Originally posted by Parmaniac
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9905/28/china.military/
!
whoa.
now i really know. thanks.
Originally posted by Parmaniac
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9905/28/china.military/
!
whoa.
now i really know. thanks.
Originally posted by Parmaniac
😐
they got the biggest army in the world (amount of soldiers) and nukes if it comes hard to hard and goes all out I don't think anyone will be left to laugh.
this would mean something 40-50 years ago when warfare meant running around in trenches and foxholes and shit and having a lot of warm bodies meant something. now a days, not so much.
do you realize that we have at least 10 active air craft carriers, some under construction, and around 40-50 that are decommissioned that could be restored and brought back into service? do you know how many china has? it has, zero active, zero in reserve, 1 under construction, and 0 decommissioned. they dont have an air force either.
so explain to me how china is going to even get their "largest standing army" over here to our soil? theyre gonna swim?
chinas not a threat for a number of reasons, but, more than anything any military action they could make would effortlessly crushed. if they declared war on us tomorrow, we'd be like "alright, well.... i guesss we'l give you guys five years to build some boats to get here... one more decade to build a competent air force so that we dont sink your boats... good luck." and then just go back to raping korea.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
this would mean something 40-50 years ago when warfare meant running around in trenches and foxholes and shit and having a lot of warm bodies meant something. now a days, not so much.do you realize that we have at least 10 active air craft carriers, some under construction, and around 40-50 that are decommissioned that could be restored and brought back into service? do you know how many china has? it has, zero active, zero in reserve, 1 under construction, and 0 decommissioned. they dont have an air force either.
so explain to me how china is going to even get their "largest standing army" over here to our soil? theyre gonna swim?
chinas not a threat for a number of reasons, but, more than anything any military action they could make would effortlessly crushed. if they declared war on us tomorrow, we'd be like "alright, well.... i guesss we'l give you guys five years to build some boats to get here... one more decade to build a competent air force so that we dont sink your boats... good luck." and then just go back to raping korea.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/nuke/index.html
EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army
scroll down to "Weapons and equipment" and click on the world map
There is nothing to laugh about this stuff no matter how advanced the military weapons of your country may be.
China doesn't have advanced military tech like the united states or other industrial countries granted, but they have the biggest army and nukes that's FAR more than enough to take them serious. I don't think you will laugh when your kids start to walk around with 3 or 4 legs.
Originally posted by Parmaniac
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/nuke/index.htmlEDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army
scroll down to "Weapons and equipment" and click on the world mapThere is nothing to laugh about this stuff no matter how advanced the military weapons of your country may be.
China doesn't have advanced military tech like the united states or other industrial countries granted, but they have the biggest army and nukes that's FAR more than enough to take them serious. I don't think you will laugh when your kids start to walk around with 3 or 4 legs.
Cyber-warfare:
So? We have this to.
C4ISTAR:
Literally every developed nation has this.
Firearms:
I don't think we seriously need to worry about Chinamen with arms made of fire 😬
Land-based weapons:
So China has 7000 old tanks. The US has 8000 old tanks.
Nuclear weapons:
I'm sure we're friends with whatever country developed that technology in the first place. It shouldn't be too hard for the US to build a nuke.
I, uh, could go on if you wish.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI'm just talking about the nukes man, do you really wanna risk a nuclear war with china? Their technology from 2006 already allowed them to reach the united states and going by their current development I'm sure it's possible for them to already build the systems that were in development in 2006.
Cyber-warfare:
So? We have this to.
C4ISTAR:
Literally every developed nation has this.
Firearms:
I don't think we seriously need to worry about Chinamen with arms made of fire 😬
Land-based weapons:
So China has 7000 old tanks. The US has 8000 old tanks.
Nuclear weapons:
I'm sure we're friends with whatever country developed that technology in the first place. It shouldn't be too hard for the US to build a nuke.I, uh, could go on if you wish.
This is not who will be left after that, a war should never be started under the impression "No matter what they throw at us in the end we will win" this war would most likely end in a pyrrhic victory.
Again nothing to laugh about at all.
A war between the US and China would be catostrophic, and what about other international ties? India and China hate each other so I would foresee India jumping aboard the US side, but Russia.
What about Russia? I have a feeling they'd go along with China, do you understand the man power they could pump out? And if those two countries unified the industry would be switched to a war economy, imagine if China focused solely on the production of warfare...
And wouldn't the US over extend themselves, you can only fight so many wars at once, and if the Chinese began to help fund terrorist organisations... well you've got another problem on your hands.
Not even including Russia.
Inimalist, what about US dependency on China?
US corporations outsource to China, they'd lose quite a bit of their money swapping back over to reform in america, and they'd also have to follow the United States' labour laws causing even more profit to be lost. And with the economy already going downhill do you think the US could sustain themselves?
