# US vs. China?



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 17, 2006)

Could the United states defeat china in a non-nuclear war. What are your estimated costs in lives, both civilian and military.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 17, 2006)

Depends on where the War is fought....


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 17, 2006)

My opinion would be an enormous aerial battle over the pacific, Fighters engaged by the hundreds, not all at once of course. American naval power would take some serious blows from chinese sea-skimming missiles no doubt, but the relatively small chinese blue water navy would be crushed.

This is assuming it stays between america and china, include your views for that as well. 

The land war would be difficult, with such a large expanse of water seperating the forces, so transport and logistics would be a bitch, because aircraft and subs and other vessels would no doubt hunt transports and economic ships. The chinese would probably attempt to bomb our east coast, but would fail miserably, because to my knowledge the only aircraft they have thats intercontinetal with a decent bomb load is the prop driven Tu-95 Bear. I dont see the US retaliating just yet against civilians, unless cruise missiles were used on us population centers...with no peace treaty involved, the war could go on and on


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 17, 2006)

A huge battle right on my doorstep... they will use all the land they got right? I'm sure the US will be building its naval and air power in its allied countries in the Far East

part of the war will probably be fought right here in my home country


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 17, 2006)

What is your definition of "winning"? Regime change? Destruction of the PRC military? Economic crippling?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 17, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> A huge battle right on my doorstep... they will use all the land they got right? I'm sure the US will be building its naval and air power in its allied countries in the Far East
> 
> part of the war will probably be fought right here in my home country



Ive always believed that the next war in Asia will be fought over the Spratley Islands.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 18, 2006)

when Saudi Arabia runs out of oil ya, wait IS there oil in the Spratley Is.?


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Apr 18, 2006)

capitulation, anihilation, or surrender...those ones


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 18, 2006)

looma, I'm sure youre aware that the Spratleys are coveted for their potentially vast natural gas reserves.

Indonesia's Natuna gas field might just be the tip of whats out there.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2006)

I am going to go ahead and throw this out there. Yes.

2 reasons: Thousands of hours of Cruise Missles and bombing before the ground guys in. Would the war be brutal yes. The Chinese have a very large army but the main reason would be the fact that it is quite out dated and no matter how many tanks you have, if they are just T-55's they are going to get massacred by the air power and then the ground guys and what not.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 18, 2006)

The Chinese can field 200 million men. (More in a pinch)

Kiwimac


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 18, 2006)

I can say that a land invasion of the PRC would be a folly on par with Napolean and Hitler invading Russia.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 18, 2006)

Agreed upon this, Syscom. The US might have the ability to knock out centres of economical, political or military importance. The ability of China to make losses for the US too high to sustain a war will not be effected with means of conventional warfare and therefore they couldn´t win such a game.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 19, 2006)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> Could the United states defeat china in a non-nuclear war. What are your estimated costs in lives, both civilian and military.




If a war was fought I think we would see a stalemate like what happened in Korea, in terms of casualties I think the americans would be put a the thousands and the chinese in the millions.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 19, 2006)

call me stupid cause i am,
but what would be the main reason for US to wage war on China?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 19, 2006)

Chinese factories across the country raised up against the Imperialistic Americans and stopped manufacturing Fortune Cookies...


----------



## R988 (Apr 19, 2006)

War with China could come from many reasons, most likely something to do with Taiwan or a snowballing Korean conflict. I guess if Japan and China went at it as well, not to mention all the other disputed territories around the area I imagine it would be fairly unlikely though as both countries make so much money off of each other that it would have to be something pretty big for either side to want to really jepordise that, at the moment China and the US pretty much rely on each other to keep each of their economies going. If the US stopped buying Chinas cheap junk then China loses it's income and if that happens then all the US stocks, currency and bonds China has been buying and holding (keeping the US dollar afloat) plumments in value taking the US dollar with it.

It would come down to economics and who had access to the most resources, perhaps the most important being oil and metals. A lot of stuff is made in China, but whether they have enough material to sustain a long term war is debateable. Then again the US is also not as abundant in resources or manufacturing as it once was, though it could probably call on more allies if the need arose.
The other critical factor for China is it's population, it's huge, and male dominated, however it's also ageing very rapidly(just about fastest in the world) thanks to their one child policy, unless this war happens soon, they wont have quite the massive amount of disposable manpower that many people think. Also consider that the US is one of the few western countries to have retained a positive population growth and a long term war of attrition isn't so obviously in Chinas favour.

