We're about to go to war with a billion Chinese!
- Thread starter s0nny80y
- 83 comments
- 2,409 views
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
That was a major joke. These "Chinese citizens" were freely protesting, vandalizing and attacking Japanese stores, restaurants, government buildings and people. What was the Chinese police doing? They were escorting the crowd!Viper Zero
According to the experts, this doesn't happen in China. Demonstration of any kind doesn't happen in China, unless it was approved by the Communist government. Which tells me, it was probably fully backed by the Chinese government. My guess is that Chinese government wanted to distract the people from the upcoming 16th Anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, that was starting to create a buzz. Just my guess.
Not buying Chinese products? That's a huge order. Some of the machines that build our US made products have parts made in China. The machines that shape our tools have Chinese made parts. The vehicles that ship our productss around the US have Chinese made parts. And it's now clique to remind people that our flags are "Made In China."
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
While it's possible, like in next 20 years, I don't think it can be done either. China is(and has been) ignoring the warnings from the EU, US and Japan to deal with Taiwan peacefully. Can you imagine what they'd do, if their economy choked. Very scary.s0nny80y
- 3,425
s0nny80y
Who did we buy it from before China ? Its not a huge order its a minor trouble and a couple extra cents . Chinas economy was built up through treaty's and favorable trade practices with the US . It was deliberately planned and was policy almost since Nixon's visit . making money and communism do not mix...or so it was thought ..China is evolving and if they want to keep improving war will not help . They can always go back to being billions of starving comerades . Someone else will get a turn at making things and improving their economy .
They can not win so they will not fight ..unless someone makes a mistake and misjudges . They are decades away from the US is military tech . All huge numbers mean is more targets..a huge amount of them . Go back to the road leading out of Kuwait and remember the scene ...now multiply that by the size of China.
Targets lots and lots of targets !
If I hear war is comming with China I run out and buy stock in all the corporations that make ammo ! What a booming business !
Lots and lots of targets !
- 2,093
ledhedWho did we buy it from before China ? Its not a huge order its a minor trouble and a couple extra cents . Chinas economy was built up through treaty's and favorable trade practices with the US . It was deliberately planned and was policy almost since Nixon's visit . making money and communism do not mix...or so it was thought ..China is evolving and if they want to keep improving war will not help . They can always go back to being billions of starving comerades . Someone else will get a turn at making things and improving their economy .
They can not win so they will not fight ..unless someone makes a mistake and misjudges . They are decades away from the US is military tech . All huge numbers mean is more targets..a huge amount of them . Go back to the road leading out of Kuwait and remember the scene ...now multiply that by the size of China.
Targets lots and lots of targets !
If I hear war is comming with China I run out and buy stock in all the corporations that make ammo ! What a booming business !
Lots and lots of targets !
Ledhed, I generally like you, but this ... 👎
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
A lot of this China stuff is overblown, IMO. Both China and the US have too much at stake to risk going to war over Taiwan. A lot of this hysteria is just saber rattling and I dont buy much of it. The Washington News articles just smack of fear mongering and publicity management. Every single country in the world conducts industrial espionage. Even Americas allies spy on her and she in turn spies on them.
More importantly, Chinas re-militarization is not so much a massive build up, but a looooong overdue modernization of an armed force that essentially never crawled out of the 1960s. Theyre trading in their Trabant for a nice Camry from the late 90shardly sporting a brand new Porsche the US buys for itself every year.
In a hypothetical scenario where a shooting war erupts in the Strait of Taiwan, China will irrevocably alienate South Korea and Japan --both major trading partners who are strategic allies of the US. Even a major mounting of tension before a possible war will trigger a crazy nuclear arms race in the Pacific Rim that in many ways has already begun. Who the hell wants that? Pretty much no one. Well, maybe except for that fruitcake Kim Jong Il. Nope, Im pretty sure he doesnt either.
