COULD THE U.S. DEFEAT CHINA?

[Pat Hurley]

Without nukes it would be a heluva fight. But the strength of our Navy and Air Force would win the day. However, the price would be huge.

[22WRF]

Some good advice

"never get involved in a land war in Asia" General Douglas Macarthur

[Marlin T]

Before everybody votes, you might want to read this.




China Naval Modernization

Updated below
The significance of China's naval modernization programs and their impact on U.S. national security considerations are explored in a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service. See "China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities -- Background and Issues for Congress" (pdf), updated May 29, 2007.
Hans Kristensen of FAS observed that a recent Department of Defense annual report (pdf) on Chinese military power conspicuously declined to endorse press reports (mainly attributable to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times) that China intends to deploy five new Jin-class ballistic missile submarines.
"Are you building five SSBNs or not?" Hans inquired in a followup letter to the Embassy of China. "No one here even knows the answer to your question," the Embassy replied.
See "Pentagon China Report Ignores Five SSBNs Projection," Strategic Security Blog, May 25.
Update/Clarification: Although the new DoD report did not specify the development of five Jin-class ballistic missile submarines, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence stated in a report last year that China will build "probably five" such subs, as reported in the Washington Times on March 2.

[Bruce FLinch]

I voted No, based on on how the Dipsticks in Washington are handling the Iraq war. Also I don't think the US public has the stomach to fight another war soon. The Libs would rather learn a Chinese language.

[Silencer]

No.

China is well prepared to beat the US. And, they're getting stronger. They don't the navel power we do, but they're working on that.

China prepares to use nukes and invade with forces. They've been practicing this technique for decades. Scary, scary stuff.

Not only that, China has 'cloaking' technology that England is currently working on. The folks at MIT have barely touched the surface of cloaking technology. I doubt DARPA even thought of funding it, until that Korean born Chinese spy brought it here several years ago (supposedly he stole if from the Chinese military).

To read about our cloaking technology, read this article... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6064620.stm

[Rommelvon]

If it was a total nuke war, yes, without a doubt, the USA would vaporize them, in a conventional war, using ground troops....it would be tough, although their army is huge, from what I understand over half wouldn't have weapons to use, the US Navy would rule the seas, the US Air Force would gain air superiority quickly, and given those 2, they are vital to winning a conflict.....but it would be very costly in casualties

[AL MOUNT]

I voted maybe.....cuz...

Once the Chinks easily overrun anti-gun Kalifornia and start heading east...

they'll probably assume the rest of the country will roll over and surrender too...

I wonder if they comprehend the amount of armed citizens East of the Rockies...



People have told me....

With all your guns... .....I'm coming to your house if the SHTF....



I heard somewhere the bad guys wanted to set off nukes in 5 American towns.

If that happened in St. Looser, I'm afarid the mass exodus south, would be unimaginable...

Living only 5 miles from Interstate - 55, I can vision after 5 or so days stuck in a non-moving traffic gridlock

the starving & crazed masses would be be moving out into the country on foot in search of food

and taking it from the locals by any means...

Visualize "Night of the Living Dead" .....


Damn.....I've scared myself now......gotta to get more ammo today....


And the moron Democraps say we don't need no stinkin guns.....

[Pistolenschutze]

Yes we could . . . and no we couldn't. My point is that posing the question of war between the U.S. and China excluding the use of nuclear weapons is, I believe, unrealistic. Such weapons would, I think, either be used or the war would not be fought in the first place. A ground war with the Chinese, in Asia, would be suicide. I think it would go nuclear long before large armies would ever meet in battle.

[clmanges]

No way. Too far away, too big a geographical area. We couldn't even occupy China if they invited us to.
Besides, our industrial capacity is so eroded now (with a lot of it having gone to -- China!) that we'd have more than we could do just to get restarted, replacing steel mills, rail lines, etc., and finding enough skilled workers to run it all.
Really, the bigger threat from China is not military, but economic. If they decided to cash in all their US holdings, we'd be sunk in a heartbeat.
If we decide that China is a threat to us, we should get back to making our own consumer goods and industrial products, as of yesterday.

