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: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
American Mad Man,

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

I do not - I am not saying the US will not lose any aircraft, or that no one will doe on our side - but facts are facts. Chinas AF doesn't stand a chnace in all out war. They can't compete with outdated aircraft and undertrained pilots. For example, their new fighter - the J-10 - is a DOWNGRADED replica of a US aircraft that is currently being replaced (F-16). The air war would be over a few weeks after we got our airpower to the combat zone. And like I said - their airfields would be destroyed in a week or two by cruise missles. You cant't fly if you can't take off.

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.

Hehehehe - I think you don't understand that in order to "see us coming" you have to have ground and airbased radar. Well, most of their ground radar would be hit by cruise missles before our planes entered their airspace, and - as I said - their aircraft can't match up in a head to head battle. Their "aircraft that will literally fill the skies" will just be a turkey shoot. They don't have nearly the BVR capabillity of US aircraft, so they would be shot down before they had the abillity to engage.

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.

In case you don't know what happens during war, read up on WWII America. EVERYONE in the country is either fighting, or building things for the war. The money? currently, our US military buget is around 400 billion (I believe). We have the abillity to make it over 1.2 TRILLION like we did in the 80's during the cold war. Money isn't the issue - the US has the most of it. Also realize that during a war, more orders of aircraft like the F-22 would be made. If they ordered 700+ like they originally planned (and in a war with China, they'd order more) it would cost roughly the same as an F-15. The reason for the high cost of aircraft is that the US orders very few of them. The B-2 cost 2 billion because they ordered 24 instead of the planned 125. If they would have bought 125, they would cost not much more then a 747. So much for stealth being more expensive.

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.


OK, I will prove to you that you are wrong. When the government signs a contract it is for a certain amount of money. This usually includes R&D costs, and the original amount of planes wanted. When the gov. decides it doesn't need that many aircraft (to save money on upkeep) the bill stays the same, they just get fewer aircraft. The more you buy, the less expensive they are. Basically in all out war, every aircraft contractor in the states (you know, lockheed-martin, boeing, Northrop ect ect ect) would be pumping these babies out as fast as they can instead of one company using just one factory. US would have all the aircraft it would need. Besides - you do realize that the US military plans to be able to fight TWO MAJOR conflicts at once. I don't think 1 would be a problem. This is not to say I think a war with China would be easy - far from it. But the airwar is preatty much over befroe it starts. It is the ground war that would be the problem.

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by American Mad Man]




posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
You know what i cant wait for? A major theatre war, even a couple, with the US involved....and the US taking a little battering.....

Then just watching the US say it's had enough...And then releases everything Top secret that they've had built, and stored away, just to go in and completely make the enemy unable to harm them....

That's what i'm waiting for....Yes it may take a few million pepole to die....but damn i cant wait to see the exhibition ;P



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by browha
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.

I am not saying they couldn't make spears. But would YOU fight an American soldier with a spear when he's got an M16 pointed at you 50 feet away? I don't think so. Todat you need guns - MODERN guns. Not pipe rifles, not a blunderbuss, or a musket. You need at the very least a bolt action or lever action (if not an assult rifle). They don't have enough over there. They have 50 million modern weapons. That is 1 weapon for every 24 people. Compare that to the US - we have OVER one weapon for every person (as in there are more guns in our country then people - not including military weapons).

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.

Actually - I would disagree - we took over in what - a few days? And we have lost what - around 600 soldiers in over a year? Thats less then 2 a day buddy! See if you can find any other occupation in history where casualties have been so few in such a long period of time.

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.

My point is that they have a reliance on the US to EXPORT! THAT IS HOW THEY MAKE MONEY! Imagine the US and China go to war - suddenly they lose their biggest client! Not only that, but the US PREVENTS trade with anyone else! Suddenly, they have no income, and so their economy goes in the tubes while the US simply finds a replacement country (or countries) for China.

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.

