells gunna let loose, there would probally be a global war... Truely World War 4!

Edit: - Typo's


[edit on 29-12-2004 by The_Squid]




posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
world war 4 already? what happened to world war 3?



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
dingyibvs


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 Jin weren't even at war with the Song when the Mongols first attacked. It wasn't until after the Jin had moved their capital further South that they themselves launched an attack on the Song.


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.


Vietnam was a political defeat, but not really a military one. Our soldiers mine as well have been police officers the way they were allowed to fight. They patrolled limited areas, while the Vietcong could strike, and run back across the borders.


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.


In Vietnam, there were few major battles. The Vietnam learned quickly not to meet us in the open.

The Japanese at best were spread out because of the guerilla war, and didn't get some supplies. It was the Chinese tactic of drawing Japanese foward, to launch ambushes at their flanks that held the Japanese off until a real offensive could take place.


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.


The Japanese were always just brutal. They didn't adopt that strategy just to deal with the Chinese.

Japan didn't have the infantry America did. They had horrible ground equipment. The Japanese still beat the Chinese around easily.


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.


It was right on the side of the page:

"over half a million South Koreans; 36,576 U.S. soldiers; numerous casualties of other participants

...

2,800,000 All Countries"

I don't think you were looking hard enough.


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.


It was only limited in the war because America dominated the air war. The Chinese when they first attacked held air superiority, and it was a big reason why the Chinese were so successful.

There were over a 1,000 Mig-15's on the communist side, while America had just about 300 Sabres. The old F-80's were about equal in number, but vastly inferior.


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.


America had regrouped. We had pushed the Chinese back to the original border of the North and South.

Had MacArthur been left in charge, and the American public not simply wanted to end the war, we would have pushed our full forces into Korea, and gotten the job done.


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


America had begun demobilizing the military. We had just 40,000 men in Korea, and most of the America equipment didn't even work.


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.


You still need money to buy resources to make weapons. The things don't come out of thin air.


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.


China's unemployed is dwindling, even if it is still pretty high. Another five years and they won't have too many more to employ themselves. It's then that the growth will slow down, and China will have to try and switch away from cheap labor jobs.

It's not just a matter of investment, either. China literally doesn't have much energy to keep this rate up. The oil supply is running thin for the Chinese.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuanshao101
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


No, Britain is the U.S.'s faithful ally, and I was referring to an all-out warfare situation, not some little China vs. America "conflict." I mean in a WAR situation.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   
War? You want war? I'll give you war. US goes to war with China. North Korea goes to war with South Korea. Iran goes to war with US. Britain goes to war with China and Iran. Russia provides lots of equipment. The whole world is destroyed. And thats how World War III will unfold.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
To get back to the topic at hand.....

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?

Yes but the ground troops would probably die on the beaches.
The sheer number of soldiers would stop the invasion.


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

It would be an advantage but wouldnt give them a big advantage.


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

China has many sams, you have air superiority but not control.


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

Probably yes ,wouldnt you fight to defend your land?


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

Hell no!
The chinese would have a field day with those tactics, imagine 1 million amred troops running around in the countryside and you dont know where they are.


6. Any other thoughts?

The UK would come in and give support but i doubt they could really tip the balance.


I think China is one enemy the U.S. will need a miracle to defeat. I see it sort of as a whole bunch of people lining up against the Chinese coast to prevent an amphbious assault. An airborne assault is pretty dumb as well. The only advantage America will have is our airpower and sea-launched missiles, but that won't last forever.

Yeah the USA couldnt win , they would need a war of attrition.



Also, does anyone know of any tactics or warplans the U.S. has in store regarding China?

Can you say air strikes?



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   
China's oil is low so if the worlds oil lol most countries just don't care and keep using it. that why they say ww4 will be fought with swords and # because there wont be oil or anything else to fight with



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by chensta
world war 4 already? what happened to world war 3?


Dont ask me why but the Cold War was counted as World War III, so therefore the next big war would be counted as World War IV.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Mass numbers have been overcome time and time again throughout history.

You can go take a look at all of the great war machines of history. Napoleonic France, the Mongols, Macedon, Great Britain, Hannibal...The list could go on.

The idea that China's huge population is going to help them is absurd. China's actual military doesn't even have that many more men then America's, and that's after we made huge cuts after the Cold War.

