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: 50
1
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   

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?


1. Yes they could to what purpose I don't know, but it's possible. Remeber Normandy? Think worse, much much worse at best 60% of initial U.S. naval assets would be destroyed trying to support the invasion and hold the foothold. Think about all those ships relativly static and close to shore where Chinese anti-ship aircraft can attack them at will. Gaining air supiriority without putting the Navy in an untenable position can't be done, if China's in range of Navy aircraft then the Navy is well within range of China's counter-attack ability. Any meaningful invasion that didn't consitute sending lambs to the slaughter would require close land basing that has either many major ports or one well out of air strike range, this means getting Japan onboard. To get Japan onboard would take a lot of convincing considering that it would take the brunt of the collatorral damage and could be targeted by tactical and strategic nukes.
2. Yes, having better technology and firepower will help it and the 1 Billion people that China has would only really effect production values as the war would be long over before U.S.A.'s own large populous would start to run thin. Man-power shortages currently are more a product of the many drains on man-power with none of them meriting conscription. What 1 billion people will help china with will be arming a higher propoertion of their forces with the newest tech, because they can produce that much more that much faster. In short they'll be able to match their advanced fighters 1 for 1 vs. the F-22 and still have some to take on the F-15s. Their advanced fighter will probably not be as good as the F-22, though depending on Russian support that may change before the end of the war.
3. U.S. airpower would have greatly reduced effectiveness due to being unable to strike deep into Chinese territory without exposing themselves to unacceptable interception risk. Even then any meaningful contribution depends on land basing being available in large quantities, one base won't do it we're talking about a dozen or so to avoid having all their air force vulnerable to a Pearl Harbour style attack.
4. No they wouldn't, but they would all work and that's all that's really needed, having the 1 billion just means that the loss of people for the army has a much smaller effect.
5. I don't think that it would get to that, any landing force would be hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned(remeber hauling the big guns around takes more work so they will be more lightly equipped) At the very least they would have to be able to land multiple divisions on the first day and I don't think the U.S. has the amphibious capacity for that.
As for Russia taking sides, there is a slim chance that they could be persuaded to join the U.S. cause, that chance is Manchuria. Russia and China have long been at odds over that bit of land, before communism came they fought over that. In fact Russia just before the end of WWII invaded the area despite it being completly unnessesary in the hopes of gaining territorrial concessions there, however perceived American nuclear capability deterred that and they played nice. What if they called our bluff(I don't think we had a nuke ready at the time). Anyways China and Russia have continued to grumble at each other over the area, things only improved when Russia found itself needing Chinese money after the collapse. With Russia on side it's definitly a win as provided with some American money they could very quickly prepare an effective invasion force. It would also allow land basing near the front and Russian anti-missile tech(the best out there) could be enough to encourage others to join. Finnally this would pull Chinese forces away from their coastline allowing U.S. forces to invade without facing the entirety of the Chinese army. With the extra amphibious capability of Russia they would probably be able to get enough people on the ground in the first day to keep the foothold.




posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Once again i have to give my highest respect to the Chinese. They have made some great strides, and gains on the US. However, i have to also stress once again that just as the US should not underestimate china,.....It goes both ways.......The Chinese should not underestimate the US.

As far as a Chinese invasion on the US is concered. That would be a complete mistake by China. They have a 2.5 million man army (largest in the world)......however they would be slaughtered. Japan itself, who is tightly bonded with the US, would cause severe damage on the Chinese fleet before it even got half way across the pacific. Then the US with the worlds largest 12 naval fleets would be waiting. A land invasion would leave them as sitting ducks, as the west coast would have an unimaginable, hight tech, firepower that would devistate an invading fleet. Have any of you been to the Oregon/Washington Coast?....Its very rough, rocky and cliff like. The kill ratio to an invading enemy would be enourmous.

No.....China is smarter than that. They would fair much better off bringing the US to them, or using their 2.5 million man army in surgical strikes. Invading the US on their homeland is like trying to break into a bank vault with a rubber hammer. I don't think anyone can fathum in their mind the difficulty of this task.

