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: 40
1
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
yes proteinx... that's why they have so-called anti-dumping laws


you should know all about that



As long as the multinational super giant companies or business run United States, there is no hope for the land called America in next 20 years.

Levono bought IBM PC (in fact, the the IBM VP become the president of Levono)
TCL bought RCA (in fact, the RCA top management merged with TCL top management team)
MCdonald need to open another 3000 stores/year in China to compete with others.
Pepsi beat Coke badly in 2004 because their over all market doubled in China than Coke.
.....many many many. Just read the lastest Business week talking about why NBA star Yao is that important for almost every large company in USA. And now you think they really will use the so called anti-dump law? Do you know USA government finally agree they won't protect domestic fabricate industry anymore by any means. Why? they exchange the benifit with Chinese government. They both always are the winner.

And the same time, Do you know HP, Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco ....are moving R&D to China (some are their largest R&D such as Cisco, some are second largest such as Oracle) quitely and steadly. And, I attended the biggest international annually academic conference in Biology and Chemistry last year, I am telling you guys half of the thousands scientists are Chinese (in USA or other countries)

Normal Chinese family can put 90% of their saving to let their kids go to the best Universities. And there are 300,000,000 such families. They doont care a # about the communism or capitalism, Jesus or Satan, GWB or Bin Laden. They are just working hard, making money, earning the knowledge and the future.

And, our normal American friends (southern, especially) would try their best to make their kids to believe it is Jesus command GWB to save the world. And smart American were laughed at "you unpatriotic uban liberals", "God will damn you!"
The funniest part is "Stem cell research is making babies and than destroy them!", I am really laughing do death, why? cause these dumps donot even understand what is science at all and they are really making dump decisions for USA national policy now.

Last, did you guys notice that normal foods and groceries in Wal-Mart increased price about 10% or even more ( such as tollet paper, milk, juice, glasses...). And American wages stay the same. Do you know what kind of "job market" get better and better as GWB claimed? Constructor, labor worker, grocery cashier, 5 dollars/hour job. Your payment stay same or even become lower, your healthcare cost soar, you education system is crashing. Your dollar will become tollet paper.

That is right. Cause multinational businessman can always get huge profit, and keep doing propaganda inside America and let people such as one guy in this thread still believe everything is just super and great! (and he claim himself is from New York ?and he also claim even Fox news are too liberal----------THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I EVEN HEARD :lol


Now, you can see the future. Learn some Chinese, save yourself.







[edit on 5-1-2005 by proteinx]

[edit on 5-1-2005 by proteinx]




posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Anti-dumping laws are filed with the WTO... they are not ordered on an individual basis.

China has filed complaints that western companies are doing exactly the same thing in China... only because China is still not recognised as a full market economy it does not recieve the same protection as western economies.

If anything China has it worse for now



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Hi I m chinese living in Canada

First thanks, I'm surprised by the maturity in this forum, not too many racist or childish comments...yet.

Here is my opinion on this topic:

US has distinct technological advantages over China, we all agree to that. But space warfare?
Most of that is not operational in live combat.

If US would ever invade China ( US would not risk such a move, casualty numbers would be catastrophic for the average American concept of war), China would be at severe disadvantage in air and sea.

Land? Air advantage = land advantage, whatever you use at land can be destroyed via air.

China has no allies that would actually involve physically in the combat. Countries such as Russia would probably silently send over arms and such because if US does conqueror China, Russia is being threatened.

US allies cannot be underestimated, Britain and France, blah blah and blah, are major parts in the invasion of China. But due to China's unique geographical location there would be difficulties in actually having troops on land. Sure there are missiles but they have their extents.

No offense to Americans out there, US lives under its ego, all these years of being a superpower has made US extremely arrogant which is annoying most of the countries including its allies. In fact I think (only an assumption) economical ties are reasons US has allies, also military superiority may persuade countries into helping the US.

US invade China? Not likely. If it does happen results are unpredictable, China is not as a weak country as you may think for those who post comments relating to that.

This is what I think.

Curious how old are the people here?



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by m_x_z


Curious how old are the people here?


The age's very some people are young like me I'm only 15 and some of the people are in their 20's 30's and 40's and above. Just for the heck of it what do think of my scenerio's?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
I'm 21 years of old age


my views on China are purely from an interest point of view, having no chinese connections of my own.

I'm actually half english half american but currently reside in the UK.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
China and Russia are on very good terms, currently undergoing joint military manuevers addressing many of the scenerios pertaining to guarding each others backsides. A China Russian alliance would serve both countries interests. Russia would never turn its back on China trade, nor would most of Europe. The US no longer dictates to non-british europe, which certainly wants no trouble with China or Russia. It seems the US is on the brink of finding themselves alone, when it comes to flexing its military muscle. The only outcome of a war with China would be nukes flying in every direction and the Christians left standing, hoping, [for their own redemption,] to redefine the word hypocracy.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Series of questions on this nightmare scenario:

1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?
2. Are America's technological and firepower advantages helpful in the long run against 1 billion people?
3. How effective would U.S. airpower be?
4. Is it safe to say every Chinese citizen would fight?
5. Can the U.S. hold up against a modern military supported by guerrilla warfare?
6. Any other thoughts?

