U.S going to war with ChinA?

[B~E]

China's close to Europe? Good one, that

Either way, China's army is not like the US army. It's not fully dependent of Oil. Very dependent, yes, but you don't make guerrilla warfare in the forests with oil. Not even all the bombs in the world can destroy China's entire army. It's too bloody big. And if the leaders run to the middle of nowhere, it'll just be impossible. Heck, the US can not find an old men walking with a bottle in the mountains and deserts of Middle East, how the hell could they find a group of organized men in the middle of the mountains and forests of China?

But China's planes and ships and tanks, and more importantly, china's economy need oil to function. So without it, all we have is an army consisting of nothing but demoralised infantry, fighting for a country who will be starving and sent 60 years earlier in history. After that, the war would be nothing but a formality.
China's soldiers and population may be patriotic and a little bit brainwashed, but its leaders are bright and clever, and they would not fight such a guerrilia war, because it isn't in China's interest to fight until everything is turned to ashes, They would simply surrender after their initial war goals have vanished.

 

[amrtin77]

China's close to Europe? Good one, that

Either way, China's army is not like the US army. It's not fully dependent of Oil. Very dependent, yes, but you don't make guerrilla warfare in the forests with oil. Not even all the bombs in the world can destroy China's entire army. It's too bloody big. And if the leaders run to the middle of nowhere, it'll just be impossible. Heck, the US can not find an old men walking with a bottle in the mountains and deserts of Middle East, how the hell could they find a group of organized men in the middle of the mountains and forests of China?

Who said China was near Europe? I said China doesn't have an ocean to cross to get to Europe. Meaning, their ground forces might actually be useful.

If soldiers have to go looking for guerilla fighters the guerilla fighters aren't causing too much of a problem, now are they? The problem is when you're being ambushed and suprised by the guerilla fighters. Not when they are hiding in mountains. Unless it is a leader hiding in mountains, with the capability of coordinating their soldiers.
But if the "group of organized men in the middle of the mountains and forests of China" are just hiding, what is the problem? If they are making their presence known, blowing things up, killing soldiers, they are putting themselves at risk of being killed. If they are doing nothing, who cares if they are fond or not? You want to actually go out and find the leaders, not the regular guys taking orders. Thats about impossible. They'll ambush you if they want to fight. If not, then who cares?

Also, oil isn't the only thing an army needs. What about food? Clothing? Ammunition? Living in the forest isn't going to be too good on your weaponry. And I don't know if you realize this, but guerilla warfare is pure hell on the guerilla combatants. They don't live half decently, they don't have regular supply lines, they have to fend for themselves when it comes to getting weaponry, food, clothing, anything nessicary to sustain a war. The only problem the US would have is stopping these people from getting supplies, or simply killing as many of them as possible when they show up to do something. It wouldn't be so bad if the guerilla fighters were living in or near a city or town, as they could be supplied by locals. But what happens when that town is taken by the Americans?


Don't even try to say China could fight without supplies.


By the time marines hit the ground they would be facing a starved, low morale, badly equipped army.

 

[TrongaMonga]

Troik said China was near Europe.

And, I mean, they could actually build factories inside mountains. How the hell would you find them with the satellites and other things that way? If the factory is deep enough, you'd never find them. That's where they could build ammunitions and food. And perhaps even fuel, using their reserves of oil.

I think this would be a gigantic Vietnam. You went there, destroyed the main bases and all, and then you were utterly defeated. They had the help of Russia, but who knows if they wouldn't have it now? At least they'd have the help of North Korea.

 

[Kuzmich]

China will not attack US, clear and simple, it is too reliant on US and its allies for natural resources.

Plus i am still waiting for somebody to refute the point i made about Chinese logistics.

 

[amrtin77]

Russia is no longer communist, why would they put their asses on the line for China? Russia is in better standings with the rest of the world than it was when it was communist. Russians helping China would only make them the enemy again. I don't think they want that.