Anyway, once again China is a rising power and they should not be underestimated, however the United States is still striding, and has built up a defense that will last far into the future. Their is alot of Underestimating going on of the US also. Some think they will simply fall off the face of the earth militarily and economically. Grave mistake in judgment there.....The US is a lot more intact than some think. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread, words don't prove anything but action does. Well, this goes both ways. I seriously doubt a major war will ever happen.....I love China and the US, so i hope this never happens.

Carburetor

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Mr Carburetor]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
While all the talk of US vs China is interesting, (and most of you are not going to agree with me) I really think its pointless. Here is why I think so.

In 1900, what where the top nations in the world in terms of economic strength, Military power, etc: US, Europe, Russia. Fast forward to 2005, what are the top nations in the world: US, Europe, Russia (sort of), the only difference is Japan is now one of the top. If China has come not come power in the past 100 years, there is no reason to think it will in the next few. What you all have to realize is that all the emerging China we here about is only a very small percentage of the Chinese population (maybe 20%) the majority of Chinese are more concerened with getting a full stomach at night as opposed to become a world power

Here is an analgy. Put one crab in an open crate, it will crawl out. Put two crabs in a crate, they both crawl out. Yet fisherman carry crabs in OPEN crates, and NONE crawl out. Why? because in an open crate full of crabs, the ones on the bottom will claw and grab the ones on top when the try and get out. China is no different, the ones on the bottom will always prevent the ones on top from emerging as a world power.

While the region will be more influential in the coming, and its foolish to underestimate China. I work with a lot of Chinese and they are some of the most deticated hard working people I know. While I could be wrong, I doubt China will ever seriously threaten the US.
[edit on 3-3-2005 by KyleChemist]

[edit on 3-3-2005 by KyleChemist]

[edit on 3-3-2005 by KyleChemist]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
China's already a world power, just as Brazil and India soon will be.

And in the 1900's Japan was also a World Power, look at what Japan did to the Russian Navy, it is why once World War 2 Started, Japan was such a strong power. Enoguh to take China, etc.

You need to check your histoic facts, before saying Japan only just became a power. jbe.la.psu.edu... - that might help.

(Although it's not overly known how powerful Japan was back then, I just know because it's one of the areas I did a history paper on. (Asia, between 1800 to 1939.))

en.wikipedia.org... "The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) was a conflict that grew out of the rival imperialist ambitions of Imperial Russia and Japan in Manchuria and Korea. It resulted in a surprise victory for Japan, establishing Japan as a major world power."

[edit on 3-3-2005 by Odium]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
You kind of missed my point (I'm a Ph.d chemist, so you are right my history is more than a little rusty)

the top 25% (just a guess, but that number is probably high) of China is a growing power or even a world power, but the rest is is just trying to get by. While China's influence is certainly growing, I don't think they will be a superpower (again I may be wrong).

It all goes back to the crab analgy, if only the top are growing in influence, sooner or later, the bottom will drag them back down. India and Brazil are in the same situation. Granted we have a situation like that in the US, but not to the extreme as it is in other countries.

I'm basing this on personal accounts from co-workers of mine from China. Again, they are some of the most hard working industrous people I know. But until China can better feed itself, I think it will reach its limits soon.

There is an excellent frontline documentary called the "The Two Chinas" about the changes going on in China. One out of eight people in the world is a Chinese farmer.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by KyleChemist]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyleChemist
You kind of missed my point (I'm a Ph.d chemist, so you are right my history is more than a little rusty)
no problem, we all have our weak points and strong points.


Originally posted by KyleChemistthe top 25% (just a guess, but that number is probably high) of China is a growing power or even a world power, but the rest is is just trying to get by. While China's influence is certainly growing, I don't think they will be a superpower (again I may be wrong).


China actually has the second largest GNP (purchasing power parity) en.wikipedia.org... and 6th largest over all en.wikipedia.org...

So, it's actually an economic Superpower but unlike America it's reforming its Nation instead of f'n up the Middle East. (My view.)


Originally posted by KyleChemistIt all goes back to the crab analgy, if only the top are growing in influence, sooner or later, the bottom will drag them back down. India and Brazil are in the same situation. Granted we have a situation like that in the US, but not to the extreme as it is in other countries.


As for Brazil, India, etc, once they sort out their internal conflicts they'll be a SuperPower, where they're already invited to G8 meetings - soon they'll also be members, as they're almost out of debt.