[WarSteed]

What clmanges said. I think the best case scenario would be that yes we could win at an enormous price. But each year that goes by, the buying power of a quarter of the world's population gets bigger and bigger...

[Marlin]

I tend to go with option 4. I am not voting in the poll since it does show names.....

[LurpyGeek]

I went with "Maybe / Truce".

China cannot "defeat" the U.S., but the opposite is also true. The only form of victory that either could achieve would be complete vaporization of the other side. If it came to that, the U.S. has a major technological advantage, but if either side decided to use nuclear weapons then other countries (Russia, UK, the rest of Europe, etc.) would be sure to get involved and I can't say what would happen, but it wouldn't be good. As far as a conventional war, the U.S. still has an advantage as far as technology, experience and ability. China has the advantage in manpower, but not a lot of really effective ways of getting them anywhere.


So barring nuclear incidents it comes down to these facts:

-China cannot effectively defeat the U.S. in a conventional war and then invade North America.

-The U.S. WOULD defeat China in conventional battles in the oceans and coastlines around Asia, but China CANNOT be invaded or held.

-If a conflict ensued between these, the two largest players in the economy of the entire planet, BOTH would be &%@#ed and so would the rest of the world for at least some stretch of time.

Therefore... truce.



I do, however, believe that in my lifetime we'll see China using that waiting manpower to either move on Taiwan or Russia and either way we'll end up involved somehow. Anybody ever read "The Bear and the Dragon" by Tom Clancy? Amazing how it applies to even the smallest details of world politics today.


Oh, and also:
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” -Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941

[WarSteed]

Originally Posted by LurpyGeek

Oh, and also:
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” -Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941

Oh i would say give it about 50 yrs and that quote might not be true the way things are going around here... i'm going to have to move back to Alaska where at least i can carry without getting strange looks from everyone.

[bunnyhunter12]

I voted yes but it is conditional. Are we talking a strict, U.S. only, force, or a coalition? Would there be unresticted use of airbases surrounding China? Would it be "total war" where carpet bombing is acceptable or a "limited conflict" where the bombers would be severely restricted? I think that American airpower with B-1Bs, B-2s, F-117s, B-52s, F-22s and the various Joint Strike Fighter as well as, older, battle proven fighters, variants would play a big part in the opening stages and allow the good guys to get a toe hold. A major problem would be geography; unless vast numbers of troops could be lured into the open and crushed by airpower, the size of China and its vast number of troops would make it impossible to fight a conventional "hold your ground" war. The only way would be to fight like street fighters, that is, hit as hard as you can as fast as you can and don't stop until your opponent stops moving. Modern equivalents of The Blitz, Rolling Thunder, Linebacker and Linebacker II would be required, simultaneously, with everything that will fly, hitting every possible target. Ignoring "the rules" wouldn't hurt either, napalm, willie pete, and throwing dead horses over the castle walls would have their place.

[Pat Hurley]

I see a conflict on the horizon, and it will likely come from China attempting to invade Taiwan, and America intervening as we are compelled to do by treaty. It will start as a naval battle (which we will easily win) then evolve into an air war (which we will win, but will be much harder than the naval victory). If we ever try to engage them in a ground war (unless the ground war is defending American soil) then we are doomed.

And I must disagree with Pistol, I do not see nuclear weapons as an inevitability. Such a hypothetical conflict would likely remain conventional - if I'm wrong, please be specific and give me some compelling reasons why. Nukes between nuclear powers is a murder/suicide. Push the button and you've signed your own death warrant. Only certifiably wacked out regiemes (North Korea) or blindly religious fanatical regiemes (Iran) would flippantly and haphazardly use nuclear weapons against us if given the opportunity.

[Don Buckbee]

Let me say it this way.
We couldn't stop a bunch of rag tag rag heads from flying our own planes into buildings here on our soil. (Like, we can't protect ourself today.)
So, how can we protect ourself from a dedicated, HUGE Chinese Military?

Don

Edit to add: And, the more liberal our Nation becomes, the impotent we will be.

