Can China defeat the USA in war? Do you fear the Chinese?

[FerrelGeek]

The evidence for for what other have already responded to you about this is plain. You're an idiot. And if you think the Chinese government is this wonderful benevolent entity, you're below idiot status. They'd stomp all over their people in a heartbeat if the need arose. The general population is still not as free as we are here in the US.

When you have no argument, erect a straw man, argue against that.



Unlike American conservatives, China has learned from her mistakes. Modern China is proof of that. They wouldn't be where they are if that weren't true.

Logic. Try it some time.

 

[fskimospy]

It all depends on what the war is and where.

Near the US? Holy shit would we destroy them. China is a regional power and has nearly no long range logistical capacity. If they even found some way over here they would be obliterated.

On a neutral site it would still be a laugher. The US would slaughter China mercilessly as we are the only true global power that can effectively deploy anywhere.

In China's immediate vicinity? China would be a formidable opponent. Their relatively backwards technology, badly trained troops and miserable logistics are all mitigated there.

 

[Blackjack200]

It all depends on what the war is and where.

Near the US? Holy shit would we destroy them. China is a regional power and has nearly no long range logistical capacity. If they even found some way over here they would be obliterated.

On a neutral site it would still be a laugher. The US would slaughter China mercilessly as we are the only true global power that can effectively deploy anywhere.

In China's immediate vicinity? China would be a formidable opponent. Their relatively backwards technology, badly trained troops and miserable logistics are all mitigated there.

China has no ability to project power at this point, they would never fight a war with the US, or anyone else a substantial distance from their borders.

I can't even imagine a scenario where the US is trying to take and hold Chinese cities. I think the only meaningful question is can the United States contintue to project power in the South China Sea, or can China stop it.

Regardelss of the odd Chinese sub popping up in the middle of a CVBG, or what a French sub might have done in a wargame, in a real scenario I don't see the Chinese being able to close the SCS from the United States now or at any point in the forseeable future. Their military spending would probably need to double or triple to get to that point.

 

[K1052]

They currently have a conventional warhead ICBM that's rather cheap and a huge threat to a carrier. Furthermore, mini-sub "drones" that are basically super quiet electrically powered naval mines could be produced by the thousands compared to the cost of a single one of our subs. Their planes might not be as advanced as ours but they can put far more in the air than one of our carriers can. Give them a few more years to develop even decent drones and it simply becomes a numbers game. They will be able to overwhelm our air and missile defense with pure numbers.

As I said, they won't be able to project this power it will be contained to the SCS. There is a huge difference between requiring a huge blue water navy and denying a navy access to a relatively small area of water off your own coast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D

China's "anti-carrier" missile.

There is a reason no major power has ever really seriously considered using even conventional ballistic weapons in many years. If early warning satellites catch ballistic launches during what is presumably a very tense period of time who is going to calmly wait around until the warheads have hit their targets to find out if they are conventional or nuclear? Nobody.

The risk of unintended escalation far outweighs any possible tactical advantage.

 

[piasabird]

To those that want to quote the Korean war and claim that China Kicked our ass, I say you are all full of shit. First of all it was the Soviet Union that originally armed the North Koreans which they turned into communists that attacked south Korea in the initial invasion of South Korea and the combined forces of the USA, South Korea and other NATO forces repelled North Korea and had the war just about won and it was then that China pulled a sneak attack. At that point, in reality the second invasion of Korea started. After conducting a strategic retreat (Running and fighting all the way), South Korea and the USA and other NATO forces repelled the Chinese also.

This was a very crucial time in history. The USA was being led by a Democratic President, and the country (USA) had just finished WWII, and we had significantly reduced the size of our military and we were not developing new military equipment. Even so, the USA had the capability of deploying Nuclear Weapons and destroying China, but the weak chicken democrats were not interested in fighting a real war.

I suggest you study History.

 

[Subyman]

I think the most important thing to consider is what does China gain? If they want land mass and more natural resources, the US would be a terrible choice in a cost/reward calculation. The easy choice would be small surrounding countries. China would be instantly crippled (and the US wouldn't be in a good position either) with huge trade sanctions. China's economy would crumble within a year without NATO trade.

