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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:33 PM
Before any invasion of China there would need to be alot of preperation and things such as moving several carriers won't be possible to hide along with the mobilisation and deployment of troops into the region and i'm sure the Chinese war planners are working out every contingency just as the Americans are.

Any war will also cause alot of changed to the way people live as domestic GPS will probably be disabled and prices will rise as things like clothing/new electronic gear start to become scarcer due to the factories are in China and i doubt the USA will allow enemy vessels to dock to unload stuff just because some hipster wants a new iphone.

Theres alot of people of Chinese origin living in the USA so they'll need to be interned/fed for the duration like the Japanese in WW2 which will place another burden on manpower/resources.

The main thing that will kill the USA's desire to goto war is that it won't be popular when they're shipping back corpses by the thousand.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:45 PM
Please tell me what idiot would invade China?

Our Airforce and Navy would defeat China and Russia combined. Small highly trained SOC units would be key.

We have been over this in ROTC and NROTC classes and submitted papers. China will be defeated by not wiping out the entire population with ordnance but by destroying crops and military installations.

An EMP strike would send China back to the stone age. Same for us.

People dont understand. You cant technically defeat Russia or China or the United States. The next war is total annihilation. This is why wars will most likely be moved not to invasion of the powers but fighting over resources and ' puppets '.


Wars are fought through intelligence and technology now. How did Albert Einstein put it? " I know not what world war 3 will be fought with , but the next war will be fought with sticks and stone." this is so true it is not even funny. World War 3 is total annihilation.


China could not defeat the United States nor could Russia. There is a reason we have 600+ billion dollars in defense budgets and only the good Lord knows what kind of money is going into the black budgets.

Problem is, a $10,000 dity bomb could bring the world's economy to its knees.
edit on 6-8-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:21 PM
It really comes down to win. remeber China is a thrid of the world population. They need oil and they will take it if they have to. Add that to how much our goverment owes there. money is what ever war is about.

China has a very large Military but moving them across the world will be next to impossible for them to cover up. They would invade after some kind of disaster. The Unite States navy aloows other nations to use the ocean when it comes rite down to it. They could shut down all trade if they ever had to and there would be little any could do about it.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:31 PM
Once again, I have to commend the members of A.T.S. They either are unwilling to look at the truth or unwilling to except it. I commend that, I see a lot of you saying that, the nuclear option would never happen in this day and age.

Most of the time I would tend to agree, but...Yes there is a BUT... Going against such a strong presents such as either China or Russia the first step is the Nuclear option, I've served my country for a while now, I've been boots on ground, in that desert.

What is really telling, that people miss here, is two things, 1st) N.A.T.O those gutless cowards, that are being relived of command every four years or so for incompetence or corruption? Yeah, those guys famous for not helping and generally taking men from every country and making them hate them even more. Yeah those guys, Their plan is to nuke first.

Tell me than, If N.A.T.O as well as the U.N plan is to nuke first than mopp up? What makes you think that the U.S would not nuke them first?

I also see some advocating for the use of a Bio-Weapon, Bad ideal, The problem I see most governments have when in concerning their Bio-Weapons, is that they are really concerned with getting the most horrid bad ass viral weapon they can make. Than having to backwards engineer a antidote. Most of the time they don't bother.

So if it breaches containment? What if while its decimating the target it mutates into some thing that the antidote cannot cure? spreads past the target country? or in deploying it it misses the target entirely due to prevailing winds changing?

China may be a threat one day, but today is not that day. China as it stands could not win, except thru electronic warfare. even than, it could only strike against civilian targets, because Military would be closed. They have no blue navy, only shallow coastal defense ships. Not a threat.

The Biggest problem would be their soldiers, with a nuclear option that reduces their soldiers to dust.

But what people are either ignoring or choosing to conveniently forget, is A WAR WITH CHINA WOULD NEVER HAPPEN. We have a better chance or a war with Russia.