[LurpyGeek]

Originally Posted by bunnyhunter12

...Would it be "total war" where carpet bombing is acceptable or a "limited conflict" where the bombers would be severely restricted? ...Ignoring "the rules" wouldn't hurt either...

I agree with the majority of your post, but the reason I stated the things that I did is because of these points. I don't believe unless a large part of our contry was literally invaded (at which point it would probably be too late) that the U.S. or any other major power will ever participate in "total war" again. At least not in the near future. Today, politicians are allowed to give more of the orders and restrictions than generals are. Case in point, Somalia 1993 (or really anytime 1991 to the present), Bosnia 1992-1995, etc. We've become too liberal and touchy-feely. We have too much of a conscience now. Besides, it's not like WWII anymore. The media (ours and that of the rest of the world) sees and reports just about everything that happens without reguard for what negative impact it might have on the war effort, the lives of the troops, or morale / opinion in the states. They would have a field day with carpet bombing or nuclear conflict, bending it all kinds of directions.

Maybe I'm naive.

[Marlin T]

If any of you are interested in what our Govt has to say about the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, read THIS.

Pretty scary thought, going to war with China. But think about that before you go to Wal-Mart. Isn’t Wal-Mart Chinas second largest country that they export to?

[Huck Finn]

There's no way we could win against China at this point in time. Too many assets & money tied up in Iraq. I think our country is tired of being involved in mismanaged and prolonged war already. Plus we'd have to start up the draft, we're way too short staffed in Iraq, hence all the service men having their tours involuntarily extended. What choice would we have? Cut and run in Iraq and ship them all off to China? Plus it would destroy our economy. Our deficit is out of control as it is, so where's the money going to come from? Taxes??? No, we wouldn't stand for that. And even if we cut off all welfare and social programs, it wouldn't cover what Iraq's costing us, fighting China would be even costlier. Plus I don't think the average American citizen wants to go to war with China. Wal-Mart would go out of business and most people would rather save a buck than avoid businesses that buy billions of dollars of products from Red China every year. How many people on this forum will go to Wal-Mart to save a dollar on a box of ammo? Make no mistake about it, Wally world and a lot of other discount places pump tons of American money into the Chinese economy every day and I don't see a lot of people willing to stop doing it.
In short, we don't have the troops, equipment, money, support or stomach to start (or win) a war with China. Any kind of nuclear attack on our part would start us on a road we really don't want to go down. Don't take this as an un-American rant, I think there's more truth in what I've written than any of us would like to admit.
Huck

[Pistolenschutze]

Huck, much as it pains me, I must essentially agree with you on this one. At present, there is no way the United States could fight any sort of sustained ground war with the Chinese, at least not in Asia, and probably not anywhere else. Were a confrontation to come, as I argued earlier, it would have to go nuclear almost from the outset. I do think that if such a confrontation were confined to skermising at sea, or it were one that we could influence effectively using long-range with air assets, the Chinese would come off the losers in a big way. A ground war though, in China or anywhere in South or South East Asia, would place a demand on our military it simply could not meet. It might be said as well, though, that becoming involved in yet another ground war in Asia would be utterly stupid in the first place, even without the demands placed on our military at present.

[Marlin]

I agree with Pistol on this one.

[strayshot]

.................................................U.S......CHINA

A- TROOPS active- thousands....1,426.....2,255
B- TROOPS reserve- thousands....858......800
C- Budget Bn............................518........44.
D- TANKS................................7650.....8580
E- CARRIERS...............................11........0
F- CRUISERS...............................22.......0
G- DESTROYER............................51.......29
H- FRIGATE................................30.......47
I- CORVETTE................................0........70
J- NUCLEAR SUBS........................72........6
K- SUBS......................................0.........25
L- JET FIGHTERS........................3200.....1400

[JohnK3]

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia."

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by JohnK3

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia."

Yup, Eisenhower was right, John. Nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

[elect1mike]

If we went in to the war with victory in mind and used every resourse we have minus nukes I think it would be a fight but we could do it. But as the politics of this nation stand nope we would get our butts handed to us.