[Nuclear1]

Last I checked, it wasn't the Iraqi military we were having troubles with, it's the insurgency. If a conventional war with China were to happen, it would be an air and sea battle, where China's vast population gives it little advantage and the US dominates with better-trained, better-equipped forces.

Even with a ground war, honestly, how many Indians, Mongolians, or Laotians are going to make the long hard trek into China's populated areas to take part in any resistance?

[General Battuta]

There's not going to be a war with China. Neither side would risk such a profitable trade arrangement.

[Solatar]

They already have most of our money anyway, what else would they gain from bombing us?

[BloodEagle]

Cheers from The U.N.?

[Bob-san]

You missed my point. I'm comparing the USA to the former USSR. The USSR lost the Cold War because they ran out of money. That's very similar to what is happening now with the USA--we're borrowing and borrowing and borrowing some more to try to make ends meet, yet the best that we can hope for with the stimulus is drastically heightened inflation. The worst is as I said--we can fall apart at the seams for a variety of reasons, the least of which is a collapse of society. Anyways--I agree, that a conventional war between a Western power and China would be very much limited to ships and airplanes, at least initially. The entire point would be a game of Battleship--move your fleets around until someone decides enough is enough, and treaties get signed or the war becomes very unconventional.

A problem I see right now is that the US military is geared up mostly to fight a guerrilla army. China is none of the sort--infantry is definitely their strong-suit (sheer numbers alone) and everywhere else they'll be limited engaging us. Tank for tank, man for man, ship for ship, and even airplane for airplane, the USA would come out on top. But for at least two of those areas--tanks and men--we're outnumbered 4:1 in the best of circumstances. I don't think that either side will try to start a war, but China relies heavily on the USA for foodstuffs and as a market for their (cheap) goods. The issue becomes that, as the US economy becomes worse, overall demand is rapidly shrinking, regardless of disposable incomes. That's one half of the economic barrier to war--we still demand it, but are we able to demand enough of it to prevent a war? As China develops, Chinese markets for Chinese goods will grow. In effect, they are rapidly approaching the point that their economy can be mostly self-sufficient, especially if they geared up for war (in which case, many factories producing consumer goods would likely be switched to produce military assets). I'm trying to stay realistic with the outcomes, though history says that wars follow recessions and depressions, especially when there are stressed relations with outside nations. A (higher) trade tariff against China will not decrease Chinese profit from the USA, but will rather raise prices for consumers.

[Kosh]

Last I checked, it wasn't the Iraqi military we were having troubles with, it's the insurgency. If a conventional war with China were to happen, it would be an air and sea battle, where China's vast population gives it little advantage and the US dominates with better-trained, better-equipped forces.

Even with a ground war, honestly, how many Indians, Mongolians, or Laotians are going to make the long hard trek into China's populated areas to take part in any resistance?

They don't need to, there would probably be enough native resistance. Besides, wouldn't such a conventional war leave us in something of a stalemate, making the whole conflict meaningless unless it goes nuclear?

I don't think that either side will try to start a war, but China relies heavily on the USA for foodstuffs and as a market for their (cheap) goods. The issue becomes that, as the US economy becomes worse, overall demand is rapidly shrinking, regardless of disposable incomes. That's one half of the economic barrier to war--we still demand it, but are we able to demand enough of it to prevent a war? As China develops, Chinese markets for Chinese goods will grow. In effect, they are rapidly approaching the point that their economy can be mostly self-sufficient, especially if they geared up for war (in which case, many factories producing consumer goods would likely be switched to produce military assets). I'm trying to stay realistic with the outcomes, though history says that wars follow recessions and depressions, especially when there are stressed relations with outside nations. A (higher) trade tariff against China will not decrease Chinese profit from the USA, but will rather raise prices for consumers.

But then again the last time there was such a major depression we didn't have nukes, and that's a game changer in and of itself. The chinese economy has never be completely self sufficient without having mass poverty, it doesn't have the resources to pull that off. It will always be dependent on the outside for at least something, especially food. It might become self-sufficient in terms of self-sustained economic growth, but no more than that.

[Nuclear1]

Oh, well if it's a game of Battleship, then I guess there's nothing wrong with Admiral McMullen and some Chinese Admiral just yelling "B-6!" "Oh, you sunk my battreship!" on the hotline.

[S-99]

Oh my those little hitlers in the comments of the blog should be allowed to keep talking as many of the things they say really tickle the funny bone. Then the mothers of the little hitlers need to ***** slap the **** out of them. That'll also continue tickling my funny bone.

