U.S. vs. China

page: 53
1
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Actually in the good ol'days, say one army goes into combat with another, they'd actually plan a date and set a mutual location to battle. Civilians would go and actually get to see something they don't everyday. War was strictly between armies back then, barely ever involved the killing of civilians.




posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
you guys and girls wondering how would win well think about it ya we have weapons and they have people but they also have money and a lot of it we could fight but money would be taken from funds and schools. most wepons now and day are'nt cheap and how the economy in the U.S. we would go down if the war isn't over in less then 2 years is my guess and the only way is to use S.W.A.T. tacticslike flooding out but even though it will cost less it will be longer to end. So noi dont think we would win.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
The chinese would lose. They are so immence they would be crushed by their own weight. The United States could almost bring them to their knees without firing a single shot, and honestly the chinese know this. They realize the simply haven't the means to fight a war against the U.S.
The chinese are on track to run a 6 billion dollar agriculural deficit with just the U.S. this year. That doesn't include the rest of the world. I would speculate that they can feed themselves now, but just barely. You take the russians and europeans out of the agriculture exporting game through united nations sanctions and china will starve. Furthermore if china starves where does N Korea get there food and much needed raw materials. Thats right, from us, we would be the only ones left to help N korea and they would know this because we would make it quite clear I am sure. N Korea would not get involved for anything at that point. Kim might be crazy but he wants to maintain his power above all other things.
Now don't get me wrong, I am by no means suggesting the U.S. is invincible. I will freely state that if we attempted some kind of preemptive strike we could very well be buried by the world. If china attacks first though, I submit that the countries of the world would be either against them or neutral, and that even those who are neutral would not play with the political brimstone that would be the aiding of the Chinese war effort.
China already suffers from a well known energy crisis. The energy crunch that would come from the immediate disruption of oil would cripple them beyond any ability they may have to compensate for this loss. If they attack first there is no way the would recieve a drop of oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, venezuela, mexico, or norway. and even if Iran wanted to get oil to them how would they. They couldn't go through Pakistan, Afghanistan, or turkmenistan and the persian gulf would be locked down so tight you wouldn't be able to get a raft through it let alone a freighter. So that leaves Russia, who though, while I think it improbable could possibly provide oil. The only reason I can say they might, is based simply on their past support for countries at war with the U.S.. Even this wouldn't matter. Russia could never even come close to satiating Chinas need for oil in peacetime let alone wartime.
I also propose that the Chinese people are not a free people, and even more important they are not a truely unified people. I don't care how pretty the picture the communist party paints us is, just below the paint are millions of oppressed people who would not be lining up to help the war effort out, especially when the food runs out. There is also a very strong democratic movement at work under the surface, and how would the chinese government continue to use there millitary to suppress this while fighting a war, fact is they couldn't and they know it. The chinese government is rife with corruption top to bottom, and in a war, this weakness would be exploited to the hilt by the U.S.. It would be like Afghanistan all over again, we would only have to fight those we couldn't buy off, and that list my friends could be very short. The insurgency that could be created in Hong Kong alone would tie up thousands upon thousands of troops.
All this and we haven't even dropped a bomb yet, and though I believe we wouldn't even have too, if we did, it would be the death nail. All of chinas nuclear carrying submarines would be on the bottom of the ocean before the second bomb landed in Taiwan. The next thing to go would be the three gorges dam, the material loss from the destruction of this project in itself would be almost too much for the chinese economy to absorb. Also nuclear and fossil fueled reactors mean very little without power lines to carry the electricity, and believe me those would be gone in no time as well. Keep in mind china hasen't even touched our infrastructure in all this. Having a billion people means nothing if you can't feed them and can't move them. Tanks and airplanes are useless without fuel to power them, just ask Hitler. If China takes taiwan which they could do, they would be packing up and moving back out before they knew they had arrived.
One final note is this, the world hasn't seen the United States in a full out war for its survival since world war II. We would not be playing this one with the restraint shown in the Balkans or Iraq, this would be savage and fierce. The losses on the Chinese side would be so terrible it makes me alost sick to think of it. The Chinese could not win this war without the support of the world, and though the world may not like us all that much right now they realize that an America they don't like like is better then a China they would have to fear.



[edit on 15-3-2005 by bigbuddah]

[edit on 15-3-2005 by bigbuddah]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Please structure, use spaces between paragraphs.

Just one point, the Three Gorges Dam is built to withstand point 10 earthquakes on the Richter scale.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
Yes, i know about those missiles.

Ok, the real issue to me is;

If the US parks carriers on the other side of Taiwan, can China hit it? Because if China can, then the US might think twice about helping Taiwan.


China couldn't even track the U.S Navy most of the time during that flair-up back in the 90's.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
China has publicly stated that it intends to be able to sink an American aircraft carrier. Among the technologies that could allow China to do this are anti-ship cruise missiles, which China could fire from land across long distances, which it is now developing. China is also developing an over-the-horizon radar network with which to track surface ships.

What about the US space domination, China is also making leaps and bounds in that area also.

China has seven military satellites and is building more. It has a two-satellite version of the U.S. Global Positioning System of satellites, and has plans to expand it. Other research on China published by the Pentagon has pointed out that the PLA is developing ground-based anti-satellite technology.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   

China has publicly stated that it intends to be able to sink an American aircraft carrier. Among the technologies that could allow China to do this are anti-ship cruise missiles, which China could fire from land across long distances, which it is now developing. China is also developing an over-the-horizon radar network with which to track surface ships.