To anticipate what would happen if North and South Korea resumed the Korean War, you only have to look at the country before the armistice in 1953. North Korea was propped up by the People's Republic of China, whereas the South was supported by the United Nations (though basically the United States). If North Korea attacks South Korea, then the outcome really depends on if China decides to back North Korea.
If North Korea goes in alone, the United States would most likely respond militarily, especially if North Korea used nuclear weapons in its initial assault on the south. Due to North Korea's dependence on foreign aid for food stuffs, they would probably fold relatively quickly- you can't really fight with an army that's long starved to death (or a disgruntled starving populace for that matter). If China backed North Korea, which is unlikely due to their interwoven economic ties with the west, they would, at best, assume a defensive role on their side, fighting only to maintain the current North Korean state.
If South Korea attacks first, then its a pretty easy scenario. China would probably defend North Korea, but with the United States' armed forces already enveloped in two wars (arguably more depending on your definition of "war"😉 they would not be as likely to get involved and would probably only provide economic support like they did in the seventies to stem Vietnam's Unification under the north (1973-1975). At most they would provide air support to the ROK I'll bet. With North Korea's burgeoning military and their Songun policy in place, they would probably overwhelm the south pretty quickly. Whether or not they could hold it would be another matter, dependent on the flow of information into the north, the possibility of insurrection, etc.
In either case, a hypothetical war would undoubtedly bring an end to the North Korean government, which is already unstable, if not on the verge of collapse. This, whether it be seen as good or bad, would cost a great amount of human life, especially considering three of the four main contenders are nuclear powers.
war
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
this would mean something 40-50 years ago when warfare meant running around in trenches and foxholes and shit and having a lot of warm bodies meant something. now a days, not so much.do you realize that we have at least 10 active air craft carriers, some under construction, and around 40-50 that are decommissioned that could be restored and brought back into service? do you know how many china has? it has, zero active, zero in reserve, 1 under construction, and 0 decommissioned. they dont have an air force either.
so explain to me how china is going to even get their "largest standing army" over here to our soil? theyre gonna swim?
chinas not a threat for a number of reasons, but, more than anything any military action they could make would effortlessly crushed. if they declared war on us tomorrow, we'd be like "alright, well.... i guesss we'l give you guys five years to build some boats to get here... one more decade to build a competent air force so that we dont sink your boats... good luck." and then just go back to raping korea.
you know what you have a point there. didn't look at it that way. nowadays, and more and more, ground combat is going the way of modern warfare or tecnological warfare. things are much more sophisticated now.
sort of like it's not the size of the dog in a fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. today, it's not the size of a country's standing army that counts it's the the strategic military capabilities and technologies a country's war machine has, isn't it?
hm.
hm
Originally posted by Parmaniac
I'm just talking about the nukes man, do you really wanna risk a nuclear war with china? Their technology from 2006 already allowed them to reach the united states and going by their current development I'm sure it's possible for them to already build the systems that were in development in 2006.This is not who will be left after that, a war should never be started under the impression "No matter what they throw at us in the end we will win" this war would most likely end in a pyrrhic victory.
Again nothing to laugh about at all.
so, it took them until 2006 to have ICBM capability?
in any serious analysis, the only nations that have the ability to engage in nuclear war are the Americans and the Russians.
By this, I don't mean simply dropping a nuke on someone, I mean able to engage another nuclear powered nation with ICBM technology and tactical nuclear deployment.
American nuclear missiles are aimed tactically at Chinese nuclear command and control sites. In a first strike scenario, they have the tactical ability to severely cripple, if not totally annhiliate a Chinese nuclear counter offensive in less than minutes. I'm sure the Chinese have some type of radar warning system for this type of thing, but they don't have the nuclear infrastructure that America and Russia do to be able to launch back before a first strike scenario.
There is also the fact that, and we can debate their effectiveness or whatever, America is the only nation on the planet that has some real type of anti-ballistic missle defense. So, even if we say it is only 5-10% effective, that is still a huge advantage over a nation with no such defense.
China is a strong regional power, and they will need to be because their own military interests are involved in central asia and its resources, but as far as engaging in tactical nuclear warfare, the cold war made Russia and America the only two players in that game really.
