Discussion China's Military Prowess

If the USA and China go to war, who will win?


  • Total voters
    34

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
Not sure how many people watched the Chinese military parade but they showed off some insanely powerful weaponry. Here's the video:

The one that caught my eye is the DF-41 ICBM - a hypersonic (Mach 10) ICBM with 10 nuclear warheads that can strike 10 independent targets simultaneously (MIRV) with a range of 9300 miles (15,000 km) - i.e. it can strike any city in the US!

Do you guys think the US and China will go to war?

If so, who do you think will win (poll)?
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,556
9,924
136
China doesn't need to win a war. It just needs to keep the US outside of the nearby waters by deterring carrier strike groups. If your opponent has even remote odds of taking out 5000 sailors, a $10B carrier, and 100 aircraft, you'd think twice about rolling the dice
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
China doesn't need to win a war. It just needs to keep the US outside of the nearby waters by deterring carrier strike groups. If your opponent has even remote odds of taking out 5000 sailors, a $10B carrier, and 100 aircraft, you'd think twice about rolling the dice
Thankfully the POTUS can not just declare war on his own. He needs Congress to do that. However I do doubt that Trump is even aware of this.

So what will happen if Trump decides to declare War on China due to the Trade War?
 

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
Did not watch the video because there is no point, to me even US vs the world in an all out war US still come out ahead because of the geographic and fire power.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: KMFJD

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,578
1,741
126
Presently China could do some heavy damage, but compared to the US they would still lose badly. They haven't been in a war in a very long time. We've been in quite a few over the last 20 years. China is playing the long game though. They'll wait this out for decades, and BAM! When that happens they'll have more than enough men and fire power to take us on.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,382
3,111
146
It completely depends on the goals of this war.

Neither country can be successfully invaded by the other.

China can project force effectively to about a couple hundred miles off their coast. The USA has the rest. If China is the blatant aggressor the USA would have most of the region on their side. If the USA is the aggressor most of the region will sit it out.

The USA could eventually cripple the PRC Air Force and Navy at a huge cost.
 

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
The main point is the DF-41 is a MIRV Hypersonic ICBM that can hit any city in the US. This is unprecedented and something China was not capable of until now.

Of course, neither country will 'invade' the other, but war on the open seas is definitely possible and as far as that is concerned, I don't think there will be a clear winner.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
94,983
15,117
126
The main point is the DF-41 is a MIRV Hypersonic ICBM that can hit any city in the US. This is unprecedented and something China was not capable of until now.

Of course, neither country will 'invade' the other, but war on the open seas is definitely possible and as far as that is concerned, I don't think there will be a clear winner.


There is no winning when you go nuclear.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,321
28,571
136
There is no winning when you go nuclear.
Not sure why this even has to be said. I mean seriously, if China decided to nuke us it doesn't matter how fast their missiles could reach whatever cities, every inch of their country would be glass.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,269
36,341
136
Doubtful it would be just a US v China scenario, but regardless OP, the terms "prowess" and "equipment" are not analogous.

China is far behind the US in operational experience, and that's not something you crank out in a shipyard. While it's true that quantity has a quality all of it's own, it's also true that the math of swarms can be rebuked with superior firepower/technology. See Iraq.

To put it simply, Red Sox didn't win the World Series because they had the nicest gloves and bats.
 
Last edited:

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,718
877
126
The US has no interest on mainland China and the Chinese navy is no match for the US. So any kind of regional conflict at sea goes to the US. Even without carriers, the US has Japan and SK as allies in the region. US planes flying from the carriers can be refueled from bases in Japan before entering the contested areas.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Since both sides have nukes - does it really matter? Unless someone gets a new weapon that has a 99.9% chance of blocking any and all nukes war will never happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ajay

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
15,443
7,856
136
Pyrrhic victory - someone will start losing and let loose the dogs of war (nukes). The other side will do likewise. Game over.

The US has a better trained more professional 'soldiers' and a huge logistic advantage, but again, it won't matter.
 

DisarmedDespot

Senior member
Jun 2, 2016
587
588
136
Hypersonic or not doesn't really change anything.

Faster speed? It's less time to react (like 15 minutes), but that's enough time to launch a response. Either way, both parties lose.
Harder to intercept? As far as I know, defenses like THAAD aren't designed to deal with nuclear war, they're meant to protect against a small amount of missiles from a rogue state.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,091
136
Every victory in war is a "pyrrhic victory." There are only those who lose, and those who lose worse.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,015
26,894
136
The main point is the DF-41 is a MIRV Hypersonic ICBM that can hit any city in the US. This is unprecedented and something China was not capable of until now.
So China has their own MX missile, 1970s technology for the US. You know what the utility of MIRVs are outside of all out nuclear war? Nothing, totally useless. When you have less than ten targets, a ten warhead missile is just the wrong thing. The US ended up removing warheads from the MX to increase their versatility.

We also retired the MX in 2005.
 
Last edited:

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
I think the question should be framed as nukes involved or not. If they are involved (which ultimately will always be the reality in the end when push truly comes to shove), neither country wins.

For conventional warfare it completely comes down to how the war is being fought. Are we invading them, they us, or are we fighting each other in some other country? Neither would be able to invade each other but I think the US could withstand an invasion much moreso than China could. In a third country I think the US definitely holds the advantage due to logistics.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,269
36,341
136
I doubt that the US has anything to worry about quite yet

View attachment 11497

Also, one wonders why 2 of the world's largest trading partners go to war in the first place.

Because one of them thinks Asia isn't for Asians, it's for China.

Trade helps tamp down domestic support for hawks, it's true, but I'm not entirely convinced it will in this case. China has a pathological inability to tolerate losing face, and 'standing up to the West' is how that is manifested. China has expansionist ambitions and a fixation where a country's size is the determining factor in a country's place in the world, to hell with international law and norms (see 9 Dash line ruling).

We want to do business. China wants territory, power, prestige, a new world order. I'd be more inclined to dismiss their talk of sinking American carriers/invading Taiwan if they weren't acquiring the means to do at such a pace. The bellicose behavior to neighbors and frothy toxic nationalism Beijing stokes doesn't help.

I hope I'm wrong.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,366
740
126
We are at war already and we are losing big time. Our war machinery is a joke compared to theirs, we have been trying to recruit soldiers and stand up a proper army for decades and have severly failed. Every year or even every month we get attacked by China and loose billions in property, and then spend even more to fix the damages and put up meger and useless defenses. The poor and weak are left defenseless and have accepted the this loss as part of the new norm. All the while our media and policians keep providing their leader with important mouth piece to spread their propoganda, instead of reporting the damages they are doing. We have already lost on all fronts.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: rommelrommel