And Iran thinks they're developing a stealth plane. Who cares? In the end, America is developing things, as well. We're developing better defense for our ships, and more far more deadly cruise missiles, and bombers.


What about the US space domination, China is also making leaps and bounds in that area also.


Yea, but they're still lightyears away from us. Technologically, not even Europe can match us in space.

China's anti-satellite technology is a long ways away. And by the time they get it, we'll probably have some counter to it. On the other hand, America has anti-satellite technology today. We could very easily jam China's fledgling GPS system.

The conclusion to come to after all of this is simple. China is decades behind America, and would be smart not to challenge us openly until they can match us. Taiwan isn't important to China in anyway. If Taiwan did declare independence within the next 15 years, China would be better off bearing it, and then getting their revenge at a later time.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 04:24 AM
link   


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

If Taiwan did declare independence within the next 15 years, China would be better off bearing it, and then getting their revenge at a later time.



I dont see why, the outcome would be exactly the same...



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   

I dont see why, the outcome would be exactly the same...


I doubt America would even risk intervention after a certain amount of time. 20 years from now, China will probably be competing with us like Russia, and few politicians have the balls to go confront an enemy like that for what would really only have symbolic purposes.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


I dont see why, the outcome would be exactly the same...


I doubt America would even risk intervention after a certain amount of time. 20 years from now, China will probably be competing with us like Russia, and few politicians have the balls to go confront an enemy like that for what would really only have symbolic purposes.


If the US foreign policy is based on fighting - defeating - and stealing from smaller less developed countries... Of course they wouldn't fight someone like that... Why do you think the US is so strong?



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   

If the US foreign policy is based on fighting - defeating - and stealing from smaller less developed countries... Of course they wouldn't fight someone like that... Why do you think the US is so strong?


That isn't what American foreign policy is based on.

America, for the immediate future, will have no choice but to oppose China. We are still in the phase where China's rise can be prevented. We'd at least be able to shock China's new found confidence, and keep them quiet for the next few decades. If we didn't oppose them, our super power status is gone.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


I dont see why, the outcome would be exactly the same...


I doubt America would even risk intervention after a certain amount of time. 20 years from now, China will probably be competing with us like Russia, and few politicians have the balls to go confront an enemy like that for what would really only have symbolic purposes.


If the US foreign policy is based on fighting - defeating - and stealing from smaller less developed countries... Of course they wouldn't fight someone like that... Why do you think the US is so strong?


cough Tibet cough

[edit on 15-3-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Cough *Hawaii*

-----

Besides, go look at the map of Qing dynasty if you don't believe mine.
(QING - Last Chinese Dynasty - roughly 1600 onwards)





As you can see, China also had Mongolia...but it gained independence due to Stalin.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
You don't have to take out the actual dam you just have to take out the locks and the power stations and all you have left is a giant rock in the middle of a river.

I also believe the new bunker busting bombs we have would give us the ability to breach the dam. It may take a while but it could be done.
www.clw.org...



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
i wouldnt think U.S. will attack china first most of the stuff we use are made in china all around the world if U.S. attaks china other nations will cut in. second there is no point if we do have a war together it would be the end of the world because both of us has nuclear tech, it would be a disaster.

people vs tech.
well china doesnt really like 10 or 20 years ago, before we didnt have that many aircraft or military viecles but now we does, china is catching up really fast.

U.S. Air power
United State does has the best aircraft (in serv.) in the world but good plane dosent mean good pilot and they do say that U.S. has the best pilots. how the hell do they no they never went head to head with chinese fighter pilots so wut they said are bunch of craps.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
i wouldnt doubt that we see more action sooner. and i think the US know that, Rice is going to have a addional 12,000 troops in south korea. plus the us is helping s. korea in an attack,of n korea or china.the us is having more bases in eastern asia ,slowly zoneing in on china. an other reason that action sooner is troops have a very thin line over eastern asia,but that wont last for ever. if i was china i would get n korea and russia on their side, attack taiwan now and smack them around a little teach them a lesson. but im not china, so the US better move thier ass and get more carriers and troops in eastern asia,quickly!



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I don't think the US and China will go to war anytime soon. Despite any idealogial differences and the usual rhetoric from both sides, they are enjoying a very, very lucrative trading partnership. Why would they want to upset that? Prosperity is always better than war.

That being said, history has shown again and again that the two biggest kids on the block usually have it out at some point.

Let's just hope that is not the case.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
US Strategy is always based on long term, the US generals have great foresight and usually plan for things YEARS in advance, by them moving more troops into S. Korea now, trying to stop the EU lifting embargos etc, etc, etc... They are covering there arse now, thats all...

I wouldn't have been surprised if the US was the iniator of the trade embargos against China back in the days of Tienamin Square...



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
I wouldn't have been surprised if the US was the iniator of the trade embargos against China back in the days of Tienamin Square...


And did China not deserve that? That was a heinous act that deserved some kind of response. They could have moved those college kids out of the Square without driving tanks over them.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
There were no evidence of tanks driving over people.

-----

Most if not all of the deaths came by guns.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join