Originally posted by KyleChemistI'm basing this on personal accounts from co-workers of mine from China. Again, they are some of the most hard working industrous people I know. But until China can better feed itself, I think it will reach its limits soon.


As for them being able to feed themselves, they actually could but they export far to much at the moment - give it 5 years or so and that problem will be sorted out after all, they have the land and farmers to feed most of the world.


Originally posted by KyleChemistThere is an excellent frontline documentary called the "The Two Chinas" about the changes going on in China. One out of eight people in the world is a Chinese farmer.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by KyleChemist]


My main point is, China is a Superpower but 'not' to the scale of America or the E.U. yet. Give it time to reform its Country and push in a lot of reforms, for example; they'll soon be able to own their own property instead of it al being government owned, but until these laws are in place they won't be a leading superpower - so 10/20 years minimum. But it all depends on their relationship with

A) Russia,
B) Taiwan,
C) Japan and
D) India. Any large conflict with these Nations would cause a lot of problems for China, moving away from internal reforms to pushing through its Military - after all, it only spends a small margin of its money on Military. 40billion(?).

But soon, this will all change and I personally see china coming fourth as a large power to the point one day (Our life time.) it'll be China, America, Russia, E.U. Japan, India and Brazil - in no order of power.

The Two Chinas was also an economic book, would it be the same one?

In reference to post 1226146 (Amur Tiger) take a look at page 48 and read over my post, if you don't mind and pass comment on that. You seem to befairly level headed on the posts.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by Odium]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
You know, this site made it on the news, I wonder if the U.S. gov't itself reads this "U.S. vs. China" thread to see if any ideas they haven't thought of pop up.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
After reading some peoples views, I hope not. You'll have Bush thinking he can take over the world, with his 'might America'. =)



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

no problem, we all have our weak points and strong points.


Thanks for understanding, if you are ever interested in the chemistry of single walled carbon nanotubes for organic vapour detection, I'm your man



China actually has the second largest GNP (purchasing power parity) en.wikipedia.org... and 6th largest over all en.wikipedia.org...

So, it's actually an economic Superpower but unlike America it's reforming its Nation instead of f'n up the Middle East. (My view.)


No arguments China ia a growing power (not sure I would call it a super power just yet) But again, most of the GNP lies at the very top of the society, granted we have that here in the US, but not to the extreme as it is in China


As for Brazil, India, etc, once they sort out their internal conflicts they'll be a SuperPower, where they're already invited to G8 meetings - soon they'll also be members, as they're almost out of debt
.

Brazil and India are in the same boat as China, growth at the top but leaving the masses behind.


As for them being able to feed themselves, they actually could but they export far to much at the moment - give it 5 years or so and that problem will be sorted out after all, they have the land and farmers to feed most of the world.


Unfortunantly I can't back this up with any stats, but based on conversations with my Chinese co-workers (whom I respect tremendously BTW) for A LOT of Chinese a full stomach is hard to come by.


My main point is, China is a Superpower but 'not' to the scale of America or the E.U. yet. Give it time to reform its Country and push in a lot of reforms, for example; they'll soon be able to own their own property instead of it al being government owned, but until these laws are in place they won't be a leading superpower - so 10/20 years minimum. But it all depends on their relationship with

But soon, this will all change and I personally see china coming fourth as a large power to the point one day (Our life time.) it'll be China, America, Russia, E.U. Japan, India and Brazil - in no order of power.



Again, no debate China, India, and Brazil are growing powers, but I'm reluctant to call them 'superpowers' just yet, and while I may be wrong (I can't predict the future) I'm skeptical they will be a power to rival the US or EU, here is why. One essential characteristic of superpower (ie US, EU) is a 'middle class' that will support democracy and is essentially the strength of the nation. Right now China and other nations still pretty much have two classes the "haves" at the top and the "have-nots" (oversimplifies things, but that is essentially the way it is) at the bottom. No emrging nation can exist like this for very long. Think of the former Soviet Union (I know a HUGE oversimplification), but the "have-nots" finally had enough, and brought the leaders at top down (sorry to bring it up AGAIN, but it all goes back to the crab analgy).


