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.

 

Top Chinese General: "China does not have the capibilitay to challange the US."

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CapSolo
 


Sorry didn't work during the Korean War. They have to feed and equip the massive army of millions. Not to mention protect them while transporting them. Not easy with the Navy and Air Force superiority on the U.S. side. Hence why the Chinese are so intent on developing on such technologies in those fields. Thats how it happened in the Korean War.




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


Actually no!
The Germans were defeated by Mother nature and a stubborn attitude, just like Napoleon got his.
The Russians just practiced the "scorched earth" plan and ran.
Burn everything you plan on leaving behind so nothing can be used.
The winter and sheer size got the Germans, but wars are not primarily faught on the ground nowadays.


Ah Hollywood History,

If you actually bothered to check the facts you would discover that from Stalingrad through Kursk and onwards the Russians defeated the German Army through the military strategy of Strength in Depth.

I think you will find 90% of German casualties were at the Eastern front, 80% of their material losses were at the Eastern front, all of their best equipment was lost at the Eastern front.

And don't be fooled into thinking that the Russians didn't have technology equal to that of the Germans, because they did, Stalin chose the doctrine of using what you have to the greatest effect rather than developing new technology.

It may surprise you to discover that the Russians also had Rocket and Jet planes in the thirties, Delta wings, Swept wings and circular planforms along with many other advanced concepts, they simply chose not to waste resources developing these systems when a war can be won by sheer scale.

Germany used everything they had against Russia, Rail mounted siege-guns like Dora, Massive mortars like Thor's Hammer, fuel air bombs, most of their Tiger 2 and 1, most of their Panthers, most of the Luftwaffe, most of their 88's etc etc.

And if anyone thinks that the USA can wipeout China with nukes and not receive a counterstrike that would turn the US into dust and ashes is plain nuts.

Hubris does not win wars, you can believe in your wonder weapons all you like.

And to those fools who believe Russia doe's not have the technology to fight the USA, think again as your Astronauts are transported to the ISS in a Russian rocket, know that they were ahead of the US in particle beam weapons as far back as the 60's, know that they possess Scalar interferometry and understand that they still outnumber the US in nuclear warheads.

Cosmic...



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
People vastly mistake that the US's military superiority is about technology. I'm sure that's very helpful.

The US's superiority lies in its supply and delivery, of quality resources effectively, immediately, consistently throughtout the entire lifecycle of the mission. Anyone anywhere anytime in short order, for as long as necessary with everything they need to do the job.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
This time around it is technical superiority not industrial might.
Technical superiority alone does not win wars. Don't believe me? Ask the Germans in WWII. It takes more than superior technology.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."

- Sun Tzu.


Read and learn.
edit on 19-5-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CapSolo
Are you kidding me. China would totally will us in a war. With those numbers, please, just surround our troops with 2 million soldiers and we would be done.
Numbers do not win wars, logistics does. How would they get those millions of troops here? How would they feed them? arm them? keep their feet shod? Where would the fuel for their tanks and aircraft come from? They cannot invade North America. It is logistically impossible for the Chinese to do so.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Wow, lots of strange misconceptions here about China, their wealth and power. A few facts:

-United States - GDP 14.6 Trillion - Population 313 million - Per Capita Income $47,400.00
-China - GDP 5.75 Trillion - Population 1.34 billion - Per Capita Income $7,400 (number 100 down the list)

United States has a robust Middle Class.

China has a privileged class who have recently allowed a minor Middle Class to form. Most wealth is in the hands of a tiny part of the population. Half of the Chinese exist on less than $2 per day per capita.

China relies on the US to buy it's products and would collapse if the US market were closed to them for even a matter of weeks. Right now China is sitting on a huge bubble that would burst if not for their Western customers. To continue on their path, they need us to do well as their economy is co-dependent.

Most of the nonsense is due to Bigotry and Politicians using them as a Bogey Man to garner votes.

What that person said is the simple truth.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bdizzl3
reply to post by JerryB08
 


Maybe its a ploy like on south park, Oh you american ***** so big.


