June 3rd, 2009, 02:55 PM
To start, we know that China is way behind us technologically. However, they've got quite a few soldiers with nothing to live for (no women, or likelihood of getting to have kids), and enough factories in place to manufacture low quality munitions and weaponry in pretty large quantities.
So, do you think that numbers can overwhelm a technological advantage like ours?
What is the goal? What constitutes a "win"? I don't think either country could invade/conquer the other.
wars start because one country thinks they can win
they usually stop or end in stalemate when it becomes clear that there are no winners in a war
But like I said, what is a 'win' here? Usually wars have some sort of goal. Is China trying to invade Taiwan, and the US is opposing it? Is China trying to invade Alaska? Is the US trying to invade China? Is it an extermination war where both sides try to obliterate their enemy with nuclear weapons?Originally Posted by marnixR
I think the most likely scenario would be China invading Taiwan, or N. Korea invading S. Korea, and China throwing in with N. Korea to help out.
I roomed with a bunch of Chinese exchange students doing their grad studies over here for a few months once, and their impression of the Taiwan issue was that Chinese cultural notions of "honor" would inevitably demand that Taiwan succumb to Chinese rule, whether it meant war with the USA or not. Of course, the Chinese government isn't always honest with its citizens, so it could be all bluster.
Lots of Chinese factories are going unused because of the recession. No orders = no economic ties = why not have a war?
As for N. Korea, they have a massively over sized military for a country so small and economically poor. There's no saying for sure what the nuclear tests are about, but nukes would be a handy of trying to limit outside interference if they decided to invade their neighbors. When a nuclear power says "stay out of it", it's hard not to listen.
I had considered taking part in this discussion but with obtuse beginnings like this, the feedback might just be frustrating. Maybe I'll join in later.
Once again, I beg forgiveness for bad-manners.
Well, I was talking about the imbalance between men and women. In China it's a known fact that a large portion of their male population will certainly go unmarried their whole lives. Their have not been enough women born for things to go differently.
If you interpret them as having a lot to live for, that's fine.
http://www.pbs.org/kqed/chinainside/...opulation.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...rs-500864.html
The USA would win. No question about it. Numbers can be easily cut down with several air offensives, and the USA's advanced defense system is more than good enough to prevent incoming Chinese offensives.To start, we know that China is way behind us technologically. However, they've got quite a few soldiers with nothing to live for (no women, or likelihood of getting to have kids), and enough factories in place to manufacture low quality munitions and weaponry in pretty large quantities.
So, do you think that numbers can overwhelm a technological advantage like ours?
Even if China were to make use of its nuclear arsenal, the USA would still prevail, if only in strength of numbers of nukes.
Of course, I hardly doubt the USA will go to war with China. China's economic clout, although weakening with the recession, is still strong. And nobody, absolutely nobody, goes to war with a customer.
Some of our american friends sure like War as the catch all solution to all problems. :wink: War on drugs. War on poverty. War on Terror, etc. Too many single men in China? easy solution start WW3! Overpopulation? war. Nuclear waste a problem? thats easy, just package it as uranium ammunitions and drop it by the tons over the bombing-target-country-of-the-month!
Kojax is just pointing out that China has a large number of single men, so will this huge demographic be enough to win the war? He's not suggesting we go to war because China has too many single men.Ah Yes, I can see how much sense it would make to start a war because of China having too many single men. brilliant.
Ok my badKojax is just
but the premise is unclear. How would these million men march on washington? The US controls he oceans. Invading China would indeed be problematic, not a walk in the park like Iraq for sure if the plan was to liberate china. Without stating the objectives more clearly its hard to comment
Both China and the US would loose. Who would win? maybe Russia, Europe, and Latin America.China vs. the USA: who would win?
I believe kojax is assuming that China can match the USA's air force in terms of numbers, as well as China's relatively small navy also make up in numbers. As far as I know, China possesses no known submarines, so the USA is indeed much better equipped than China to deal with a war.but the premise is unclear. How would these million men march on washington? The US controls he oceans. Invading China would indeed be problematic, not a walk in the park like Iraq for sure if the plan was to liberate china. Without stating the objectives more clearly its hard to comment
In fact, I'd say China's best defense is not its military might but its economic power; far more potent.
- If China were attacked, there would be an effect on the economy, and China, if it thinks right, can turn the tables by getting allies to help support it. Understandably, these allies will be powerful.
Hmmm...
Why?Both China and the US would loose. Who would win? maybe Russia, Europe, and Latin America.
At the beginning of WW2, the USA also didn't have a lot of military machinery already built, but we had a lot of manufacturing potential at our disposal, to get the war machine built pretty fast.
China is getting to have a lot of factories. I'm not sure if they're the right kind, nor if they have enough iron on their own land to be able to really go crazy building planes and boats, but if they did, they'd probably focus on building cheap, less advanced machinery.
The question for me is whether we have enough ammunition. I know our weapons are better than theirs, but do we have enough of them? I've heard that, in some battles during Vietnam, the Viet Cong would survey a military base to try and estimate how many bullets were on store there, then send more people than we had bullets to ensure a victory.
Yeah. That's a good point. It seems like the USA is getting to be the country everybody loves to hate. Of course, China has a hard time getting along with some of its neighbors as well.
In fact, I'd say China's best defense is not its military might but its economic power; far more potent.
- If China were attacked, there would be an effect on the economy, and China, if it thinks right, can turn the tables by getting allies to help support it. Understandably, these allies will be powerful.
Hmmm...