A more interesting Scenario would perhaps be India vs China, a more even match, in fact I would probably back India. Or a bizarre, but fairly evenly matched one that someone mentioned was Australia vs Canada (god knows where they would fight though, Hawaii? :laugh.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 19, 2006)

Looma, actually I see China instigating wars.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 19, 2006)

Damn, and I thought my reply was quite witty..... At the very least, I thought the Americans here would have atleast chuckled...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 19, 2006)

R988 said:


> Or a bizarre, but fairly evenly matched one that someone mentioned was Australia vs Canada


Bizarre?! Talk about the understatement of the century! 
Nah hell, we'd just bitch and argue about what was tougher, the moose or the kangaroo, we'd knock out a few of each others teeth, then we'd all get pissed on shitty beer and pass out to the off-key bellowing of Waltzing Matilda and the Hockey Song.  

_That'd_ be the way to fight a war!


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Bizarre?! Talk about the understatement of the century!
> Nah hell, we'd just bitch and argue about what was tougher, the moose or the kangaroo, we'd knock out a few of each others teeth, then we'd all get pissed on shitty beer and pass out to the off-key bellowing of Waltzing Matilda and the Hockey Song.
> 
> _That'd_ be the way to fight a war!




Everyone knows that the Moose is way tougher than a stupid kangaroo. I can see the kangaroo standing there trying to box and the Moose steam rolling it flat. lol

Not to mention we have beaver in Canada, way more beaver in Canada. Beaver is way better than a Moose or a kangaroo any day. mmmmmm Beaver is good, Beaver is nice, Beaver is best served bald. mmmmmm Beaver!!!! Beaver!!!! Beaver!!!! Beaver!!!! Beaver!!!


----------



## marconi (Apr 19, 2006)

Beaver does not stand a chanse against DUCKBILL!!!


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2006)

marconi said:


> Beaver does not stand a chanse against DUCKBILL!!!




Well if you are into Bills than whatever dude...... good for you. Look at it this way if your gate swings both ways you have twice the chance of getting lucky!!! Bills are not for me, but good for you. You should be proud, at least you are out now. You feel better now? lol


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2006)

marconi,

You still at least like Beaver right??????????


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 19, 2006)

Mmmmm...beaver... 

We're not talking about the rodent with the big teeth and the flat tail I hope, I don't know if I could eat something that gamy.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Mmmmm...beaver...
> 
> We're not talking about the rodent with the big teeth and the flat tail I hope, I don't know if I could eat something that gamy.




Nope, I am talking the kind of beaver best servered nice and smooth, pink and hairless. Thats good eating!!! lol lol


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 19, 2006)

Yes, I too think a war between the US and China would be bad. Yes...very bad indeed. 

(Smooth, eh?  )


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Yes, I too think a war between the US and China would be bad. Yes...very bad indeed.
> 
> (Smooth, eh?  )



Smooth is the best way. ohhhhhhh yes smooth.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 19, 2006)

Uh-huh, yes agreed. Many, many casualties on both sides. Nasty business.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2006)

yes China and USA would get ugly as stated before. China does not care to much about deaths on their side and USA is very touchy about deaths. I think for the USA general pop to except it China would have to do something first on par with what Japan did to the USA in WW2. Now where would this fight happen???? That would be interesting to me.


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 19, 2006)

Me too.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 19, 2006)

Perhaps as stated before, the ever present issue of Taiwan would spark the war. China still considers it little more than a rogue province, and has never given up on their claim to it.


----------



## Delusional (Apr 19, 2006)

Lol, NS, way to attempt to stay on topic. Les, I laughed at your comment...

