USA V China

[ViperPilot 0]

They have a shitload of combat aircraft and a few old soviet junkers such as AN-2s for airlift. Their airlift is non existent, especially after some -16s, -15s, and -22s have their way with them.

Quote

But if someone did that to us, we'd launch nukes.

No, it's called equal retaliation. You don't nuke someone's capital for taking out your planes, tanks or boats. That's conventional war, thus requiring a conventional response (or guerilla maybe), but certainly not nuclear. The hope is that China isn't insane enough to respond w/ nukes. I don't think they are since they know we'd wipe their entire country into the stone age if they attacked us w/ nukes.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

Sometimes a shootin match is what we want in a sick way...it sucks when you practice but don't compete, you know?

I appreciate what you do for our country and I'm familiar with the mindset that accompanies that, what you expressed is considerably less keyed-up than the Rangers, Marines and SEALs I've known. Someday though, assuming the balloon doesn't go up, you should visit China (coastal cities and countryside). Out of all the Pan Asian people I know with the exception of the Aussies, Kiwis and Samoans the Chinese people are the people who remind me the most of Americans. I bet you'd like them, well, except for their armed forces and political leaders perhaps


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

AN-2s for airlift

What is: oxymoron. An-2, airlift - ha ha Makes the DC-3 seem like a speed demon in comparison ...


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[billvon 3,116]

>China lacks the means to deliver a meaningful conventional or
>nuclear first strike on the U.S., consider the attached.

The DF-31A has a range of at _least_ 10,000km (6000 miles.) Which puts all of Alaska and the US West Coast within range of their missiles. You think taking out Seattle, San Franscisco, Los Angeles and Anchorage would fall under "meaningless first strike?"

And given that they have a manned space program, "their missiles probably never work" would be a very poor bet.

>Since I doubt the Chinese leadership is suicidal or wants to see its
> plans for China’s ascension scuttled there is indeed reason why
> China would not do the same.

Right. No Asian country would ever attack the US. It would be suicide!

[billvon 3,116]

>They have a shitload of combat aircraft and a few old soviet junkers
>such as AN-2s for airlift.

And 44 IL-76's heavy transports. And they are now building the Y-9 in China. (Think C-130 size.) Underestimating them is a mistake.

>No, it's called equal retaliation.

Dude, we killed 350,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE with nuclear weapons to end a war sooner! You really think we wouldn't use them to respond to a massive (conventional) military attack that destroyed New York and Washington? I can just here the patriotic speeches justifying it now.

> The hope is that China isn't insane enough to respond w/ nukes. I
> don't think they are since they know we'd wipe their entire country
> into the stone age if they attacked us w/ nukes.

Most of their country is IN the stone age. They know that we could never, ever, ever win a land war, so there's really no reason NOT to launch those nukes if we attack them.

Underestimating China is about the dumbest thing we could do militarily. Our wisest option is to ensure we don't need to find out how wrong we are.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

You think taking out Seattle, San Franscisco, Los Angeles and Anchorage would fall under "meaningless first strike?"

Well...... you really want an answer to that?

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

The DF-31A has a range of at _least_ 10,000km (6000 miles.) Which puts all of Alaska and the US West Coast within range of their missiles. You think taking out Seattle, San Franscisco, Los Angeles and Anchorage would fall under "meaningless first strike?"

For various reasons the Chinese opted not to produce more than a few tens of nuclear warheads that are small enough to fit onto their ICBMs and SLBMs such that the warheads can range the continental U.S. Most Chinese nuclear warheads produced to date are large ones that can at most reach targets in western Russia on IRBMs, they cannot reach the continental U.S.

In addition you need multiple nuclear detonations to guarantee destruction of a large metropolitan area such as LA or the Boeing works/Seattle. So if the Chinese “get lucky” they can hope to obliterate perhaps a handful of significant U.S. targets and in exchange the U.S. wipes out all of the Chinese coastal cities and all of China’s significant military and industrial infrastructure. And we would target the Chinese leaders and their property presumably, so much for that country villa!

I believe that’s not a smart move on China’s part and I give them credit for their intelligence and rationality. So, yes, it's “meaningless” from a first strike viewpoint. They wouldn’t do it in retaliation for getting their knees capped in a conventional exchange, not for the forseeable future anyway.