Come to think of it, I wonder if that would be a good tool for us as well. We could arm people in Tibet and support an uprising there, and India has had pretty strained relations with them as well. (Plus it has a comparable population)
Emphasis on 'had'. India's relations with China have been growing since the 1990s, and were actually very strong before the invasion of Tibet. Don't forget, India was, after all, the first nation to recognise China as a nation.Come to think of it, I wonder if that would be a good tool for us as well. We could arm people in Tibet and support an uprising there, and India has had pretty strained relations with them as well. (Plus it has a comparable population)
And arming people in Tibet wouldn't lead to much.What can six million people do against 1.2 billion?
The country which has had bad relations with China is in fact Russia, and Russia is also dependent on China for its economy. Which makes Russia highly ambivalent.
Pre - 2008, I would have agreed. Post - 2008, especially since Obama's recent speech, I'm not too sure.It seems like the USA is getting to be the country everybody loves to hate.
The reason I'm saying China would find allies is because it is such a major stronghold of commerce. If the commercial interests of a nation are thwarted, naturally they will want to get rid of the obstacle as soon as possible.
Hence they will join China.
Given the Pentagon's daily spending of 3 to 4 billion, I'd say the USA was more than ready for a war.At the beginning of WW2, the USA also didn't have a lot of military machinery already built, but we had a lot of manufacturing potential at our disposal, to get the war machine built pretty fast.
China is getting to have a lot of factories. I'm not sure if they're the right kind, nor if they have enough iron on their own land to be able to really go crazy building planes and boats, but if they did, they'd probably focus on building cheap, less advanced machinery.
Of course, mounting a full-scale attack on China would necessitate the USA pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And China is still an aggressive buyer on the market; I guarantee China will have sotckpiled enough iron so far to last a full year.
give them an isolated country with many territories and man made building with mountain whatever and let them start with balanced territories split and fight that would have less conflict between civilian and soldier and less people is going to die
You know, I hadn't thought of this before, but I wonder how many soldiers we could amass if we opened our borders to Mexicans and other people who want to immigrate, on condition that they enlisted for a period of military service.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure our economy could ever grow enough to actually support a population comparable to China's, at least not without dramatically lowering our standard of living.
Once such a condition exists, I think you'll find a reduction in the number of people who wish to emigrate. Nobody wants to join the military just to live comfortably in the USA. Besides, think of the current recession, which has led to a drop in the number of immigrants to the USA.You know, I hadn't thought of this before, but I wonder how many soldiers we could amass if we opened our borders to Mexicans and other people who want to immigrate, on condition that they enlisted for a period of military service.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure our economy could ever grow enough to actually support a population comparable to China's, at least not without dramatically lowering our standard of living.
And the reason for China's population is quite simple: there were 600 million poor people in the pre-Deng Xiaoping days, and in poor countries, overpopulation is rampant, because less children are likely to survive. Given that the USA is still rich, I find it hard to believe that the USA's population will ever be significantly comparable to China.
Sorry, Jeff, but who should be given an isolated area? And this is war; I hardly think either China or the USA will take the number of deaths in account.give them an isolated country with many territories and man made building with mountain whatever and let them start with balanced territories split and fight that would have less conflict between civilian and soldier and less people is going to die
Someone needs to define what 'win' means.
And I have no idea what it has to do with gender demographics within China. Hopefully this variable was put in as a jest. I suppose one could add that there are a bunch of American men on Monday nights fixated with football so the USA would do better in a war with China on a Tuesday or Wednesday than on a Monday.
Who wins a nuclear exchange?The USA would kill more Chinese than the reverse but China would still have a much larger population afterwards. So is a winner one who destroys the most or has the most after destruction? The Soviets certainly put a lickin on the Germans in WW2 despite much larger casualties.
Conventional weapons? What is a win? Neither side has the firepower to defeat the other (defeat meaning?). China has over a hundred cities with a million people...the USA would run dry of everything after making some dents in the economy. What could China do to the USA?....not much of anything...China just needs to play rope-a-dope like Ali vs Foreman.
The real test would cone after some initial military confrontation. Which country has the infrastructure to turn poughshares into swords? Could any country begin to touch China in an arms race? Stop the assembly line making barbie dolls and Christmas knickknacks and start producing shells...cruise missile parts...rifle triggers...? That was the U.S.A.s great overwhelming advantage in WW2 in tank and aircraft production.... and again in the early 1950's establishing a nuclear arsenal infrastructure. The 2010's? Any country that goes head to head against China is going to get there a$$ wiped on hardware....and any country that goes against the USA would get their a$$ wiped on technology.
Gender demographics tells you how much it would hurt them to lose some males as casualties. You probably wouldn't have to worry about single mothers/widows putting a strain on the economy if the country has enough men desperate for a mate.
That seems to be everybody's strategy against us these days. In Iraq I get the impression the insurgents can lose 10 or 20 grunts killing one American soldier and their leaders will count it as a win. They can always get more. Just march into another village , point guns at everybody, and ask who'd like to sign up. (Or a better question: who dares refuse?)
Who wins a nuclear exchange?The USA would kill more Chinese than the reverse but China would still have a much larger population afterwards. So is a winner one who destroys the most or has the most after destruction? The Soviets certainly put a lickin on the Germans in WW2 despite much larger casualties.
Conventional weapons? What is a win? Neither side has the firepower to defeat the other (defeat meaning?). China has over a hundred cities with a million people...the USA would run dry of everything after making some dents in the economy. What could China do to the USA?....not much of anything...China just needs to play rope-a-dope like Ali vs Foreman.
We'd probably have more surviving aircraft, boats, and tanks at the end of the first round, because our stuff is a lot better than their stuff, but I worry about the cost of ammunition.
The real test would cone after some initial military confrontation. Which country has the infrastructure to turn poughshares into swords? Could any country begin to touch China in an arms race? Stop the assembly line making barbie dolls and Christmas knickknacks and start producing shells...cruise missile parts...rifle triggers...? That was the U.S.A.s great overwhelming advantage in WW2 in tank and aircraft production.... and again in the early 1950's establishing a nuclear arsenal infrastructure. The 2010's? Any country that goes head to head against China is going to get there a$$ wiped on hardware....and any country that goes against the USA would get their a$$ wiped on technology.
