U.S. vs. China

I dont see it happing!

I really dont.

But if it does. Then the UK are ready.

Guys, I have just read 54 odd pages of input on this topic and feel very confused.

I believe Sweatmonicaido asked a simple question. If the US were to invade mainland (?) China, would the US win?

In one of the sub-paragraphs he asked if the US could hold up against a modern military supported by guerillas.

I have three points to raise.

1. Why would the US want to invade China? Even if they [the Chinese supported N Korea against US]

2. What makes anyone think that the US is capable of winning a guerilla war against personnel supported by a modern military when they could not do it in Viet Nam against the VC and cannot do it in Iraq now?

3. What would happen to the millions of Chinese (potential guerillas) in the US. Would Bush (or however) try to intern them like they did to the Japanese in WWII?

Originally posted by fritz
Guys, I have just read 54 odd pages of input on this topic and feel very confused.

I believe Sweatmonicaido asked a simple question. If the US were to invade mainland (?) China, would the US win?

In one of the sub-paragraphs he asked if the US could hold up against a modern military supported by guerillas.

I have three points to raise.

1. Why would the US want to invade China? Even if they [the Chinese supported N Korea against US]

2. What makes anyone think that the US is capable of winning a guerilla war against personnel supported by a modern military when they could not do it in Viet Nam against the VC and cannot do it in Iraq now?

3. What would happen to the millions of Chinese (potential guerillas) in the US. Would Bush (or however) try to intern them like they did to the Japanese in WWII?

Hey dude, and all the fellow U.S'ian here. China is not going to have war with US. It that understood!

However, if US tries to invade China, sorry guys, you will lost your country.

Fear China, Inc. 500 are warned here

America's 500 fastest-growing companies, as defined by Inc. magazine, yesterday heard how China is running circles around them and redefining the American way.

www.tucsoncitizen.com...

U.S. Relying More on Foreign Investors

America buys more than it sells and spends more than it earns. So who bankrolls the shortfalls? Foreign investors. The shortfall on all trade and investment income with the rest of the world swelled to an all-time high of $665.9 billion in 2004, according to the Commerce Department.

...Japan, followed by China and then Britain are the biggest holders of Treasury securities.

...If foreign investors were to lose some of their appetite in accumulating dollar-denominated assets at the current rapid rate and unload their holdings, the prices of U.S. stocks and bonds could plunge. And, interest rates — including those for mortgages — could soar.

news.yahoo.com.../ap/20050320/ap_on_bi_ge/foreign_financiers_3

By the looks of it, America can't go to war.

Originally posted by fritz
Guys, I have just read 54 odd pages of input on this topic and feel very confused.

I believe Sweatmonicaido asked a simple question. If the US were to invade mainland (?) China, would the US win?

In one of the sub-paragraphs he asked if the US could hold up against a modern military supported by guerillas.

I have three points to raise.

1. Why would the US want to invade China? Even if they [the Chinese supported N Korea against US]

2. What makes anyone think that the US is capable of winning a guerilla war against personnel supported by a modern military when they could not do it in Viet Nam against the VC and cannot do it in Iraq now?

3. What would happen to the millions of Chinese (potential guerillas) in the US. Would Bush (or however) try to intern them like they did to the Japanese in WWII?

I have to disagree with you on #2. The U.S. could very easily have won Vietnam had it attacked it the way it should have been allowed to. The Johnson Administration literally would not allow the military to attack the VC. By the time the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, the Vietcong were virtually finished. The U.S. was not. Had the U.S. fought Vietnam the same way the Soviets fought Afghanistan (i.e. non-politically correct), the outcome would've been far different.

As for Iraq, most of the fighting only goes on in cities; it is very difficult to fight a guerilla war in cities when you're trying to NOT kill the civilians in the city.

[edit on 20-3-2005 by Broadsword20068]

Hey dude, and all the fellow U.S'ian here. China is not going to have war with US. It that understood!

However, if US tries to invade China, sorry guys, you will lost your country.


Just wondering what your trying to say are you saying that if US tries to Invade China That the US will loose its Country or are you saying That if US tries to invade china china will loose it territory

Originally posted by fritz
1. Why would the US want to invade China? Even if they [the Chinese supported N Korea against US]

I don't beleive the US want to invade China, not at this stage anyway... The will try to stop China from advancing in any way they can. What they probably would do, is defend Taiwan, and if worse came to worser they may bomb key facilities in China... They would not attempt a conventional invasion - Simply, it would be suicide...

Originally posted by fritz
2. What makes anyone think that the US is capable of winning a guerilla war against personnel supported by a modern military when they could not do it in Viet Nam against the VC and cannot do it in Iraq now?

They're not capable, and if anyone thinks they are, do the math...

Originally posted by fritz
3. What would happen to the millions of Chinese (potential guerillas) in the US. Would Bush (or however) try to intern them like they did to the Japanese in WWII?