Great armies are made by discipline, mobility, and tactics. A bunch of farmers who may or may not be armed can not stand up to America.

We've seen it in Iraq with their whopping 1 million man army during the Gulf War. The bottom line is that with the amount of firepower America has, we could devestate any number of concentrated forces China throws at us. Guerilla war has rarely shown to have much military impact on its own. It requires real combat.

Supply lines are a lot harder to attack these days. A lot can simply be transported through the air. America has the best troop and supply transportation ability of any military on the planet.

It'd be damn hard for China to stop an America invasion. This isn't WW2. We have a lot more effective bombing ability. The more troops massed at the coast, the more we have to bomb. The bunker busters America has developed can destroy North Korea's tunnels. What chance does China have to protect those troops on the beaches?

SAM's have never proven to be that effective in any war they've been used. Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Syria all had huge amounts of advanced Russian SAM's. Everyone thought they were going to make any airwar extremely difficult. Well, they were pretty much useless.

America could invade China now with its current technology. Once the FCS is online, no infantry force in the world could stand up to America no matter how many men they have.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Disturbed Deliverer, its attitudes like this that are so common among American people that will get yourself slaughtered in the next war. You seem to very much underestimate and overestimate a lot of things and fail to see the capabilities and innovations created by other countries and you see only what you wish to see.

SAMs are important but Iraqi SAMs in the gulf war weren't effective at all. Those weren't SAMs, those were machine guns or ourdated anti-aircraft guns firing blindly into the sky.

You very much overestimate the usefullness of FCS. They will be nice weaponry of course but saying "Once the FCS is online, no infantry force in the world could stand up to America no matter how many men they have." is complete BS. So I guess everyone would just hide in there corner when they see your shiny new tanks and IFVs? Don't you think other countries are also developing weaponry like these? FCS is many years away from actually being deployed on the battlefield in mass numbers.

You fail to see the ability of "people's war". "people's war" is what won Vietnam, Japanese in China, Japanese in Korea and Germans in WWII by Russians.

China has more than enough people to fight any kind of war. 1.5 billion people don't just sit and do nothing while a war is happening and relatives are being killed alright? if US attacks China, it would be people's war, almost every man at the right age would fight, women, man and unemployed people would be hired by the government to make weapons and defend ourselves and don't ever talk about invasion because 50000 Americans in a city with 5 million guerillas (not everyone would get a gun, people would have to loot the dead and use grenades) is just stupid.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Disturbed Deliverer, its attitudes like this that are so common among American people that will get yourself slaughtered in the next war. You seem to very much underestimate and overestimate a lot of things and fail to see the capabilities and innovations created by other countries and you see only what you wish to see.


It wasn't arrogant at all. I explained myself. I've looked at the Chinese capabilities. I know what the Chinese are developing. I know about the top Chinese weapons. I know future American weapons, as well as current. There's not a comparison. I've always taken into account military history. The greatest armies have not used great numbers.

Please, could someone find me an example of one great military that ever really relied on mass numbers. The best met the criteria I've already given. They were highly mobile, disciplined, well led, and organized forces.


SAMs are important but Iraqi SAMs in the gulf war weren't effective at all. Those weren't SAMs, those were machine guns or ourdated anti-aircraft guns firing blindly into the sky.


Iraq had some of the most advanced Russian SAM's available during the first Gulf War. You are underestimating them. Hell, Iran penetrated Iraq's air defenses during the Iran-Iraq war, something that was thought impossible. During the second Iraq war, Iraq had their air defenses prepared by China. Those didn't fair so well, now did they? Same goes for Yugoslavia. Syria had massive numbers of the best SAM's, and they didn't even scratch Israel.

Please, find me one example when SAM's have proven their effectiveness in real combat.


You very much overestimate the usefullness of FCS. They will be nice weaponry of course but saying "Once the FCS is online, no infantry force in the world could stand up to America no matter how many men they have." is complete BS. So I guess everyone would just hide in there corner when they see your shiny new tanks and IFVs? Don't you think other countries are also developing weaponry like these? FCS is many years away from actually being deployed on the battlefield in mass numbers.

You fail to see the ability of "people's war". "people's war" is what won Vietnam, Japanese in China, Japanese in Korea and Germans in WWII by Russians.


I think few people on here have looked past warfare beyond the past century.

