Is China Preparing for War?

[POTUS]

According to most analysts, China has up to 20 nukes with ranges long enough to hit the US. India is a big supporter of Taiwan, and they have about 50 nukes able to hit China. The US has in excess of 2,200 nukes.

[Sava]

good, I hope ww3 breaks out... America will lead the world to armageddon

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
We wouldn't need to occupy China to defeat them. The goal would to be defend Taiwan, which we could do. But even if China did manage to quickly take over Taiwan and fortify it(a dubious prospect in itself), we could devestate China without landing a soldier. China is so connected to the world economy a blockade would devestate them, and we would be able to use airpower to severly cripple the Chinese economy.

Crippling the Chinese economy would place the Communist Party's hold on leadership in question. Which is why the PRC won't invade.

But theres just one problem with that....
The US would have to devestate it's own economy in order to compromise the Chinese economy. Do you really think Americans would just turn in their standards of living so Taipei can remain independant? Doubtful.
But this is also why China is unlikely to even cause a scenario with the US: In order to compromise the US, it would have to compromise it'self as well.

MAD.

According to most analysts, China has up to 20 nukes with ranges long enough to hit the US. India is a big supporter of Taiwan, and they have about 50 nukes able to hit China. The US has in excess of 2,200 nukes.

I doubt India would even have the balls to attack its nuclear neighbor, especially considering its OTHER Nuclear neighbor is just looking for an excuse to war.

In contrast the US President would be fine, along with most of the country

Except that it probably wouldn't have an economy anymore.
I mean come on: Even if the US isn't completly interdependant on China, a nuke strike on a major city with MILLIONS of people would probably destroy almost any economy in any nation

[Sava]

the world is infested with human filth and scum...

nuclear war

[Nubclear]

OMG KOOol NUKE SCNASRIO:

US Nukes beijing.
China nukes Los Angeles and Sacramento.
India nukes Shanghai and Hong Kong.
Pakistan nukes New Delhi, Calcutta, and Bombay.
Russia nukes Islamabad, Berlin, Washington, Salt Lake, Grozny, Cairo, Ottowa, Paris, London, Tokyo, Seoul, Pyongyang, Canberra, and some random South American city.
US nukes everyone.
Russia nukes everyone+1.

Russia wins.

[Sava]

russia wouldn't win because the weather patterns would drop most of the fallout across russia and make those drunken bastards even weirder

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The US military might is vastly overrated. Vastly.

This is so wrong that it brings your entire credibility on the subject into question. The US has more equipment and ships in moth balls than China has ever possessed in its entire history. In WWII with a population of 140 million, US mobilized 40 million people...Today could possibly mobilized 100 million if pressed and training is vastly superior to China. Logistically, US can call on assetts that China could not even begin to dream of. Technologically, US is still at least two generations ahead of China. Prewar assets VASTLY favor US. With a US will to fight, there is no doubt of the outcome...none.

People like to talk about US military being pressed thin. What a joke. A British friend but it best, "You Yanks are amazing. You go to the other side of the world and conquer two countries and the way your people live their everyday lives has not changed one bit."

Take this warning back to the Chinese people...Don't ever give us a reason to fight. You really, really wouldn't like the results.

UR, you claim to be smart guy. Look at US industrial capacity...not what we are producing, but what we are capable of. Next, look at natural resources needed to fight a war and where they are. (Did you even know that the third largest oil field in the world is 100% owned by US military and hasn't pumped a drop since WWII although the wells are maintained and ready to go?). Can you even fathom the amount of capital this country could muster if its citizens saw a need to buy war bonds? Did you know that the US still controls the lion's share of the world's gold supply?

Would the US defend Taiwan is the question. Who knows? But the Chinese better pray that it won't should they decide to attack.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Russia wins.