What good is a rocket launcher if you can't afford the rockets? Do we have any low quality ammunitions that we could use? In a protracted battle I guess economy of scale might kick in. If you're only buying a few thousand patriot missiles, then then the manufacturer has to include the cost of developing them in the price, and will only spend so much money streamlining their manufacturing process, but if you're buying millions, maybe the price per unit would go down?
Y'know: kind of like cell phones?
fight in Sahara desert amazon rain forest
[quote="kojax"]Gender demographics tells you how much it would hurt them to lose some males as casualties. You probably wouldn't have to worry about single mothers/widows putting a strain on the economy if the country has enough men desperate for a mate.
[quote]
That is ludicrous. It's one of the more ludicrous statements I have read on a forum
You don't think the economic strain of having a whole bunch of single parent families is a tactical concern in a protracted war? The most important key to winning just about any war is to cripple your opponent's economy. If they can't supply their soldiers, then they have to surrender sooner or later.
Also the suffering of an enemy's civilian population, or change in a soldiers likely peace-time prospects has to impact their morale.
Maybe less tangible concerns like the economy or morale don't seem important enough to be worthy of consideration for you. If that perspective is widespread in the USA today, then it would fully explain both why we lost Vietnam, and why we've been having such a hard time in Iraq. Our enemies certainly consider those things.
I have to say, China teaming up with North Korea to invade South Korea is very unlikely. China no longer has any diplomatic ties to North Korea; that all changed when the economic system in China changed to a more open market capitalist system (don't misunderstand, the Chinese government remains Communist but the economy is fairly capitalist).
I imagine that if the US ever got involved in anything it would either be due to Chinese actions in Taiwan or Tibet. In that case I would have to say that the United States would probably achieve victory in removing the Chinese from Taiwan/Tibet simply because the way the United States military operates favors overseas warfare.
Now a Chinese invasion of the United States is very different. The United States has only ever been invaded twice in its history and both times we got lucky. We have protocols in place for an invasion but no real historical experience in repelling invaders. The American public is pumped full of this absurd ultranationalism and would panic in an attempted invasion. The mere mention of foreign troops on American soil would cause huge riots in major cities all over the country. There would be people getting together weapons and attempting to stop the Chinese on their own. Civilian casualties would be staggering as would be damage to infrastructure. In lieu of all this I imagine the United States could still repel the invasion. I have to say that either way the war would probably end like most wars in history; with both sides battered and regretful and full of anger for each other.
Few wars have ever ended in any kind of certain victory for one side.
I'd never really thought about the possibility of local militias actually getting in the way instead of helping, but in modern warfare, I guess it's just like everything else modern. You can never overestimate the ability of well intentioned people to screw things up.
If they try to fight the invaders on their own, then I guess they might actually hamper things by making tactically unsound or foolish moves against professional Chinese soldiers who are likely to be better trained and better armed (compared to a civilian militia, I mean).
However: ideally, I'd like to think that most local militias would report to the nearest genuine military base and let the commanders there direct them so that they could contribute constructively.
The Chinese would win. All they'd have to do is dump their dollar reserves. No need for a single bullet.
Wouldn't really call that 'winning.' Dumping the dollar would completely destroy their economy too. Kind of like calling mutually assured destruction 'winning.'
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"
It would still be cheaper than a war. And there are plenty of markets out there for Chinese goods. Besides, they've been stocking up on gold for quite some time now.
The best way to fight a war is to never need to fight one.
We'd probably just revise our financial system so that it didn't matter. Just like Nixon taking the dollar off gold.
I think in the USA we also have a rule that we can seize an enemy's assets if we actually declare war on them, so we'd probably just declare war and then start seizing Chinese assets from the banks in every country friendly to us in that war. (which might not be very many). More importantly: if we declared war on them, we'd forgive ourselves of every debt we owed them. I don't think they owe us very many.
Sure you could. But it still wouldn't rescue the dollar, you'd have destroyed the one thing that drives the US economy, its credibility.
What I think is even more interesting is that both China and the United States have very large numbers of hackers, both groups of which do organize themselves into large "Civilian Cyber Armies" to coordinate attacks against each other. I imagine that if war began between the US and China this would most likely lead to less of a war on the ground and more of a war in cyberspace. And in terms of computer technology there is a bit of a stalemate. The United States has far more advanced computer systems but we rely upon them for almost everything. China doesn't have very advanced computer systems but also doesn't have them as integrated with their society as Americans do.
well if we hypothetically entered a war with China it would be very unintelligent on there part first of all. we are the biggest importer of chinese goods in the world, therefore supporting there econmy. but for the sake of argument the united states has been invaded once since 1812 and that was by the Japanese during WWII in alaska. so the chance of them invading us successfully is slim to none. there only advange is numbers, their infantry is upwards of over 1 million, while ours looms at around 300,000. and dont misunderestimate their technological capabilites. they are not ones to "brag" about that sort of thing. they are very scretive about that sort of thing. they dont show weakness, they just realesed information a few years ago about an earthquake in the 70s that killed half a million people that was never known by any nation untill then. and we are secretive all the same, the F-17 nighthawk was in comission for nearly 2 decades before the government accolaged its exsistance. it would be a battle of attrition...
It`s a simple question for a very science fictional idea.. this war would take place only in hollywood or in a world where the human evolution is getting destorted.
The answer is China... there is so much arrogance and less faith in the US comparing to China.. elements like military power and advanced weapons wont necessairly decide an open war between a two giantic powers, maybe a nuclear one would, but since both have it, and since using this option means obviously the end of the war even before it starts.. so China has the upper hand... stronge economically, a nation of enourmous human resources, and most of all much more strongest alies than the US would have.