[Hellstryker]

So, any real updates on this?

FuBaR11974 (12:34:55 AM): so what's your opinion on the states that are declaring sovereignty?
Durandal42x (12:35:14 AM): I already answered that question.
Durandal42x (12:35:21 AM): I don't believe anything will come of it.
Durandal42x (12:35:27 AM): You should lay off the weed.
FuBaR11974 (12:48:47 AM): I highly doubt that.
FuBaR11974 (12:48:53 AM): because now they are putting it on the news networks.

I doubt his sources, but I'm too lazy to look and have school right now.

[Charismatic]

They already have most of our money anyway, what else would they gain from bombing us?

canada?

[Flipside]

Has everyone's massive store of nukes suddenly dissapeared then? I never saw anything on the news about it.

[NGTM-1R]

I don't think there is much of a possibility of winning that war even with our tech advantage. Look at the problems we've had with Iraq, a small desert country with a 4th rate army, no air force and a relatively small population. Do you seriously think we could occupy a nation the size of our own with many times our population? Plus China is a nuclear armed state, going to war with them would have many bad consequences for us all.

You're assuming a lot here. Nobody would ever propose to invade mainland China. It's just not practical. We just might be able to destroy the Chinese Army in actual battle, it's the sort of opponent the US Army is designed to fight in a conventional war and we might even be able to come up with the fuel to actually manuver them to death, but nobody would be crazy enough to try. There are just too many of them.

Winning a war against China would be a far more limited affair than you seem to think. At best, it would be an air-naval action in which the USN and USAF fight a set-piece battle against their Chinese counterparts and smash them. This is entirely possible, and destroying the Chinese ability to project conventional power renders them relatively moot...plus the commercial fallout of fighting a war against their biggest market would knock the country back decades.

At worst, the B-2s go in, destroy China's ability to strategically retaliate against the mainland US, and then they take down the system of massive hydroelectric dams. China goes dark and mass flooding kills tens of millions of people and destroys whatever domestic food production capablity China has while the USN prevents food and oil imports. The country falls apart as unable to feed its citizens or deploy its military to put down the resulting food riots.

[Bob-san]

I don't think there is much of a possibility of winning that war even with our tech advantage. Look at the problems we've had with Iraq, a small desert country with a 4th rate army, no air force and a relatively small population. Do you seriously think we could occupy a nation the size of our own with many times our population? Plus China is a nuclear armed state, going to war with them would have many bad consequences for us all.

You're assuming a lot here. Nobody would ever propose to invade mainland China. It's just not practical. We just might be able to destroy the Chinese Army in actual battle, it's the sort of opponent the US Army is designed to fight in a conventional war and we might even be able to come up with the fuel to actually manuver them to death, but nobody would be crazy enough to try. There are just too many of them.

Winning a war against China would be a far more limited affair than you seem to think. At best, it would be an air-naval action in which the USN and USAF fight a set-piece battle against their Chinese counterparts and smash them. This is entirely possible, and destroying the Chinese ability to project conventional power renders them relatively moot...plus the commercial fallout of fighting a war against their biggest market would knock the country back decades.

At worst, the B-2s go in, destroy China's ability to strategically retaliate against the mainland US, and then they take down the system of massive hydroelectric dams. China goes dark and mass flooding kills tens of millions of people and destroys whatever domestic food production capablity China has while the USN prevents food and oil imports. The country falls apart as unable to feed its citizens or deploy its military to put down the resulting food riots.

I think you're mostly right about what a convention war with China would look like if it happened tomorrow. Truth be told, we could keep troops down in Iraq and Afganistan while fighting China. However, what you're not counting on is US protected countries in Asia--South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all come to mind. We'd have to try to defend these nations against a joint Chinese/North Korean land war, as well as their air and naval units. But once these protected nations are taken over, the war would stall as the USA has the ability to target and defeat perhaps the entire rest of the world's navy. Just consider that our navy is the largest Navy in the world, consisting of a dozen major fleets centered around our carriers and AEGIS-equipped warships.

[Kosh]

Good points all around

At worst, the B-2s go in, destroy China's ability to strategically retaliate against the mainland US, and then they take down the system of massive hydroelectric dams. China goes dark and mass flooding kills tens of millions of people and destroys whatever domestic food production capablity China has while the USN prevents food and oil imports. The country falls apart as unable to feed its citizens or deploy its military to put down the resulting food riots.