And actually building factories inside of mountains would be an enormous, time consuming project, and someone would see the construction, or the drilling into the mountains. Unless these mountain bunkers are already there of course. I don't see them having the time to do something like drilling into mountains and building factories inside while they are already being invaded, and somehow keeping it secret with so many construction workers/factory workers working there.


And Kuzmich, I doubt anyone will refute the fact that China does not have the capability to invade. China could probably sustain a smaller force to control a small country or city with no military power easily, but it would be very difficult to sustain something like 200 million men, all who need supplies coming from China..

 

[Kuzmich]

We are actually allies with China, we became much more closer in recent months then we ever were since 1930s.

Russia, China and Kazakhstan are all members of the same alliance that is bent on keeping any single nation from domination world affairs, nobody said US yet, but all of them meant it.

And we are acting on that claim, thus goes the Russian demand for US to set a timetable of its withdrawal from Afghanistan.

We really don't care if we are considered the enemy in the west (plus right now we are leaning towards that, atleast with US that has problems with our Democracy, we of course are polite enough to ignore US demands), we have oil, we can sell it to whoever we'd like, and the west isn't the only market outwhere.

 

[amrtin77]

A lot of Russians say they liked it better when it was a communist country, but I never thought Russia would actually be serious about going against the US and Europe. That suprises me. Maybe I shouldn't say and Europe. I'm not sure how helpful Europe would be to us even if we got involved in a massive war. Europe doesn't seem to like us much right now. Hopefully when Bush is out of office in three years that will change.

 

[Kuzmich]

I doubt that there is any risk of real war, right now all the battles are political.

 

[Induhvidual_1]

like u guys said, if anyone were to invade anyone else, it'd be the US.
if china gets into some kind of conflict with Taiwan, the US may be invovled.
if china buys an american oil company, the US may get to be involved (militarily that is)
although not likely or anytime soon.

and why wouldthe Chinese lose....

because there is no unity in china, like someone else said previously in the thread, the chinese think like this: to each his own, they don't think about they're country as much as the american soldiers do.

last time in history, they had a disgruntled peice of crap army taht even a small island of Japan could take over and hold. it was sad really....

and its true, the US hates it when china or any other country for that matter becomes superior in any way (whether it is technologically, militarily or whatever) that they'll find an excuse to invade.

 

[B~E]

Russia, China and Kazakhstan are all members of the same alliance that is bent on keeping any single nation from domination world affairs, nobody said US yet, but all of them meant it.

Ah, so the barbarians are organizing themselve. Good. Let them have cake!

Its a shame that Russia is moving in opposition to the West. All this shared history, all this shared economical ties, heck, even all this shared ennemity should have brought us closer together. I am aware that Russia does not really seriously want to join the EU, mainly because, like China and America, it is to big and important to accept constraint on its sovereignty. But at the same time, Russia hate the idea of being excluded from anything. Idealy, it would like a special relationship with Europe, giving it visa-free travel for its citizens in EU countries, generous access to the single EU market, some sort of agenda on trade and market policies, and a voice -but not a vote- on EU policymaking, the kind the Russians already enjoy in NATO.

All of this could have been realised within the space of 5 years if Russia now possessed, or was moving toward possessing, a democratic and liberal government.
But for the moment, you are moving toward the opposit direction because of Putin. As we have already discussed together, maybe you are doing so to better deal with your own set of special problems (terrorism and rampant corruption), but you have to admit Kuzmich, a Russia closer with the EU, linked by a signle free market, could have an enormous weight on world affaire, both economicaly and diplomaticaly speaking.

But hey, I hope that your alliance with the chinese and Kazakhstan will be worth it.

China will not attack US, clear and simple, it is too reliant on US and its allies for natural resources.

Plus i am still waiting for somebody to refute the point i made about Chinese logistics.

