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.


"The US cannot win a war against China"

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:49 AM

The cost on the other hand would be massive. The United States, would start out with precision nuclear weapons.
reply to post by Reaper2137

That's never going to happen. It is folly to presume that the nuclear exchanges would just be between these nations, and that, for instance, "no other nation would dare escalate the nuclear situation any further". And that's the problem, no nation would dare in the first place either.

After all, if UFOs can disable warheads on base, why not in mid-flight? Have the military chiefs of the nuclear powers discussed and become privy at all with this distinction?
edit on 6/8/12 by Morg234 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:58 AM
The key phrase in the scenario being on the Chinese mainland. Correct would be that answer. However war in general would be in the US favor 9 times out of 10. The Chinese just aren't there logistically, yet. They cant move those massive amounts of troops through the air or over water. So if you have a pack of troops on the mainland they are sitting ducks. Look through history, its happened before all you need to do is pound them into submission off shore.

They have a large sub army but with US anti sub tech and aircraft carriers and supporting cast all day long its still a no contest. You are all dreaming if you think otherwise. That's why they wont take Tibet that's why they cling to Russia, they aren't ready, yet.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by dayve
We would wipe china out.... They might look/act smart, but theyre not that smart

Neither are you if you think you would wipe them out without being wiped out yourself in the process.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:08 AM
reply to post by thoiter

Neither are you if you think you would wipe them out without being wiped out yourself in the process.

So certain are we?
Tell me wise one, how will a country combat an invisible enemy such as a bio agent?
A bio agent the aggressors already have a vaccine/immunity against?
You wouldn't even need to set foot on Chinese land to unleash it.
It has the potential to be catastrophic if executed properly.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by thatonedude

What makes you so sure China doesn't possess similar weapons?

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:22 AM
To quote Vizzini. Never get involved in a land war in Asia... sound advice.

You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:23 AM
reply to post by Hefficide

Considering that the rise of China is closely related to the globalization movement and the nation entry into the WTO mostly with support from the US, that ultimately is at the core of the economic woes of the West to match production costs, face China's dumping tactics and technological acquisitions (including stealing information), expansion into Africa and overall gobbling up of resource production firms.

If the US is mostly to blame for this extremely unilaterally beneficial changes why would it then want to go to war with China, it simply do not make sense. The better option would be to keep China contained and isolated (much like North Korea) and a strategy that the US fallowed at least until Nixon..

The only minor but positive outcomes has been some raise on the quality of life of the Chinese population but that ultimately benefits the regime, so I see no overall benefit to the US (even if at a slower pace) or Europe/Australia/Japan and even Russia at this accelerated rate.

This is even less beneficial to all neighbors of China, that will now have to deal with the new expansion of China's interests beyond its boarders and historical sphere of influence.

This bipolar strategy of the US makes no real sense at first glance, maybe looking at what changed under Nixon, economically wise would provide some clues for the motivation,..

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by thoiter

My question to you was

how will a country combat an invisible enemy such as a bio agent? A bio agent the aggressors already have a vaccine/immunity against?

Nowhere in my post did I imply they're incapable of having such an agent.
Your approach towards this subject have led your assumptions astray.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Domo1

Uh, have you met Russia or China? I don't anticipate that 'liberation' being a good thing. Everyone who starred should go take a vacation.

Yes; I have met the equivalent of Russia and China .... on steroids.

The malevolent entity I am talking about is Washington. Our standing armies and covert services are up to their eyeballs in false flags, overthrowing governments, murder, torture, secret prisons, rape, theft, running drugs/guns and massively polluting the middle east with depleted uranium. Just because our flag is rubber stamped on these crimes and war crimes does not make them any more legitimate than any other government on the planet.

We desperately need liberation from this gangster government and from standing armies in general. Could you imagine what we could do if the Washington and the Department of Defense was not sucking the life out of our economy and liberties?

