United States would lose any war with China. - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-24-2005, 10:29 AM   #16
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: West
Posts: 51
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Where is this theoretical confict actually happening ? US soil ? Chinese couldn't get enough troops there without being bombed out of the sky/water.

Chinese soil ? US wouldn't stand a chance, too big an area to cover, too many casualties, too equally matched. It would be, at best, an Iran/Iraq standoff.
__________________

__________________
U2Scot is offline  
Old 11-24-2005, 10:36 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dismantled's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 21,345
Local Time: 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
:roll:

America would get whoop assed, limp back to the mainland and blame everyone else for their mistakes.

I think America is waving the 'democratic' flag a little to much in the face of a country who is doing well under its own steam.

I still think, until you've sorted out the problems in your own backyard, don't go point out others fault. And seriously, America is pretty fucked up.

But i just hope nothing comes of it, cause i already have a 5th of the world i can't go because of our "alliance" and that shits me off.

__________________

__________________
Dismantled is offline  
Old 11-24-2005, 11:03 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 01:48 AM
"america would get whoop assed and limp back to the mainland"

i'm sure you'd love that, wouldn't you dazzlingamy?

"a country doing well under its own steam"

unbelievable hypocrisy and/or a very very short memory.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 11-24-2005, 01:38 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Scot
Where is this theoretical confict actually happening ? US soil ? Chinese couldn't get enough troops there without being bombed out of the sky/water.

i remember back in my econ class in college

my prof said this might be true

then the remaining 1 billion could walk over on the dead bodies
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-24-2005, 02:26 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,089
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Some things I read recently indicated that China may be able to match the US militarily in about 20 years, but right now, they'd be annihilated, and they have no ability to really project their forces far outside of China.
__________________
Sleep Over Jack is offline  
Old 11-24-2005, 11:21 PM   #21
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 05:48 PM
No i wouldn't like it, i dont want ANY MORE conflicts. Thats why im saying, look INWARDS not outwards for a change. Stop pointing out other peoples faults until you examine and try to fix your own.

And its scary to think, i mean China has like 3 times the population of the USA, plus they're army is hardcore, i dont think the US would *really* stand a chance. And i dont want to see that. I like the US, i just don't think it can be pointing out weaknesses and things that "Should be changed" until they do it themselves.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 11-24-2005, 11:55 PM   #22
The Fly
 
Antilarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 95
Local Time: 06:48 AM
I still question what I questioned earlier, why are we having this thread? I don't admire China particularly, but um they make a lot of the goods than other western countries buy... so why would there be a war, exactly? Just cause you have to have a war?

Where is this coming from?
__________________
Antilarry is offline  
Old 11-25-2005, 02:31 AM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:48 PM
It is coming from a little paranoia.

As long as China has a vested interest in trading with the world and continues to adopt policy to that end not only is peace sustainable but internal reform and a furthuring of individual freedoms is inevitable.

Militarily China cannot project its force anywhere near as well as the USA. The PLA is not equipped as well as the US, it is not made up of citizen soldiers

If sheer strength of numbers was the sole determining factor then why would we see great battles like Thermopylae where 300 Spartans were able to hold off an onslaught by the Barbarian hordes only to be outmanouvered, the military ethic, better technology and better intelligence capabilities (US Satelite Coverage and Air Superiority, although the Chinese have run some very effective spy operations and have managed to obtain some serious tech through espionage). These are all factors that would play in favour of the US when compared to China.

US naval power, especially submarines and aircraft carriers, is far superior to the Chinese equivalents or lack thereof. Control of fuel supply is another factor, the US could hold reserves in the ME and Central Asia and the animosity between China and Russia would probably be of use, if the Russians were not involved at all (judging by current demographics the "country" will simply have fragmented by then) and energy supplies there would be off limits to China.