I saw your national debt link - ever heard of Keynsian economics buddy? Thats all well and good, they can make basic gunpowder. Where are they going to get the steel to make the guns? or the Shells for the guns? Or the clips. Hell, where are they going to get the springs for the magazines? Are they going to put the Rifling in on each weapon 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 do need an industrial sector to produce MODERN weapons! Understand that not all 1.2 billion of their people are healthy able bodies males - far from it. Chop that number in halfe to exclude females, then again devide that by like 3 or 4 to exclude the elderly and children. Their actual servicable population wouldn't be close to what you are talking about. You do realize that the Chinese population would probably be cut to around 1/2 to 1/3 before the US even landed a single soldier right? Again - MOABs, bombs that kill every thing within almost a mile radious. Our troops go into a town, we get shot at - move out. Then the B-52 drops 1 MOAB on the town - and gues what? NO MORE TOWN OR TOWNS PEOPLE. THEY ARE ALL DEAD!

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.

Excuse me - if we are talking about determination and China, wasn't China the one occupied by Japan during WWII? Aren't you the one saying that they made weapons for Japan? Plus, there is a fatal flaw with comparing it to either Iraq, or NAM. In Iraq, we are trying NOT to kill people! We are trying to be NICE and to win their hearts and minds! In Nam, WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ATTACK THE NORTH! All we could do was fight in the South! Had we been able to attack the north, the war would have been over in a year or so! This would not be the case in China - we would be killing anything that so much as blinked. Dropping bombs EVERY DAY with impunity! Do you understand the demoralizing effect this would have? Imagine every single day being bombed for like 3 months! Never under estimate the power of moral in war.
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.

HAHAHA - your dad! If you want to get into parents on this one I can. BOTH of my parents graduated from the University of Penn's Wartons School Of Buisness. You know - perhaps the best buisness school in the world? They are anylists for multi BILLION dollar companies - ever heard of Morgan Stanley-Dean Witter? They would disagree with your dady, and I'd be willing to wager based on the fact that your dad is working for a newspaper and they are in charge of BILLIONS of dollars that they might be a little more informed. Quite honestly, I think it is childish to bring up parents, as they are not here to lend their opinions, but I could call up my mom and see what she has to say if you want. Let me tell you something - Chinas economy IS improving, and perhaps will be competitive with the US in like 25 or 30 years. But they are FAR away! there are so many things that could go wrong in that amount of time. And besides - you said that RUSSIA would have the worlds largest economy in 15 years HAHAHAHAHAHA. Get a grip dude - the US economy will be at the top of the list for many more years, if not for the rest of my lifetime.

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.


Dude - Russias economy will have to multiply by like 30 times to take the US. I do not doubt their natural resorces - no one does. But in case you haven't noticed, the US uses high skill jobs and huge corporations to make their money. Go look in Forbes fortune 500 and see where most of the companies are from. The US of A baby! Stop hating the US because we are top dog and just admit we dominate.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
You know what i cant wait for? A major theatre war, even a couple, with the US involved....and the US taking a little battering.....

Then just watching the US say it's had enough...And then releases everything Top secret that they've had built, and stored away, just to go in and completely make the enemy unable to harm them....

That's what i'm waiting for....Yes it may take a few million pepole to die....but damn i cant wait to see the exhibition ;P


HAHAHA - it's so true. I want to see what goodies all those billions are paying for. Yeah a few million people is kinda steep, but it would be one hell of a show!



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   



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.

HAHAHA - your dad! If you want to get into parents on this one I can. BOTH of my parents graduated from the University of Penn's Wartons School Of Buisness. You know - perhaps the best buisness school in the world? They are anylists for multi BILLION dollar companies - ever heard of Morgan Stanley-Dean Witter? They would disagree with your dady, and I'd be willing to wager based on the fact that your dad is working for a newspaper and they are in charge of BILLIONS of dollars that they might be a little more informed. Quite honestly, I think it is childish to bring up parents, as they are not here to lend their opinions, but I could call up my mom and see what she has to say if you want. Let me tell you something - Chinas economy IS improving, and perhaps will be competitive with the US in like 25 or 30 years. But they are FAR away! there are so many things that could go wrong in that amount of time. And besides - you said that RUSSIA would have the worlds largest economy in 15 years HAHAHAHAHAHA. Get a grip dude - the US economy will be at the top of the list for many more years, if not for the rest of my lifetime.