War will only happen between large countries in proxy conflicts like Vietnam or if a truly madman took control of a nation and didn't use any rational thought at all. IMO, his own people would kill him before it went too far.

 

[SlickSnake]

It all depends on what the war is and where.

Near the US? Holy shit would we destroy them. China is a regional power and has nearly no long range logistical capacity. If they even found some way over here they would be obliterated.

On a neutral site it would still be a laugher. The US would slaughter China mercilessly as we are the only true global power that can effectively deploy anywhere.

In China's immediate vicinity? China would be a formidable opponent. Their relatively backwards technology, badly trained troops and miserable logistics are all mitigated there.

China would also let Kim off his leash at some point before real military escalations rose too high, so we would also be caught up in defending S. Korea again.

 

[fskimospy]

I would suggest you study the history of why nuclear weapons were not deployed in Korea. It is not because people were 'weak' or 'chicken'.

 

[bshole]

. Even so, the USA had the capability of deploying Nuclear Weapons and destroying China, but the weak chicken democrats were not interested in fighting a real war.

I suggest you study History.

For fucks sake, deploying nuclear weapons because we couldn't win conventionally?

 

[fskimospy]

For fucks sake, deploying nuclear weapons because we couldn't win conventionally?

The real reasons we didn't employ them in Korea against the Chinese were:

1. We didn't have very many of them and our military thought at the time that Korea was designed to draw US resources away from Europe in preparation for a Soviet attack there. We wanted to conserve our limited supply of nukes for use against the Russians.

2. At the time our military leaders (incorrectly) thought that nuclear weapons wouldn't be particularly effective in that terrain.

3. The Soviets might have employed nuclear weapons against our forces in Korea.
(this was a lesser concern)

It's funny that people like piasabird think that Truman, the only guy in history to employ nuclear weapons in warfare was too chicken to...well... employ nuclear weapons in warfare. He seems to have fallen victim to MacArthur's attempt to salvage his military legacy when at that point in the war MacArthur had become an ineffective, insubordinate liability.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Yea right. The last time the US engaged China in a war, China kicked America's ass (Korean War). They did that with little better than sticks. Since then, China has SIGNIFICANTLY closed the gap in technology. Fucking neocons and their insane war fantasies, they will get us all killed eventually.

fighting to a stalemate because the US didn't want to trigger WW3 but with a clear advantage in casualty rate (i.e. China had to use zerg tactics, they poured far more man power into the war than all of the US led UN forces + ROK forces combined) isn't exactly an "ass kicking"

oh, and that was with little more than WW2 tech, not exactly a relevant metric to use for today. Hey, the British "kicked our ass" in the War of 1812, I suppose that means we couldn't take them now either?

 

[Hugo Drax]

China makes almost everything for the US. Even uniforms are being made in china for our soldiers.

So A war with china means, naked soldiers wearing suspenders and barrels and throwing rocks at the chinese since we would run out of things once china stops supplying the US

 

[bshole]

The real reasons we didn't employ them in Korea against the Chinese were:

1. We didn't have very many of them and our military thought at the time that Korea was designed to draw US resources away from Europe in preparation for a Soviet attack there. We wanted to conserve our limited supply of nukes for use against the Russians.

2. At the time our military leaders (incorrectly) thought that nuclear weapons wouldn't be particularly effective in that terrain.

3. The Soviets might have employed nuclear weapons against our forces in Korea. (this was a lesser concern)

Eski, you may be correct, I will not double check. If you are indeed correct, I have to say I am more than a little disappointed that our leaders never even CONSIDERED that the use of the nuclear weapons in this instance was MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE. Good gawd, that would have been bullet point #1 on my list.

 

[rudeguy]

Eski, you may be correct, I will not double check. If you are indeed correct, I have to say I am more than a little disappointed that our leaders never even CONSIDERED that the use of the nuclear weapons in this instance was MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE. Good gawd, that would have been bullet point #1 on my list.

He just listed things that were considered when the leaders considered using nuclear weapons.

Did you take an extra stupid pill today?