Lol. You made me spray my monitor.


I think their comment is a little suspicious too. Its not the kind of thing you generally hear a military leader admit publicly.

And, even if it were true, and China didnt have enough might to take us on, if all our enemies ganged up on us, they could take us down. Of course you have the mutual destruction issue, in that scenario.

I personally think that if the Chinese want to take over America that should just do what the globalists have done. Use their wealth to buy elections. Why fight a damaging war when the people are so easily convinced of virtually anything given enough propaganda?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JerryB08
 


Nice Observation, I think there is more here than meets the eye. They don't admit things like that for fun or with no ulterior motive.

My take is that they just want us to have a false sense of security as they ready their 100,000,000 man army for WW3....just an opinion



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 




You can't just kill enemy combatants once they surrender.


Too true! But if it was happening on as large a scale as the poster has theorised the US would not have the resource infrastructure and money to accommodate that many millions of POWS at once and it would be the only alternative if a nuclear strike was not an option to stop it. When it comes to your country being over run like that a law will not stop them from doing what they had to do! All theory of course and an unlikely scenario!



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Obviously you don't know anything about the military. No offense the age of Sheer numbers is over. Even during the Civil War. Sheer numbers didn't work so well in that conflict. Considering The Confederates where out numbered in every single engagement. Sometimes 5 to to 1. And still managed to beat the Union for 4 years.

China tried your idea in the Korean War and totally got massacred. They realized then it wasn't such a good idea. That was also the mind set of the Iraqi Army. 500 Tank destroying 4000? Number's mean nothing in the modern military, It's just more bodies. You can't shot at something your system thinks is a small feathery bird. It won't let you. ( Your SAS system ) Same examples in the Navy. They are deploying lasers.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
The Chinese do lack the logistical capabilities to move their military around.

But also as to why their economy is flourishing and ours is hitting the skids.

They've a Different set of priorities when it comes to military spending.

Maybe to better their country perhaps ?

We've bridges collapsing they're so old with rust and corrosion ....but we've got the largest nuclear arsenal !

Seriously though, The US definitely has a technical advantage.

But Technology also has limited returns. Just look at what happened to the Germans. Great Technology, but they became entangled in a war against much larger opponents, namely the US and Russia who simply outproduced them.

With much less complex and technically advanced weaponry to boot.

The M4 Sherman Tank...no comparison to the German Tanks but we could produce oodles of 'em.

And man them....which is where the Chinese Would have an advantage.

People forget that We have lost the majority of our manufacturing base here in the US.
Times have changed considerably from the 1940's.

IF we were to ever become entangled in a drawn out battle against a highly productive nation such as China.

We would inevitably lose.

Similar to what transpired in Nam....when the Chinese were arming the NVA.

But finally,
If it ever came down to a war of words, I bet the Chinese could most certainly out spell us Americans as well !!!

"capibilitay" ....."challange"




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JerryB08
reply to post by grey580
 


Obviously you don't know anything about the military. No offense the age of Sheer numbers is over. Even during the Civil War. Sheer numbers didn't work so well in that conflict. Considering The Confederates where out numbered in every single engagement. Sometimes 5 to to 1. And still managed to beat the Union for 4 years.

China tried your idea in the Korean War and totally got massacred. They realized then it wasn't such a good idea. That was also the mind set of the Iraqi Army. 500 Tank destroying 4000? Number's mean nothing in the modern military, It's just more bodies. You can't shot at something your system thinks is a small feathery bird. It won't let you. ( Your SAS system ) Same examples in the Navy. They are deploying lasers.


People that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Technology alone will not win a war.

I seem to recall a poorly armed Viet-com defeated the USA in Vietnam.

And then there are casualties to consider, the US population will not stomach large casualty numbers, were-as most of your potential foes will.

Wars are not just fought on the battlefield, there are economic and social/political considerations that must be brought into the equation.

Quantity as a quality has and always will be a critical feature of warfare.