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.


Actually, my father used to be one of the head bosses at Morgan Stanley. He is a very well known economic expert in the area we live in. Dont forget, Morgan Stanley was one of the companies predicting that the SARS WHO Health ban on Hong Kong/China/Singapore would be lifted weeks after it actually was... the company my father works for, and other similar companies proved your multi-billion dollar company wrong.

I dont see why it's 'childish' to bring up parents if they are experts in the field.

Your earlier comment in your post about fighting the US soldiers with a spear.. Well, put it like this, patriotism runs deep, and I know, virtually for a fact (as near a fact as you can get in this situation) that they would.

See earlier, China only exports 10% of it's good to America (financially 10%). That's not a reliance.

Your view of the gun is too complicated. I'm talking about returning to the old days, a pipe, packing in the gunpowder (easily made at home) with a round metal ball, and basically lighting it. That doesnt require industrial complexes. They were doing it years before the industrial revolution happened, guns were first around in war context in 1500s, long before the industrial revolution.

I'll reply more later when I can be bothered to address such an ignorant fool.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I do not - I am not saying the US will not lose any aircraft, or that no one will doe on our side - but facts are facts. Chinas AF doesn't stand a chnace in all out war. They can't compete with outdated aircraft and undertrained pilots. For example, their new fighter - the J-10 - is a DOWNGRADED replica of a US aircraft that is currently being replaced (F-16). The air war would be over a few weeks after we got our airpower to the combat zone. And like I said - their airfields would be destroyed in a week or two by cruise missles. You cant't fly if you can't take off.

Dude... the U.S. fought undertrained, outdated fighters in Korea and Vietnam and we still got our @$$es handed to us.

Hehehehe - I think you don't understand that in order to "see us coming" you have to have ground and airbased radar. Well, most of their ground radar would be hit by cruise missles before our planes entered their airspace, and - as I said - their aircraft can't match up in a head to head battle. Their "aircraft that will literally fill the skies" will just be a turkey shoot. They don't have nearly the BVR capabillity of US aircraft, so they would be shot down before they had the abillity to engage.

Turkey shoot? Dude, your ignorance is astronomical!Missiles are not guns. Chinese pilots are not as stupid as you think. Yes, many missiles will hit, but many will also miss. And you only have so many missiles you can carry on a plane. You must think missiles come from a tree! And if the U.S. enters Chinese airspace, the way Chinese fighters fight, BVR is going to be a non-concept. It's going to be guns or nothing. On bombing missions, how are they going to drop their ordnance if there are fighters all over them? Sure, you can brag about fighter cover, but our reliance on missiles and the amount of fighter escort is not too promising. You only have so many aircraft. Seriously, brush up on the doctrine of air warfare. It's not all pressing buttons and using night-vision. It actually requires technique. Technique that has little to do with BVR combat (something that'll become useless in crowded combat skies). And believe me, it will not be a Turkey Shoot. I rarely say this, but that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Missiles don't last forever and aircraft against more aircraft is nothing to be proud of.

Backtracking, the only fighter capable of the safest BVR is the F-14 and the Phoenix missile. All other fighters carry medium-range Sparrows and AMRAAMs, meaning they'd have to enter Chinese airspace anyway before engaging. And it's not like China's a place they can just dump U.S. aircraft onto. So BVR isn't much of an advantage from the start.

