72 replies to this topic

[Axel of Sweden]

China vs USA

No nukes, just conventional warfare
Chinese numbers vs US Technology

Edited by Axel of Sweden, 20 September 2007 - 17:25.

[Rayburn]

Lovely, another one of these inobjective what-if-discussions that end up comparing the statistics of weapons......
Guess what? Nobody would win because this isn't some bloody videogame with a "No Superweapons" option.
If such a war became reality, the world would be up shit creek without a fucking peddle...
There ain't no winners in war, only many, many losers and I find it awfully wrong and insulting towards
anyone who ever experienced war to talk about it like it was a game and start comparing countries like that.

Edited by Rayburn, 20 September 2007 - 18:24.

[narboza22]

The US will win because China does not have an air force or a navy that could challenge the USAF and USN, among other reasons.

[Nerdsturm]

China can't possibly win since they have no method of crossing the Pacific(as stated above they lack an air force and navy). Plus, the US army is set up to fight much larger forces in conventional warfare as it would have done had the Cold War become violent, and in the second Gulf War 20,000 marines defeated 400,000 Iraqi soldiers in only 3 weeks with marginal casulities. Still, the two countries would never actually go to war because of their economic dependence on eachother.

[Soul]

Actually China does indeed have a Navy and Air force.

[Sharpnessism]

I don't really understand the point of this post but to the question there's no doubt in my mind that U.S. would win every conventional war as of current.

[Whitey]

Yeah, and it's no easy time for an invading force to go up against a nation where there are ten guns for every nine citizens.

[narboza22]

Soul, on 20 Sep 2007, 18:34, said:

Actually China does indeed have a Navy and Air force.

We were saying that while they do have an AF and a navy, they are not of the same size or caliber as the USN and USAF.

[TehKiller]

but still their Navy is above average and could pose a bigger threat with their Subs....and also the Chinese do have most of the modern AA weaponry...

[Rayburn]

Good luck on occupying about 10 million square kilometres and controlling 1.3 billion people.
That's the last thing I'm gonna say and you should think about it.

Edited by Rayburn, 21 September 2007 - 13:12.

[Axel of Sweden]

Rayburn, on 21 Sep 2007, 13:11, said:

Good luck on occupying about 10 million square kilometres and controlling 1.3 billion people.
That's the last thing I'm gonna say and you should think about it.

The Allies won WW2 using sheer numbers (and a few other things)
they had inferior tanks
but many off em
so that,s why china could have a chance

Afterall Hwo knows what secret weapons the US Armed forces might have

Let alone China

[narboza22]

The Chinese sub fleet is nothing compared to the Soviet sub fleet that the USN was prepared to face, and you cannot win a war with AA weapons, as Iraq demonstrated. SEAD weapons like HARM's, and even JDAM's now, can be launched from outside a SAM's range.

@Rayburn, you do not have to occupy territory to win a war, especially if your war is not against the people of the country.

[Prophet of the Pimps]

This so damn vague and stupid. What exactly are we talking about? Are we talking about occupation or a surgical strike. Who is the aggressor?

Pure out military strike then USA wins. But if here is a scenario where America might be forced to thwart a Chinese invasion of Taiwan then China has the upper hand.

This is not command and conquer. there are just too many variable to simplify the discussion like this.

[Ilves]

USA hasn't got chances to occupy China, the same as China can't do the same. They can bomb themselves as many times as they like, but no chances of jawing enemy on its own territory with ground forces.

However, China has more chances. Chinese can break USA's economy by taking themselves all American companies located in China, Vietnam, Malaysia and SK. This will be an irreversible strike on whole USA's economy that is mostly based in this region.
The second black jack in China's hands is its fifth-colomn in USA that will gladly make everything for USA to fail.
The third one. USA too much relys on its satellites. Without satellites their planes won't fly correctly and missiles won't be guided. And China already tested an anti-satellite weapon in last year. Succesfuly, I should say.