"damn this thread is old too!"
All they have to do is call in the NOTE $$$$ and we're broke.
All they have to do is call in the NOTE $$$$ and we're broke.
So your scenario is that the US and China are having a war, but the US is still interested in paying off debts to China???
Lol. Good point!!So your scenario is that the US and China are having a war, but the US is still interested in paying off debts to China???
well to be fair, as much as i would like to think otherwise, the chinese arn't idiots. they(and that includes just about every military around the world, not just china) know they cant stand up to our military. the US military has been at the pinicle of modern military technology since WWII. but, getting back to what i was saying, they know that. they arnt going to do a full frontal attack or invasion. they are going to attack us another way if they can. i hate to got conspiricy on every one, but i've seen a lot of those "Cash for Gold" ads latley on TV. given our current economic slup, some one's looking to stay on top when and if our economy colapses. persay if that company was owned by an establishment in china they have one hell of a step up on us. because of, well who was it?.. nixon? ... anyway, because of one of our past presidents passing a bill of there own, the US no longer follows the Gold standard anymore, meaning that our money is no longer minted based on the amount of gold we own. this is partly a reason dispite our debt that our dollar is still one of hte top valued money around the world.
So far as I know, no country backs their money with gold (or anything other metal) any more.
Obama is spending us into economic ruin, All China has to do is call in the debt and we are broke.
Bullshit. China owns something like 8-9% of the US government's debt. Which still amounts to a vast sum of money, but it's relatively small compared to the amount of money the US government regularly spends. Also, the debt can't be "called in" in the way you seem to imply. It's not like China can ring up Washington and say "Hey, we want all that money you owe us now, pay up." When the government goes into debt by issuing securities, there is a fixed repayment date. Debt holders don't get to call it in early.
Besides why would China want to start a war with us , we are the biggest customers for their cheap shit. NO more Chinese tools for me!
USA would win because our technology is so much better. It would be no short war, however.
Not like we'd ever go to war with China any time soon, though.
It would be no match, China would win, the us would run out of money so fast that it couldn't even pay for it's troops and there would be massive mutiny, most would consider surrendering to china, remember, nations are very secretive, chances are there military is far more superior than ours, and their biological weapons can be released and there would be millions of lives lost, so you would lose even before you know it, and the problem is when one nuclear weapon is launched the whole world starts launching them and it would be a full blown ww3, and 70 percent of population would be wiped out, so thats why america doesn't even consider war with anybody.
Except Iraq,Afganistan ????
September 9th, 2009, 08:16 PM
I think that if it really came down to that i think America would win because of our tech also we have probably better trained soldiers. Although china could build some nukes and actually they have probably way better tech.
Yeah. I've read some articles that indicated the recession's almost hitting them harder than us, because of the lack of orders being made from their factories.
The USA would just redefine it's money system however it needed to, in order to come up with something to pay soldiers with. It worked in WW2.
That would be possible for the wrong kind of war. If the government does a really poor job of building its "casus belli" (cause for war), there would probably be peace marchers everywhere. I guess it also depends on China's terms of surrender. If they're trying to conquer us, we'd fight to the death. If they just want us to give up Taiwan, well......most would consider surrendering to china,
We know how advanced they are by watching their espionage efforts. If they're paying millions to smuggle out an F16 jet engine, so they can reverse engineer it, then we know they don't have one already.remember, nations are very secretive, chances are there military is far more superior than ours,
If it goes biological/nuclear, then we totally have the upper hand. Their sheer size/population makes them harder to wipe out, but we have more nukes by far, and a much more developed delivery system. I don't think either country would be foolish enough to initiate use of WMD's without international consent, however. If they did, then probably the rest of the international community would come down on them together like a hammer.and their biological weapons can be released and there would be millions of lives lost, so you would lose even before you know it, and the problem is when one nuclear weapon is launched the whole world starts launching them and it would be a full blown ww3, and 70 percent of population would be wiped out, so thats why america doesn't even consider war with anybody.
September 15th, 2009, 12:36 AM
Thanks for your reply, good points, but your ignoring a lot.
China has a lot saved up, now here's the problem with china, they have a lot, but don't share it with the citizens, which gives americans the view that they don't have that much, remember, they have fatcats their like we have them here, it's just a matter of different ideologies, thats what makes commusim different from fascism, even thought true commusisnm was mean't to be good and fascism meant to be towards one group of people. China has a lot of gold stored up, a lot of nuclear weapons, and a lot of biological weapons, they need them for their own just incase theres mass riots, china is very similiar to the us, and has a majority of working class like the us, so we have a lot of similiarities. When it comes down to it it's a matter of pride, china is probably a nation that only goes to war when they know they can win, chinas soilder's are more trained, more life experienced( we have immature gun totting stinking kids in ares) and more tough, far more tough, and are willing to fight and will not retreat, although we have higher ranks who fall in that category, the us is still working hard to improve it's millitary, and we all know china is extremely organized because of their history, they know how to win a war, so battle plans would be extremely deceptive and lethal I rest my case in the fact that some of the us higher ranks reads sun tzu art of war, their books on war, so this would be foolish to go to war with them, so when it comes to the mind and military battle plans and basic organization, human developement and hand to hand combat they make us look puny.
