Large parts, yes, but even the Japanese never attempted to take China as a whole.Originally Posted by Spartan10k
Ah, so Japan did not take over large parts of China in the 30's and 40's, but the Chinese did force the US out of Korea in the 50's......you've got an interesting take on history there....
Large parts, yes, but even the Japanese never attempted to take China as a whole.
China is more powerful than what it was during WW2. Japan not so much. Yes, the USA is very powerful. The political aspect would offset any advantage the USA might have. The media would also have a influence. They tried to make people feel sorry for the Iraqis during the 1st Gulf War. Yet, I did not see one reporter at the breach when they were shooting at me and my unit. Then we get criticized for mowing them down. Ok. The liberals buy into the media's negative bs and it factors into decisions that are made on the battlefield which are a detriment.
Lets not talk about that. I was just using his version of 'facts' to illustrate how retarded his analysis is (ie, something that was done half a century ago is directly applicable to the modern geopolitical strategic position). It seems to have completely escaped him though.
Son I have been in combat. Have you? You look at whats on paper and consider a outcome. I look at history and the other aspects of war you do not understand. We have a tendency and a history of not getting the job done. The one large exception being when the USSR was involved. They were brutal on the battlefield. Politics play a huge role in American wars. Look at every war since WW2. The results speak for themselves. You can ignore it all you want. I don't even think you are able to understand it. You just look at the fact that the Abrams is a better tank than the Type 99 and think that alone decides the outcome of a war. There is much more to it than that.
Lets not talk about that. I was just using his version of 'facts' to illustrate how retarded his analysis is (ie, something that was done half a century ago is directly applicable to the modern geopolitical strategic position). It seems to have completely escaped him though.
Finally you bring something besides pure speculation and unfounded assertions.
Politics always plays into the strategic picture, but politics alone is not enough to offset the enormous gap in firepower between the US and China. Yes, there are tactics and strategies the Chinese could employ that would give us a hard time. But given all the resources that the US posses, I do not believe that China has enough combat power to 'defeat' us. The US is fully capable of denying any force projection on China's part though.
Ah I see, so the fact that I've never been to war means that I can't have any understanding of geopolitics or grand strategy......
How do you think the American public would respond to the USA losing thousands of soldiers to defend Taiwan? I'm going to guess not too favorable. Once again you are looking at weapons' capabilities and not other factors. These days I also think the Chinese would be willing to absorb many more losses to attain victory. Their culture is much more different and that gives them a edge in itself. I'm done with this discussion. You are just a patriot drinking the Kool Aid.
Look at the recent photos of Chinese naval shipyards.
4+ frigates being built simultaneously.
Mass production of corvettes.
Multiple 052C destroyers being floated with pairs of 052D under construction.
Over 30+ modern(check wiki for rough numbers, like the 052C,052D,055 and all those confusing names) destroyers, frigates, corvettes, LPDs, diesel subs produced over the course of 6-7 years, more to come with no sign of slowing. Plus hundreds of J-10s and Flanker Knockoffs over the same time period.
I've never seen a buildup this rapid, since the 1970/80s.
With an ultranationalistic brainwashed mass and a very aggressive PLAN in the South China Sea (and ECS). Something's bound to happen and I hope the US commanders don't underestimate the potential adversary.
In another decade they will be as capable as the USSR was.
You're talking about political will. And to answer your question I think it would depend largely on who is in the White House at the time, how much political capitol they have, who controls Congress, ect...I don't think any president would want to go down as the first to 'lose' a war since Vietnam. They would certainly face blow back from some in the left if we got into a shooting war with another major power. However, they would also face extensive criticism from the right if they just cut and ran. We've also suffered a couple thousand casualties fighting the GWOT, and we're entering our 2nd decade of that conflict.
^^in some areas, perhaps more capable in some, and less capable in some others like underwater warfare
the thing is, they are not looking at the former USSR to emulate
and you got to wonder, what kind of production pace if they are pushing it
depends on what you mean by defeat.
You really think the american public will have the stomach for a drawn out war of attrition with China?
How many war bonds do you plan on buying?
That's why I put it in quotes. But realistically, any war with China will be a Chinese war of aggression (ie, China is trying to project military force outside of its borders). We are absolutely capable shutting down that force projection with sea and air power.
Someone who understand. Our culture is too soft to stomach the kind of war the Chicoms will be able to wage in ten years.
I have never once suggested it would be "easy". No war with a major regional power would be easy. We do have the capability though of preventing Chinese force projection, by ourselves or with allies.
Posting Permissions