Quote

And given that they have a manned space program, "their missiles probably never work" would be a very poor bet.

Reliably and consistently landing a warhead on a point target thousands of miles away is a lot more daunting than blasting a payload into orbit and calculating its decay for an approximate touchdown area on your home soil. Moreover for most of its existence the Chinese nuclear missile force was targeted at Russia and, understandably, Russia didn’t assist the Chinese with developing Chinese nuclear-capable rockets. Russia _did_ help the Chinese put their taikonaut in near space, however, for a nice fee – presumably because few of the shared technologies exhibited crossover potential for targeting Russia or by implication other countries.

Quote

Right. No Asian country would ever attack the US. It would be suicide!

Given the current nuclear and fielded forces projection capabilities imbalance, and not counting Russia as an Asian country, I agree with this statement. No they wouldn’t, not for many years to come if ever.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Down our way, the Chinese do do deliveries, ...

You said "do do"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,116]

>I believe that’s not a smart move on China’s part and I give them
> credit for their intelligence and rationality.

I think that to hope they are more rational than we are is hoping for a lot. Again, I think it does not pay to underestimate China. Any policy based on the idea "they can't/won't hurt us" is a very, very dangerous one.

>>Right. No Asian country would ever attack the US. It would be suicide!

>Given the current nuclear and fielded forces projection capabilities
> imbalance, and not counting Russia as an Asian country, I agree
> with this statement. No they wouldn’t, not for many years to come if
> ever.

I was being sarcastic. They did.

[fab777 0]

Quote

Dude, we killed 350,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE with nuclear weapons to end a war sooner!

Wrong... To secure the slot as the 1st superpower against the soviet union, and a few others reasons, related to the geostrategy of the world that was to come.

When the 1st A-bomb was on it's way to Hiroshima, the emperor of japan had been trying to negociate japan's defeat for days (and maybe weeks).

The war was already over...

That is History.

Fabien
BASE#944

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

I think that to hope they are more rational than we are is hoping for a lot. Again, I think it does not pay to underestimate China. Any policy based on the idea "they can't/won't hurt us" is a very, very dangerous one.

Our national command authorities did act rationally by dropping atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki insofar as Japan did not have the means to retaliate in kind. We acted rationally during the Cold War by not exploding nuclear weapons on the Soviets because the Soviets had the capability to retaliate massively against us with their own nuclear weapons. The Soviets were likewise rational in this respect.

Because I do NOT underestimate the intelligence and rationality of the Chinese leadership anymore than I did with the Soviets is precisely why I do not believe the Chinese would launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. or its allies following defeat in a conventional exchange. By not escalating the exchange to nuclear you still have possibilities for continuing to pursue your objectives whereas if you employ your small nuclear arsenal it’s game over for generations, what rational actor would plot that course knowing full well its enemy would avoid comparable damage and emerge in a relatively stronger position?

Quote

I was being sarcastic. They did.

Of course the commemorations yesterday reminded us that they did. But there were no nuclear weapons in existence on December 7, 1941. Had Japan possessed a large, proven atomic arsenal and the U.S. a miniscule one with suspect delivery systems do you honestly believe that America would have launched an atomic first strike against Japan in retaliation for the Pearl Harbor attack? That’s what you appeared to have been claiming in essence and I doubt it’s your true line of thinking.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[chuteless 1]

In 5 years there will be NO United States of America, and China (unfortunately) will rule the entire world.

Bill Cole

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

In 5 years there will be NO United States of America, and China (unfortunately) will rule the entire world.

If they all set sail now, they might get here in five years . . .

. . =(_8^(1)

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

In 5 years there will be NO United States of America, and China (unfortunately) will rule the entire world.

Would it trouble you to provide us with a date certain? I want to time my trades accordingly.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Dude, we killed 350,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE with nuclear weapons to end a war sooner!

[A bit of a thread hijack]:
I've been debating that issue ("Were the civilian fatalities in Hiroshima & Nagasaki innocent?") in my head since I was a kid. After almost 40 years of thinking about it, I still haven't fully resolved it.

All war is an abomination, and its violence is abhorrent. But, tragically, sometimes abhorrent violence is necessary to self-defense; at the local level by the police, and on a wider level by a nation's military.

