"China thinks it can defeat America in battle"

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Which explains our big time success in Iraq and Afghanistan right?

Get a clue. US gets beat in any unconventional war. And it will be low level unconventional with nukes on the table where any slight they could go off.

Actually I don't think US would do a damn thing about Taiwan when it comes down to it. Too risky. Like Chimera. Like East Ukraine if Russia pushed issue.

Some sanctions thats about it.

Carry on with chest beating though. Have to justify spending 700 billion on a failed force/jobs program somehow.

I don't even mind a federal jobs program. It's the unproductive nature of .mils I have a problem with.
We've never actually been defeated in a conventional war. We've been fought to draws by Great Britain (War of 1812) and China (Korea) and we've been defeated in guerrilla warfare (Vietnam), but never defeated in a conventional war. Iraq we won easily in a conventional war. Afghanistan we won easily in a combination war, mostly guerrilla warfare but backing the Northern Alliance with our air power in some pretty conventional battles. In conventional wars and battles, our military is virtually unbeatable.

Our problem is that having built the world's most powerful hammer, we too often don't understand that does not automatically make every problem a nail. War is the extension of political policy, but not every political goal can be achieved through war. Not unless you're prepared to kill off everyone opposing that policy anyway, and that tends to have other unpleasant side effects.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
I was just trying to add some perspective to

'We can detect any launches and deal with them long before that happens."
Attacks against Americans. Sure, we can't stop China from hitting Taiwan with short range missiles, but if you think that has any bearing on America being able to fight China in a war, you're not particularly bright.

From what I gather a large part of Taiwan consider themselves to be a part of China

Taiwan is officially the "Republic of China". Which is different than the "People's Republic of China". It was once governed by mainland China and is now not mainland China. When the communists took over, the leaders vacated to Taiwan. I doubt they will ever want to be annexed though. They are currently a democratic government. Can't imagine them wanting to become communist.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I googled it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area

You worked in Lloyd too, and somehow your co workers convinced you of no go zones

What the hell are you talking about? The only thing I was told in Lloydminster was to keep my hands in my pockets as the union workers were known to attack anyone including other union workers they deemed to be scabbing their jobs. The second day I was there a worker was beaten badly and stuffed into the snow bank for all to see as they left the Bi-provincial Upgrader.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
So how many times have you been in Taiwan? In all the times I've worked in Taiwan I never heard anyone say they wanted their country to be part of China. Though they were afraid that China would try to take control of their country.

I think a large portion don't want to be part of the Chinese communist government, but still consider themselves part of "China". Internationally, there is a controversy as to whether they are an independent state or not.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Attacks against Americans. Sure, we can't stop China from hitting Taiwan with short range missiles, but if you think that has any bearing on America being able to fight China in a war, you're not particularly bright.

I'm getting confused here, are you saying America can stop a nuclear attack?
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
I'm getting confused here, are you saying America can stop a nuclear attack?

American can detect and stop an ICBM (carrying a nuclear payload launched or not) from Europe, yes. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis happened? Having the ability to launch an ICBM from that distance wouldn't give us enough time to react.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
What the hell are you talking about? The only thing I was told in Lloydminster was to keep my hands in my pockets as the union workers were known to attack anyone including other union workers they deemed to be scabbing their jobs. The second day I was there a worker was beaten badly and stuffed into the snow bank for all to see as they left the Bi-provincial Upgrader.

In the Zimmerman thread you and I went on about no go zones in Canada
I said they did not exist and you told the story about your co workers warning you to stay out of areas in Llyod
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
In the Zimmerman thread you and I went on about no go zones in Canada
I said they did not exist and you told the story about your co workers warning you to stay out of areas in Llyod

No, I did not. Lloydminster is a just podunk town in Canucklestan. I never had an issue anywhere in Canada in all the years I've worked there.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
American can detect and stop an ICBM (carrying a nuclear payload launched or not) from Europe, yes. Why do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis happened? Having the ability to launch an ICBM from that distance wouldn't give us enough time to react.