Just so you know, i served in the Royal Artillery in Germany during the high point of the cold war in the 80,s, i am well versed in what is possible in modern warfare, unless the US really does have UFO's protected by Tesla domes hidden away in secret hangars i wouldn't get so confident as to disregard the ingenuity of ones potential enemies.

The Hubris of Generals has been the death of many a soldier.

Cosmic...



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
China is been attacking US and making it vulnerable for decades is just that American people have not clue how China use their celebrated classic of the Art of war and how it works, darn US school children don't even learn about their own history.

China is been very busy weakening US economically.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 





IF we were to ever become entangled in a drawn out battle against a highly productive nation such as China.
I must disagree. Having the capacity to mass produce cheap junk will not win them any wars. Not even considering the fact that they lose their biggest customer. Yes, the US manufacturing base is severely depleted. But not when it comes to weapons and munitions manufacturing. The military-industrial complex is alive and well in the US. One "good thing" that would happen from such a war is that we would be cut off from cheap Chinese imports. Maybe, just maybe that would lead to the return of commercial manufacturing in the US???



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


Vietnam did not defeat the US.

We bombed the crap out of the North, on a scale not seen since World War 2, they came to the Paris peace conference and signed a treaty. We withdrew from South Vietnam.

After we withdrew, idiots in congress passed legislation keeping us from going back if the North violated the treaty.

So of course the North violated the treaty and invaded the South. Legally we couldn't do anything, this almost didn't stop Nixon though, but Watergate did and it killed any chance of US intervention.

Had we intervened, the North would have looked like the moon.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Why was the Chinese General given the keys to the kingdom so to speak? Perhaps, it was simple posturing by the US? Things are about to get hairy with the fluttering economy and every nation's mad dash for raw resources. Conflict or full scale war could happen at any time? I am fairly certain every person on that General's staff had a note pad of some kind taking down everything seen and heard.

As far as the General's remarks about China's inefficiencies to wage war like the US? Of course he is going to say that. If he comes over here throwing his weight around, that would end all the crucial military exchanges between the US and China. This was nothing more than a fact finding mission. China is in no means ready to mount an offensive military campaign against the US. Many on here have already addressed that matter.

All the Chinese are doing is sitting back and watching as the US unravels at the seams due to economic stagnation and disastrous fiscal policy. Furthermore, they are actively seeking out vulnerabilities though espionage, and cyber-infiltration. They will do nothing militarily short of Taiwan going independent or conflict on the Korean Peninsula to jeopardize their access to information under peaceful circumstances. No one has mentioned the Chinese philosophy known as Assassin's Mace.

AMERICA'S ACUPUNCTURE POINTS
PART 1: Striking the US where it hurts



A noted Chinese theorist on modern warfare, Chang Mengxiong, compared China's form of fighting to "a Chinese boxer with a keen knowledge of vital body points who can bring an opponent to his knees with a minimum of movements". It is like key acupuncture points in ancient Chinese medicine. Puncture one vital point and the whole anatomy is affected. If America ever goes to war with China, say, over Taiwan, then America should be prepared for the following "acupuncture points" in its anatomy to be "punctured". Each of the vital points can bring America to its knees with a minimum of effort.


I would not take what the Chinese General said for face value's sake, because their are always hidden meanings to everything being said. Being a guest in the US, it is only natural that he is going to ingratiate his hosts. I would like to know what they are talking about on the plane back to China?
edit on 19-5-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


As i said in my post.

War is not just on the battlefield it is also economic, social and political.

You lost Vietnam, they won.

Cosmic...



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
China will not make a single move until they are the top of this list:

Comprehensive National Power

Even after, they would likely be the defendor not the aggressor.

China is far more concerned with India than the US (militarily). So use that as an indicator.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


As i said in my post.

War is not just on the battlefield it is also economic, social and political.

You lost Vietnam, they won.

Cosmic...


They signed a treaty, we left.

South Vietnam lost. You can't lose a war you didn't even take part in.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join