Only if their missles now run on Vodka and have learned to follow a seeing eye dog.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Except that it probably wouldn't have an economy anymore.
I mean come on: Even if the US isn't completly interdependant on China, a nuke strike on a major city with MILLIONS of people would probably destroy almost any economy in any nation

Actually I think you're really wrong here. Yes it would lead to some disruptions, but actually it probably wouldn't ruin the economy for the rest of the nation, although it would drop the overall GDP. Survivers might be an economic burden, but it would still be a relatively limited effect. Companies might be destroyed, but since most of the employees for the company are dead, this wouldn't lead to greater unemployment. While factories in the area destroyed by a nuke might lead to unexpected disruption of a suplier for other companies, with the global economy they should be able to make other arrangement for a suplier relatively quickly. I'm not saying it wouldn't cause an economic disruption, but actually when you analyse it, the effects would be relatively limited for the rest of the economy.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by POTUS
According to most analysts, China has up to 20 nukes with ranges long enough to hit the US. India is a big supporter of Taiwan, and they have about 50 nukes able to hit China. The US has in excess of 2,200 nukes.

Before last START talks, US had almost 11,000 warheads. Do you really think the press just missed the disposal of all that bomb grade plutonium? I'm guessing they are "being stored for disposal" at Fort Hood. (Bye Bye China if you are stupid enough to launch. Ha...China fires 20 nukes...15 are viable launches...10 are shot down or badly miss tarkets...5 hit. US retaliates with 10,000 nukes...Former SE Asia now known as the East Persian sea.)

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Smiley
Remember when the Americans underestimated Iraq's nonmilitary strength.

The US has already spent $87 billion on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Occupation costs around a billion a week. China's annual military budget is $15 billion. Even if one considers that the Chinese soldier gets paid far less than the American soldier, and the supply lines would be shorter, the math don't work out, especially since every part of the war would be urban combat.

In this scenario, there is absolutely no reason for the US to get involved with a landwar on mainland China. The US can use its air and naval assets to prevent China from sucessfully invading Taiwan. The US can then achieve air superiority and bomb strategic and tactical targets in China until the Chinese leadership is willing to go to the negotiating table. (Depending on the situation the US might press for Chinese governmental recognition of Taiwan as an independant nation.) What you are talking about doesn't even apply.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Everybody will be launching nuclear missiles at the US if the US even contemplates in making such a thread, Floyd. Better to get rid of a madman first.

VERY doubtful. Outside of the Russian arsenal. US arsenal is over 100 times the rest of the world combined. Is "Everybody" some stupid moron who wants his country blown to hell? If so, you may be right.

[Nubclear]

In WWII with a population of 140 million, US mobilized 40 million people...Today could possibly mobilized 100 million if pressed and training is vastly superior to China.

Theres a difference though...In WW2, people were fiercly supporting the war and actively giving things up in order to help. People worked in shops all day and again, were generally supportive.
DO you really think that Americans would mobilize themselves to do such a thing in a war against China, a war that would pretty much secure the destruction of the US economy?

Technologically, US is still at least two generations ahead of China.

Perhaps, but it would be pretty difficult to combat the huge population China has.

A British friend but it best, "You Yanks are amazing. You go to the other side of the world and conquer two countries and the way your people live their everyday lives has not changed one bit."

Really? You mean Americans haven't changed their ways of livings at all? Americans are in their panic xenophobic mode right now (or half of them at least) and to say that these wars haven't changed the way America lives is a bit much
But if we talk about numbers alone: Well what do you expect? You go and conquer two incredibly weak nations (one of which practically gave up, considering much of its army was defecting) and hold it up like its some stunning victory?
I would be impressed if you defeated a nation actually capable of putting up some sort of challenge, but Iraq and Afghanistan were both simply a push away from completly collapsing into small little pieces.
But the real thing is that your being bogged down in both of them. Imagine the peacekeeping operations and costs it would take to hold China or India or Russia down.

Can you even fathom the amount of capital this country could muster if its citizens saw a need to buy war bonds?

But would they? That's the entire point. I don't think the American people would sacrafice everything to invade China? I just don't think so.