Why would China choose to lose Japan and S. Korea in order to "pick up" Taiwan as an asset? Especially when doing so would render Taiwan largely useless-- it can no longer export to any of its major markets. It's senseless. Sure, there is some intense nationalistic pride at stake over the issue, but China's leaders aren't stupid. They will do what makes sense.
And why would the US choose to start a shooting war over Taiwan? A major conflict with a nuclear power that can affect strategic partners in the Pacific, exposing millions and millions of Americans to nuclear attack from ICBMs, not to mention flush any remaining international credibility down the toilet? Over what?? Ideology? Blah. Not gonna happen.
As for a strategic analysis:, TODAY, the US Navy would utterly dominate any invasion task force sent from the mainland. China's air force old and obsolete would NOT gain air control over the island, largely dooming any chance of a beach head. Their navy ---at least 10 years behind the Russian navy, which is 10 behind the US's--- would be bottled up in their harbors simply because the 6th fleet pretty much owns the Pacific Rim and has done so for the last 60 years. Sure, the Chinese may have a few modern (by modern, I mean ships that wouldnt get laughed out of the Japanese, South Korean or Taiwanese Navies) ships joining the fleet, but not in any significant numbers. Plus-- who can remember the last time China won a major sea engagement? That's right, I can't either.
What good is a 2.4 million man army if you can't get them across the sea? Do you have any idea how hard it is to execute an amphibious landing in this day in age without complete control of the sea and skies? Try impossible. It would be a stalemate, since US forces would have no hope of stepping on the mainland, and China would have no way of crossing the strait.
Of course all of this is moot. The world learned in 1962 that two modern nuclear-armed nations don't have wars over a relatively small, economically insignificant* island in the ocean. Ideology or no.
M
*=Alright, insignifigant may be too harsh, but it's not exactly a Japan or even a South Korea.
More importantly, Chinas re-militarization is not so much a massive build up, but a looooong overdue modernization of an armed force that essentially never crawled out of the 1960s. Theyre trading in their Trabant for a nice Camry from the late 90shardly sporting a brand new Porsche the US buys for itself every year.
In a hypothetical scenario where a shooting war erupts in the Strait of Taiwan, China will irrevocably alienate South Korea and Japan --both major trading partners who are strategic allies of the US. Even a major mounting of tension before a possible war will trigger a crazy nuclear arms race in the Pacific Rim that in many ways has already begun. Who the hell wants that? Pretty much no one. Well, maybe except for that fruitcake Kim Jong Il. Nope, Im pretty sure he doesnt either.
Why would China choose to lose Japan and S. Korea in order to "pick up" Taiwan as an asset? Especially when doing so would render Taiwan largely useless-- it can no longer export to any of its major markets. It's senseless. Sure, there is some intense nationalistic pride at stake over the issue, but China's leaders aren't stupid. They will do what makes sense.
And why would the US choose to start a shooting war over Taiwan? A major conflict with a nuclear power that can affect strategic partners in the Pacific, exposing millions and millions of Americans to nuclear attack from ICBMs, not to mention flush any remaining international credibility down the toilet? Over what?? Ideology? Blah. Not gonna happen.
As for a strategic analysis:, TODAY, the US Navy would utterly dominate any invasion task force sent from the mainland. China's air force old and obsolete would NOT gain air control over the island, largely dooming any chance of a beach head. Their navy ---at least 10 years behind the Russian navy, which is 10 behind the US's--- would be bottled up in their harbors simply because the 6th fleet pretty much owns the Pacific Rim and has done so for the last 60 years. Sure, the Chinese may have a few modern (by modern, I mean ships that wouldnt get laughed out of the Japanese, South Korean or Taiwanese Navies) ships joining the fleet, but not in any significant numbers. Plus-- who can remember the last time China won a major sea engagement? That's right, I can't either.
What good is a 2.4 million man army if you can't get them across the sea? Do you have any idea how hard it is to execute an amphibious landing in this day in age without complete control of the sea and skies? Try impossible. It would be a stalemate, since US forces would have no hope of stepping on the mainland, and China would have no way of crossing the strait.