Secondly, the weapons, we have an arsenal of serious weapons, and have more nuclear weapons than anybody else, even in some nations if just by a hundred, but most of them are disassembled, and take about a week to reassemble, and in the state were in now that is totally unacceptable to the american public, even if we were at war, so there would be citizen disorder in areas, we have weapons that could not houses out of the ground and shoot them 40 feet up in the air, and jets that could launch almost colorful futuristic explosives that do awesome damage, (this stuff is all deeply classified) so china would really have to consider that, but at the same time it's hard to espionage china and stick around there long and they have a spy here, so china doesn't fight in a way that some would consider fair, if their was rumor that they would go to war with the us they would ambush it, have some agent here release some disease or poison or plant a nuclear weapon somewhere or something else and just release it as soon as war was declared, and in somewhere that was vital to the us functioning, like newyork city, not to mention have fronts waiting for us in the pacific. So there would be no head to head wars, and for nuclear weapons if we released one the us would fall into anarchy and it would get nasty, so thats out of the question, so it all falls down into allies.
China has some powerful allies, and we have some, they have russia which will nuke us in the snap of a dime, north korea, they could get japan even though they mmay choose to stay neutral, they would get mongolia, nations in south asia, some nations in europe so that would be something you don't want, and as for man power they can effectively raise an army of 50 million and deploy them iraq style and that would be catastrophic, instead of doing it straight forward and getting them killed by aircraft, as we can do only about 5 million men. When it comes to the economy china can simply switch on it's reserves and we will fall into a second world country,( they did not make our stuff all this time and not save the money) so it would be suicidle to go to war with china, and since they own us, lets not be idiots here, china is very powerful, and they own us. So this was an interesting one, but you sound like one of those idiots from the south who just is racist and hateful and still thinks the rest of the world doesn't have electricity.
What hammer?What international community? The UN ? Just passes resolutins which everyone ignores and berates the US
The answer to the initial question is -NO ONE wold win. Just world chaos.
September 16th, 2009, 04:04 PM
Gold is only useful if someone is trading with you.
Hadn't considered that angle. I imagine that, if they entered nuclear war with the USA, they'd end up experiencing those mass riots, and have to point some of their arsenal back at their own people. Of course, that would serve as an excuse to rapidly lower their own population.a lot of nuclear weapons, and a lot of biological weapons, they need them for their own just incase theres mass riots,
I doubt their soldiers are better trained, just because Chinese scholarship is so far behind ours, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have us out-general-ed. The recent military history of the USA has been blunder-after-blunder-after-blunder, in terms of our ability to accomplish useful political objectives by applying military force. Our leaders seem to think the enemy will give up if we simply inflict enough casualties.When it comes down to it it's a matter of pride, china is probably a nation that only goes to war when they know they can win, chinas soilder's are more trained, more life experienced( we have immature gun totting stinking kids in ares) and more tough, far more tough, and are willing to fight and will not retreat, although we have higher ranks who fall in that category, the us is still working hard to improve it's millitary, and we all know china is extremely organized because of their history, they know how to win a war, so battle plans would be extremely deceptive and lethal I rest my case in the fact that some of the us higher ranks reads sun tzu art of war, their books on war, so this would be foolish to go to war with them, so when it comes to the mind and military battle plans and basic organization, human developement and hand to hand combat they make us look puny.
A war with China would be the most perfect case of a situation where that assumption fails, but Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are also pretty good cases. I think it's hard for us, as Americans, to understand how a foreign culture may not value the lives of its own people.
We tend to shudder when we think of battles like Omaha Beach in WW2, but that's nothing compared to the kinds of meat grinder tactics Russia used in order to hold Stalingrad, and probably what a lot of other countries or insurgent groups are willing to do today. China would probably consider casualties like that to be acceptable losses.
I don't think Russia is really their ally at all, unless you mean that they dislike the USA more than China. Due to their common borders, China and Russia have had some pretty tense relations over the last century, even when both were communist. If anything, Russia might see a war between the USA and China as an opportunity to grab some land.China has some powerful allies, and we have some, they have russia which will nuke us in the snap of a dime, north korea, they could get japan even though they mmay choose to stay neutral, they would get mongolia, nations in south asia, some nations in europe so that would be something you don't want
Japan and China totally hate each other. The Japanese committed mass genocide against them during WW2, and the Chinese have not forgotten any of it.
I wonder what allies they really have outside the third world? Do they have any?
Well, they can't even design their own cell phone chip. In some ways, even Taiwan is more advanced than that.So this was an interesting one, but you sound like one of those idiots from the south who just is racist and hateful and still thinks the rest of the world doesn't have electricity.
War between nuclear powers can not be won. Peace through mutual assured destruction.
Didn't Vietnam beat china in a little war in 1980? The US would just have to make sure it had Vietnam on its side and the US would get the win.
For only a few points though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
The fact is is that maybe they have more numbers however, we have better training, they would be like children holding AK-47s
What I believe the OP meant when he said war was full scale war.Didn't Vietnam beat china in a little war in 1980? The US would just have to make sure it had Vietnam on its side and the US would get the win.
For only a few points though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
If its full scale then we would have to use Nuclear weapons, which we have enough of to take out all of China before they were even prepared to deploy, considering that we have Nuclear Boomers stationed in places all around the world that only a few people are aware of their actual location
November 30th, 2009, 02:27 PM
good to be back, well thanks for your replies, but people who just dislike people for the fun of it are usaully wrong, you guys have to smarten up and stop bullsh-ting yourselves becuase that really all it is, the us has too many enemies to name, and sadly it's because of guys like you who are better off dead. Like I said, going to war with china would be foolish, as china can just trade it's gold with another country and could get russia to declare war on the us and north korea, and believe me are soldiers are not more trained then theirs, that might have been true in the 60s, but we live in another generation today, there soilders are truly marvellous today, stop living in the past, china is almost the most powerful nation in the world, where have you guys been?
November 30th, 2009, 04:10 PM
Pretty aloof statement, insinuating that they are dumb when you don't seem to understand the hypothetical premise of the discussion. It seems you think they actually intend to invade China. And I'd like to see you removed from the forum for wishing other members dead.