If the U.S. ever went to war with China, I would see it being because of a war between Japan and China. And the U.S. would have the huge advantage of having more military bases and allies near China than China has near the U.S. Obviously, the war would be mostly naval and aerial. In both facets, the U.S. would do considerably better than China. Technology and money dominates. Any ground fighting would take place in China (or Japan, if the war started as I speculated it would). China would dominate the ground war, but with considerable damage to Chinese civilians, industry, and farmland. The U.S. would keep ground fighting to a minimum and would only engage in ground combat, I think, after some severe bombing. All in all, I think the U.S. could win, but there would obviously be some severe damage in terms of human life and economy on both sides of the war.

Well, that's what I think. Have a good day everyone!


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Perhaps as stated before, the ever present issue of Taiwan would spark the war. China still considers it little more than a rogue province, and has never given up on their claim to it.



That could be a tough fight for the USA to win that close to mainland China. You really think that USA would risk war with China over Taiwan?? Not much in it for USA to defend Taiwan. Its not a oil country, its not super rich, not loaded in natural resources, its not a terrorist country, China is not going to kill all of its people, not stopping a global communist plot.... why would they risk a global war of it? Just asking, don't know to much about the whole situation.


----------



## Delusional (Apr 19, 2006)

Wow, my 100th post! I'm a Senior Member!


----------



## Delusional (Apr 19, 2006)

The U.S. would risk a global war over Taiwan because our allies would do so too. Does that make sense? Maybe not...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 19, 2006)

Well, I don't think it would be about resources at all, but just about backing the little guy so to speak. China has tried to bully Taiwan back into the fold for years, and the US has openly supported Taiwanese independence. Would the US be willing to actually go to war with China nowadays, if push came to shove? Beats me. My instincts tell me yes, but who the hell knows?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Well, I don't think it would be about resources at all, but just about backing the little guy so to speak. China has tried to bully Taiwan back into the fold for years, and the US has openly supported Taiwanese independence. Would the US be willing to actually go to war with China nowadays, if push came to shove? Beats me. My instincts tell me yes, but who the hell knows?




Yeah who knows, verbally back someone is one thing going to war and risking WW3 over it is a totally different thing. WW3 which would cost many many many lives and alot of money.


----------



## Delusional (Apr 19, 2006)

Well, with so many wars already...

It's hard to tell. As long as the president and Congress was willing to go against popular opinion, it would happen. The American public may be quick to break promises, but the government is a bit more careful about that, although it's obviously happened numerous times before.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 19, 2006)

Delusional said:


> Well, with so many wars already...
> 
> It's hard to tell. As long as the president and Congress was willing to go against popular opinion, it would happen. The American public may be quick to break promises, but the government is a bit more careful about that, although it's obviously happened numerous times before.



But again this is vs a giant world power with a huge military force and nukes. WW3 with them I think would be a tough decision for the Government or the public. This is not some small middle east country with no nukes, they have a small old army and China has not directly attacked USA. Like I said before IF China attacked USA first well thats a different thing, yes USA would fight forsure. But just to back up or to keep their word or for a moral reason risk WW3......... not sure about that. Who knows maybe they would. It would be scary to behold. The air combat would be huge.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 19, 2006)

well, the I've heard the best fighters they got are like 1000 or less Su-27 and 30s, the Chinese are gonna lose air superiority of course


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 20, 2006)

You know that's true. But you know what would be an interesting war: the US against the Brits. US has more troops, but the brits have heart and guts. The brits will not quit no matter what(ex. Battle of Britain), while americans aren't that bad. Other than those advantages for each of them, they are evenly matched.


----------



## R988 (Apr 20, 2006)

Britain would lose rather badly to the US I would think, they have already fought one war against each other. 

A whole EU combined force against the US would be more interesting and more evenly matched though.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 20, 2006)

the US would be rushing to get the F-22 in frontline service


----------



## Delusional (Apr 20, 2006)

Yes, a war between Britain and the U.S. would result in a British defeat, I think. The only "even match" might be the navies. As far as air and ground, the U.S. would have large advantages. That would be an ugly war, though, considering the distance between the two nations. 