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.

In the end, I think it's a lose-lose situation for the U.S.

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




Greetings, sweatmonicaIdo:

Well, I must first start off saying that my job deals with these type of world issues and we deal with futuristic estimates of what may happen in the future, but I must start off saying that I disagree with your statement that at the end of the war, it's a lose-lose situation for the United States. That is false.
Firstly, the United States would not be so much upfront on placing troops on the Chinese territory. In this case, this is a war for the bombs, not the soldiers. Youa re talking about Nuclear missiles and cruise missiles in a war like this. As you know that China has the largest population in the world and we as a nation will not risk the lives of soldiers fighting the Chinese. We will be doing more bombing and nuclear missiles than any other tactic we have.
Secondly, the United States has the best military technology and equipment than any other nation on this Earth. Our weaponry which has been tested will work and will be used on a country like this. And, this will be a time where the top secret equipment will be used! Once again, in this case you will be most likely seeing more missile strikes and top secret weaponry than any other force available. We do not plan to risk losing a large number of troops due to China's population. We will be using missiles!
Thirdly, I would not agree with one who says that EVERY Chinese citizen would fight. The United States will find citizens who are willing to give information and cooperate with the United States. Not only that, there will be several more Chinese citizens who will not risk their life being anti-American and fight for their country. There's always a batch who will cooperate, and there's always a batch who does not. But for the most part, there will be several who will be against us and those are the ones we'd have to be aware of and take action.
The United States needs no miracle or luck to defeat a country like that. To put it as bluntly as possible, knowing how large the Chinese army is, an easy target is a military area or where troops are located. All we do is drop a bomb on one area of where the troops are located and they will all be completely whiped out. All we do is drop the bomb over top of them and they are done! America has that capability, and that is one tactic that may be used if necessary. Another thing is that if I'm not mistaken, China really does not have that much of a Navy. Therefore, to be a Super-Superpower, you need Army, Navy, and an Airforce. The United States has all three and will definetly use SLBM's on submarines as another tactic to destroy. There are so many tactics that can be done and used, but you need to plan and prepare.
Also, in the even of war, the Chinese need a way in getting over to the United States if they had planned to attack the U.S. If they were to travel by sea, we would see them and will not hesitate to blow them out of the water. If they travel by air, we will certainly not heistate to blow them out of the sky. So, before the fighting starts, they have got to worry about what they will run into before stepping onto the U.S. territory.
Lastly, as you are aware, the United States has something called, 'allies' which are nations who support the American government in military, strategic, and other alliances. Therefore, in a conflict like this, the allies or the United Nations will step in and all work together in defeating China in this case.
You have an interesting topic, but you have to be aware of all what the United States is capable of doing before making such of an opinion like that. There will be no question that the United States will end up winning a war like this. It will certainly be deadly on both ends and each side will lose the lives of people, but this is war. And every war, a life is lost! But the key to war is winning, and that's what the United States will plan to do as it has always done in the past!



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Firstly define "win"

Secondly, US has limited number of missiles and bombs which against a country of such landmass may not be as effective as you think, China is not back in the stone age they do have some defense against an attack like this.

Lastly, Chinese invented the guerilla warfare as far back as 1500 B.C. and has been very good at keeping barbarians out, if it breaks out a land war, US has zero chance of winning.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Could the US win in an occupation?
Also the US fleet would be sunk.
He he your only 2 options are air and land.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Well, I guess you've never won in your life if you don't know what it means! Winning is the opposite of losing! In a war situation, acquire or secure as a result of a fight or contest. That's what winning is.

Now, the United States in the 1960's had enough nuclear missiles to destroy the world ten times over, and the Soviet Union had enough to destroy the world two times over. Now that the Soviet Union is most likely out of our way of threat, what do you think it is now? It's definetly higher! If it can do that, then it's 99.9% capable of blowing China off the map. China has a limit as well. And we can defend ourselves also. We have ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles. All of your superpowers have that capability. But there is something called a wave of nuclear weapons that will strike the territory. Not all of them they will intercept, but many will land!

You are still on that subject of them guerillas. I already told you that the United States would more likely do more bombing and using missiles than troops. In a case like this you are talking about air power and missile power and possibly naval power. No, there is no way in the hell that our fleet will get whiped out because the Chinese rarely have a navy. They have one, but they are no as sophisticated as our naval power is. So our advantages is airpower, nuclear weapons, and naval power of launching weapons. Moat likely it narrows down to MISSILES! We would not be stupid to place troops on the Chinese territory and start a fight. It's not feasible. And it's a risk we will not take! In a war with such a large population, we are using missiles!!!!

