"China thinks it can defeat America in battle"

[Hugo Drax]

Do we honestly think the united states would resort to nuclear weapons for a regional conflict?

Lets say China seizes some islands in the pacific. What are we going to do about it? Nothing, thats what.

We would never do that. if we nuked china. Americans would have to wear barrels and suspenders to work. and our technology manufacturing is in China. Routers and computers don't build themselves.

 

[Orignal Earl]

earls guide to how to discuss American military victories and superiority on a message board

1 Ignore all allies

2 if challenged, mock country of poster, point out the size of the US military

3 only look at first ten minutes of war emphasis all the cool looking explosions

4 declare victory after cool explosions, point out the size of US military

5 if challenged blame political leaders

6 if challenged create extreme exaggerations and log out

7 have faith in your stories, nobody can beat your faith

8 Never admit defeat

9 if challenged blame the people of country that was invaded

10 Point out the size of the US military

11 use plenty of those paintings with American Presidents

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Here's what we americans think about that:

 

[irishScott]

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.

That and our strategy was fundamentally flawed. We focused on destroying the North Vietnamese forces as opposed to protecting the natives from being subverted. We fought a counter-insurgency with WWII tactics, and while we won every battle it ultimately utterly failed.

 

[smackababy]

That and our strategy was fundamentally flawed. We focused on destroying the North Vietnamese forces as opposed to protecting the natives from being subverted. We fought a counter-insurgency with WWII tactics, and while we won every battle it ultimately utterly failed.

We would have been much better off using WWI tactics and just mustard gassing everyone in the jungles.

 

[cabri]

That and our strategy was fundamentally flawed. We focused on destroying the North Vietnamese forces as opposed to protecting the natives from being subverted. We fought a counter-insurgency with WWII tactics, and while we won every battle it ultimately utterly failed.

Politically, the US leadership felt that the people would reject communism; not realizing that most did not care for politics as long as they could live their way of life without worry.

 

[pcgeek11]

I did my part. Not signing up to be someones tool. Did you?

Thank you for your service.

 

[pcgeek11]

Ah, good thing Canada is the second largest country in the world

How much of that land mass is uninhabited...?

 

[Orignal Earl]

How much of that land mass is uninhabited...?

I guess you should complain to the United Nations Statistics Division, Encyclopedia Britannica, the CIA World Factbook etc that they are figuring these things out wrong.

 

[sportage]

Know why the US and China would never go to battle? Especially China? Just turn over your mouse. Does it say MADE IN CHINA? Nuff said.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Know why the US and China would never go to battle? Especially China? Just turn over your mouse. Does it say MADE IN CHINA? Nuff said.

If America took over China, it would say MADE IN AMERICA

 

[pcgeek11]

I guess you should complain to the United Nations Statistics Division, Encyclopedia Britannica, the CIA World Factbook etc that they are figuring these things out wrong.

I only asked the question. I didn't say that you were wrong.

Don't be overly sensitive.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

War is excellent for our economy.

While we rely on china in some ways, they rely on us more. If we stop importing chinese goods it will be a hiccup on our end but would cause their economy to irrecoverably crash.



Nothing brings together americans like a good war.

"Broken Window Theory" fallacy rears its ugly head.

"War is good for the economy just like other forms of rampant government spending and control of the economy".

 

[bryanl]

We can not take action against china without putting our whole economy at risk.

War is excellent for our economy.

Not the last two wars.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I only asked the question. I didn't say that you were wrong.

Don't be overly sensitive.

*Hugs*

 

[SpatiallyAware]

 

[OBLAMA2009]

http://theweek.com/article/index/264032/china-thinks-it-can-defeat-america-in-battle



My coworker served a nuclear-powered submarine in the Pacific. He got a kick out of this. Good article anyway.

if the u.s cant defeat the taliban, iraq or vietnam there is no way it could even hope to defeat china. it would be one endless stalemate that would be so destructive, it wouldnt even be worth starting. china could do significant economic damage to the u.s. as well. nuclear subs wouldnt do anything. if the u.s. fired a nuclear weapon from a sub at a chinese shipyard, they could fire one at nyc, do you think that would be worth it? its one thing to be bullying people on the other side of the planet who cant fight back, its another when then enemy has a big army, armour, planes, nuclear missles, and can send them to your homeland. america also could never field an army big enough to submit a country the size of china. that war could never be won

 

[Exterous]

Politically, the US leadership felt that the people would reject communism; not realizing that most did not care for politics as long as they could live their way of life without worry.

The South had a bit of a leadership issue that didn't really help things

 

[owensdj]

if the u.s cant defeat the taliban, iraq or vietnam there is no way it could even hope to defeat china.

The USA *DID* defeat the Taliaban and Iraq twice. Also, I don't think you understand the difference between fighting a standing army and fighting a groups of guys who hide and attack guerrilla style.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

The USA *DID* defeat the Taliaban and Iraq twice. Also, I don't think you understand the difference between fighting a standing army and fighting a groups of guys who hide and attack guerrilla style.

theres no way the u.s. could ever defeat china, its way to big, and even if you could, it wouldnt be worth the price youd pay in terms of lives, time and money. firing a missile at a building isnt "defeating" someone

 

[dainthomas]

theres no way the u.s. could ever defeat china, its way to big, and even if you could, it wouldnt be worth the price youd pay in terms of lives, time and money. firing a missile at a building isnt "defeating" someone

If you're in the building, you're defeated.

 

[werepossum]

The South had a bit of a leadership issue that didn't really help things

Yup. Hard to get people riled up against another form of government if the one they know sucks ass.

If you're in the building, you're defeated.

Indeed.

 

[cabri]

theres no way the u.s. could ever defeat china, its way to big, and even if you could, it wouldnt be worth the price youd pay in terms of lives, time and money. firing a missile at a building isnt "defeating" someone

Much depends on what the definition you use for defeat.

Destroy their economy
Destroy their military
Destroy their political leadership.

All could defeat the country without having to invade a country and kill/subdue the population.

 

[calyco]

I'm not worried

I literally lol, I knew we had 11 carriers but daaamn, enough power to decimate an entire country me thinks..!

 

[OBLAMA2009]

I literally lol, I knew we had 11 carriers but daaamn, enough power to decimate an entire country me thinks..!

...yeah and all the debt that goes with that. other countries dont spend money on dat scheet cuz they smarta dan we are