It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:13 PM
Almost every country is in UN. But not all countries are in the security council. The only important countries without membership in UN now are Switzerland and Taiwan.

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:18 PM
well the UN never does anything any way!
i mean come on nothing is ever done!

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:22 PM

The same way they saw Germany as a weapon against the USSR?

Well not exactly a wepon more like a oponent, oponent in its own house. USSR wanted to be leader of all comunistic countries but Chinese had their own plans... And US suported them to balance the powers. Taiwan was sacrificed - they lost their place in UN ( but they were still unoficially supported)

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:26 PM
In reality the UN was never designed to make peacekeeping misions. It was designed to allow no World War III. Thats the reason for 5 superpowers with veto privilegies.

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:28 PM
yeah but 1 problem with that
no 1 listens to the UN

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:31 PM
Well, everyone but the Americans and American allies do
which is why, time and time again, I would love to see Russia invade Israel to chase up those WMD, like the Americans did in Iraq.

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:34 PM
Nothing new... It was always only a forum where the politics could talk. From 1945 to 1991 the various nations waged roughly about 500 wars. How many of them do you think have been aproved by UN? TWO.

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:34 PM
all we need to do to take any country we want is to get blair to say he got another letter from MI5 and we could take any country we wanted!

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:39 PM
Dont slate mi5, you'd be surprised how hard their job is.

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:41 PM
After the 9/11 Saddam simply needed to go. It has nothing to do with the WMD, human rights or so. Do you think fighting against the terrorist and keeping the sanctions against Iraq would make it better? So milions of Arabs could see on Al-Jazeere how are the Iraqi children suffering ?
Plus there was a need to keep bases against Sadam and where were these bases? In Saudi Arabia. Why wanted UBL destroy the US? Because US had bases in SA. Sadam was simply dead man right after the 9/11.

[Edited on 20-4-2004 by longbow]

[Edited on 20-4-2004 by longbow]

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by browha

Your point? In World War 2 British Home Guard forces were armed with spears. Did you not read my bit about the factory? Japan's home guard was -everyone- on the island. If your home country is invaded you would fight to the death to defend it.

My point is that they will not be ABLE to make most weapons - saturation bombing will destroy all of their industrial complex. Example - no metal, no guns. No gunpowder, no bullets. BTW - don't call me a moron - I obviously know more then you do.

China 2nd largest economy
Oops! Your bad!

See the link here Nuff Said

Again - YOUR BAD. The link you provided said that China will attempt to become the worlds 2nd largest economy. Well, we all know how ambitious Chicomm's are - put it this way, when they are even close to the US (as in 2/3 the as rich) we'll talk. Also - I'd like to see how Russia will over take the US AND China.... Again, I refer you to my former post.

[Specifically, Exports to the US: $31136800000, Imports from the US: 6466400000 YOUR BAD AGAIN!

No - Again, your bad! This only shows a relience on the US by China. You don't get it do you? It's basic suply and demand. If China stopped trading to the US, we would say ok - who wants our money. There would be 100 countries competing to take there place - meanwhile, China loses all that buisness. Go learn economics.

There is a treaty that says only; USA, Russia, France, UK, and China are ALLOWED nuclear weapons. There is no treaty allowing Israel, India, etc nuclear weapons.
Read this

OK, so these countries agreed to that deal - SO WHAT! Any one can make nukes if they want them - PERIOD!

Hmm Have you not heard of home-made weapons? E.g. Fertilizer bombs, home-made pipe guns, etc.. The age of the machine was only fairly recent, guns and gunpowder were in production wayyy before machines came about. Heck, watch Matrix 3.

OK, tell ya what - you wunna take bets on who will win? You can have 10 guys for every one of mine, but my guys get the US arsenal - your boys get "home made pipe guns." My guys get M16A2's, Ma Duce, grenade launchers, kevlar body armor, APCs, M1A2 MBTs, and Apache longbows - lets see who wins.

Gee, and they said there were WMDs in Iraq. And that they'd get Osama Bin Laden

There very well may be WMDs in Iraq - the country is the size of california and they could either be 10 feet underground or destroyed before we went in. I could hide them in that country. As for OBL, he will be caught eventually.

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 05:13 PM
well actually they could have rail guns if they done it right mad man i know i do !

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 05:31 PM
There is no reason why they wouldnt be able to make weapons without an industrial estate. We've been doing it for thousands of years. Our ancestors hunted with spears. Those are weapons. I sure as hell dont know of any factory estates in those times.
Your US arsenal doesnt seem to be performing too well in Iraq at the moment. Home-made bombs, the AK-47 and RPGs (Home-made bombs with emphasis, side-of-the-road-ambush that's been happening so much) seem to work wonders.

The US make up under 10 percent of China's importants, see here
And scrolll down about half-way.

China made 295,000,000,000 from trades in 2002. I dont see this as a reliance.

I hope you saw my National Debt link, and then compare that to China's 68 billion national debt.
Gunpowder wasnt originally invented in an industrial complex. It was invented by someone grounding cow pat and saltpeter, among other things, together by hand.
You do NOT need industrial estates to produce weapons! If every home produced, lets say, 2 weapons in a week, you've already armed probably about 750million of the chinese population with something that is lethal. If lets say 1 in 4 people get a killing shot off, that's 187.5 million deaths. I dont think America has the population to support this sort of casualties.