Run out of nuclear weapons? By that time, 4/5 of the population would have been whiped out already. Do you realize how many nuclear weapons the United States has? Obviously you don't. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world. And we can certainly continue building more if we need to. But in this case, we would use the weapons that do the most destruction so that we do not have to use so many nuclear weapons. You also have to look at the standpoint of radiation and how it spreads. The spreading of radiation can kill another percentage of people as the aftermath of the explosion! And the Chinese will eventually cease fire just as the Japanese has done, because the more they fight, the more they lose their power to fight. The tactic of America would be to hit them where it hurts the most and where they cannot retaliate, just as we have done with Japan. And since then, technology has gotten much more sophisticated and deadly!

Once again, there is no way China will win a war against the United States. Now I want to hear your reason why the United States will lose. Many poeple make assumtions that America has less nuclear weapons than China or Russia, what proof do you have that we do or don't? From the standpoint of what our military and government says, we have enough to destroy the world, you take what they say! Because they know and they are the ones who will be manning it during a crisis like that.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
1. Can the U.S. invade China in the first place?

Yes, but not in a conventional sense. It would require nuclear strikes or worse and then the continued threat of further nuclear strikes or worse to intimidate resistance. A conventional invasion with intent to occupy is impossible. To start with, where does one base it?

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

Given nuclear weapons, etc, then obviously yes, but how many people is a politician willing to slaughter? Is such a slaughter a poltically sustainable decision?

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

Effective in destroying Chinese conventional forces. Overstretched after that.

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

No, many would just try to stay alive. The present Chinese governement would never actually put arms into the hands of a large part of its population. But they would be mobilized in other ways. Nonetheless, there would be a huge, almost endless pool of people willing to fight loyally.

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

In attempting to occupy and hang on to a significant part of China? Dream on... unless you start using mass slaughter.

6. Any other thoughts?

China does not want a direct confrontation with the U.S. You can take that to the bank. They will maneuver in an attempt to weaken the US and who can blame them for that. (90%+ of the world would like to do that and with good reason)

Also stated was;
"In the end, I think it's a lose-lose situation for the U.S."

That is for sure unless one is a murderously insane.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
If Tactical Missiles are NOT used, then America will loose, if they attack China; North Korea will help China, and Same goes with America attacking North Korea... America's Standard Issue weaponary is NOT fit for use in jungles, etc etc... America also does NOT have the numbers to fight both China's army and North Korea's, let alone China's, and since their Standard issue isn't practical for the terrain... It's just not going to happen. Air Forces and Navy cannot claim a victory in a land battle, only Soldiers can; But of course Nuclear Weapons change all of this, if you nuke the hell out of China though, Russia and Neighbooring countries wont be happy! If those countries arn't happy, their allies wont be either!! I also imagine AMERICA'S allies wont be too pleased either!! America just wont do it, it would be FAR to stupid for them to even consider.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
well, i havnt posted in these forums in a lonig time, so i 4get if i posted in this particular thread,

but i will like to say that, no matter how the war starts, it would end in a nuclear exchange which would destroy both usa and china, and also, china may have a 2million+ army, but dont think if the usa was going to invade it, it would just go in with its small 500,000.

thered be the largest draft ever in american history..id say atleast 4 million in active duty...which would strain our economy,

but im sure plans for something like this are around. plus, to occupy a landmass like china...or even usa..is impossible without like 10 million men, even then i dont think you could. anyway, it prolly will neve rhappen...



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by imAMERICAN

but im sure plans for something like this are around. plus, to occupy a landmass like china...or even usa..is impossible without like 10 million men, even then i dont think you could. anyway, it prolly will neve rhappen...



China has 1.3 billion, if you use 10 million, you are saying one soilder control 100 Chinese. Let say, there are 10 guns in every 100 Chinese. I donot think you can handle it :-)

By the way, Shanghai alone has 16 Million people.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteinx

Originally posted by imAMERICAN

but im sure plans for something like this are around. plus, to occupy a landmass like china...or even usa..is impossible without like 10 million men, even then i dont think you could. anyway, it prolly will neve rhappen...