The International Monetary Fund reports that China owns 1,054 tonnes of gold while the U.S. owns 8,133. This would only be a short term solution. It is generally in a nation's interest to retain gold as it has remained one of the world's most stable commodities for 700 years. Maybe someone more knowledgeable of economics could correct this, if incorrect.
Why would Russia and China declare war on North Korea? For that matter, why would Russia declare war on the US? Cold war animosities are quickly disappearing with joint military exercises, American investment in Russia growing by 50% a year and two way trade between the two nations exceeding 26 billion.
I suppose you mean "our" rather than "are" meaning US soldiers. So why should we believe you?
Maybe there elites are better trained, but honestly the bulk of their military are basically slapped around a little and given guns, it would cost too much for the chinese too pay for the best training they have for that many people
Your countrymen frighten me, Kukhri.
Why is that?
Hehe.
Back again, I still haven't got one good reply, sadly. But it's interesting how people swim in there ignorance and pride, if we lost to vietnam bitterly we would have an invasion of china, in california, so that proves me right autimaticaly, Khruki I thought you were smarter than that but i'll move on, theres a saying don't bite the hand of the person thats feeding you, and as much as I don't like that saying it's true, we would be doing exactly that if we declared war on china or any other major pacific country, and even britian may choose to stay nuetral as they have NO intention of hurting relationships with china, and secondly any launch of a nuclear weapon would start an armeggdon, and drafting soilders would also be a pain since we could only amount to about 15 million in an emergency draft, the good thing is the us has all kinds of classified technology but so does other countries, and our supermarkets would be empty, our dollar would be worth less than are diaherra( spelling may be incorrect) and we would have serious problems witht the asian american community, as well as begging russia to be are partner which believe me it does not like us and it would pick china over us relunctantly, lets face the truth here guys we cannot afford to have any more serious wars without major consequences, by doing this we would of done what a lot of countries want us to do,do something stupid so they could wipe us out, we have a lot of allies, but even they are watching us. We must continue to act mature and with OBama we can all be one, face challenges together, grow together, maybe one day share secrets, and be at peace, people love peace, I do, and you should to, now this forum should be closed.
Well, we're a net exporter of food, so we can feed our own people even if the rest of the world shuns us. We might have trouble getting enough oil for the war effort, however, unless it's a short war and our reserves don't run out.
I think it depends on whether they considered it likely that they could be allowed to expand their own territory in the process. The prospect of taking some of China's land away from them might prove sufficiently tempting. They're kind of emperial that way.as well as begging russia to be are partner which believe me it does not like us and it would pick china over us relunctantly,
Too true!!! We're so badly overextended. If China were smart, they'd blitzkrieg us right now. (I dearly hope they're not listening to this.)lets face the truth here guys we cannot afford to have any more serious wars without major consequences, by doing this we would of done what a lot of countries want us to do,do something stupid so they could wipe us out, we have a lot of allies, but even they are watching us.
I don't think you used that last phrase correctly, though it is often difficult to understand your point. If you are going to continue to call others ignorant, you'd better be pretty sharp yourself. Your posts are very difficult to follow, typically confusing words like "their" and "there", "our" and "are". Correct this, and you others will begin to respond to the content of your posts, not your condescension.
I think USA will win against China in terms of technology and tactics but china has also have a chance of winning in terms of the number of soldiers they have China has the huge population in earth
What makes you think this? Most major technology businesses have roughly 60-80% of their business in China right now.
True, but Chinese scientists and engineers are barely to the point of being able to design a good cell phone chip. They depend on us and their neighbors almost entirely for the engineering behind their projects.What makes you think this? Most major technology businesses have roughly 60-80% of their business in China right now.
Their part of the tech business right now is just the grunt work and heavy lifting. That may change.... however...
Well, they are pretty good at reverse engineering already. I can imagine that skill set will very soon evolve into abilities in "forward" engineering. Just food for thought.
Good point, and a little bit frightening. I think one thing that will tend to hold them back, however, is their own cultural tendencies. Some cultures simply aren't as creative as others. They don't value it within their ranks. In highly totalitarian societies, often status counts more than ability in deciding who will get what jobs, and so they have a tendency to suppress creativity, because it represents a person of lower rank moving out of step with their superiors. All ideas are supposed to come from the top, not the bottom.
In the USA, nobody cares where the idea comes from, so long as it's a good idea.
I'd say Chinese culture is very good at unapologetically implementing the most practical solutions, without getting hung up on traditional expectations of how things ought to be or ought to appear. For classic example Chinese invented tofu, and feel no need to dye and shape it imitating hot-dog wieners or orange cheese or something. Such to-the-point ingenuity is discounted by Westerners who equate lack of superficial or traditional quality with low quality.
Kojax, I'm sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you, but you are painting in too broad of brush strokes to be anything even remotely close to resembling accurate. You also seem to be describing China from 20 years ago... Not China today.
Seconded. "Frightening" speaks a mean attitude that goes beyond patriotism. You don't wish China to be also powerful?
They used to be much worse. The fact they've improved doesn't mean they've reached our level. I don't mean to say that their government is structured totalitarian. I mean how people interact in person. Japan also has the problem I'm describing. They're wonderfully good at taking ideas from elsewhere and applying them better, but not originating ideas. It's just seen as wrong for someone who doesn't have seniority to be coming up with ideas. First, you're supposed to "pay your dues" or whatever. That means that only the scarce few at the top of the pyramid are contributing ideas, and those people tend to be risk averse, not wanting to dash their own credibility by offering an idea that isn't certain to work.Kojax, I'm sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you, but you are painting in too broad of brush strokes to be anything even remotely close to resembling accurate. You also seem to be describing China from 20 years ago... Not China today.