Until the emergence of a 'middle-class', I think they will grow tremendously, and then reach their limits. I know China is experimenting with reforms to bring about a 'middle-class', but from what I know (again I can't back this up with any stats, based on personal conversations with Chinese) they have been only moderatly succesfull at best. In a nation such as China, change is very had to come buy.

But again, you may be right. If China CAN bring about more personal freedoms to its citizens and institue changes, it will be a world power to rival the US very soon.



The Two Chinas was also an economic book, would it be the same one?


Not sure about the book, but the documentary discusses the difference between the two emerging classes in China ie the "haves" and the "have-nots"


In reference to post 1226146 (Amur Tiger) take a look at page 48 and read over my post, if you don't mind and pass comment on that. You seem to befairly level headed on the posts
.

I'll read your post when I have time (need to get back to work!!) You seem level headed as well. I enjoy debating with you.

But anyway, I think the whole US vs China (militarily) is pointless. The Chinese are NOT stupid. Any war between the US and China would be so costly, BOTH SIDES would lose, period. Both nations are far too intelligent to let that happen.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
It would end up like the 'Forgotton War' (Korea), PVA: 390,000 casualties with the U.N. Suffering: 1,093,839, in which 397,543 were Americans, 667293 were ROKs, and 29,003 were others.

They'd not be foolish enough to try another land invasion, remember during this war China had, No NAVY, AIR FORCE, ARTILLARY, TANKS, etc. It had a limited amount of guns and ammunition (only what they could steal or Japan had left after WW2.) and yet still beat the U.N's Forces back.

Edit to add link: www.centurychina.com...

[edit on 4-3-2005 by Odium]

That's my point with the food, at the moment China's exporting a lot of food instead of feeding its own people. But I think this'll change soon, as for the 'over simplification' it is justified, it's how china's working at the present moment.

As for the reason to why I think they'll rival the U.S. or the E.U. is because the U.S. I see slipping, at the moment with its present economy, national debt and amount it spends I see another 'depression', hitting them. Not as hard as the 1930's, but still bad enough.

And as for China's reforms, it's hard to get a 'baby' country to have equal rights, etc, etc. After all, China was formed in the late 1940's and early 1950's and was at war within a year of being formed. (Korea.) They're still a young Nation, and it took America 200years to get anywhere near where China had in 50. Remember early 1900's and late 1800's, America was a lot different. So, I think it'll change but needs a few years.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by Odium]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
It would end up like the 'Forgotton War' (Korea), PVA: 390,000 casualties with the U.N. Suffering: 1,093,839, in which 397,543 were Americans, 667293 were ROKs, and 29,003 were others.

They'd not be foolish enough to try another land invasion, remember during this war China had, No NAVY, AIR FORCE, ARTILLARY, TANKS, etc. It had a limited amount of guns and ammunition (only what they could steal or Japan had left after WW2.) and yet still beat the U.N's Forces back.

Where did you get those numbers? en.wikipedia.org... says that 54,000 were US casualties and 1,5 million Korean and Chinese.
Even this (probably unreliable) site www.centurychina.com... says that China suffered twice casualties as USA.

Edit: Ok, I see you added source, but casualty ratio was always in favor of US forces by a major ratio. Especially in Vietnam war. US is in good position because it can always outspend and out-bomb its enemies.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by Megaquad]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Megaquad

Originally posted by Odium
It would end up like the 'Forgotton War' (Korea), PVA: 390,000 casualties with the U.N. Suffering: 1,093,839, in which 397,543 were Americans, 667293 were ROKs, and 29,003 were others.

They'd not be foolish enough to try another land invasion, remember during this war China had, No NAVY, AIR FORCE, ARTILLARY, TANKS, etc. It had a limited amount of guns and ammunition (only what they could steal or Japan had left after WW2.) and yet still beat the U.N's Forces back.

Where did you get those numbers? en.wikipedia.org... says that 54,000 were US casualties and 1,5 million Korean and Chinese.
Even this (probably unreliable) site www.centurychina.com... says that China suffered twice casualties as USA.


My history teacher, actually verified the: www.centurychina.com... as being fairly accurate and the Korean War and Vietnam/Asian Conflicts after 1940 are her main area of teaching. (I went over the statistics with her Friday Morning, as I had a class with her before I used them on this site.)