You are right, but a conflict is likely to happen indirectly because the intervention of a core state of a civilisation -the USA- in a dispute between the core state of another civilisation -china- with a member of its civilisation -like vietnam, north korea or taiwan. As I said, it is likely that the USA get involved in a conflict in with China, because the USA, with its position as world police, would thik that such intervention would be necessary to uphold international laws, protect a country to which the USA pledged to protect, etc.
In today's world, the best way to avoid such an intercivilisational war in for the USA to avoid being involved in a conflict involving countries of another civilisation. But this is a rule that american arrogance will find difficulte, if not impossible, to follow.

 

[x42bn6]

so how did that japan war thing all happen?

why was japan making war with everyoen etc etc?

and why did they bomb pearl harbour?

Japan thought that if it allied with Germany during the war, it could rule the East or something. I don't know, but don't bring it into this thread any further. It's off-topic.

I don't see what motivation the Chinese would have to make the war drag on. The guerilla warfare and fanatical attacks on civilians and US soldiers is because they feel that they have God at their backs. They think that the western world is evil and needs destroyed, or at least kicked off of their land. The Chinese I think would realize they couldn't win the war and would want it to end. I see no reason they would get every man from 15 to 50 to throw sticks and rocks at.. airplanes and.. tanks.... Thats just silly. A ground war, I said, would be difficult to sustain for the time it lasted. Superiority in the sea and air would make the fighting much easier on the American soldiers. What I'm saying is I don't see the will to fight in China that i see in the mid east. The Muslim fanatics are willing to kill themselves without a second thought for their God. That is the same kind of mindset that made fighting in the Pacific during World War 2 such a bitch. Do the Chinese have that kind of dedication? I know I sure as hell don't. There are some things I would be willing to die for, but dying in a hopeless war that doesn't even need to be fought is not one of them. I'm sure most Chinese people don't want to throw themselves at machine guns for absolutely nothing. They're not that stupid.

No. China's peoples' minds aren't like terrorists, true, but a lot of them would still be willing to labour to that war. And if you bomb China's assets, people would starve, which wouldn't exactly help things, politically or in the war.

And if the US ever invades China, you would easily cripple Japan (which relies on Chinese labour), Europe (which relies on Chinese labour), itself (which relies on Chinese labour and products) and South-east Asia (which relies on China so much, on just about everything).

I do not see how a war can be ended by bombing every single asset that China has without setting foot upon the land, unless you want to starve the people to death. Good luck at starving 1.2 billion people in a short time.

I know the Chinese mentality very well. They will not submit to American, or any other, influence, especially one that invades their home ground. The US will have a potential civil war with 1.2 billion people with them as the root cause. Yes, a lot of them are oppressed by the government, but that also was the case in Iraq.

China is either a superpower or close to being a superpower, or at the very least, an economic elephant. Invading China would cripple the world's economy and future being. So if George W. Bush is stupider than I think, he will invade China.

To cap this off, war is bad for any side. Let's face it. If the US goes to war (again!), who the hell would side willingly with them without fear of being invaded if they don't? If all the US is good at is causing bad sentiment about itself by going to war with countries it doesn't like, we have a serious problem.*

 

[TrongaMonga]

amrtin, what I meant when I said you think as an American is that I don't think you understand the power of opression that well. As an American, the govermnent does not opress you, and you are free to do whatever the hell you want. Things are not like that in China, and have never been. And you simply can not expect an entire country's mentality to change from night to day and applaud you, and thank you as saviors. There's some people who will do that, but they'll probably be murdered by people who are brainwashed and want to kill anything that related to America. It's the same as Iraq, or as the USSR in the Second World War. I'm sure plenty of those soldiers wanted to go home, but they were killed if they even tried to run, by their own officers. And, well, the Chinese army now is far bigger than it was then. They can afford some executions.

And about starving people to death, I'm not sure it'd work. You guys would have to keep a close eye on the Himalaias and all the other mountain regions surrouding China. That's not very easy, specially moving troops in there.