China has 1.3 billion, if you use 10 million, you are saying one soilder control 100 Chinese. Let say, there are 10 guns in every 100 Chinese. I donot think you can handle it :-)

By the way, Shanghai alone has 16 Million people.




exactly my point...i used 10million sarcastically..i guess i shoulda used a bigger number..but either way..i dont think the U.S would even go it alone-it would have to be a huge arse reason to invade China and if it were so, id bet my left nut (well maybe my right one.. heheh) that other countries would support the U.S. i mean, assuming (and thats a big arse assumption) no ICBM's are launched from China back at us... it would prob start and take a long amount of bombing to level the infrastructure and kill as many of the 1.3 billion (or how ever many) as we could before ground forces ever even got near the coast...


id predict: A Massive MASSIVE naval campaign to dominate the surrounding seas for carriers. a massive Air Campaign (that would never end until the entire war was over) for air superioritiy and constant bombing-im willing to go out on a limb and say because of the amount of bombing-we'd stick to basic gravity bombs for day to day bombing runs which are most likely cheaper to produce- which ontop of the GPS and fancy bombs, would keep the Chinese on their toes and their heads down..until we finally move ground forces in. and one more note id like to add-i dont think we'd Fock around with guerrila fighting-if a area is to populated with guerilla fighters-we'd level it completely...... (sorry for spelling errors and long post)


Also-id almost guarentee nuclear weapons would be used in a war like this-especially by China-becuase ICBM's are the only way they can project damage onto the continental U.S--whereas the only U.S nuclear weapons used would most likely be from a B-2, where China wouldnt be able to detect (especially since its radar stations are damaged severly from the airraids) the nuke coming unlike the ICBM's which it could retaliate against quickly



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Man c'mon guys, this thread is pointless; invading China???

THE UNITED STATES DID NOT WANT TO INVADE JAPAN AT THE END OF WWII BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE LOSS OF LIFE THAT WOULD OCCUR.

WTF do you think we'd lose in trying to invade China??

It would be more or less invading what was left of China after we bombed the hell out of it, as it would be crazy to invade it the traditional way. And there'd be no sense to bomb China unless they decided to try invading someone else first.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Regarding ICBM. It is really funny about one thing:

Did you guys check the so called CIA annual report about China national defense.

I heard from some reports on the website that: For 20 years, their report always tell exact same number of ICBM that China has: about 10 or 20.

Now let's say the report is true, so they are telling Chinese in 20 years, man, in 20 years still only have same capability, even after Chinese economy is 10 times bigger and going to send another spaceship this year? and Chinese still can only maintain 20 ICBM? That is insane!!!!

Okay, now let's say that report is false, is there any congrassman doubt that number? It is strange, cause no one publically doubt that number! Now you see, the government is trying to cheat, either is trying to make sure nobody will get scared so they still can fool around, or is trying to make themselves feel better.

Soviet Union developed thousands ICBM in 1960s and China still only have 20 ICBMs..........that report alone can reflect some psychological problem of Washington.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
i dont think well invade china, i mean dont we have some of the best trade with them asians? if theres anyone well go to war with i think itll probably be korea. since they never abide by wmd laws. agreements.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
"Could the US win in an occupation?
Also the US fleet would be sunk.
He he your only 2 options are air and land."

Some of you guys crack me up! You let your heart get in the way of your head. To many Anti-America post on here! I'm not claiming to be an expert on the US Navy, but I do know a couple of Navy officers of various classes of ships as I have been very interested in the Navy for some time. If you don't think the US already has contigency plans should this happen you are fooling yourself. Secondly the idea of the US fleet being "sunk" is hilarious as it is out there. I know thats what you would probably like to see but it isn't even close to reality. I know you like to tell your stories of British frigates sinking an entire fleet and what not but to be honest should a real combat situation ever come up anything that gets within hundreds of miles of a carrier or its fleet will be sunk! I don't care if its a speed boat pulling a skier, should it get too close in war time they would blow it out of the water.

A carrier fleet in war time would consist of at least Two (2) submarines screening the fleet and probably a third to rove freely around the group.
At least One (1) possibly Two (2) guided missile cruisers, (2) destroyers, (2) or more frigates and various supply ships. These ships would be spread out in a wide ranging arc and anything near would be killed. Please, no storys about some special missiles the Chinese are hiding to unleash on us. If this was true they would just say it. Its amazing how other countries talk about all of the "super secret" stuff they have but America can prove they have it.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Hey Subcane;
I agree with you that a lot of the guys around here are good for a laugh.

But I am not sure what you are trying to say. A US Carrier group involved in a campaign against China would not be in the ideal wide open mid Pacific environment you are painting. In order to engage China, they have to get closer. If they get closer then the prospect of SU-30s (or any aircraft with the capability) lobbing Moskits and Yakhonts at them becomes very real. And who knows what else they might try. If that was happening and I was on board those ships, I would soon trade in my macho demeanour for a cold-hearted expectation of a tough fight that could see me killed or swimming.

No way that I see China "winning" such a war, nuclear or not. They don't want it AT ALL!
The US will have to start it. If they do, they had better go to the nuke option because a conventional campaign will be seriously expensive in lives, equipment and money.
But as proteinx suggests, do you really know how many ICBMs they have?







 
1
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join