If this hypothetical conflict was built up to by a preceeding escelation over the next decade or so then a few factors could tip it wholly in a US direction. An ABM shield of sorts would be one, distruption of communication systems and cryptography (works against both sides) would be another. Today from the CSIS reports that I have read that judge China's military strength (because the official figures are not entirely accurate) they would be at significant disadvantage anywhere outside of China or in extreme conditions (Remember how the US Military has avoided the "Harsh Afghan Winter" that all the pundits warned about).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-25-2005, 12:17 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:48 AM
^ one of the few times i agree with A_W on a "world affairs" issue. china has way, way too much to lose economically to be getting involved with any sort of traditional (i.e., WW2 style) war with the US. and it will only become that much more of a crucial player over the course of th 21st century. the further intergrated the Chinese become into what we might call world popular culture (i.e, they love their Usher albums and can't wait to download "Hung Up"), the less likely they will be to see a war with the US (which would almost be, by default, a war with The West) as anything worthwhile. i also think the expansionist tendencies of the Chinese -- since, like, 95% of them are Han -- are greatly overestimated. i do think, however, there's the possibility of massive cultural misunderstanding. during the Cold War, the Russians read Faulkner and th Americans read Dostoevsky; it was an inter-Western dispute where both sides were from, at least in comparison to China, the same cultural background. what we need are more Manderin speakers, more understanding of Chinese culture, etc. just some cautionary thoughts. but i am, on the whole, optimistic about China.

dazzlingamy: i respect your opinions and i know where you're coming from, but i think you're fooling yourself i you think that you can locate the source of all the world's evil in the United States.

and, tell me, do you enjoy all that free, comprehensive health care, generous unemployment protections, and envious retirement benefits that result from the fact that the ANZUS treaty allows you to spend masive amounts of money on thins other than self-defense? (Western Europe and Canada: i am looking in your direction as well) do you think that Australia, a wealthy country with a small populaton, could possibly defend it's coastline from an invasion from, say, China without the help of the US? do you not think that the US would rush to Australia's side in an instant should some kind of national security crisis arrive?

i am madly in love with Australia, i love our Canadian cousins and i've lived (happily) in Europe. but something really does bother me when i hear, first, that every thing bad in the world is the US's fault, and then to hear often the most voiciferous criticism come from those in wonderful countries that benefit, greatly, from the US's willingness to engage the rest of the world. yes, we fuck up, especially now, and lord knows i've ranted and screamed about the near-constant fuck ups of the current administration.

but i also think that there's a bit of a parochial attitude coming from some of the US's allied criticis, as well as a lack of memory -- the world is not a safe place, and i do think that the US gets this more so than many other countries.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-25-2005, 01:23 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Re: healthcare, Irvine come on. The US could have a comprehensive health care plan, they elect not to. And it isn't because they're defending us up here in Moose Jaw, it's because there is no interest in socialized health care among big business or your medical associations either. Not to mention, there have been countless studies published (find the results on PubMed) indicating that unlike the rest of the world, which is accustomed to a certain "get in line" mentality, the upper class an even middle class Americans have no intention whatsoever on dealing with 6 month waits for things like mammograms. They want what they want, when they want it and that requires at least some amount of privatization.

I agree with you that the US picks up a lot of slack militarily, but to say that we're enjoying universal health care because a) you take care of us and b) because you then have to spend your tax $$ on military development other than healthcare is a poorly structured argument.

There is no universal health care in the US because it is bad for your bottom line and counterintuitive to American attitudes about services available to them, not because soldiers up in Nunavut have cheap equipment.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 11-25-2005, 02:51 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Re: healthcare, Irvine come on. The US could have a comprehensive health care plan, they elect not to. And it isn't because they're defending us up here in Moose Jaw, it's because there is no interest in socialized health care among big business or your medical associations either. Not to mention, there have been countless studies published (find the results on PubMed) indicating that unlike the rest of the world, which is accustomed to a certain "get in line" mentality, the upper class an even middle class Americans have no intention whatsoever on dealing with 6 month waits for things like mammograms. They want what they want, when they want it and that requires at least some amount of privatization.

I agree with you that the US picks up a lot of slack militarily, but to say that we're enjoying universal health care because a) you take care of us and b) because you then have to spend your tax $$ on military development other than healthcare is a poorly structured argument.

There is no universal health care in the US because it is bad for your bottom line and counterintuitive to American attitudes about services available to them, not because soldiers up in Nunavut have cheap equipment.


i think you misundestand -- nowhere did i say that the US doesn't have universal health care because of what the country spends militarily. i think we can have both, but that's another discussion.

what i do think is 100% correct is that if, say, Australia had to defend it's own coastline, there would be much less $$$ to spend on universal health care. the same thing with Canada.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-25-2005, 03:35 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Ah, but that also brings up the discussion of what our relative defense needs are in the context of the global policy that we pursue. For example, is a Norway or a Canada under the same threat of attack as the USA? Or, alternately, does our military need to be as large considering we are not participating in the number and scope of missions you are?