China is just a dependent on us as we are of them. China will never call our debts in, just as they know we will never embargo their goods. If war where to happen, China would be crippled over night, from the loss of income, don't fool your selves guys, China makes a lot of our crap. we buy it, we are really intertwined. So come on, lets focus on who we could really end up fighting against here, the Russians.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Sablicious

A war with China on the mainland would be about impossible. Even with the technology gap that exists between the armed forces of both countries, China has the superiority when it comes to troops. 200 million man in reserves alone excluding their active duty military.

In this one area, a land war, the concept of quantity over quality will make a difference. The only thing that could swing the difference would be for widespread dissent to occur in the Chinese forces resulting in an internal chaos issue.

The second x factor is going to be economics... Losing the US markets as well as imports would cause massive issues in the long run for China.

Honestly speaking I dont think its going to come down to a war with China.. With the Chinese people getting tastes of freedom (thought / political / socio-econmic / etc) the Chinese government is facing more and more internal pressure to continue the changes.

China would surrender because of lack of air superiority. The US rules the Air, and would cripple the Chinese naval forces.. The Australian official was talking abaout a land war purely fought on Asian land. The numbers would be hard to overcome..but the numbers would be choked off by air. they would not be able to replenish.. the problem is, the chinese (as weird as it sounds) don't manufacture enough weapons, vehicles, ships, and goods to be self sufficient. The rely on others (the US, Russia, and Europe) to get by on a daily basis. They couldn't even feed their population without help from the US. Thats why they are im a rush to build their infrastructure . They are like a mighty ship, that when on land, would crush under its own weight. They don't have the infrastructure to support themselves. They are DEPENDANT on the US. they'd never war against us ...yet..

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by CynicalWabbit

Im sure there are enough bombs, missiles etc in the US arsenal to raze half the planet.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by Maxatoria

what would win in a fight a lion or a shark... well in the ocean of course the shark, on land?? of course the lion. In reality they would never meet.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:01 PM
If the US and China went to war there would be no winners, it would just be a matter of who loses less. A mainland invasion on either side would be disastrous so armed forced would likely be only a small factor. The Chinese would likely employ mostly electronic warfare to take advantage of the US dependence on technology, while the US would likely use some form of bioweapon to take advantage of the huge population in China, not to mention both sides likely using nukes in some form or another. The end result regardless of how it played out would be both countries getting decimated, along with any other countries they dragged into the conflict with them as well.

Reminds me of a quote from the movie WarGames after the computer learned about the principle of mutually assured destruction that "the only winning move is not to play."

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:07 PM
World War 3 wont be about controlling land and taking over "objective" points. At all. It will be over resources and population control. We'll have troops on land, but not too much. Enough to be in a good position to take out anti-air and anti-ship defenses. Basically distractions. Once the deed is done, troops will come back. The main part of the war will be fought on water and in the air. We have ships with FELs to dissect missiles that are incoming. I expect these ships to be almost blockading our coasts.

What would we have to gain by going to war with another super power? We would do it to make them fall into "line" and to shut them up.

In all likelihood, a world-war would set the whole world back so much that it wouldn't be worth it. An EMP would kill everything we have built thus far, and how would we re access that information?

Oh, and to the poster on page 1-2, talking about how if an invasion force comes to our mainland, that they would prevail with their trained military? And calling us inbred yokels? lololol
Sure, they are trained with their firearms, but guns are only so accurate for some amount of time. Knowing the land and strategic positions would trump almost any invading force. They could outnumber and strategically choose what they are going to do, but with most people owning guns, they would have to take that into effect. Someone said something about "hand" weapons.

A flying piece of metal is still a flying piece of metal. I know many people just in my neighborhood of my town that own assault rifles, for your small sample size.
We may not be militarily trained, but we know how to shoot, when to shoot, and how to react to being fired upon.

If it comes down to US being invaded, I'll be defending with my "yokel" friends shooting our "hand" weapons against "trained" soldiers.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:09 PM
I'm pretty sure the US cannot win a war against Europe and Russia either. Or, indeed, against Narnia. Which would seem a more likely prospect.

I doubt they could even win a war against India.

But then, I doubt the Moon is made of stilton cheese. So .......

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:11 PM

The US could destroy China but I doubt that it could occupy a country with over a billion people.