Of course all of this is moot. The world learned in 1962 that two modern nuclear-armed nations don't have wars over a relatively small, economically insignificant* island in the ocean. Ideology or no.
M
*=Alright, insignifigant may be too harsh, but it's not exactly a Japan or even a South Korea.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Great post there ///M-Spec.
And if they do start building them what is America going to say. "Oh no, you can't have an Aircraft carrier! Stop straight away!"
Quite a while I would imgaine. But not too long. They won't by any means be the most sophistaced or well protected even if they are made.ledhead
And if they do start building them what is America going to say. "Oh no, you can't have an Aircraft carrier! Stop straight away!"
But the Chinese could buy desgins. Heck I'm sure the British Navy would sell them designs for their new carriers if the price is right. And what is America to argue? Again, you can't just stop a nation building arms, unless it is nuclear.
Nukes are great preventatives to nuclear attacks but do you really think that America would use their nuclear bombs/missiles without an attempted attack first to mainland America?
While formidable it isn't Naval capable or the best out there.
The links I posted just so happened to show up on drudgereport.com after the UNOCOAL bid was made on the same website.
Nationalism goes a long way for many countries to fight a war.
Japan, Vietnam, Germany.
The odds of them winning a war against the world was zero to none but they still pushed it anyways.
I honestly believe that even though the gov't fights wars for strategic purposes, the public supports their gov't in the name of national pride. North Vietnam fought off the US because we tried to impose are presence there. Imagine if the US was violated by a foreign force? What would we do? We'd be pss'd off! Imposing presence in the Middle East could explain alot of anti-American sentiment too. In fact, containment rather then intervention would have been the best foreign policy towards the Middle East back then (can't use that anymore, obviously). But we wanted their oil. Containment is damaging but China is huge to contain. We would have many countries that immediately surround China to convince as to why the US would make a strategic ally located thousands of miles away. But we shouldn't make those military alliances based on squeezing China out! We should, instead, make alliances under the blanket of anti-terrorism. But isn't fighting a whole nation with nukes and conventional weapons just as threatening as terrorism? In fact, more people die due to open war rather than guerilla-style terrorism.
The US is using containment on China in the name of fighting terrorism. The whole thing depends on how China responds to the crisis in North Korea. Do they take the bait as to whether North Korea will wield it's power over nukes as a tool of terrorism and allow the US to establish itself as the leading anti-terrorism fighting force in the region???
If China wants to establish it's sphere of influence of the region so as to satisfy their big-head ego without appearing aggressive as to recieving agressive actions in return, China should spearhead the role of peace negotiations with North Korea or kick out Kim and replace him with a democratic gov't. More likely towards peace because a military coup would show how agressive China would be in the event of a hostile situation. And China is still a Communist nation, so why the hell would they establish a democratic one?
In fact, that's the only reason why China can't become a "US." They can't impose Communism into other countries by force or else they risk the rejection of the democratic community. By force. It would be bad PR. And that would mean the loss of a free market that US business' would have had. And the loss of US business' to communism means war (or at least the brink of war [Cuba nationalizing US business']). The loss of a market (such as Taiwan) means alot of money. We might have the beginnings of a Cuban Missile Crisis at our hands.
Nationalism goes a long way for many countries to fight a war.
Japan, Vietnam, Germany.
The odds of them winning a war against the world was zero to none but they still pushed it anyways.
I honestly believe that even though the gov't fights wars for strategic purposes, the public supports their gov't in the name of national pride. North Vietnam fought off the US because we tried to impose are presence there. Imagine if the US was violated by a foreign force? What would we do? We'd be pss'd off! Imposing presence in the Middle East could explain alot of anti-American sentiment too. In fact, containment rather then intervention would have been the best foreign policy towards the Middle East back then (can't use that anymore, obviously). But we wanted their oil. Containment is damaging but China is huge to contain. We would have many countries that immediately surround China to convince as to why the US would make a strategic ally located thousands of miles away. But we shouldn't make those military alliances based on squeezing China out! We should, instead, make alliances under the blanket of anti-terrorism. But isn't fighting a whole nation with nukes and conventional weapons just as threatening as terrorism? In fact, more people die due to open war rather than guerilla-style terrorism.