 

[fskimospy]

Eski, you may be correct, I will not double check. If you are indeed correct, I have to say I am more than a little disappointed that our leaders never even CONSIDERED that the use of the nuclear weapons in this instance was MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE. Good gawd, that would have been bullet point #1 on my list.

I'm sure there is some historical disagreement on the exact reasons but I have a personal interest in the Korean War and that's what I remember it being.

They did consider using them, they just thought that overall it was a bad idea. More than anything they considered the defense of Europe paramount and they were worried about their ability to defend it in case the Soviets attacked (and they strongly suspected they might). Imagine if they had used nukes in Korea and then what they feared had actually happened. I'm sure you would be lambasting them for wasting all their firepower in an inconsequential theater.

It's easy to say they made the wrong call now, considering the Soviets had no intention of going into Europe at the time from what I understand. Not so easy for them to know at the time.

 

[dphantom]

I'm sure there is some historical disagreement on the exact reasons but I have a personal interest in the Korean War and that's what I remember it being.

They did consider using them, they just thought that overall it was a bad idea. More than anything they considered the defense of Europe paramount and they were worried about their ability to defend it in case the Soviets attacked (and they strongly suspected they might). Imagine if they had used nukes in Korea and then what they feared had actually happened. I'm sure you would be lambasting them for wasting all their firepower in an inconsequential theater.

It's easy to say they made the wrong call now, considering the Soviets had no intention of going into Europe at the time from what I understand. Not so easy for them to know at the time.

While I fundamentally disagree with eski on politics, he has essentially captured the reasons why nuclear weapons were not used.

 

[Blackjack200]

Eski, you may be correct, I will not double check. If you are indeed correct, I have to say I am more than a little disappointed that our leaders never even CONSIDERED that the use of the nuclear weapons in this instance was MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE. Good gawd, that would have been bullet point #1 on my list.

This is like 5 years after we firebombed Hamburg and Tokyo, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. How many did we kill in Vietnam? A million?

Morally indefensible wasn't even a blip on the radar until monks started setting themselves on fire and kids were getting shot at Kent State.

 

[Darwin333]

Even so, the USA had the capability of deploying Nuclear Weapons and destroying China, but the weak chicken democrats were not interested in fighting a real war.

I suggest you study History.

You are saying that we were to weak and chicken to fight a "real war" because we didn't nuke the shit out of China?

 

[Atreus21]

Unlike American conservatives, China has learned from her mistakes. Modern China is proof of that. They wouldn't be where they are if that weren't true.

Logic. Try it some time.

Man. I've seen some pathetic arguments, and this one is a fucking contender.

 

[Mai72]

There is zero chance that China could defeat the USA in a conventional (i.e., non-nuclear/biological/chemical) war anytime in the next 60 years at absolute earliest. And realistically more like 160 years at ABSOLUTE earliest. 60 years is if something totally catastrophic happened like a global mega-depression that took us back to steamships and cavalry. 160 years is a long time--the USA was founded only 228 years ago--so I suppose some huge shift could happen within that large of a timespan, but I don't see it happening. Somehow the USA would have to severely regress relative to China economically AND lose most or all of her many allies.

China would never attack the USA anytime in the foreseeable future, by the way, as that would be a lose-lose situation. Similarly, the USA isn't interested in starting a war with China.

I mean basically if China attacked USA and somehow unconventional arms weren't used, it'd still be the Chinese army vs the combined might of NATO at minimum, and likely most of East Asia, Australia/NZ, Canada, India, and possibly others. Who might China have as allies? N Korea, Iran, and Vietnam, maaaybe?

Radical Islam remains the largest threat to the world. You can reason with China; Chinese understand that they can't nuke someone without retaliation. But you can't reason with religious fundamentalists, some of which are probably stupid enough to want to nuke others willy-nilly and welcome retaliation as it would mean the end of Days, the return of Isa (Jesus), Armageddon, blah blah go to Paradise blah blah 72 virgins. The only way to defang Islam is to get people off that crazy "religion" which insists on never progressing beyond the literal word of the Quran, written 1400 years ago. No matter how many moderate Muslims there are, there will always be that lunatic literalist fringe. I would love it if all Abrahamic religions ceased to exist.. they cause SO many problems. Thankfully there aren't many such religious fundies in China.

