Reply With QuoteThis is how the Chinese will reply:Originally Posted by C.Puffs
Which is why both XXXX and XXXX needs to get nukes ASAP. The only thing YYYYY respects is force and the willingness to use it.
Which is why both Japan and SK needs to get nukes ASAP. The only thing China respects is force and the willingness to use it.
This is how the Chinese will reply:
Which is why both XXXX and XXXX needs to get nukes ASAP. The only thing YYYYY respects is force and the willingness to use it.
If not now, or then, we will have to at some point
Copying is SOP for China so that wouldn't surprise me.
Personally I think that China will eventually collapse under it's own weight. There's more than a couple bubbles waiting to burst there. With the continued trend of moving manufacturing out and back to the states or other, more business friendly countries, continues that could spell trouble for the Chinese government. Having citizens that were used to a higher standard of living having to go back to the life many left behind could cause internal strife. Not to mention the young that are accustomed to the western style of living and prosperity. They also have their own little Islam problem.
The question is, as I see it, will they go out with a whimper like the Soviet Union or with a bang.
not really. It is possible that they started it first. We would be the one copying them on this regard.
All hypothetical, and just a thought excercise. I know too little of naval combat and operations to be able to judge the competency of this piece.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...al_war_of_2012
In raw numerical terms, there is no contest. Japan'snavy boasts 48 "major surface combatants," ships designed to attack enemy main fleets while taking a pounding themselves. For the JMSDF these include "helicopter destroyers," or light aircraft carriers; guided-missile destroyers equipped with the state-of-the-art Aegiscombatsystem, a combination radar, computer, and fire-control system found in frontline U.S. Navy warships; and an assortment of lesser destroyers, frigates, and corvettes. A squadron of 16 diesel-electric submarines augments the surface fleet. Juxtapose this against the PLANavy's 73 major surface combatants, 84 missile-firing patrol craft, and 63 submarines, and the bidding appears grim for Japan. China's navy is far superior in sheer weight of steel.
But raw numbers can be misleading, for three main reasons. First, as strategist Edward Luttwak has observed, weapons are like "blackboxes" until actually used in combat: no one knows for sure whether they will perform as advertised. Battle, not technical specifications, is the true arbiter of military technology's value. Accurately forecasting how ships, planes, and missiles will perform amid the stresses and chaos of combat thus verges on impossible. This is especially true, adds Luttwak, when conflict pits an open society against a closed one. Open societies have a habit of debating their military failings in public,whereas closed societies tend to keep their deficiencies out of view. Luttwak was referring to the U.S.-Soviet naval competition, but it applies to Sino-Japanese competition as well. The Soviet Navy appeared imposing on paper. But Soviet warships on the high seas during the Cold War showed unmistakable symptoms of decay, from slipshod shiphandling to rusty hulls. The PLA Navy could be hiding something as well. The quality of the JMSDF's platforms, and its human capabilities, could partially or wholly offset the PLA's advantage of numbers.
The author of the article is too traditional in his thinking. He fails to see that a future war involving China will be a missile war. It will be like the long bow men vs knights. The Japanese "knights" ride their huge surface combatants to face China, but instead of seeing any trace of the Chinese, they will only see the missiles coming at them in waves of Chinese saturation attacks.
As for Japan arms herself with nukes, I do not think China will care much at all, because Japan has no strategic depth. If a country should not have nukes, it is Japan. 127 million people crammed into an area less than California, they will soon run out of place to hide when foreign nukes falling down, probably sending half of Japanese land down to the bottom of Pacific ocean.
If China launched a nuclear attack on Japan, China would cease to exist within a couple hours. The overwhelming retaliatory response from U.S. forces would turn China into a radioactive wasteland.
yeah, sure. But at what cost? Which U.S. city would you like to be destroyed? Go ahead, pick your favorite.
None. Chinese launch sites would smoking holes in the ground.
Yeah right, delusional thinking right there.
China is not going to provoke the US into a war. Period.
I am surprised at the some of the posters belief that China does not have the ability to wage a serious war.
Just look at there industries, imagine in a time of war these factories churning out all kinds of military items......
Never underestimate your opponent.
China is stepping on the ice with its military and political aggression in the region.
And you are significantly underestimating America and her allies. All the "China strong!" rhetoric in the world will do nothing to overcome America's technological and numerical lead and experience, nor will it overcome the resolve of the American allies.
What "China strong!" rhetoric? I only see China being underestimated here.
Incorrect, whenever there is a flare up in the world the dollar goes up not down and that is because inversotrs all over the world consider the USA the safest place to store their money.
Posting Permissions
