Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Pat Hurley, Jun 4, 2007.

Barring nuclear weapons, could the U.S. defeat China in a conventional war?

  1. Yes, and pretty easily. They're too antiquated and unskilled to match us.

  2. Yes, but it would be a long, protracted war with enormous casualties.

  3. Maybe, maybe not. A truce (a la Korean War) is the most likely outcome.

  4. No, their sheer numbers would ultimately be too overwhelming to deal with.

  1. Pat Hurley

    Pat Hurley Former Guest

    Sep 30, 2006
    Naples, Florida
    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.
  2. 22WRF

    22WRF Well-Known Member

    May 10, 2004
    Some good advice

    "never get involved in a land war in Asia" General Douglas Macarthur
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2007

  3. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    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.
  4. Bruce FLinch

    Bruce FLinch New Member

    Aug 27, 2005
    Bay Point, Kali..aka Gun Point
    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. :(
  5. Silencer

    Silencer Well-Known Member

    Nov 18, 2003
    Southern California: Inland Empire

    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...
  6. Rommelvon

    Rommelvon New Member

    Aug 6, 2006
    Goldsboro, NC
    If it was a total nuke war, yes, without a doubt, the USA would vaporize them, in a conventional war, using ground 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 Active Member

    Oct 9, 2006
    Cleaning my Thompson in The Foothills of the Ozark
    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...:eek:

    People have told me....

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

    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...:eek:

    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" .....:eek:

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

    And the moron Democraps say we don't need no stinkin guns.....
  8. 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.
  9. clmanges

    clmanges New Member

    Feb 2, 2007
    NE Ohio
    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.
  10. WarSteed

    WarSteed New Member

    Mar 6, 2007
    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...
  11. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Mar 27, 2003
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    I tend to go with option 4. I am not voting in the poll since it does show names.....
  12. LurpyGeek

    LurpyGeek Active Member

    Nov 30, 2005
    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
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2007
  13. WarSteed

    WarSteed New Member

    Mar 6, 2007
    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.
  14. bunnyhunter12

    bunnyhunter12 New Member

    May 8, 2007
    Newfoundland, Canada
    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.
  15. Pat Hurley

    Pat Hurley Former Guest

    Sep 30, 2006
    Naples, Florida
    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.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Discussion Karl Rove Comments on Republican Defeat Nov 5, 2008
General Discussion Full Court Press to Defeat Bush Oct 7, 2004
General Discussion Musicians Tour to Defeat Predisent Bush Aug 9, 2004
General Discussion Preaching to the Choir WON'T Defeat the Dem's Jul 31, 2004
General Discussion Feinstein virtually concedes defeat Jun 30, 2004