One could say similar things about the culture that exists within the US military, except they have the benefit of interacting with civilian contractors who are free to be innovative, because they fall outside the chain of command. A civilian manufacturer might offer a reward to anyone working on the assembly line who comes up with a way to optimize the process and saves the company money, like a percentage of the savings or something. You'd never see that happen in China, or the US military.
No. I don't.
China still wants to take Taiwan. If they're ever in a position where that's tactically feasible, they will almost certainly take it. It's a point of national pride, and one they've been preaching to their people for a long time. I had this conversation quite a many times when I used to live with some Chinese exchange students. Even the nuclear deterrent seemed kind of flimsy from their perspectives. It kind of chilled me.
Kojax I suggest you're imagining alot, and greater exposure would dull your judgments. In particular stifling seniority pyramids are hardly a speciality of Chinese culture. Do you know how a collective operates? Chinese used to complain about having to make up silly ideas and criticisms, because communist ideals expected and formally required even the most indifferent workers to participate in planning business. Anyway I agree Chinese society has mellowed since those times.
No. I'm pretty sure I'm spot on about this particular point.
Kojax I suggest you're imagining alot, and greater exposure would dull your judgments. In particular stifling seniority pyramids are hardly a speciality of Chinese culture. Do you know how a collective operates? Chinese used to complain about having to make up silly ideas and criticisms, because communist ideals expected and formally required even the most indifferent workers to participate in planning business. Anyway I agree Chinese society has mellowed since those times.
http://english.talent-software.com/?p=905
I'm talking about how things work on the ground level, not how they work on paper, or on the formal level. I agree that Chinese communism attempts to do things in an enlightened way sometimes, however this is often an attempt to offset fundamental traits of the culture. The reason they have to do the things you're describing on the formal level is because it doesn't come naturally to them, like it does to us.
Oh.. and here's that cell phone chip scandal I keep talking about:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_B.../HG04Cb06.html
A blog entry by former Chief Representative of Norman Broadbent Executive Search, ladder-climbing Frank Mulligan & strategic partner for all your multinational senior management recruiting needs. Gah. How much you want to bet "on the ground" for Frank means time to close his laptop and step down from business class to exit the plane?
Unlike Frank my wife (Japanese) had six years experience waitressing and managing Chinese/Japanese staffed & owned restaurants, and I've lived in a Chinese dominated city (Vancouver) most of my life. Some of my family is 1st generation Chinese "ordinary people". So I've got pretty good anecdotal familiarity with traditional and modern Chinese culture. And I say, without one filter of opinion, it's not so easy to stereotype. Of course I will say that because I can't think "us and them" from where you stand; to me Frank Mulligan is "them".
The generalization I would make: Chinese tend to frankly pursue expedient no-nonsense solutions. This may come across to other cultures as unsubtle - how can simply paring down to bare objectives be innovative? I'd speculate that in business - or topically, in war - Chinese culture is quick to criticize and abandon "mission creep". I think this attitude is a product of traditional culture and recent experience.
From your 2nd link:
Contrast Japanese, who are keen to intangible and peripheral qualities e.g. the spirit or ideal of the work may be more valued than the bottom line. This informs you why plagiarism in Japan is seriously frowned upon.
Tell me if we're on the same observation, then. What I see is a group of people who are able to quickly reach consensus. "What to do?" questions are quickly stripped down to a level that everyone can agree with, the problem identified, and the most expedient course of action chosen, so everyone can get straight back to work. The ability to think on your feet doesn't necessarily correlate with the ability to build a better mousetrap.
I think innovation requires people to spend a longer time debating before they act. An innovative society has to have a certain tolerance for liberals and philosophers who question everything, and sometimes don't appear to directly contribute anything. You've got to be willing to rethink processes that already work, reinvent the wheel. That way you're the first one to move from bows to muskets, from muskets to rifles.... etc.
Anyway.... Japan's doing fine technologically. So, maybe when China learns a better anti-plagiarism ethic, they'll start catching up. Right now, they'll just have to settle for reverse engineering.
True, but Chinese scientists and engineers are barely to the point of being able to design a good cell phone chip. They depend on us and their neighbors almost entirely for the engineering behind their projects.What makes you think this? Most major technology businesses have roughly 60-80% of their business in China right now.
FYI - Below is more data which refutes your assertion. As you can see by both charts, there is an explosion of patents taking place in China, and they have more overall than most other countries. This suggests that they very much are an engineering powerhouse and creative group, and that it would be naive and wrong to dismiss what they do as "reverse engineering only" or to suggest that they rely "almost entirely on their neighbors and the US" for their engineering.
http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/stati...nts/index.html
The sharp rise in patent filings is impressive. As for spending, I certainly have no doubt China spends the needed amounts of money. It's their results that seem dubious. Even in the cell phone link, it was evident that money was spent. It just didn't accomplish anything.
One problem the Chinese government has a lot of (possibly not more than anyone else, but still a lot) is corruption, especially in its military. Both tech scandals above were examples of government funds being misappropriated by companies or individuals that were paid to do a certain job and then spent portions of the money elsewhere.
I'll admit that, outside of living with some Chinese exchange students for a few months, and taking a semester of Mandarin, I don't really have any direct cultural contact with this country. I generally read any article that I happen to see, especially on their state of technology, but I'm no professor. At the same time: I think people are more upset that I would dare criticize a foreign culture than they are concerned with fact checking.
Agreed, on both points.
Here's where we disagree. Why do you think it's "dubious?" You've done little more than cite two anecdotal examples and then continue to suggest that these specific instances serve as a justification for your broader points about China as a whole.
I don't mind that you have a particular opinion. That's fine, but you need to know that your opinion may be unrepresentative of reality, and you should expect to be challenged when that is the case.