A whole EU force, however...hmm, that would be tough. I think that war would more than likely come down to economics. The fighting might come to a stalemate, but the U.S. economy might spiral. It would be interesting to see (not literally, of course).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2006)

if it's the whole EU we'd win no problem, the only thing that would proberly go wrong is relations within the EU and so the effective fighting abilities of the forces would be lost.........

with regards to war between the US and UK, the US would win as it stands, but (what, you didn't think i'd give up that easy, did you  ) look at our military power and equiptment compared to the size and populations of out countries, if our country's power was scaled to the same population/size it suddenly wouldn't look so bad for the UK..........


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 20, 2006)

If the EU forces were commanded by the French, then we would win the moment a private first class recruit farts.


----------



## Delusional (Apr 20, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> if it's the whole EU we'd win no problem, the only thing that would proberly go wrong is relations within the EU and so the effective fighting abilities of the forces would be lost.........
> 
> with regards to war between the US and UK, the US would win as it stands, but (what, you didn't think i'd give up that easy, did you  ) look at our military power and equiptment compared to the size and populations of out countries, if our country's power was scaled to the same population/size it suddenly wouldn't look so bad for the UK..........



Win no problem? I sincerely doubt that.

Sure you have a good point, Lanc, but considering that could never happen, it's hardly a point at all.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 20, 2006)

If the US went to war with the EU, what do u think a gallon of gas would cost???? 

$10.00/gallon???

$20.00?????? 


delusional said:


> The fighting might come to a stalemate, but the U.S. economy might spiral.


I think it would definatly happen, and the Gas Wars would begin.... The National Guard would have to be used to protect the gas pumps....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2006)

you kidding me? within the EU are some of the world's largest military powers.........






source on right click

(note this map is a little old, some of the countries here shown as candidate countries are now part of the EU)

the UK, Germany, France, Italy, in some respects spain, heck even Sweeden and Greece have a fair ammount of military capabilities, the entire EU would fund the war, and there's very little we can't produce ourselves.........

*EDIT*- after reading les' post (he beat me to it)

i'm not too sure who that comment was directed at but fuel was something i hadn't thought about, i was thinking more in terms of military capabilities........


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 20, 2006)

Eu vs USA mmmmmm USA would have it tough vs them all. I have to agree more with Lanc on this one. EU is big, both monetarily and land mass wise and army size.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 20, 2006)

Believe it or not, I was agreeing with delusional...


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 20, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Believe it or not, I was agreeing with delusional...




lol I have seen stranger things.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 20, 2006)

I could see a sino-usa war starting with the following scenario.

1) PRC attacks ROC, with the result that the sealanes in that part of the world being shut down. The oil tankers going to Korea and Japan refuse to transit the area.
2) Japan threatens to use any force necessary to keep the sealanes to the south open. 
3) ROK also strongly hints it will support Japan 
4) PRC doesnt let up on its attacks on ROC. It isnt succedding and the zone of combat keeps expanding.
5) Japan finally intervenes resulting in a missle exchanges between the navies of both nations.
6) US intervenes at the request of its long time allies as well as other countries.


----------



## Delusional (Apr 20, 2006)

Lanc, your whole post seemed to further my point that the actual fighting would probably come to a stalemate but that the U.S. economy would be sorely affected. It's not like the U.S. doesn't have other allies outside of the EU that we might be able to get on our side.

Wow, Les, I don't know what to say...

Syscom, I agree with your post. Good thinking all the way around.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 20, 2006)

delusional said:


> Wow, Les, I don't know what to say...


Dont say anything then, just go get ur fucking shinebox....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 20, 2006)

Delusional said:


> It's not like the U.S. doesn't have other allies outside of the EU that we might be able to get on our side.


I know you're not thinking of Canada. 
A) We're a proud nation of fence sitters these days.
B) If our military were any smaller, it might just qualify as a Boy Scout troupe.

In a US vs. UK scenario, the US has it. No question. They have the toys, the know-how, the bucks, and the drive. The UK has all of these things as well, but the US has a lot more of them. The UK would be one helluva tough nut, but in the end Uncle Sam has more in his corner.

In the US vs. EU scenario, I'd have to lean towards the EU. Assuming the alliance stuck together and ran seamlessly, as lanc said.


----------



## Delusional (Apr 20, 2006)

Nah, if Canada was involved at all, it would be "God Save the Queen!" Lol. I was thinking more along the lines in the Asian sphere.