FCS works on the same basic principals that Alexander the Great used against the Persians, or the Mongols used against the Chinese. Manueverability is the key to warfare.

The "People's War" doesn't apply at all. The Russians surely were stubborn as hell during WW2, but that was only after Hitler came in committing genocide of the Russians. Originally the German troops were welcomed as liberators by many Russians. The same goes for the Japanese (even though the Chinese never really fought the same way the Germans did, many Chinese even joined the Japanese). The main reason they were both fought off, though, was because both ended up having to divide their forces against two different threats. The Western front was what allowed the Russian offensive, and the same goes for the Japanese and Chinese.

In Vietnam, America could have ended the war in no time had we simply invaded the North. Our troops were sitting ducks for the Vietcong.


China has more than enough people to fight any kind of war. 1.5 billion people don't just sit and do nothing while a war is happening and relatives are being killed alright? if US attacks China, it would be people's war, almost every man at the right age would fight, women, man and unemployed people would be hired by the government to make weapons and defend ourselves and don't ever talk about invasion because 50000 Americans in a city with 5 million guerillas (not everyone would get a gun, people would have to loot the dead and use grenades) is just stupid.


Have you ever heard of Sparta? Yea, they had probably well over 5 slaves for ever Spartan. They were never able to do a damn thing.

Mass numbers does not make a great military. China could not arm many more people then they already do. A bigger problem with this whole guerilla-people's war idea is that it relies on having small numbers of men that do damage, and get away quickly. A mob like you're suggesting wouldn't do much good. China's massive population won't give them anymore edge then it did the Vietcong, or Iraqis, of Afghanis here.

China has always used the same ideas you people propose. So have many other large nations. They have all been defeated numerous times in history by competent, yet far smaller armies.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Disturbed believer can i ask how will you find the tunnels?
Find the supply lines?

I await your reply....
BTW about this number VS well trained, your army is a balance of both.
Take....germany for exsample that is a small well trained army.
Also can i ask is americas army ready for an engagement of that size?
Americas forces are spread thinly as it is, and you think they can take china?

[edit on 30-12-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Disturbed believer can i ask how will you find the tunnels?
Find the supply lines?


This wouldn't be much of a problem with a nation like China who doesn't have a tunnel system.

I'd imagine that America probably has some idea how nations like North Korea have set up their tunnel systems.

I believe my statement was that China simply wouldn't be able to protect mass troops on the beaches to prevent an invasion. We have bombs that can break through any fortifications they could build.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
This wouldn't be much of a problem with a nation like China who doesn't have a tunnel system.

I'd imagine that America probably has some idea how nations like North Korea have set up their tunnel systems.

I believe my statement was that China simply wouldn't be able to protect mass troops on the beaches to prevent an invasion. We have bombs that can break through any fortifications they could build.

You are not privy to information of that level, and even if they where not set up they could be easily set up.
Also do you suggest america observes chinese supply lines?

AND as the generals after ww2 said , there will not be another D-day.
Think about it, your troops go to land oh would you loook at that a mine field or artillery strikes or even just defenses.
Remember in war the defender has the advantage.
You have bombs which can do that but what you cant see you can not hit.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   

You are not privy to information of that level, and even if they where not set up they could be easily set up.
Also do you suggest america observes chinese supply lines?


I don't think it would be practical at all for China to set up an advanced tunnel network to defend their beaches, especially when relying on mass numbers. It would make reaction very difficult.

I also don't know what you mean by observing "supply lines." If you mean do I think we watch the Chinese, then yes. I think we probably have spies in China, as they do here. I think we also have satellites and probably even spy planes monitering China constantly.


AND as the generals after ww2 said , there will not be another D-day.
Think about it, your troops go to land oh would you loook at that a mine field or artillery strikes or even just defenses.
Remember in war the defender has the advantage.
You have bombs which can do that but what you cant see you can not hit.


Mines existed back in WW2. They were planted heavily at Normandy.

That's not likely to stop an invasion.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I don't think it would be practical at all for China to set up an advanced tunnel network to defend their beaches, especially when relying on mass numbers. It would make reaction very difficult.

Not really, a large force with abilities to appear and dissapear anywhere would be exstremely handy.


I also don't know what you mean by observing "supply lines." If you mean do I think we watch the Chinese, then yes. I think we probably have spies in China, as they do here. I think we also have satellites and probably even spy planes monitering China constantly.