You underestimate the determination of peoples defending their home. The British fought World War 2, originally, on a shoe-string, every acre of land suitable was converted to farmland, every factory became a weapons-producing location. Determination does, infact, play a lot. Look at the Iraqi people now, or the Vietnamese guerillas. They didnt use the sort of weapons that the US did in Vietnam.

China produces most of the US technological things, to replace that source would require alot of money from the companies whose product is being brought in. You are looking at the trade situation from too ego-centric a view...

Here you go, a link to a US website which clearly states China is the world's 2nd largest economy CURRENTLY

I'll find more links when I can be bothered, but seriously, just ask any economic expert. My father is one, he writes frequently in a well publicized news paper, the British government consider this to be the case as well, etc.
This is due to the fact that China has so many people to exploit primary, secondary, and tertiary industries, and such a large expanse of terroritory of which to get resources from. Same goes with Russia. They will be the trading people of the future. Seriously, if you dont believe me, write an e-mail to an economic expert or to the FT or something.

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 05:32 PM
Oh, by the way, Iraq isnt allowed nuclear weapons either, nor Iran, or Lybia... I wonder what's happening there at the moment? Forced disarmement by the US, or non-compliance resulting in invasion..

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 05:38 PM
Regarding WMD -
Hans Blix (I sincerely hope you know who this is) himself said that there was no evidence for any signs of chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons production in recent years. Certainly laboratories with the capability to do it, but nothing solid. For a reason.
The basic supply and demand is China has something that the US wants. That's why the US is buying it.
I suggest you learn economics

You're view is far too egocentric.
Anyway, you dont stop competing to take a supplier's position if there is the trade already going. They would be currently competing, and apparently the US is thinking it's getting it's best buy from China. Hell, even a 1% increase in price results in an extra 300,000,000 USD cost.

Your helicopters are getting shot down by farmers. Some good they are.

Please, go look at the link which shows the US National Debt of around 7 trillion 100 billion, and then consider the fact that China's national debt is not even 100 billion. This says something about the wealth of the country.

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 06:20 PM
hey man its our troops as well out there remember that besides america doesnt have the man power to control all of china
besides the chines arnt interested in global war they have thier own concerns
also browha rememeer lynxs and sea kings get shot down to or they crash into each other

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 06:36 PM
Yupyup I know, which is my point, for all the high-tech you want, you cannot overcome simplicity in a killing machine. While your gun is jamming I'll just jab my spear at you.

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 06:49 PM
American Mad Man,

Hehe, you continue to undestimate the potential adversary...

You seem to be under the impression that our planes can waltz right into Chinese airspace and all would be good. That is absurd. It's not like China will be oblivious to our invasion. They have the defense and they are a nation that can clearly see an invasion coming, since it would come from the sea mostly anyway. And the long distances traveled by combat aircraft would give it away even more. So your "destruction before they leave the ground" arguement is irrelevant, because the Chinese are not blind. They will clearly see an attack coming. Sure, they may be less competant, but the U.S. going in with strike packages and extensive fighter escort will have their hands full against Chinese aircraft that will literally fill the skies. Airpower would be stretched VERY thin pretty soon.

Your "they would build more stealth planes" statement is real laughable. It's a war! When do you think they would have the time or money to build more stealth planes (do you even realize how many you would need to fulfill the commitment) and then send them into combat? It's not even possible since the costs of the war would be insane without stealth aircraft.

Even if you were talking about before the war, since when can the U.S. military spend at will? Aircraft procourment takes a LONG time. It took the U.S. Navy 13 years just to get all the Carrier Air Wings F/A-18s. Imagine the time it would take to produce and distribute the amount of stealth fighters we'd need just for air campaign(s) against China. It just is not smart to do something like that (especially to prepare for a single war). And I doubt the U.S. government would delay the war just for more stealth fighters.

Do you even realize the enormous cost of even the most primitive stealth combat aircraft? Please prove me wrong.

posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 02:29 AM
I think it is stupid to consider a war between the US and China, because America has become too dependant on China...
I know this is going to go down as controvesial with many people, but it's pretty much the truth. See earlier articles about China' trading power, making about 25 billion a year off America alone.
National debt is another issue, America stands at 7.1 trllion, China at 68 billion
This is a country which only just last year put a man into space... That's sooner than the last time the US successfully put people into space and back.
All of IBM, etc, have massive factories in China that produce their goods, heck, most large companies will have factories in China, simply because the labour is so much cheaper. China is under-cutting the market in it's way to becoming a super-power.
I find it curious to note that you havent replied to any of my posts in the last 8 hours, so I assume you are withdrawing from the argument and admitting defeat?


posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 06:07 AM
Haha, that seems to finish it. Browha, you just said everything I've been trying to say but I haven't been able to back it up with anything. American Mad Man, you raise some legitimate points, but I think you're underestimating the capability of the Chinese military. Even the Rhodes War College agrees that the Chinese Navy is very competent as could easily take on the US Pacific Fleet especially in the area of submarine warfare ( I know its only the Pacific Fleet) but defeating the US Pacific fleet would be no easy task for anyone and for a US Military College to say that, then China must be very capable.

I really the belief that China's military is ancient would be put to rest. It isn't. Parts of it is behind but it is rapidly catching up. China can now easily afford the best Russian made military hardware. And Russian military hardware is also something that should never be underestimated.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in