The US & Japan were at total war. That means every aspect of each society was fighting the war, not only in the field, but very much on the home front through means of production and support. Everything that supports the economy and means of production of a nation at total war directly supports that nation's military activities - businesses to contribute to the economy, production of food and clothing, transportation infrastructure, and obviously production of military assets. And of course, while the soldiers are in the field, the means of production must be manned by civilians.

Which takes us to: are those civilians, who work in the means of production which fuels the enemy nation's military activities legitimate military targets? As I see it, there are not just 2 categories - combatant/military and non-combatant/civilian/innocent. In situations of total war, which most of us have never experienced in our lifetimes, there may be a 3rd category, a grey area, if you will. And some will argue that many of the civilians killed in those 2 bombings,even if they didn't fall into the combatant category, did fit into the grey area.

[gravityizsexy 0]

"'Someday is not a day in my week'"

[Slink2 0]

When your made in China sweatshirt label drowns you because it is the heaviest quailty part of your shirt! Wally and his Mart to put America out of bussiness! What is the Socialist Party? IT'S IS NOW TIME! R.U.S.H Sweet memories! Flshing very very quickly by!

[Slink2 0]

R.U.S.H Sweet memories! 2112 (1976)! Flashing very very quickly by! Reminding me and giving me a reason why?

[Slink2 0]

Pay no attention to that slink2 Commie bastard!

[ViperPilot 0]

Finally I've got some time for DZ.com!....

I bet I would like the Chinese people, especially since the majority of them want nothing to do w/ war and the US and probably will stand against the govt in masses if a draft was called. I just want to go put shrapnel through some of the leaders and their cronies!

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

And 44 IL-76's heavy transports. And they are now building the Y-9 in China. (Think C-130 size.) Underestimating them is a mistake.

I'm pretty sure they don't have that many, but I could be wrong. Where'd you find the numbers? And I'm not underestimating them, it's just fact that they have a shitty air force compared to ours, with shittier equipment and shittier pilots. Not to say they couldn't do some damage, but it's nothing compared to our capabilities.

Quote

You really think we wouldn't use them to respond to a massive (conventional) military attack that destroyed New York and Washington?

Well we were talking about them taking out some of our aircraft, boats, etc. in theatre. You're now talking about them attacking D.C. and NY. Which is first off, not what I was refering to, and secondly, impossible for them to get to. And now that you'll probably argue on that point, please explain how the Chinese will launch a conventional attack on our Eastern seaboard?

Quote

They know that we could never, ever, ever win a land war, so there's really no reason NOT to launch those nukes if we attack them.

Yeah we couldn't win a land war most likely, that doesn't mean that they will just jump to nukes. The Chinese govt is so obsessed w/ China's future survival, that they won't risk nukes to have their country destroyed. They'd rather continue their state's survival and hopeful prosperity than to guarantee its non-existence.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

How many years do you think it will take before china is the biggest super power on the planet? China is already by far the most populated, and its industrial might is growing faster each year. I think within 5 years Ameican will be the second class citizen to China.

I don't think so. At the current rate, several believe that China's economy will reach parity with the US around 2025-2030. However, I don't believe the world will allow China to continue to regulate their currency on the market that long. Therefore, If they deregulate that currency, their growth will slow dramatically.

Quote

China will have the largets military force, with the most sophisticated arsenal ever known. It'll be China calling all the shots and everybody else (including America) following

I disagree here too. They will have the numbers, but not the sophistocation. China hasn't invented much since gunpowder. Everything of importance they have has been copied or stolen. All China really has is a large army. Their navy is a non-starter and their airforce has no airlift capacity for their troops. The US military technological edge (across all branches) will continue to leap and bound, thus allowing us to maintain a dramatic "kill ratio" at any measure. Our only real problem would be ammunition.

Quote

The olympics in 2008 will be testament to their superiority, they came 5th in the medal table in 1984, 4th in 1992, 3rd in 2000 and 2nd last year in Athens. 2008 will see them be first in the medal table

Perhaps. Hopefully it's a fair competition. Good sports will win the day.