I'm not so sure that would go over well politically in the US.

[NGTM-1R]

This is why it's a worst-case option. The only probable scenario for it being invoked is a Chinese invasion of Korea or Japan that cannot be stopped by conventional means, both of which are extremely unlikely.

[BengalTiger]

Oh, well if it's a game of Battleship, then I guess there's nothing wrong with Admiral McMullen and some Chinese Admiral just yelling "B-6!" "Oh, you sunk my battreship!" on the hotline.

I'd see it like this:

USAF: "B-52"
PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force): "Miss. J-10"
USAF: "Not even close... F-22"
PLAAF: "Oh s**t, that's a hit"
USAF: "How 'bout B-1?"
PLAAF: "Hit..."
USAF: "B-2!"
PLAAF: "Destroyer sunk. Now either stop it or we bring out the nukes."
*PLAAF hangs up the phone*

The whole debate is centered on USA vs China, which I'd say the US would win thanks to a 10x greater military budget.

Now add Russia.

[Bob-san]

Oh, well if it's a game of Battleship, then I guess there's nothing wrong with Admiral McMullen and some Chinese Admiral just yelling "B-6!" "Oh, you sunk my battreship!" on the hotline.

I'd see it like this:

USAF: "B-52"
PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force): "Miss. J-10"
USAF: "Not even close... F-22"
PLAAF: "Oh s**t, that's a hit"
USAF: "How 'bout B-1?"
PLAAF: "Hit..."
USAF: "B-2!"
PLAAF: "Destroyer sunk. Now either stop it or we bring out the nukes."
*PLAAF hangs up the phone*

The whole debate is centered on USA vs China, which I'd say the US would win thanks to a 10x greater military budget.

Now add Russia.

I'd say a war with Russia would just escalate from Conventional to Nuclear in <3 months.

[Charismatic]

I'm not so sure that would go over well politically in the US.

Well all in all. If china attacks on our soil well be pwned. So if its us or them, our politics wont agree but they will happily 'live with it'.

[Hellstryker]

Oh, well if it's a game of Battleship, then I guess there's nothing wrong with Admiral McMullen and some Chinese Admiral just yelling "B-6!" "Oh, you sunk my battreship!" on the hotline.

I'd see it like this:

USAF: "B-52"
PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force): "Miss. J-10"
USAF: "Not even close... F-22"
PLAAF: "Oh s**t, that's a hit"
USAF: "How 'bout B-1?"
PLAAF: "Hit..."
USAF: "B-2!"
PLAAF: "Destroyer sunk. Now either stop it or we bring out the nukes."
*PLAAF hangs up the phone*

The whole debate is centered on USA vs China, which I'd say the US would win thanks to a 10x greater military budget.

Now add Russia.

I'd say a war with Russia would just escalate from Conventional to Nuclear in <3 months.

MAD 

[maje]

China's navy isn't as quite as ill-prepared to handle a carrier battle group.  For one, we know that they were purchasing Russian built Sovremeny-class destroyers which are designated as carrier killers, and that was going on since the latter half of President Clinton's second term.  Doubting that they just stopped during President Bush's two terms, the question is this:  If no other navy has an abundance of carriers in their fleet (we had about 11 or 12 active last time I checked, and the Brits had 2 or 3), why would they purchase ships whose  primary purpose is to engage and destroy enemy aircraft carriers?

Let us not also forget the whole Airplane collision debacle during the third month of Bush's first term, where a Chinese MiG and U.S. cargo plane collided.

Even if such a battle erupted over Chinese airspace, if dragged on, I may wager the Chinese would win, first off, due to homefield advantage, and also the fact that as they DO have most of the world's manufacturing, could easily out-massproduce aircraft without the distances to replenish the front lines being too great.  Then, factor in how the U.S. is spread out all over the world, already engaged in two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that if we did get into an engagement with China, that not only do we bomb factories that produced day-to-day items that we used, but also the rest of the world, who by the way, does not hold us in such high esteem as it is.  Countries who also depend upon Chinese goods as part of their everyday life may rally to her defense.

No, the best way to get out of this potential quagmire would be to make this ultimatum to Beijing:  You are free to sell us your goods, however, they must be manufactured in the United States (or at the very least, a certain percentage of the manufacturing).  The alternative would be a gradual tariff which would have a subtle, yet annual increase until a certain percentage has been reached.