Sure, NS, but that's a pretty big assumption, don't you think? Last I checked things were seldom running smoothly in the EU.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2006)

> It's not like the U.S. doesn't have other allies outside of the EU that we might be able to get on our side



i suggest you don't bring allies into this, we can bring along half the commonwealth, you're not exactily flavour of the month in most places


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 21, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> I know you're not thinking of Canada.
> A) We're a proud nation of fence sitters these days.
> B) If our military were any smaller, it might just qualify as a Boy Scout troupe.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 21, 2006)

If the EU and U.S went to war it would be a stalemate in the seas. The USN is the largest and most powerful navy on the world which would hold off any attack against the U.S mainland, while on the other hand the combined fleets of the E.U would be able to hold it's own in the seas around the European continent. 

If the war did come to ground conflict, the U.S has lost. The E.U with Britain's Commonwealth support would be destroyed by superior numbers alone. And a lot of the European 'minor' nations are extremely well trained to make up for their numbers. You combine the Danes, Norweigens, British, Dutch, Austrian armed forces you've got a lot of highly trained soldiers at hand. 

I don't know if any of our U.S veterans have served alongside anyone from these countries, but the general understanding is that those nations have extremely high standards in training. 

Denmark especially is extremely well-trained and the individual soldier is extremely well-equipped. The only problem they have is the small size.


----------



## dinos7 (Apr 23, 2006)

were not going to fight china anytime soon. so dont get exited.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 23, 2006)

dinos7 said:


> were not going to fight china anytime soon. so dont get exited.



Were talking hypothetical possibilities.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 23, 2006)

I'm not excited about a war, cause my country is an ally of the US that is China's next door neighbor


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 24, 2006)

Looma, the chances of a conflict erupting over the Spratleys is quite possible.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 24, 2006)

of course it is
and a US-China war is worse


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 25, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Everyone knows that the Moose is way tougher than a stupid kangaroo. I can see the kangaroo standing there trying to box and the Moose steam rolling it flat. lol
> 
> Not to mention we have beaver in Canada, way more beaver in Canada. Beaver is way better than a Moose or a kangaroo any day. mmmmmm Beaver is good, Beaver is nice, Beaver is best served bald. mmmmmm Beaver!!!! Beaver!!!! Beaver!!!! Beaver!!!! Beaver!!!




People dont realise how f**king vicious beavers are, theyre like badgers, which is kind of ironic.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 25, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> People dont realise how f**king vicious beavers are, theyre like badgers, which is kind of ironic.




Oh boy Hussars...... not sure what to say. But I was just thinking the other day its been a while since we seen you last around here. We all miss ...............your posts.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 25, 2006)

The war between the US and china would be a bloodbath, no matter how you slice it.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 25, 2006)

A war between the US and China would degenerate into a global war. 

I suspect Russia still fears China and would jump in at an opportunistic time just to secure Siberia.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 25, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> A war between the US and China would degenerate into a global war.
> 
> I suspect Russia still fears China and would jump in at an opportunistic time just to secure Siberia.




Thats a interesting thought. Russia support China or USA more, mmmmm.


----------



## Delusional (May 5, 2006)

Yeah, that would be a tough call for the Russians, but you know they wouldn't remain neutral. Because of purely geographical reasons, I think they would support the U.S.


----------



## syscom3 (May 6, 2006)

The Russians have more to fear from China than they have from the US. And they know it, and the Chinese know it.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 6, 2006)

Any conflict that erupts between the US and China has its roots in WWII. The Nationalist forces bled and died for the freedom of their country from the brutal treatment at the hands of the Japanese (see the Rape of Nanking). The Communist forces laid low, and once the Japanese were defeated, proceded to whip up on the Nationalist forces. The communists eventually drove the Nationalists to Taiwan, but were unable to root them out completely. Status today is that Taiwan is officially Chinese (communist) sovereign soil, but has its own government that doesn't support the PRC. Thus, the tension, as the US supports Taiwan (our old allies from WWII).


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 6, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Status today is that Taiwan is officially Chinese (communist) sovereign soil, but has its own government that doesn't support the PRC.


As well as its own military, equipped primarily by the US.


----------