Quote

I think the world will take on a different slant (no pun intended) once American loses its crown and China takes over, should be very interesting to say the least

Who knows. Some say the crown has been passed. I say, nope and I don't think it will happen. China's economy is a partial bubble burdened by it's government. China cannot maintain such a communist state and economic freedom. The two are not compatible. Without the political body to sustain it, their military then becomes a paper tiger.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Frenchy68 0]

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except the "Communist state" statement. The Chinese regime, although slowly allowing more freedom, is indeed a form of dictatorship, but it has very little to do with communism nowadays (at the exception of the party's name...). Part of it is capitalistic to the extreme. But i think we should hope that it keeps opening up, however NOT TOO FAST and certainly under control. As a general rule, countries do not fare well when brutal changes of regime occur. most recently, see the case of Russia.
At the end of the day, I greatly doubt a war will ever occur. The Chinese have no intention of getting into one, and the West would have more to lose by being involved in one.
It is shortsighted to think that the mid to long term attraction to China is based on cheap goods, as that will evolve, as you stated. However, it is such a huge potential market, and that's where the occident's interest is. There are already more cell phones in China than in the US. Selling a Coke a day to half of the Chinese population... Ah, the thought of it...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except the "Communist state" statement. The Chinese regime, although slowly allowing more freedom, is indeed a form of dictatorship, but it has very little to do with communism nowadays (at the exception of the party's name...). Part of it is capitalistic to the extreme.

I agree with you here, I just didn't want to go on a tangent explaining the extreme socialist framework that exists, versus "true communism".

Quote

But i think we should hope that it keeps opening up, however NOT TOO FAST and certainly under control. As a general rule, countries do not fare well when brutal changes of regime occur. most recently, see the case of Russia.

Indeed, but look at the 10+ positive examples of such abrupt change, like pretty much all of eastern Europe...from Estonia to Latvia to Romania, even the Balkans, the abrupt, difficult, deadly change has spawned amazingly strong societies living in freedom.

Quote

At the end of the day, I greatly doubt a war will ever occur. The Chinese have no intention of getting into one, and the West would have more to lose by being involved in one.
It is shortsighted to think that the mid to long term attraction to China is based on cheap goods, as that will evolve, as you stated. However, it is such a huge potential market, and that's where the occident's interest is. There are already more cell phones in China than in the US. Selling a Coke a day to half of the Chinese population... Ah, the thought of it...

More or less I agree, but my issue with China is their government. People are so quick to forget Tiananmen Square, the lust for Taiwan, the slow corrosion of Hong Kong, and history has nearly forgotten Mao's attempt to reach parity with the west in the "great industrialization" effort of the 1950s. This is not a "friendly" country in that context. I don't expect war either. Seems like a lot of people are interested in the idea, one way or the other though.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

from Estonia to Latvia to Romania, even the Balkans, the abrupt, difficult, deadly change has spawned amazingly strong societies living in freedom.

I agree with the first 2, but Romania went (and still is going) through very painful steps to try to improve itself. As for the Balkans, after Tito died, it pretty much went to shit. Only with the intervention of foreign forces did they stop killing each other. Besides, I think we're comparing apples and oranges. China needs to feed over 1 Billion mouths every day. 10 people accomplish changes much faster than 10,000 do.

Quote

More or less I agree, but my issue with China is their government. People are so quick to forget Tiananmen Square, the lust for Taiwan, the slow corrosion of Hong Kong...

Tiananmen was indeed a tragedy.
Taiwan is a stickier issue. The island was part of China until 1949. Something similar happened in North America in the 1860's, and the man who used force to reclaim the rebelious territories now has his face on the local currency.
Hong Kong is actually being used by both sides (mainland China and multinationals) as a middle ground. And it will probably stay that way. Tax haven, where you can actually do "Chinese" business, while not being officially part of mainland China. Unfortunately, local people are paying the price for it, but HK has turned into a financial platform in a much different way than it was before. Hard to describe on a website...

Quote

history has nearly forgotten Mao's attempt to reach parity with the west in the "great industrialization" effort of the 1950s.

If the "Great Leap Forward" had not been so catastrophic to CHinese society, it would be comical. People having to melt their tea spoons in makeshift oven in order to produce "steel" to compete with the West...

Quote

I don't expect was either. Seems like a lot of people are interested in the idea, one way or the other though

Yep. Gotta feed the imagination one way or the other...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."