That happens everywhere, though. I agree, corruption is a problem, and the China experiences corruption, but I have yet to see how their level of corruption is supposed to differ from that found in other nations, and even in the business world. That's just the way humans are... This is not some problem specific to the Chinese.
Well, that's certainly possible, but you need to know right now that I am not one of those people. My responses have challenged your generalizations and your lack of accuracy on various points. I have not engaged you because you "dared criticize a foreign culture." That would be rather silly, and I hope you won't dismiss my responses due to that perception you hold.
Cheers.
For months I left to get busy in college.
As one Chinese I second Scifor Refugee.
Another thing, I'm sorry but I can't finish the topic on Tibet for time reasons.
I'd like to thank the forum members for your participating. :-D
Oh, wish I will not be treated like some painful person or spy in this topic.
The strange circle of blame-antiblame don't help in any aspect.
And, I have one opinion. Just show what I'm thinking about......
The best way to keep self strong is to not prevent your neighbors becoming strong.
That's all.
Oh, I can't stop to add...how to get understand I'm hostile-less and logical, please teach me...
For last 2 to 3 thousand years it is said in our book there is almost one domestic war per year here, and fewer wars with foreigners. That's shameful which should attribute to the emperor system. Indeed, no one like war here. Please, please, I beg you stop consider us and anybody else using that word.
兵者, 凶器
search these characters to get known how we treat war
Let's talk about something about metaphysics. I know dualism is very popular in west. Can we really divide something or somebody into one bright aspect and one dark aspect? Is there really a lasting war between the light and the evil? Can beauty born from chaos? Chaos equals to no order? Is war necessary to maintain the good, light, honest beings?
You all have tactical insight, but the world is changing, the term 'best' will be not true for ever. Try to have some long term strategy. Divisions in human like country, ethic will at last get weaker and weaker. Connections between countries are not only trade, conquer and resistance.
Sincerely, if years later i still need to talk about these, I'd prefer to talk with Jim T. Kirk, even maybe I have to get myself part of one holodeck.
I don't think I was very fair about this earlier. I just get frustrated that I'm somehow considered to be in the wrong for using a data source that people bet real money on. USA companies have been investing and setting up enterprises successfully in China for over a decade now. If this guy is off base, and business people actually act on his advice and lose money, then his whole reputation as a consultant will probably be destroyed. He'd be taking a big risk to just go around making stuff up.A blog entry by former Chief Representative of Norman Broadbent Executive Search, ladder-climbing Frank Mulligan & strategic partner for all your multinational senior management recruiting needs. Gah. How much you want to bet "on the ground" for Frank means time to close his laptop and step down from business class to exit the plane?
Unlike Frank my wife (Japanese) had six years experience waitressing and managing Chinese/Japanese staffed & owned restaurants, and I've lived in a Chinese dominated city (Vancouver) most of my life. Some of my family is 1st generation Chinese "ordinary people". So I've got pretty good anecdotal familiarity with traditional and modern Chinese culture. And I say, without one filter of opinion, it's not so easy to stereotype. Of course I will say that because I can't think "us and them" from where you stand; to me Frank Mulligan is "them".
The generalization I would make: Chinese tend to frankly pursue expedient no-nonsense solutions. This may come across to other cultures as unsubtle - how can simply paring down to bare objectives be innovative? I'd speculate that in business - or topically, in war - Chinese culture is quick to criticize and abandon "mission creep". I think this attitude is a product of traditional culture and recent experience.
However, the fact it's a blog certainly does lessen its credibility. ;-(
Have you considered the possibility that, just like in the USA, small businesses might have a different cultural mindset than large businesses? Especially if something is family owned. Most of the criticisms people lob against large USA corporations would not be accurate if you applied them to a local mom & pop restaurant.
What makes me feel justified in generalizing it is that the fiasco happened over something as basic as a cell phone chip, which is level of technology some of China's smaller neighbors have already reached and surpassed.
Here's where we disagree. Why do you think it's "dubious?" You've done little more than cite two anecdotal examples and then continue to suggest that these specific instances serve as a justification for your broader points about China as a whole.
I don't mind that you have a particular opinion. That's fine, but you need to know that your opinion may be unrepresentative of reality, and you should expect to be challenged when that is the case.
If, on the other hand, they had been trying to create a CPU for personal computers to compete with AMD and Intel's chips, and failed at that, then I'd look at it more as an isolated incident of something going wrong. (Because that would be an ambitious project for any country, or corporate entity to be attempting, even inside the USA.)
I think you can use certain technologies as indicators of a country's overall progress. It's one thing not to have cell phone technology. It's another to invest massive amounts of federal money, make it a focus of national interest, and... then still fail to produce cell phone technology. I'm pretty sure that speaks of a larger underlying problem. That would be like a grad student in physics failing a test designed to look for High School level trigonometry skills. It's either an extremely big fluke, or a sign that something is seriously wrong.
USA is allready losing the invisible economic war. China dont need to ever attack the US because they soon will own it finacially.
Is what i "hear"
hoping im wrong though. I cant look at china as anything else than pure evil, their government is old fashioned idiots still holding the "honor" code of theirs which ironically have no honor at all. They cencor pretty much everything in media and internet and have full control over the population. Their "communist" leadership is nothing short of multiple dictators mad with power in my eyes.
After reading every post in this thread I've decided to lock it. Not for any one reason but for the concept as a whole. This sub forum really wasn't designed to discuss what country would win in a war.
I can't say I'm overly impressed that some would actually entertain the idea of war between two superpowers. There would be nothing good that would arise from this situation except perhaps later on down the road realizing it should never have happen and preventing it in the future.
The biggest enemy to any established country these days is chaos. Chaos coming from instability within , natural disasters or outside groups introducing it. You really want to know who would win between these two country's? The source of Chaos that suckered them in to fighting.
| « Electirc Goo Ball | Smoke and Sonar » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