In case you don't know what happens during war, read up on WWII America. EVERYONE in the country is either fighting, or building things for the war. The money? currently, our US military buget is around 400 billion (I believe). We have the abillity to make it over 1.2 TRILLION like we did in the 80's during the cold war. Money isn't the issue - the US has the most of it. Also realize that during a war, more orders of aircraft like the F-22 would be made. If they ordered 700+ like they originally planned (and in a war with China, they'd order more) it would cost roughly the same as an F-15. The reason for the high cost of aircraft is that the US orders very few of them. The B-2 cost 2 billion because they ordered 24 instead of the planned 125. If they would have bought 125, they would cost not much more then a 747. So much for stealth being more expensive.

Dude, WWII is over. We are in different times now. Get with it. You also totally ignore the fact that in a war (especially in an all-out conventional war), the budget will be strained beyond the breaking point. It costs too much even without any stealth fighters or advanced weapons systems. And your Cold War arguement is irrelevant - we were never at war. That's a totally different situation, if you don't realize. Wartime budget is very different from peacetime budget.

You get even more comedic. Do you realize just how different WWII fighters are from today's fighters? No, you obviously don't. WWII fighters are much simpler, therefore easier to build and takes less time (I did not say less cost). Today's fighters are incredibly complex, difficult to build, and thus take more time. They would not rush things, otherwise we'd lose them in transit. The moment they build a fighter, they must test it THUROUGHLY. One mistake with a complex fighter and BOOM. For example, America's most primitive attack helicopter in service today, the AH-1S Super Cobra, requires 38,500 hours just to build a single copy. Not including testing. Imagine the time it would take to build a single F-22. How many do you actually think they can build in time to make a difference in the war? Let's say the war lasts about three years, they probably wouldn't get a new shipment of F-22s until the middle of the third year (assuming they ordered a new batch at the beginning of the war). They are complex war machines, and you cannot rush building them. That's how they turn against you. We might get them for cheap, but busting them out and building and rushing them into service is a very inefficient and dangerous way of doing things. Complex aircraft require more time to perfect. I cannot stress that enough.

OK, I will prove to you that you are wrong. When the government signs a contract it is for a certain amount of money. This usually includes R&D costs, and the original amount of planes wanted. When the gov. decides it doesn't need that many aircraft (to save money on upkeep) the bill stays the same, they just get fewer aircraft. The more you buy, the less expensive they are. Basically in all out war, every aircraft contractor in the states (you know, lockheed-martin, boeing, Northrop ect ect ect) would be pumping these babies out as fast as they can instead of one company using just one factory. US would have all the aircraft it would need. Besides - you do realize that the US military plans to be able to fight TWO MAJOR conflicts at once. I don't think 1 would be a problem. This is not to say I think a war with China would be easy - far from it. But the airwar is preatty much over befroe it starts. It is the ground war that would be the problem.

Wartime is different from peacetime, you must realize that. Assuming you are correct (I really hope so), the wartime budget would be strained beyond belief. It's not like they can separate military and civilian budget, it all forms a symbiant circle. Imagine the stress it would cause the civilian budget if we purchased and purchased these stealth fighters (even if we could get them for cheaper). And you still deny the fact a conventional war budget is very pricey even without the stealth fighters. It is just not very efficient or wise to pump out fighters like these when money must be spent on everything else.

Again, get with the times. The Persian Gulf War of 1991 was smaller than WWII, but the U.S. spent more money on it than they did in the Gulf War, in relative terms. World War II cost America $1 trillion, but over a period of roughly 48 months. Operation: Desert Storm cost $60 billion in a span of only two months. And the advancements we've made since 1991, the costs are unbearably high. It all costs money and with our military, it takes time and time and time. Nothing comes from a tree. Sorry.
[Edited on 21-4-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Actually - I would disagree - we took over in what - a few days? And we have lost what - around 600 soldiers in over a year? Thats less then 2 a day buddy! See if you can find any other occupation in history where casualties have been so few in such a long period of

mad man no offence but two good soldiers life a day is still to high a cost in my eyes think if u were that soldier
"gee sorry son but ur just a statistic "
also china would wage a gurialla war like hell i mean come on u can make hihgly advanced weaponry out of some kitchen equiqment



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   
America could invade China, I'm not arguing that.
America would not hold China for long. Simple reasons, Guerilla Warfare, Number Supremacy, and Lack of Need.
Even with aircraft carrier groups deployed in the region, there will only be so many aircraft that can be deployed at any one time. It's much easier to defend your own land than it is to attack someone else's.
The sheer fact is the United States isnt very good at 'conquering' a country.. Vietnam, Iraq x 2, Korea, Germany in World War 1...