Of course if were talking about simply defending Taiwan....That would be pretty easy for the US to pull off, one has to admit But invading China would be impossible.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Mordoch

In this scenario, there is absolutely no reason for the US to get involved with a landwar on mainland China. The US can use its air and naval assets to prevent China from sucessfully invading Taiwan. The US can then achieve air superiority and bomb strategic and tactical targets in China until the Chinese leadership is willing to go to the negotiating table. (Depending on the situation the US might press for Chinese governmental recognition of Taiwan as an independant nation.) What you are talking about doesn't even apply.

Bingo. US troops would only get involved on Taiwan proper. Possible strategic targets could draw limited US grund action. All that changes though should Tiannamen square type situation rise during struggle. China's military could split (it was questionable weather or not they would follow orders last time), and if so US ground troops may be introduced on one o the sides.

[David Floyd]

UR,

Everybody will be launching nuclear missiles at the US if the US even contemplates in making such a thread, Floyd. Better to get rid of a madman first.

I'm not talking about a US first strike. I'm talking about a US response to a Chinese first strike. And if the PRC struck first with nuclear weapons, the US would annihilate China - no questions asked.

The US military might is vastly overrated. Vastly.

If you mean the US can't invade China, I agree. If you mean that the US can't defeat China, I strongly disagree. The USN would wipe out the PLAN in less time than it would take for the US ambassador to deliver a declaration of war. Hell, US attack submarines could eliminate the PLAN, most likely with no losses.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Theres a difference though...In WW2, people were fiercly supporting the war and actively giving things up in order to help. People worked in shops all day and again, were generally supportive.
DO you really think that Americans would mobilize themselves to do such a thing in a war against China, a war that would pretty much secure the destruction of the US economy?

Good Evening Comrade.

Please see the part of the post where I said that the will to fight would have to be present.

As to the second part of this reply, it would depend upon the threat that was perceived. With China, the gov't could possibly whip up that kind of histeria.

Perhaps, but it would be pretty difficult to combat the huge population China has.

Unrestricted conventional war on China would actually make its population size a liability. Think of trying to keep food moving to 1.5 billion people with fully committed US bombing. And as we all know from history, hungry people blame their own gov't, not the enemy the vast majority of the time.

Really? You mean Americans haven't changed their ways of livings at all? Americans are in their panic xenophobic mode right now (or half of them at least) and to say that these wars haven't changed the way America lives is a bit much

Not any I've seen IRL. Here on 'Poly, there are some whiners, but I haven't seen any changes in the way people around here live...and apparently my friend from England hasn't eithier. More specific to the point is the fact that America's civillian workforce has been mobilized near nothing to support the war effort.

I would be impressed if you defeated a nation actually capable of putting up some sort of challenge, but Iraq and Afghanistan were both simply a push away from completly collapsing into small little pieces.

Again...look at the capability of any nation other than the US to have been able to move the force in theatre to accomplish this. There is not one. Even weak countries are countries and it is no small feat for anyone to conquer another...let alone on the other side of the planet.

But would they? That's the entire point. I don't think the American people would sacrafice everything to invade China? I just don't think so.

Me neithier...the above argument was based on us having a reason that could motivate the population. In the absence of that, the US response would be limited as you suggest.

[Nubclear]

Unrestricted conventional war on China would actually make its population size a liability. Think of trying to keep food moving to 1.5 billion people with fully committed US bombing. And as we all know from history, hungry people blame their own gov't, not the enemy the vast majority of the time.

First off, from what I gather from our Chinese friends in China, there is a quite low chance of the major population centers of China rebelling against the government and would probably actively resist American efforts.
Second of all....If America even dared to not allow food to be transported to the population, it'd be in much trouble with the rest of the world

More specific to the point is the fact that America's civillian workforce has been mobilized near nothing to support the war effort.

True.

Again...look at the capability of any nation other than the US to have been able to move the force in theatre to accomplish this. There is not one. Even weak countries are countries and it is no small feat for anyone to conquer another...let alone on the other side of the planet.