Spies in china will be difficult due to thier paranio styke security forces.
Satalites are useable but require luck or time, the military is in short supply of the two.
Spy planes , yes but remember that china is a large country.




Mines existed back in WW2. They were planted heavily at Normandy.

Yeah one reason for high casualties.


That's not likely to stop an invasion.

No but hold it up. Time is everything , you need to be quick and surgical. Brunt force will get it done but at a very high and unacceptable cost.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Not really, a large force with abilities to appear and dissapear anywhere would be exstremely handy


A larger force means you need larger tunnels, not to mention equipment. You'd need an extremely large tunnel network, and it would have to be spread out accross the Chinese Coast. Not likely to happen.

Not to mention this wouldn't help with fixed foritifications. Anything the Chinese tried to set up would be destroyed. I don't think its possible to set up a real defense so quickly before an invasion.

China also has a massive coast to protect.


Spies in china will be difficult due to thier paranio styke security forces.
Satalites are useable but require luck or time, the military is in short supply of the two.
Spy planes , yes but remember that china is a large country.


America basically has almost constant coverage over an area.

I'm not saying we know everything, but know a lot.


Yeah one reason for high casualties.


There was a countermeasure for mines then, and there's probably something now:


The hidden mines were impossible to spot and avoid, so Percy Hobart designed a tank that would safely blow them up. The front of his Sherman "flail" tank, also known as the "Crab," was outfitted with a 10-foot long spinning cylinder to which 3-foot-long heavy chains were attached; the ends of the chains had fist-sized steel balls. As the tank creeped forward, the chains were whipped around and slammed into the ground at a depth of several inches, detonating the buried mines.


Source - www.pbs.org...


No but hold it up. Time is everything , you need to be quick and surgical. Brunt force will get it done but at a very high and unacceptable cost.


Brute force CAN get it done, yes.

I'm not saying the Chinese couldn't win. It would certainly not be easy for America. It's just nowhere near as impossible as people on here believe.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
A larger force means you need larger tunnels, not to mention equipment. You'd need an extremely large tunnel network, and it would have to be spread out accross the Chinese Coast. Not likely to happen.

Not likely?
When war is near you do what is needed no matter how unlikely it seemed before hand.
A large force does not need to hide in the tunnels , they can spread out but only require an entrance.


Not to mention this wouldn't help with fixed foritifications. Anything the Chinese tried to set up would be destroyed. I don't think its possible to set up a real defense so quickly before an invasion.

Why need fixed defenses when you can outmanovour and enemy and spring up everywhere.
The enemy cannot relax or take a break if they dont know where you are.
China also has a massive coast to protect.



America basically has almost constant coverage over an area.

I'm not saying we know everything, but know a lot.

It takes hours to get a stalite into position, takes time to get a jet across the pacific an takes hours for spies to get and deliver reports.



There was a countermeasure for mines then, and there's probably something now:

Yeah a minesweeper, as i checked in the US navy there are none in service.


The hidden mines were impossible to spot and avoid, so Percy Hobart designed a tank that would safely blow them up. The front of his Sherman "flail" tank, also known as the "Crab," was outfitted with a 10-foot long spinning cylinder to which 3-foot-long heavy chains were attached; the ends of the chains had fist-sized steel balls. As the tank creeped forward, the chains were whipped around and slammed into the ground at a depth of several inches, detonating the buried mines.


He he i know that tale , want to know the thing about it?
Only the british used it, thats right americans didnt.
The americans during WW2 said they didnt need a "useless quentesentiol british toy" and many of thier vehicles where downed by mines.
Source - www.pbs.org...



Brute force CAN get it done, yes.

I'm not saying the Chinese couldn't win. It would certainly not be easy for America. It's just nowhere near as impossible as people on here believe.

So you think you could keep an attack force fully supplied and make it easily break into china??
Doubt it severly.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Squid

Originally posted by chensta
world war 4 already? what happened to world war 3?


Dont ask me why but the Cold War was counted as World War III, so therefore the next big war would be counted as World War IV.



what? No it wasn't, your an idiot.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   
is he real china doesnt have taht much more in its army than america sorry to point this out but its has 2 million its the peoples liberation armyand god knows how amny in its own army



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join