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Actually - I would disagree - we took over in what - a few days? And we have lost what - around 600 soldiers in over a year? Thats less then 2 a day buddy! See if you can find any other occupation in history where casualties have been so few in such a long period of

mad man no offence but two good soldiers life a day is still to high a cost in my eyes think if u were that soldier
"gee sorry son but ur just a statistic "
also china would wage a gurialla war like hell i mean come on u can make hihgly advanced weaponry out of some kitchen equiqment


Dude - I do not argue that every mans life is important. I have friends - GOOD FRIENDS - who are over there right now. The ones actually putting their lives on the line. So I will be one of those people crying if one of them gets killed. And yes, hit and run tactics can do a lot of damage. But as for what I said about how many soldiers have died - it is a fact. To only have 600 KIA in over a year is actually a military accomplishment that has really never been bested. Look, war is rough - but the thing is that numbers DO matter! Actually - I doubt that the US had planned it to go as well as it has so far.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 07:51 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?




well although we could win early on, we need to pound the crap outta their ground forces. 1 million US troops on 2-3 million chinese troops. a invasion of china would be a really big mistake



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I think to descibe the US as being dependent on China is vastly exageratted. Maybe a more realistic example of US dependency would be with its major trading partners of Canada and Mexico.

Ive noticed quite a few comparisons of Debt between China and US which to be honest are quite irrelevant. Being the richest country in the world thats what you would expect. Id like to see China's trading position when it can be classed as half the country the US is. As China's income rises and they have to start importing I wouldnt be surprised if that figure quoted going up 50 fold in real terms in the near future. Thats given it sustains its growth rate.

I think we have yet to see to modern warfare in its most brutal form. Iraq-Veitman has been asymetric warfare and i dont think a comparission can be made to any possible all out war with China. I think if it came down to it the USA has sufficient force projection to bring CHINA to its knees without setting one foot on its soil. The days of invasion as a means of destroying the opposition are over.

China will use there nukes everything else can be systematically destroyed



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
China will never be defeated because they have entered the space race. That would mean they're technology taking leaps and soon would devlop even better stuff. They were able to send people to space a long time ago but just never wanted to. The Chinese can overpower the US army easily with just a gajillion people. China has taken over a lot of MiG production and i would say MiG's are second best fighters to the F22 Raptors but they have numbers of MiG's. Besides it wouldn't be the US attacking China 1st it would be China attacking US 1st. China will have the element of surprise on their side because they are the ones striking 1st and probably take over Hawaii 1st (strategic base to capture also closest to china) They would have allies too...I'd say China would win...Maybe Canada might make a surprise attack while were fighting over at China



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
China will never be defeated because they have entered the space race. That would mean they're technology taking leaps and soon would devlop even better stuff. They were able to send people to space a long time ago but just never wanted to. The Chinese can overpower the US army easily with just a gajillion people. China has taken over a lot of MiG production and i would say MiG's are second best fighters to the F22 Raptors but they have numbers of MiG's. Besides it wouldn't be the US attacking China 1st it would be China attacking US 1st. China will have the element of surprise on their side because they are the ones striking 1st and probably take over Hawaii 1st (strategic base to capture also closest to china) They would have allies too...I'd say China would win...Maybe Canada might make a surprise attack while were fighting over at China


I agree with in some way but i ahve to admit the U.S army is better equipped the Chinese army i think still use AK 47's i'm not sure though.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha

Actually, my father used to be one of the head bosses at Morgan Stanley. He is a very well known economic expert in the area we live in. Dont forget, Morgan Stanley was one of the companies predicting that the SARS WHO Health ban on Hong Kong/China/Singapore would be lifted weeks after it actually was... the company my father works for, and other similar companies proved your multi-billion dollar company wrong.