Again true, however the US is the superpower. Of course it'll be able to project force around the world, especially in theaters of interest.
However to hold up Iraq and trying to say that because Iraq fell so quickly, China would also follow suit is really a bit much. Any comparison on almost any level will show China as being far superior to Iraq.

Me neithier...the above argument was based on us having a reason that could motivate the population. In the absence of that, the US response would be limited as you suggest.

Fair enough.

[Space05us]

Nuclear war is such a dumb ****ing idea.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO
This is so wrong that it brings your entire credibility on the subject into question.

Originally posted by PLATO
Prewar assets VASTLY favor US. With a US will to fight, there is no doubt of the outcome...none.

Tell me, why did it take 4 CVBG to take out Iraq? Or rather, at least 4?

Originally posted by PLATO
Take this warning back to the Chinese people...Don't ever give us a reason to fight. You really, really wouldn't like the results.

Snooze. Look what happened in Vietnam.

Originally posted by PLATO
UR, you claim to be smart guy. Look at US industrial capacity...not what we are producing, but what we are capable of.

Again, the US counted for 70% of global GDP after WWII, and now it's only 20%. Not only that, but the US has lost most of its capacity for heavy industries. Japan and RoK are now the biggest steel producers.

Originally posted by PLATO
Can you even fathom the amount of capital this country could muster if its citizens saw a need to buy war bonds?

Not much, considering how the amount of savings drop in the last few decades.

Originally posted by PLATO
Can you even fathom Did you know that the US still controls the lion's share of the world's gold supply?

What good does that do you? If you sell it for $, the US dollar is going to devalue.

Originally posted by PLATO
Would the US defend Taiwan is the question. Who knows? But the Chinese better pray that it won't should they decide to attack.

Is there a reason why the US will defend Taiwan?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sava
good, I hope ww3 breaks out... America will lead the world to armageddon

whatever

bruce willis will stop all of that nonsense along with sidekick hunk ben affleck-lopez

at least we get to see shots of liv tyler in the control center

there's always a control center in bruckheimer movies

[Whoha]

Originally posted by POTUS
According to most analysts, China has up to 20 nukes with ranges long enough to hit the US. India is a big supporter of Taiwan, and they have about 50 nukes able to hit China. The US has in excess of 2,200 nukes.

Our nuclear pile is atleast an order of magnitude greater then that, I don't think we are in compliance with the Moscow treaty yet.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


But theres just one problem with that....
The US would have to devestate it's own economy in order to compromise the Chinese economy. Do you really think Americans would just turn in their standards of living so Taipei can remain independant? Doubtful.
But this is also why China is unlikely to even cause a scenario with the US: In order to compromise the US, it would have to compromise it'self as well.

MAD.



I doubt India would even have the balls to attack its nuclear neighbor, especially considering its OTHER Nuclear neighbor is just looking for an excuse to war.



Except that it probably wouldn't have an economy anymore.
I mean come on: Even if the US isn't completly interdependant on China, a nuke strike on a major city with MILLIONS of people would probably destroy almost any economy in any nation

How will our standard of living go down if we cant buy chinese goods? 2 things here, first is that there is a pipeline of goods, that will last some time, second, Having China not drain over 100 Billion out of our economy every year will not be unhealthy.

Finally,I've already spoken about mad, they don't have any assurance about what they will get.

[Oncle Boris]

I don't think China is likely to invade Taiwan right now. The real question is, what about in 30 years from now? Do you think Americans will show the same self-confidence by this time?

[Ted Striker]

yes

we are Americans

therefore self-confident

duh

[DinoDoc]

Taiwan would repel any invasion coming from China as it stands now due to the severe lack of anything resembling sea lift capacity. Be more worried about Taiwan in a decade or so.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Snooze. Look what happened in Vietnam.