This is no news.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:13 PM

Originally posted by TKDRL
Depends..... If anyone tries to invade us now? They would be defeated easily. Wait a few more years, maybe liberals will have won, and got rid of our individual right to have fire arms.

Or the conservatives won and totally bankrupt our country by shipping all of our jobs to china, in that case who can afford a $400 gun when you need to eat...

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by Sablicious

Well considering The current leading nations on SDI technology are Japan, Korea, and the US...and that they are allies, I'd say the Australian is wrong.

Korea, on its own, has the military and industrial capacity to face China for a prolonged engagement. Not saying they would win in the long run. I'm saying they would be capable of fighting for many many years. With a Japanese ally (however much they hate the idea), they would be fully capable of putting China to shame, without any US aid. With the US as an ally, China is freaking doomed.

What the Australian failed to recognize is that there are quite a large number of Korean nationals throughout Manchuria that would be more than happy to fight a guerrilla war through all of Northern China. Realize that in the entire insurgency of Iraq, while every day we cringed at our heels to hear the body count of our soldiers, that only 100,000 people died on Iraq's population, and most of them were not even insurgents. Imagine what 1,000,000 Koreans would be capable of doing, if even 10% of them are willing to fight as insurgence while the rest revolt.

Furthermore, the economic disaster China would face from a war with the US would be unimaginable. The sheer volume of people out of work would make China unable to find any sort of coherent means to fight, for it would be fighting 100,000,000 revolutionaries out of a job while fighting Korea and.

The fact is that the Chinese are not in a pretty situation in the event of a war. That is why they know that so long they can hold onto North Korea, they have the advantage. So long they keep the Koreans focused internally, and the Japanese producing for America, they have nothing to fear....for now

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:17 PM

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
reply to post by Sablicious

Houston,yeah you got a problem
Could someone please embed.Keating was not a popular leader,however he is not wrong.It's not a Hollywood block buster and won't end like one in under 3 hours..

Their army has near zero fighting experience. I wonder what they would do if they saw some real combat. My guess is we would kill 100 of them to ever 1 of us for our regular forces and 1000-1 for our special forces. About all they can do is march in sync. Impressive if army marching was an olympic sport, but how does synchronized marching translates in the battle field?

That being said, we won't have to invade them, we will just use their own people to eventually overthrow their government. Just like we are in the middle east right now!

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

Very well thought out and true post.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:20 PM
No kidding?

No, really who ever said we could win a war with China? Those of you who think that defenseless Iraq and Afghanistan are a test of military might had better wake up. War with any super power would see war upon American shores and an end of our dear republic!

I would really like to know how many think that we would have any chance against China! I am certain we could kill many millions, but there could be only one outcome. Do we even have 6 billion bullets?

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:24 PM
pretty obvious actually.

The US couldn't successfully invade iran either if they tried.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by 13th Zodiac

Here is the embed you have requested.

Cool video

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by Donkey_Dean

The Chinese do not have 6 billion people. They have 1 billion people.

Like I said in the above post, we don't have to fight all of them. There would be a Korean insurgency in the North, and joblessness in the south taking care of most of China. China, at war with the US, would essentially be a country in anarchy. We would not have to fight 1 billion Chinese.

The total functional capacity of China in war is reduced to about 3,000,000 soldiers, 75,000,000 workers + 180,000,000 slave labor (which would be exponentially decreasing as revolution spreads). Likelihood is that the slave labor would be a viable military solution for cannon fodder, and they would do as the Russians did, which in the long run would not end well.

You are looking at a situation very similar to Russia vs Germany in WW2....without the Russian Winter.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by javelinfangz

They actually could. It's controlling them that would be the issue. Iran has a long history of being colonized and a long history of fighting for independence. They would not bow down. And we would not stay. Once their government was gone, their people would build a new government. All the US would have to do is eliminate a few thousand people who lead the government, and then assassinate anyone they feel threatened by from the new government.

It's a strategy used by many and very successful.

As for China, the US would not have to invade. Korea would invade. The US would just wait a few years for the economic revolts to settle down, then take over the remaining Chinese strongholds in the south.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in