 

[Firebat]

China is the birthplace of maoist guerilla warfare. Which pwned the russians in afganistan, the americans in vietnam and a group of 100 guerilla individuals in cuba overthrew the government . Soo if it would come to a conventional warfare china wouldnt lose because they have everything the US have x2. And if it would come down to it, they would use guerilla tactics. BAM

 

[Homem mAIOR]

Well, I say, if USA invaded China (wich has the worlds largest airforce), they would be able to achieve air superiority with some losses (china has planes capable of out maneuvering any USA fighter like the SU-37 Super flanker wich can turn backwards while fliyng, then stop in the middle of the air for two seconds and, thanks to thrust vectoring it can return to it's original direction at only 60km/h). These planes, are 15% biggger than the F-15 and with the maneuvrability of an f-16. Now, this might seem to go against what I've stated previously but, China doesn't have full radar coverage of their territory meaning the USA planes will have better terrain data of where would the chinese fighters be and when.
As for land, they could easilly defeat in regular combat the chinese ground forces but, in terms of guerrilla, the chinese would totally destroy the USA ocupation forces. You just need to imagine that you'd have to face at least 10% of the total population meaning around 200million people with kalashnikovs cheaper than dirt... for you all to know, at 50meters, a kalashnikov bullet has 30% chance of piercing a bullet proof vest. And, even if it doesn't pierce it, the energy is still there and the impact must be hard as hell...




Cheers...

 

[B~E]

About the SU-37 Super flanker, I've done a little bit of research on it, and at the exception of Russia, it seems that nobody owns this type of planes, beside the americans. And even in the case of Russia, they made an order in the early 90, but never actualy bought them because of financial difficulties.
But is it really realist to assume that China has planes that outmatch the american's?

 

[TrongaMonga]

Given that Russian aircraft techonology is superior to the American, and that the americans aren't really known for being intellegent on what they do, they just do what they're trained for, the Chineses would have chances if they had more planes and a radar techonology similar to the US. I don't think they'd have much chances solely because of that.

 

[B~E]

Given that Russian aircraft techonology is superior to the American, and that the americans aren't really known for being intellegent on what they do, they just do what they're trained for, the Chineses would have chances if they had more planes and a radar techonology similar to the US. I don't think they'd have much chances solely because of that.

Military technology is far, very far from being my champ d'intéret, but from my -admittedly uninformed and lets say it, biased- perspective, the americans are the ones that are in the best position to have the best R&D in the world, along maybe with the europeans. My question is, for what reasons would the chineses and the russians have more money, brains, will and experience to achieve higher military technology?

and that the americans aren't really known for being intellegent on what they do

Lets keep this serious and clean, shall we? Portugueses are not out of the reach of poorly constructed biased comments neither.

 

[TrongaMonga]

I'm not being biased. It is a fact that, because of the mentality they grow up with, the sentiment that, as Americans, they are invincible, it goes up to their behaviours in the military. There is a reason why not even Navy Seals can do some of the trainings that there are in British's special forces, or in Portuguese's as well. They simply are too arrogant. Being humble, yet confident is the most important virtue you must have to be a true soldier of the special forces: it gives you a clear head.If anything, I am generalizing what makes sense to me, but if I was to analize every single soldier of the US and China, I'd be dead.

And I wouldn't be the best person to talk about Russian airplanes, true. But from what I see, Americans give the security of the pilot a very high priority, while the russians don't go that far. It's because of that that they can build aircrafts that can reverse their direction in the air, yadda, yadda.

 

[TheJanitor]

There is a reason why not even Navy Seals can do some of the trainings that there are in British's special forces, or in Portuguese's as well.

SAS >3. I know a man who served in the portuguese special forces, he's very proud although I cannot classify him as cocky. Never bragged about being in the special forces like I'd expect people to.

These planes, are 15% biggger than the F-15 and with the maneuvrability of an f-16.

Don't compare the manuverability of the Sukhoi to the f-16. It is the most manuverable fighter on this planet, there is no need to compare it with anything.

 

[TrongaMonga]

There is a difference between arrogance and pride