China does have an advantage in cyber warfare, and shutting down domestic financial and quality of life based infrastructure would cause havok in the American population, but in a conventional nuclear or military engagement, it isn't going to make up for the huge asymmetry
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
this would mean something 40-50 years ago when warfare meant running around in trenches and foxholes and shit and having a lot of warm bodies meant something. now a days, not so much.do you realize that we have at least 10 active air craft carriers, some under construction, and around 40-50 that are decommissioned that could be restored and brought back into service? do you know how many china has? it has, zero active, zero in reserve, 1 under construction, and 0 decommissioned. they dont have an air force either.
so explain to me how china is going to even get their "largest standing army" over here to our soil? theyre gonna swim?
chinas not a threat for a number of reasons, but, more than anything any military action they could make would effortlessly crushed. if they declared war on us tomorrow, we'd be like "alright, well.... i guesss we'l give you guys five years to build some boats to get here... one more decade to build a competent air force so that we dont sink your boats... good luck." and then just go back to raping korea.
Except for the fact that the US military is stretched thin of active soldiers as it is with its 2 tiny wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US has very little capability to launch a war against anyone at the moment. If the US could "effortlessly crush" China then it would have made even lighter work of the Taliban but as it stands the Taliban actually has a bigger strength now than it did at the start of the war in Afghanistan.
You only have to look at the way the US reacts when a genuinely powerful nation tells them to mind their own business (Russia with regards to South Ossetia). What did the US do?...It butted out and minded it's own business...Why?...Because it knew that the relationship with Russia was far more important than the relationship with Georgia....Same applies to Korea...Even more so now with the US economy being highly dependent on China's massive economic growth.
Back to the topic at hand though seeing as I'd rather not pander to the US contingent on the board that seem to try and force the US's military "might" into every discussion on every conflict on the planet.
Analysts are predicting that even without nuclear weapons there would be 1,000,000 deaths in a conflict between NK and SK in the 1ST WEEK.
Originally posted by inimalist
China does have an advantage in cyber warfare, and shutting down domestic financial and quality of life based infrastructure would cause havok in the American population, but in a conventional nuclear or military engagement, it isn't going to make up for the huge asymmetry
i'd like to think that the u.s. has a more technologically advanced defense system than whatever the chinese have. surely we're more advanced militarily but doesn't technology go hand in hand with it when it comes to warfare digital and/or otherwise hence ultimately winning any cyber battle race of any sort.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i'd like to think that the u.s. has a more technologically advanced defense system than whatever the chinese have. surely we're more advanced militarily but doesn't technology go hand in hand with it when it comes to warfare digital and/or otherwise hence ultimately winning any cyber battle race of any sort.
We (US) also have the aliens on our side. 😉
LOL!
I love these threads. Everyone turns military strategist and the outcome is always the same. US loses the war....well, I can't really blame you all for thinking that... With this current Administration the nation looks like a bunch of pansies. This administration can't even take care of an oil spill much less could it take care of a full scale war.
Anywhoo, here is the latest.
China not too happy with N.Korea:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100526/ap_on_re_as/as_china_koreas_beijing_s_bind_2
Just keep playing your Risk and Axis and Allies board games.
The article makes a very grave error in calling China and North Korea Communist.
Anyways. China seems to want to keep itself out of trouble then, but don't get them wrong. If the US joins in with South Korea I can only see the Chinese backing the North Koreans again because it will be one less ally in an ever growing sea of enemies.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i'd like to think that the u.s. has a more technologically advanced defense system than whatever the chinese have. surely we're more advanced militarily but doesn't technology go hand in hand with it when it comes to warfare digital and/or otherwise hence ultimately winning any cyber battle race of any sort.
not in this case
the whole china/cyber-warfare issue is crazy complex, but in a nut shell, their individual hackers are often tied to the government, and they have been specifically finding weaknesses in American/etc systems for years.
America's defense against such measures is growing, and there are limited advantages at this point (nobody is going to hack control of unmanned drones or anything like that anytime soon), but just as far as a state having a branch of the military trained to do cyber attacks, people sort of suspect China is at the forfront of this.
Originally posted by jaden101
Except for the fact that the US military is stretched thin of active soldiers as it is with its 2 tiny wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.The US has very little capability to launch a war against anyone at the moment. If the US could "effortlessly crush" China then it would have made even lighter work of the Taliban but as it stands the Taliban actually has a bigger strength now than it did at the start of the war in Afghanistan.
You only have to look at the way the US reacts when a genuinely powerful nation tells them to mind their own business (Russia with regards to South Ossetia). What did the US do?...It butted out and minded it's own business...Why?...Because it knew that the relationship with Russia was far more important than the relationship with Georgia....Same applies to Korea...Even more so now with the US economy being highly dependent on China's massive economic growth.
thats not a fair comparison to make though. there is a very distinct difference between battling an "invisible" army while occupying a country on the other side of the planet, and defending ones own country from an attack. in the hypothetical situation that i am specifically discussing, one where china declares war on the united states and makes an attempt to attack our nation, chinas efforts would result in failure.
now if the scenario was america invading china, or american backed south korea vs. china backed north korea, id probably agree with you. thats completely different from the scenario im discussing, though.