Also my statistics take into account the fighting that happened during the Peace Process, as a Cease Fire was never signed. A lot of historians stop the record at July the 1st 1951, when in fact it lasted years longer. ( July 1953 and even then a few smaller attacks occured.)

[edit on 4-3-2005 by Odium]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
My history teacher, actually verified the: www.centurychina.com... as being fairly accurate and the Korean War and Vietnam/Asian Conflicts after 1940 are her main area of teaching. (I went over the statistics with her Friday Morning, as I had a class with her before I used them on this site.)

Also my statistics take into account the fighting that happened during the Peace Process, as a Cease Fire was never signed. A lot of historians stop the record at July the 1st 1951, when in fact it lasted years longer. ( July 1953 and even then a few smaller attacks occured.)

www.koreanwar.com... - US: 54,246 dead and 103,284
It includes comprehensive list of casualties by state here: www.koreanwar.com...

From the day when North Koreans attacked South Korea on June 25, 1950 to the day of the armistice on July 27, 1953, the events of the Korean War revealed the mass destruction, pain, and suffering Koreans had to endure. At the end of the war, more than 3 million Koreans died while millions of refugees remained homeless and distraught. About 1 million Chinese died in this battle and American casualties numbered 54,246 people. This section will explore and follow the events, strategies, and atrocities of the Korean war.

It says nothing about stopping at 1951, so I pretty much doubt that statistics Chinese offered are true. There are number of sources though which say US dead were actually 33,652, like www.va.gov... perhaps those stop counting 1951.

Anyhow, here's an interesting article about why US casualties were low during Iraq invasion and has stats for the past wars as well.
www.usatoday.com...

[edit on 4-3-2005 by Megaquad]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Problem is, you're looking at the 'U.S' death rate, not the 'U.N's' death rate, which includes a lot more. After all, that was happening the other side of China compaired to Korea. (In Korea, America, slaughtered them but you look at the U.N. forces and it slowly becomes a different story. After all, a lot of those Chinese deaths in Korea, were actually Russians.)

Edit: The unexpected decision of China's entry into the war in early October turned the tide of the war. The Northern units, consisting of Sino-Korean troops, sent the U.N forces retreating again. On December 6, the Communist forces retook Pyongyang. And by the end of December, they recrossed the parallel and retook Seoul.

www.koreanwar.com...

That sight can be thrown out on that quote alone. China had made it clear if America marched towards the Yalu River they'd declare war. They made it clear for several months - because the Yalu River, provided a lot of China with power.

Also, the PVA didn't actually have 1million people in it - so America could of never killed near to that amount. At most they had 700,000 and that to me seems a bit too high.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by Odium]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Err...if we did use nukes against China....wouldn't they return fire with more nukes on us? And what would be the point in taking over China, I don't think the UN would go for that.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
The UN doesnt mean #, I would think that Iraq would have sent that point home... *shakes head in astonishment*

China has blatently said if the US got involved where it shouldn't they would have no hesitation in vapourising Los Angeles...

It would be a nuclear war if anything, I grant that... Either the world will be destroyed or...

Nostrodumus said that "There would not be peace on earth until the yellow man rules..." ... I'd personally welcome the day that time comes...



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
China's smart by saying they'd use Nukes. It keeps a lot of Countries from wanting to get involved. Especially since the U.N. is made up of a lot of Non-Nuclear Nations.

In honesty, I doubt they would though - although, it keeps America from 'bothering them', to much.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I do think China would use them, however I dont think they would be the ones to initiate the bombings... The first nukes would be from the US...



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Thing is, America knows the way in which China will bomb them. New York, L.A, Houstan, etc.

I doubt they would run the risk. Even if China only has 20 ICBM's, that can hit America. They'd send most of those at them, maybe 1 at South Korea and maybe 2/3 at Japan.

Although, the Bush administration are simple...stupid...I can go on. They might just be foolish enough to start a nuclear war.

Edit: To clear up typos.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Odium]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
It would all come down to:

If we cant have the world... No one else can either... The US president has two "body-gaurds" that are with him constantly, they both of them carry breif cases that are cufflinked to their wrist... In those breif cases are the launch devices for all of americas nukes... (there are fall out measures of course)... Why would they have a system like that IF they weren't prepared to use nukes?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join