United States would lose any war with China.

[deep]

U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack.

East Asia allies doubt U.S. could win war with China

Chinese troops lined up for a review by President Bush and China's President Hu Jintao on Nov. 20 in Beijing (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. This comes as President Bush wraps up a visit to Asia, in which he sought to strengthen U.S. ties with key allies in the region.

Most Asian officials have expressed their views privately. Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.

"In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, 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.

Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities—even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.

The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw.

"Therefore, we need to consider other means to counter China," he said. "The step we should be taking against China, I believe, is economic containment."

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.

On Nov. 16, Mr. Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The two leaders discussed the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan and Tokyo's troop deployment in Iraq.

During his visit to Washington in early November, Mr. Ishihara met senior U.S. defense officials. They included talks with U.S. Defense Deputy Undersecretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Lawless to discuss the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan.

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.

 

[Joshua87]

well may i ask what you think of this?

first off, a war between china and the U.S. would not be guerilla war like iraq

it wouldnt even be much of a ground war

and nukes would fly

 

[trevster2k]

well may i ask what you think of this?

first off, a war between china and the U.S. would not be guerilla war like iraq

it wouldnt even be much of a ground war

and nukes would fly

So nobody wins.

 

[Joshua87]

i still dont even think that is true, even if the war didnt go nuclear. the us carrier fleet is gigantic, theres no way china could conventially attack the american homeland. now whether or not the US navy/air force could defeat the chinese airforce and bomb them into submission is a different question.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

Thread title gave me a laugh..

 

[nbcrusader]

The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China.

What I think they mean to say is that the Asian countries represented by these officials could not defeat the Chinese army, and cannot rely on the current strength of the US military currently in place in these countries to act as a deterrent.

 

[Antilarry]

What's this, are we being softened up for an 'inevitable' war with China now? Not the first time I've heard it mentioned recently.

 

[Antilarry]

more to the point, why?

I mean, I'm sure they're all dirty commies or whatever, but they buy a lot of US dollars, and they make a lot of the stuff that the US buys. So why?

 

[anitram]

If the Americans and the Chinese decide to nuke each other, it's the rest of us who are shit out of luck, through no fault of our own.

 

[Irvine511]

What I think they mean to say is that the Asian countries represented by these officials could not defeat the Chinese army, and cannot rely on the current strength of the US military currently in place in these countries to act as a deterrent.

i think this is correct.

it's quite distressing how mesopotamian adventures leave us more vulnerable to real, actual threats.

 

[hiphop]

Why does a Japanese say that?

Maybe this is a return because recently China brought up the cruel Japanese policy of conquering SE Asia in WW II.

Does Japan have beef with China? -> economy evryone wants to deal with the US?

I doubt China would attack the US, both are members in the Sec Council, what is that?

 

[theblazer]

America no longer has the spine do the things that a country must to win a war. America is too afraid of people's feelings to do the most brutal things that must be done in war.

 

[MumblingBono]

We've seen the last of the great clashes on this planet. The big players only get called upon to quiet down the noisy small-timers.

America vs. China = silly talk

 

[DaveC]

If America fought China in a conventional ground war, China would win. Chinese popular opinion simply does not have the same abhorrence to casualties that America does. That's not to say that the Chinese don't value life; it's just saying that they are more willing to sustain casualties.

China would use human wave attacks similar to the way they did it in Korea.

The only way the American Public is going to accept casualties at a rate that war with China will create is if said war is for American survival. One of those wars that if the US loses, the country is effectively done for.

A naval and air force war would likely be won by the US. The US Navy's capabilities now are comparable to the Royal Navy's capabilities in 1808.

A nuclear war - the entire world goes up.

Either way, it's a shitshow.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Dismantled]

: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.

 

[VertigoGal]

"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.

 

[deep]

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

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

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.

 

[dazzlingamy]

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.

 

[Antilarry]

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?

 

[A_Wanderer]

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).

 

[Irvine511]

^ 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.

 

[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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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?

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.

 

[yolland]

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.

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.

 

[Bluer White]

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.