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:00 AM
Without continued chinese financial backing the U.S. would go bankrupt in just a few months. China doesnt need to attack the U.S. to conquer it, all they have to do is to stop financing the U.S. and demand repayment of all the outstanding debt plus interest that the U.S. owes to china.
They are already stealing all our jobs and flooding our stores with cheaply made junk that sells like hotcakes.
Where is the government going to get all that money to repay china? massive tax hikes which will destroy the economy.
edit on 6-8-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:00 AM
i have posted this link on a couple of different threads.
they take all the data and compare the armed forces of the world.
they exclude nuclear capability.

Global Fire Power. Com Strength In Numbers

the top three in order.
click each country's flag, and it gives you a break down of that country's armed forces.
if you look under the main header, you will see a compare button.
you can see the two country's side by side.

the op stated that the U.S. would have to bomb them to kingdom come, yes they would but with out the need for nukes. that's what the U.S does. rule the skies.
this sites shows that the U.S. has over 18,000 aircraft, now granted some are support aircraft if you were to check you would see that the majority of them are combat.

also look at every major category, the U.S. has china beat in just about every one. and if they were to break it down even further, i think it safe to say in the ones they don't The U.S.'s equipment is far more advanced than china's.

it would be kinda like the the native amercains going up against the U.S. cavalry with bow and arrows and the cavalry had rifles. who do you think is gonna win.

yea sure they got more manpower, but in the end they would be standing there with sticks.
the U.S. main fighting tactic is to reach out and touch someone, then come in and mop up.

the U.S. has changed it's view sense vietnam. better to blow them back to the stone age first, then come in with ground forces

edit on 6-8-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:41 AM
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

Fascinating site, but I have to wonder about the numbers. I know for a fact that the German Bundeswehr does have more than 148.000 men and women.
And if that fact is incorrect how about the other numbers?

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:46 AM
reply to post by Sablicious

Didn't the Japanese tried that on China during World War 2?

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:48 AM
US military expenditure, 2011.

We have 45-50% of the entire world's military expenditure. In other words, we spend almost as much on our military as every other nation combined.

China has more physical manpower...but technologically, the US could decimate the entire planet in less than a day if they wanted. That chart isn't including black projects.

A Chinese foot soldier, or even missile, isn't going to fair well against some extraterrestrial weaponry or whatever the US has been concocting for the last 60 years with a budget that big.

That's probably why they're trying to instigate a WWIII scenario - they know they're holding the royal flush.
edit on 6-8-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:50 AM
Two basic common sense questions:

1) Why would the Americans start a land-war in China?

2) How would the Chinese deliver troops to the US for a land-war in NA?

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:51 AM
China has discipline. America has bravado.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:52 AM
reply to post by ManFromEurope

well it's 2011 number. and according to this site it just a little short.

European Defence Information

they show 160,000.
total active in army , navy and air force. about 234,000
total reserve all three 144,000
eta i broke it down wrong here are the numbers for germany.

Total Armed Forces
Army 160,000 including about 40,000 conscripts (plus about 130,000 reserves)
Navy 24,000 including about 3,500 conscripts (plus about 4,000 reserves)
Air Force 50,000 including about 10,000 conscripts (plus about 12,000 reserves)
The Bundeswehr (the generic name for the German Armed Forces) is currently restructuring. During early 2010 conscription was reduced from 9 to 6 months and it is possible that there are longer term plans to abolish conscription entirely. We believe that under the current limitations imposed by the German constitution it is unlikely that the Armed Forces are capable of deploying more than about 10,000 personnel on overseas missions.

also futher down the page you will see this.

Army Strength: approximately 160,000 including about 40,000 conscripts (plus about 130,000 reserves). There are plans to reduce the strength of the German Army to around 132,000 within two or three years.

edit on 6-8-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by CallYourBluff

America has Yankee ingenuity. China has a photocopy machine.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:02 AM
reply to post by TheLegend

Russians have their own extraterrestrial weaponry and scalar weaponry too.And the world largest civil defence.Likely they will have much more survivablity compared to USA in mass genocide bio nuclear wars.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:09 AM
This is stupid because there would no winners in a war between the US and China... neither country could physically invade the other because of size and distance in today modern warfare..... Hitler and Napoleon found out what happens when your long supply lines are vulnerable to attack....

secondly, for China or the US to physically invade each others country to destroy them is not needed....

if China and US go to war expect it to be nuclear!

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in