I believe Plato meant if the American civilans feel personally threatened and has thrown their full support behind the war effort, the States war machine will be a serious contender in any major conflict. Take World War II for instance, Pearl Harbour was bombed which pretty much threw America completely into the Allies' corner of the boxing ring and its civil population heard the government's call to make personal sacrifices to better help the war machine.

On the other hand, Vietnam was some distant country nobody ever heard of at that time and the reasons for going to war was murky at the best. The Tet Offense of '68 was a decisive American military victory - NVA's fighting ability was virtually destroyed and VC severely crippled - but it was a public relation defeat no thanks to Walter Cronkite (the Most Trusted Man in America) who doesn't know what he was talking about. The civil population simply just lost the will to sustain the fight and turned over the main stage to hippies and protestors. This is partially why the military is relucant to share everything with the media since media would corrupt the reality via their biases and methods of presenting that information to their audiences.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
yes

we are Americans

therefore self-confident

duh

We can talk on and on about how techologically advanced we are and how superior our military are. However we must beware the sin of hubris - this will be our downfall. No nation has remained the vanguard nation and I don't see why the States would be any different. In fact the slow decline of Pax Americiana is happening now.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Tell me, why did it take 4 CVBG to take out Iraq? Or rather, at least 4?

Did it "take that" or did we "use that". IMO we could have had basically the same sucess with none. However, we now have another generation trained in combat air ops. This speaks to the pre-war aspect of my earlier post.

Snooze. Look what happened in Vietnam.

Indeed. Let's look at Vietnam. No popular support...political meddling in tactical decisions...no war mobilization in the economy. Result...3 million Vietnamese dead...Vietnam economy destroyed. US results...55,000 dead...better night fighting abilities...improved battlefield management...populace recognition of importance of supporting troops regardless of politics.

Again, the US counted for 70% of global GDP after WWII, and now it's only 20%. Not only that, but the US has lost most of its capacity for heavy industries. Japan and RoK are now the biggest steel producers.

2 points here. First US achieved that 70% GDP through downgrading its enemies facilities through constant bombardment (as well as their allies being downgraded). This is the US doctrine...to carry the war to the enemies territory. Combined with a full economic mobilization...US could achieve similar advantage over China in term of comparative GDP.

Second. It is highly unlikely that eithier Korea or Japan would supply China steel. It is very likely they would supply US steel. Furthermore, if you have ever flown over parts of Pennsylvania, you should know that their are plenty of idle US steel mills that could be brought into production in relatively short time frame vis-a-vis building new ones...complete with existing rail and transport structures.

The US has not lost capacity for heavy industry but rather has idled a good portion of it for economic reasons. In addition, US workforce has a higher education level than Chinese workforce and could be brought up to speed much more quickly.

Not much, considering how the amount of savings drop in the last few decades.

Wrong again. Savings rates have dropped at the expense of consumption. A full war effort would reduce the amount of consumable luxuries and produce vast amounts to fuel a war effort.

What good does that do you? If you sell it for $, the US dollar is going to devalue.

Actually quite a lot. US currency being backed by large amounts of gold would devalue far less than Chinese currency without similar advantage. This factor would cause the US currency to gain value on the international market in comparison to the Chinese currency.

Is there a reason why the US will defend Taiwan?

Good question.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Again, the US counted for 70% of global GDP after WWII, and now it's only 20%. Not only that, but the US has lost most of its capacity for heavy industries. Japan and RoK are now the biggest steel producers.

World War II was one of best things ever happened to Germany and Japan economically speaking. The war destroyed their infrastructure then during the aftermath, the Americans actually helped their former enemies to rebuild. Without any restraints that would have been present if the old infrastructure was still there, Germany and Japan were able to basically rebuild everything from bottom to top resulting in an infrastructure more effective than others including Americans'.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by PLATO
In WWII with a population of 140 million, US mobilized 40 million people...Today could possibly mobilized 100 million if pressed

I very much doubt this is the case. No country can ever turn almost a third of its population into useful soldiers.