I dont see why it's 'childish' to bring up parents if they are experts in the field.

It is childish because you are acting like your opinion matters because of your dady. I'm not gunna care about your dady unless you give me a name and some credentials. Even then, you could be making stuff up, so it is really pointless. As for the whole SARS deal - what does that have to do with stock trading in the US (which is both of my parents field)? NOTHING!

Your earlier comment in your post about fighting the US soldiers with a spear.. Well, put it like this, patriotism runs deep, and I know, virtually for a fact (as near a fact as you can get in this situation) that they would.

Yes it does - and most people would fight. But they wouldn't stand a chance without the right weapons.

See earlier, China only exports 10% of it's good to America (financially 10%). That's not a reliance.

Listen to me! They wouldn't be able to export ANYTHING! NOTHING! NO IMPORTING EITHER! They would be basically on an island where nothing goes in or out! So they would lose like 95% of their exports - not just the 10% that goes to the US. Get it yet?

Your view of the gun is too complicated. I'm talking about returning to the old days, a pipe, packing in the gunpowder (easily made at home) with a round metal ball, and basically lighting it. That doesnt require industrial complexes. They were doing it years before the industrial revolution happened, guns were first around in war context in 1500s, long before the industrial revolution.

Dude - you don't get it. You can't fight guys armed with M16's with muskets. A GOOD musket man can get off 2 shots a minute. A guy with an M16 could probably go through over a hundred rounds. Think of it this way, you have 20 guys with pipe rifles. They can get off fewer shots a minute then a single M16 rifleman. You dn't stand a chance with a pipe gun going up against fully automatic assualt rifles. Ask any one who has ever been in a gun fight or is in the military.


I'll reply more later when I can be bothered to address such an ignorant fool.


Ohh god, i'm an "ignorant fool" now? How old are you? 15? 16? get a grip dude and grow up.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by browha

Actually, my father used to be one of the head bosses at Morgan Stanley. He is a very well known economic expert in the area we live in. Dont forget, Morgan Stanley was one of the companies predicting that the SARS WHO Health ban on Hong Kong/China/Singapore would be lifted weeks after it actually was... the company my father works for, and other similar companies proved your multi-billion dollar company wrong.

I dont see why it's 'childish' to bring up parents if they are experts in the field.

It is childish because you are acting like your opinion matters because of your dady. I'm not gunna care about your dady unless you give me a name and some credentials. Even then, you could be making stuff up, so it is really pointless. As for the whole SARS deal - what does that have to do with stock trading in the US (which is both of my parents field)? NOTHING!

Your earlier comment in your post about fighting the US soldiers with a spear.. Well, put it like this, patriotism runs deep, and I know, virtually for a fact (as near a fact as you can get in this situation) that they would.

Yes it does - and most people would fight. But they wouldn't stand a chance without the right weapons.

See earlier, China only exports 10% of it's good to America (financially 10%). That's not a reliance.

Listen to me! They wouldn't be able to export ANYTHING! NOTHING! NO IMPORTING EITHER! They would be basically on an island where nothing goes in or out! So they would lose like 95% of their exports - not just the 10% that goes to the US. Get it yet?

Your view of the gun is too complicated. I'm talking about returning to the old days, a pipe, packing in the gunpowder (easily made at home) with a round metal ball, and basically lighting it. That doesnt require industrial complexes. They were doing it years before the industrial revolution happened, guns were first around in war context in 1500s, long before the industrial revolution.

Dude - you don't get it. You can't fight guys armed with M16's with muskets. A GOOD musket man can get off 2 shots a minute. A guy with an M16 could probably go through over a hundred rounds. Think of it this way, you have 20 guys with pipe rifles. They can get off fewer shots a minute then a single M16 rifleman. You dn't stand a chance with a pipe gun going up against fully automatic assualt rifles. Ask any one who has ever been in a gun fight or is in the military.