But if they try to push their nose into the ocean their fate is done. Little chances exist for their slow and loud subs. AFAIK, they even don't have an Alfa-class

Quote

@Rayburn, you do not have to occupy territory to win a war, especially if your war is not against the people of the country.

Then against whom else? Do you really believe that most of Chinese will follow the "democracy, human rights, hamburgers" slogan just if you bomb Beijing?

Edited by AL_Hassan, 21 September 2007 - 17:49.

[narboza22]

AL_Hassan, on 21 Sep 2007, 12:42, said:

However, China has more chances. Chinese can break USA's economy by taking themselves all American companies located in China, Vietnam, Malaysia and SK. This will be an irreversible strike on whole USA's economy that is mostly based in this region.

While it is true that products would be more expensive if the US made them domestically, it is entirely untrue to say that the US does not have the manufacturing capacity to be self sufficient.

Quote

The second black jack in China's hands is its fifth-colomn in USA that will gladly make everything for USA to fail.

Huh?

Quote

The third one. USA too much relys on its satellites. Without satellites their planes won't fly correctly and missiles won't be guided. And China already tested an anti-satellite weapon in last year. Succesfuly, I should say.

lol, China knocked down a low orbit dead bird, and now everyone thinks China can dominate space. IRL, the GPS birds and other commo sats that you are referring to have a way higher orbit, and there are way more than one of them up there. If China was going to take out the US sat. network, they would need hundreds of boosters, and they couldn't just use old ICBM bodies to do it. Add to that the fact that the US has said, and Russia too IIRC, that an attack on their satellites might merit a nuclear response.

Quote

Then against whom else? Do you really believe that most of Chinese will follow the "democracy, human rights, hamburgers" slogan just if you bomb Beijing?

Assuming that the only real reason that the US and China would go to war is Taiwan, I was thinking more in terms of taking out the Chinese military, not blowing up their cities.

[Ilves]

Quote

While it is true that products would be more expensive if the US made them domestically, it is entirely untrue to say that the US does not have the manufacturing capacity to be self sufficient.

The companies have moved ther for years.. 20 or 30?
This means to establish manufactuting back in US they'll need years to rebuild facilities and remake supply lines and decades to retrain workers (you know, for factories to work, somebody still needs to be present in them), billions of dollars for all this stuff and a lot of things (a lot of raw materials for e.g.) that aren't present is USA for decades.
Badly for US, it moved not only factories, but programming companies. So expect that on 1 american hacker there will be 10 opposing Chinese, trained not worse.
So war with China will put such 2 scenarios for US: to conquer all East Asia in a few months or to try to continue war further with no money to fund such uncheap entertainment as war.

Quote

If China was going to take out the US sat. network, they would need hundreds of boosters

...or 1 nuclear explosion in space
Also, even this is extra. There's even a more simpler way to make all sattelites to reach the ground. Haven't I told you about anti-satellite missile lauched from MiG-31?

Quote

Add to that the fact that the US has said, and Russia too IIRC, that an attack on their satellites might merit a nuclear response.

If all satellites are taken simultaneosly there could be even no further nuclear responce at all =) At least reduced

Edited by AL_Hassan, 21 September 2007 - 21:00.

[Nerdsturm]

AL_Hassan, on 21 Sep 2007, 13:51, said:

If all satellites are taken simultaneosly there could be even no further nuclear responce at all =) At least reduced

Yes.. too bad that's impossible since the world is a sphere and satellites, contrary to popular belief, don't hang out in one big group.
Also, although I said before, a war between the two countries would have a castrophic effect on the private sector of either nation's economy, the US's ability to fight wouldn't be effected. Well it is true China has adopted a great deal of the US's light industry, such as production of children's toys, the US still has plenty of heavy industry(automobiles, commericial aircraft, ECT.) which is far more important to fight a war.
However, I still don't believe anything would cause a full scale war between the countries, even in the case of an invasion of Taiwan fighting would probably be dominated by at most tatical bombings and economic sancitions.