I saw an interview with a US general who was talking about the new recruits applying to the military. He said that 10% of new recruits were let go because they were too fat to join. In 5 years it's estimated that nearly 50% of new recruits are going to be denied entry because of obese issues. 50% in 5 years!! The general said it could possible be a major national issue.

You say in 60 years China will not be able to match US military. In 60 years America is going to go from a mostly Caucasian society to one that is Spanish. With that were going to have a much different mindset in regard to the military.

60 years is a long time. America is going to go thru tremoundous change. IMO, the America that we live in is going to be much different. This new America might view events differently.

 

[Mai72]

The evidence for for what other have already responded to you about this is plain. You're an idiot. And if you think the Chinese government is this wonderful benevolent entity, you're below idiot status. They'd stomp all over their people in a heartbeat if the need arose. The general population is still not as free as we are here in the US.

Are we really free in America? Maybe if you're a white male. Then yes, I agree. I just a video where a black pregnant female was slammed to the ground for no apparent reason. Treated like an animal.

Keep drinking the koolaide.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Man. I've seen some pathetic arguments, and this one is a fucking contender.

I know. I think he set a new stupidity level, even for him. To actually try to defend the communist uprising in China is deplorable.

 

[blastingcap]

I saw an interview with a US general who was talking about the new recruits applying to the military. He said that 10% of new recruits were let go because they were too fat to join. In 5 years it's estimated that nearly 50% of new recruits are going to be denied entry because of obese issues. 50% in 5 years!! The general said it could possible be a major national issue.

You say in 60 years China will not be able to match US military. In 60 years America is going to go from a mostly Caucasian society to one that is Spanish. With that were going to have a much different mindset in regard to the military.

60 years is a long time. America is going to go thru tremoundous change. IMO, the America that we live in is going to be much different. This new America might view events differently.

I hope you aren't serious about citing to a fat study. Fat can be worked off, first of all. Second, raw manpower means less than training, morale, and force multipliers (e.g., via technology). Just ask the Iraqi army how much superior numbers matters when you have low morale. They blame it on inferior weapons, but the reality is that they have low morale and shitty officers who don't trust them with much. In contrast, the YPG even before air support gave as well as they took against their enemies in Syria.

The implied racism of transitioning from a "Caucasian society" to a "Spanish" one is so stupid as to not be worth addressing.

Furthermore, as I have already stated, any China-USA large-scale conflict would be a world war. China has few allies with militaries worth mentioning. The USA has bucketloads. Don't expect Russia to side with China, either; if China somehow won a war with the USA, Russia would be overrun next, and they know it. You think they have forgotten Hitler's betrayal? Nein. Furthermore, Russia's economy is only about the size of Brazil's and will continue to slide down in importance over time, along with their military strength, so even if Russia did join China vs USA/NATO/most of Asia/ANZAC/etc. it would not change the outcome.

Anyway, OP's topic is stupid. The two biggest economies both have too much to lose, and both have nuclear arsenals. They aren't going to get into a big conventional war because the risks are too great.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Even so, the USA had the capability of deploying Nuclear Weapons and destroying China, but the weak chicken democrats were not interested in fighting a real war.

I suggest you study History.

Only an idiot would even imply that a nuclear war would be a "good thing" for anyone. Best-case scenario would be >100m dead, potentially a billion casualties, and large parts of the world uninhabitable for thousands of years. Given this, who "wins" is largely irrelevant.

Anyway, OP's topic is stupid. The two biggest economies both have too much to lose, and both have nuclear arsenals. They aren't going to get into a big conventional war because the risks are too great.

This is actually what people were saying about the British entry into World War One. They were the premier economic superpower at that time, very little to gain and literally everything to lose.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Eski, you may be correct, I will not double check. If you are indeed correct, I have to say I am more than a little disappointed that our leaders never even CONSIDERED that the use of the nuclear weapons in this instance was MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE. Good gawd, that would have been bullet point #1 on my list.

but conventional bombs that killed far more people than the nukes ever would have is morally defensible?