I'll reply more later when I can be bothered to address such an ignorant fool.


Ohh god, i'm an "ignorant fool" now? How old are you? 15? 16? get a grip dude and grow up.


you must be kidding me. you think china is still in the ancient times? god damn you must be really misinformed havent you seen the china rocket go into space? you idiot if they can make that dont you think they can make industrial weapons? i must deny your existence because you are just an ignorance



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:14 PM
link   
China hasnt the logistics to take Taiwan never mind Hawaii - I think a China first strike would be seen 2 months off - it also do would do wonders for US morale and political justification to send some tomahawks their way

A Canada sneak attack - theres hope yet


Space Warfare - I dont see China replicating acheivments done 40 years ago as impressive just yet. Its alot easier to copy rather that innovate. The US is developing second generation space vehicles and numourous propulsion techniques.

Ive seen papers describing US satalite warfare - counter satalite warfare and counter-counter warfare. The US is well prepared for space combat and has been developing strategies throughout the non space warfare treaties era.

When the # hits the fan - alls fair

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by Vanguard]

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by Vanguard]

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by Vanguard]



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
screw the tomahawks FIRE THE NUKES! i think China will have a slight advantage in a case a war does happen with china and the US. THe US would lose hundreds if not thousands. China uses guerilla tactics(i think) and the army is government funded. GO MIGS GO! i personally think china would win because of their number and size if they do lose they can hide in the desert



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
China will never be defeated because they have entered the space race. That would mean they're technology taking leaps and soon would devlop even better stuff. They were able to send people to space a long time ago but just never wanted to. The Chinese can overpower the US army easily with just a gajillion people. China has taken over a lot of MiG production and i would say MiG's are second best fighters to the F22 Raptors but they have numbers of MiG's. Besides it wouldn't be the US attacking China 1st it would be China attacking US 1st. China will have the element of surprise on their side because they are the ones striking 1st and probably take over Hawaii 1st (strategic base to capture also closest to china) They would have allies too...I'd say China would win...Maybe Canada might make a surprise attack while were fighting over at China


Migs and an Army of a gajillion people are pretty useless if you can't get them to the battle. Did you say Navy? What Navy? The purpose of their Navy so far is to support a land attack on Taiwan. They have no Aircraft Carriers and their transport capability is totally inadaquate to bring even a small number of their gajillion people here to do us any actual harm.

The following reprinted from www.navyleague.org...


While it is unlikely to develop the capability to challenge the U.S. Navy for control of the seas, it is quite possible that the PLAN will, within two decades, develop a Navy with regional capabilities second only to Japan's. The degree to which these developments constitute "storm clouds on the horizon" will depend as much on U.S. diplomacy in the coming years as on the ability of the United States and its Pacific allies to maintain a strong regional-defense posture.


Truth is, the big 3 (Russia, China, US) all have too much land area to ever be successfully invaded by anyone. If China and the US ever fight, the weapons will be economic, political, and cultural.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I think Mad Man is talking about what are they going to do when the dust settles - when their ak and mig factories are gone.



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   
If china "Tries" to take over Hawaii, no way will they be able to survive to take over US. No freakin way. Think about the air situation. F22 Taking out the air targets, UCAV taking out Sam sites and defences. JSF taking out naval ships left and right, B2, B1 for Misc. (airfields, command centers etc.). Naval would destroy them, no doubt. And also yes land would be the most and worst situation. If I was president, I would say, "Okay chinese, go over in a city to a north (don't want to look 1 up) and the rest of you, get ready to get nuked. Then the wars over for me. Well nuking wouldn't be right because the soil would remain particles with radiation. But I would MOAB them so then we can have the good peeps live forever, and some people who want to "Hide" in good people, well I still gota decide that. But thats the way I would do it if i was president.




top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join