[Eddy01741]

USA, reasons?
USA has a formidable long range striking force, to be very particular, a good amount of strategic bombers, and also, icbms (for the sake of the topic, htey have non nuclear warheads since you said no nukes). And of course, our huge fleet of Nimitz, Kitty Hawk, and Enterprise class (well, in the case of the enterprise, just the enterprise lol) Aircraft carriers.
Since basically the war will be fought somewhere between China and USA, USA has better long range striking power.

Besides the topic, I'd like to say that the scenario of China going against USA is very low, and there are simply too many variable.

[Ilves]

Quote

economic sancitions.

China isn't Iraq or Cuba and don't cares on some pitty economic sanctation. They have everything that they need.

Quote

Yes.. too bad that's impossible since the world is a sphere and satellites, contrary to popular belief, don't hang out in one big group.

One big EMP-wave generated by nuke missile would be enough to land if not all, than a big punch of them.

Quote

USA has better long range striking power.

Agree, but China just will have no need to push back on US territory. It will be enough for them just to stay and to silently grab all South-Eastern Asia.

Quote

Well it is true China has adopted a great deal of the US's light industry, such as production of children's toys,

...and also cars, computers, programs, electronic devices, financial operations..

Quote

tatical bombings

You mean strategic bombings, don't you? Tactical bombing are bombings directly on the battlefield, right here and right now. To knock out enemys industry, weapons production, IBCM's and so on you'll need to call help of slow strategic bombers (B-1\2) which have an annoying ability to be easily putted down by good AA defense.
I repeat once more. China isn't Iraq that even hadn't managed to put its fighters in air.

Quote

USA has better long range striking power.

It had shown itself good while bombing defendless Iraq, but would it still effective against a country maintaining S-300 and fighters that fly instead of be digged into the ground?

[narboza22]

AL_Hassan, on 21 Sep 2007, 17:32, said:

China isn't Iraq or Cuba and don't cares on some pitty economic sanctation. They have everything that they need.

No, they don't, that's just common sense.

Quote

One big EMP-wave generated by nuke missile would be enough to land if not all, than a big punch of them.

Unfortunately there is a HUGE ass rock in the way, called Earth btw, that would protect all the other satellites not in the nukes immediate area. And regardless, if you nuked ANY nuclear power's satellites, they would nuke you back without a doubt. And don't give us any crap about taking them all out first, because the entire Cold War was spent guaranteeing that no matter what happens, you will still be able to fire back.

Quote

You mean strategic bombings, don't you? Tactical bombing are bombings directly on the battlefield, right here and right now. To knock out enemys industry, weapons production, IBCM's and so on you'll need to call help of slow strategic bombers (B-1\2) which have an annoying ability to be easily putted down by good AA defense.
I repeat once more. China isn't Iraq that even hadn't managed to put its fighters in air.

It had shown itself good while bombing defendless Iraq, but would it still effective against a country maintaining S-300 and fighters that fly instead of be digged into the ground?

lol, you really need to learn how radar and AA work. Even if you had 10000 S-400's, you could barely cover a fraction of China.

[SaintPsycho]

China! hands down!
they can just invade US and overrun everything with their numbers.
no tactical warfare no nothing... straight chargin' like vikings or somthin...lol

[Whitey]

Wrong. With 9 guns per 10 Americans, about 9/10ths of the US would be an armed fighting force. Whereas China's active military is in the millions, the US's active defensive force would skyrocket upon the invastion. ANd while untrained, imagine Iraq, only 1337-fold and against China, with the US being the insurgency.

A conflict between the US and China would NEVER result in invasions. Neither side could win that way.

[Alias]

There may be 3 guns in a 4 person house, Boidy, but only probably 1 or 2 of them average would actually know how to use the thing.

[narboza22]

Why would only half of them know how to use them? And even if that were true, thats still about 160 million armed people lol.

[Whitey]

And it would be more than one or two knowing per household. My entire household knows how to operate a gun including my eleven year old sister. It's nothing complicated. Load the magazine up, stick it in the gun, cock it, flip the safety off. Wew that was difficult. Any 1 person in the household that knows how to operate it could teach it to the rest of the houshold in a matter of what? A minute?