Another question would be, say that Australia, Canada et al increased military spending so that they no longer need to rely on US protection (which in itself is a silly assumption, but to play devil's advocate), do you think that the US government would cut military spending? I think not. To be honest with you, I really believe that regardless of what the rest of us view as necessary and how we spend our money, your government would not cut one dime from defense spending and military R&D.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 11-25-2005, 04:50 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Ah, but that also brings up the discussion of what our relative defense needs are in the context of the global policy that we pursue. For example, is a Norway or a Canada under the same threat of attack as the USA? Or, alternately, does our military need to be as large considering we are not participating in the number and scope of missions you are?




one thing that i think we can agree on is that the Cold War model is outdated at present, but it was once quite applicable. i don't think there's much of a question that the American military presence in Germany kept Soviet tanks out of West Berlin, or even Helsinki, and say what you will about proxy wars (and there's plenty to say, i know), but it was the US's continuous engagement and battling of communism in all corners of the globe that contributed to the fall of Soviet communism.

what would Canada do if China one day tried to invade the West Coast? while this seems utterly unlikely in the way the globe is currently structured, i would imagine our grandparents (and especially senior citizens in Australia who remember well the battle of the Coral Sea) might see things differently than we do.

the question you pose seems to me to be sort of a chicken-and-egg question -- is it because the US is willing to go on "adventures" that makes the rest of the world less likely to be attacked? is it because the US does function, more or less, as the world's policeman (though selective about the battles it faces) that a large-scale conflict on par with WW2 is highly unlikely to break out? either way, it does come back to US military might allowing such a discussion to even take place -- if it were gone, what would fill that vaccume?


Quote:
Another question would be, say that Australia, Canada et al increased military spending so that they no longer need to rely on US protection (which in itself is a silly assumption, but to play devil's advocate), do you think that the US government would cut military spending? I think not. To be honest with you, I really believe that regardless of what the rest of us view as necessary and how we spend our money, your government would not cut one dime from defense spending and military R&D.


i don't think the US would spend less, but i think it might put its resources in different areas. there's no question that military spending is good for business, but we might see fewer planes and tanks and aircraft carriers and more on intelligence, technological innovations, "super" soliders, etc.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-25-2005, 05:04 PM   #29
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:48 AM
I think some of you are losing perspective on who made these remarks, and in what context. The "war-with-China" scenario wasn't proposed by some Bush Administration hawk, salivating gleefully at the prospect of war with China and the further buildup it would justify--it was the governor of Tokyo who said this stuff, and he said it in the context of our Asian allies' increasing belief that they ought to be quietly expanding their own militaries, rather than continuing to rely on the US. And their own increasing opinion that free trade alone cannot make China a stable democracy, nor eliminate the threat of China using force to protect its assets.
Quote:
Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China. "...I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives," Mr. Ishihara said in an address to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Officials acknowledge that Mr. Ishihara's views reflect the widespread skepticism of U.S. military capabilities in such countries as Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. They said the U.S.-led war in Iraq has pointed to the American weakness in low-tech warfare. "When we can't even control parts of Anbar, they get the message loud and clear," an official said, referring to the flashpoint province in western Iraq.

As a result, Asian allies of the United States are quietly preparing to bolster their militaries independent of Washington. So far, the Bush administration has been strongly opposed to an indigenous Japanese defense capability, fearing it would lead to the expulsion of the U.S. military presence from that country.

For his part, Mr. Ishihara does not see China as evolving into a stable democracy with free elections. "I believe such predictions are totally wrong," Mr. Ishihara said.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 11-25-2005, 05:15 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,885
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I really believe that regardless of what the rest of us view as necessary and how we spend our money, your government would not cut one dime from defense spending and military R&D.
I agree. I think the best Americans can hope for spending-wise is a reduction in the rate of increase. An effort IS being made to eliminate some redundancy through the BRAC process (Base Realignment and Closure). But that's sort of like putting lipstick on a pig.
__________________

__________________
Bluer White is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com