I raised this point ages ago, it would be interesting to see the US's strategy if a war were to come about with China, wether they would be stupid enough to try and demonise them like they did with every other enemy they ever had... If they were stupid enough to the guerilla activity occuring in the US would be ten-fold...

It doesn't matter if we could or not in regards to china....because there's nothing the military can do anymore in regards to secrecy...some dope will the let the cat out of the bag anyway.

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
I have to disagree with you on #2. The U.S. could very easily have won Vietnam had it attacked it the way it should have been allowed to. The Johnson Administration literally would not allow the military to attack the VC. By the time the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, the Vietcong were virtually finished. The U.S. was not. Had the U.S. fought Vietnam the same way the Soviets fought Afghanistan (i.e. non-politically correct), the outcome would've been far different.
[edit on 20-3-2005 by Broadsword20068]

Man, you destroyed like half the world's forests through carpet bombings.

It was hardly a case of the US being restrained in Vietnam.

Originally posted by rapier28

It was hardly a case of the US being restrained in Vietnam.

There was also a little thing going on at the time known as "The Cold War."

Just as now, but on an even larger scale, the US had troops stationed all over the world and could not devote full resourses to Vietnam. That is why I am an advocate of the US getting out of SK, Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, Italy, Germany...etc, etc, ad nauseum. We need to have our troops at home where they are needed most.

The only exceptions IMO are Iraq and Afgahnistan, where I believe we must stay to fix what we destroyed. At least get them back on their feet before we leave. I was not for those conflicts, but we are there and obligated to get it together.

[edit on 21-3-2005 by Facefirst]

Just to comment on the whole US vs China thing. A military war vs China would be very unlikely, neither side is stupid enought to let that happen.

I think Odium is on the right track. Any future conflict with China would be an 'economic war' if you can imagine that. But a military conflict between the two nations just isn't going to happen

china is a growing power so it will be not easy for america to simply defeat them. USA will itself will be a weakening power after this war

Originally posted by rapier28


Man, you destroyed like half the world's forests through carpet bombings.

It was hardly a case of the US being restrained in Vietnam.

If you knew anything about Vietnam you'd know that for most of the conflict the North was off limits to bombing. Most of their major infrastructure was left intact. This essentially allowed the massive volume of supplies to be shipped in unmolested.
What would hvae been the outcome if the marines had taken Haiphong effectively cutting off all Soviet bloc aid to North Vietnam ? Well we'll never know.
It is common knowlege that the US military had a to fight this war with one hand tied behind their back and a blind fold.

A large scale war with either China, Russia, the Eu, or any combination of them is inevitable at some time within the next 25 years. Why do you think the euros are going to start selling arms to China?Why do you think the euros are pushing for the steady enlargement of their defence force?

Limited access to desired resources has always led to war.I am not just talking about oil either. Tin, copper, and other raw materials are becomming more and more expensive, as increase in demand around the globe continues to rise.

All this talk of vietnam reminds me of the fact that Americans have never been able to beat an opposing force that was technologically equal. Americans would die if faced with over a billion angry Chinese armed with some of the best weapons money can buy.






[edit on 23-3-2005 by 1wintermute1]

[edit on 23-3-2005 by 1wintermute1]

Uhhh.......there's WWII, in which we (along with allies), fought Germany, which had equal tech pretty much. We fought Japan, which early on, had better aircraft and maybe even a superior navy. One thing Americans have proven throughout the centuries is that they are increidbly ferocious fighters when need be. the Germans didn't coin the Marines as "devil dogs" in WWI for nothing.

As for a war being "inevitable," I disagree. The EU is not pushing for enlargement of their armed forces. The ONLY reason they want to sell weapons to China is to A) spite the U.S. because we destroyed their market in Iraq, and they lost millions (perhaps billions), and B) they need the money.

The only EU "defense" force is NATO.....

I want to enlinghten you that EU wont be lifting arms embargo towards China in next few years cause of new constitutional law China agreed towards Taiwan if declaring independence. It would be political suicide in current scenario offer China weapons even thou China is important country for EU nations. US has openly defended Taiwan and EU, US relations are good, only slight disagreement towards each other. And EU rabid task forces will stay as humanitarian aid force and also its existance hopely increase EU influence and gives stability to whole continent that Europe is part of.

Its easy to agree we are heading towards new arms race and it might cause military conflicts in near future, but for who is fighting that war is unknown. Theres just today so many rising military powers and that doesnt leave only China as one, even if its biggest, theres alliances to keep balance.

Originally posted by devilwasp
The only EU "defense" force is NATO.....

www.isn.ch...

Which will be expanding.

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
www.isn.ch...

Which will be expanding.

Ahem...
" the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) of the European Union (EU) would take a long time to materialize"

It appears to me, from what i see on the news, that the US Army seems to be a little short of feet on the ground right now. Regardless of whatever technological superiority a nation has, a shortage of soldiers will do them no good. To even consider invading the country with the worlds largest population would be lunacy....
And yes, they would all fight