The US is using containment on China in the name of fighting terrorism. The whole thing depends on how China responds to the crisis in North Korea. Do they take the bait as to whether North Korea will wield it's power over nukes as a tool of terrorism and allow the US to establish itself as the leading anti-terrorism fighting force in the region???
If China wants to establish it's sphere of influence of the region so as to satisfy their big-head ego without appearing aggressive as to recieving agressive actions in return, China should spearhead the role of peace negotiations with North Korea or kick out Kim and replace him with a democratic gov't. More likely towards peace because a military coup would show how agressive China would be in the event of a hostile situation. And China is still a Communist nation, so why the hell would they establish a democratic one?
In fact, that's the only reason why China can't become a "US." They can't impose Communism into other countries by force or else they risk the rejection of the democratic community. By force. It would be bad PR. And that would mean the loss of a free market that US business' would have had. And the loss of US business' to communism means war (or at least the brink of war [Cuba nationalizing US business']). The loss of a market (such as Taiwan) means alot of money. We might have the beginnings of a Cuban Missile Crisis at our hands.
- 3,425
Arwin
I point out in graphic terms why China or any sane country wont want war ...and this is your response ? WTF is wrong with you ? War is about KILLING AND DESTROYING THINGS . You just figure it out ?
China has a huge army = China has lots of targets for killing and destruction .
UNLESS THEY CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO STOP IT . Or more importantly and I repeat myself ..They just do not go to WAR .
bite me dork boy .
We won't go to war with China, even if they do invade Taiwan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1285915.stm We have a gentleman's agreement with them, but you can bet that if the situation was reversed, we'd be acting the same way (like if John Kerry had fled to Puerto Rico. HA!). I like Taiwan, and I hope they can keep holding the PRC off. But from a legal standpoint, they don't have a leg to stand on. And we'll bully and blow smoke all day long, but once the fight starts....Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign nation, and I seriously doubt we would do it, even without Iraq and with Pres Bush. It would be too big a war over too shaky a cause.
Of course, by the same token, China would never attack Taiwan. They buy US military stuff, and even if we didn't lift a finger, the battle would be so bad that the very reason for wanting it would be destroyed (manufacturing). That would be like re-annexing an already independent Chechnya, or the Arab countries uniting and trying to displace Israel. Even if they won, they'd be buying themselves hell.
Of course, by the same token, China would never attack Taiwan. They buy US military stuff, and even if we didn't lift a finger, the battle would be so bad that the very reason for wanting it would be destroyed (manufacturing). That would be like re-annexing an already independent Chechnya, or the Arab countries uniting and trying to displace Israel. Even if they won, they'd be buying themselves hell.
- 87,829
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
s0nny80y
At the time of WWII, Germany had one of the world's largest armies, with the most technologically advanced equipment and the best-funded scientists working towards the war machine. They effectively invented the modern military disciplines of missile warfare, submariners and jet fighters.
They had EVERY chance of winning a war against the world - had the supremely arrogant, mildly narcissistic, slightly insane Adolf Hitler not been in charge. Often his military tactics would make a woodlouse laugh like a drainpipe.
- 1,168
The attack on Russia was a good move and a battle that could easily been won by the Nazis, it was Hitler's egomania that prevented an outright German victory. He fired his generals leading the attack and decided to do that himself, he also used a man to command the air force who was full of false promises and useless at air support.
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
I respectully disagree. Nazi didn't have anything to earn by invading Russia, and they didn't earn anything. They just got spanked, big time. I think they underestimated Russia. Spreading their military thin, when they had a formidable enermy in Great Britain and the U.S., was a bad idea IMO.Flame-returns
- 3,052
s0nny80y
We need the oil more than they do.
CORRECTION:
I need the oil more than they do.