Russia is a nuclear superpower. Russia has an estimated 4,500 active nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Unlike North Korea or perhaps Iran, whose nuclear arsenals couldn’t inflict substantial damage, Russia could totally devastate the U.S. as well as the rest of the planet. U.S. missile defenses, assuming they even work, are not designed to stop a massive Russian strike.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...hy-america-will-never-go-to-war-over-ukraine/

However, since most nuclear weapons in the US and Russia are mounted on some form of missile, the focus for years has been how to defend against a missile attack. Despite decades of research and tens of billions of dollars of expenditures, it has proven virtually impossible to construct a defense system which can reliably detect and shoot down missiles which travel faster than a speeding bullet.

Simple defensive measures, such as employing decoys which resemble warheads, are enough to overwhelm and defeat even the latest versions of missile defense. US missile defense systems also have extremely limited capabilities in terms of the numbers of missiles which they could engage (even if they had 100% assurance of destroying each target, which they do not). A single failure of such a system would likely result in the deaths of millions of people

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearweaponsintheusandrussia/

Are you aware of MAD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
 
Last edited:

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
No, I did not. Lloydminster is a just podunk town in Canucklestan. I never had an issue anywhere in Canada in all the years I've worked there.

I can't prove different unless I went through that whole thread, but yes that's why I found it hilarious
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
We've never actually been defeated in a conventional war. We've been fought to draws by Great Britain (War of 1812) and China (Korea) and we've been defeated in guerrilla warfare (Vietnam), but never defeated in a conventional war. Iraq we won easily in a conventional war. Afghanistan we won easily in a combination war, mostly guerrilla warfare but backing the Northern Alliance with our air power in some pretty conventional battles. In conventional wars and battles, our military is virtually unbeatable.

Vietnam was also a draw technically. We sign a truce with North Vietnam which left South Vietnam free.

Then after we left North Vietnam decided to prosecute a new war against SV which the US was not involved in.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
Look at this map and see how greedy china is (the big red line - over 90% of the sea area) and it could start war = http://www.businessinsider.com/the-south-china-sea-graphic-2014-7


Some of you would say so what. Look at the international shipping lanes. If you let china takes over, our best allies such as Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan will be in big trouble because most of their oil and other supplies are done by sea.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Vietnam was also a draw technically. We sign a truce with North Vietnam which left South Vietnam free.

Then after we left North Vietnam decided to prosecute a new war against SV which the US was not involved in.

We lost.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,413
1,570
126
Vietnam was also a draw technically. We sign a truce with North Vietnam which left South Vietnam free.

Then after we left North Vietnam decided to prosecute a new war against SV which the US was not involved in.

so basically the US admitted defeat, asked for a break, and ran away.

Can't argue with that too much, thanks for bringing my parents over ;)
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Vietnam was also a draw technically. We sign a truce with North Vietnam which left South Vietnam free.

Then after we left North Vietnam decided to prosecute a new war against SV which the US was not involved in.
Calling Vietnam a draw would greatly expand the meaning of the term, to the point of "it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is."

so basically the US admitted defeat, asked for a break, and ran away.

Can't argue with that too much, thanks for bringing my parents over ;)
Yup. As Ho Chi Minh said, we killed ten of his for every one of ours he killed and in the end we were the ones who tired of it.

And you are welcome. I wish we had saved a lot more of the South Vietnamese.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,271
323
126
The people who fight our wars are the poor minorities who only want a better life.

We should be ashamed of ourselves! :(

Thats funny because whites are actually over represented in the military as a percentage of the population (in the same demos) and if you refer to the ones who are actually in the front lines fighting, the most overrepresented group in the infantry.

The poor part is also incorrect, poor people are actually underrepresented in the military, 11% of the recruits in the military are from the bottom fifth of family income while 25% come from the top fifth.
 
Last edited:

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
so basically the US admitted defeat, asked for a break, and ran away.

Can't argue with that too much, thanks for bringing my parents over ;)
The US realized that there was no will by the South (government) to fight/win.
As a result, the US government realized that while armed forces would continue to win the battlefield; they would be fighting/dying for no purpose.

Therefore the exit and let the South collapse on it's own.

The US also never brought full military power strategically to bear (destroy the North) because of politics.