[Mars]

The second place the US would be bombing would be manufacturing facilities, right after AA emplacements and energy.

[Mobius]

Guys, I don't understand why you're discussing an eventual war between the USA and China. They don't like each other, alright, but all those discussions about war tactics are a bit pointless since a war between the two countries will be fought in the future and surely not now. This means that most weapons, aircraft and ships would not be in active service at that point.

[The E]

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.

Thank you. That just made my day. That has got to be the least thought-through proposal I have ever read on that topic. For starters, the only reason to produce stuff in China is because it's too expensive to manufacture mass produced items in countries like the USA, because peope in the western world actually expect to earn enough to afford living in the western world through their work. Forcing companies to produce stuff in the USA just doesn't work.

Now, the one thing that should be done with regards to China, is to stop treating them like a third world country. They have nuclear weapons, for crying out loud. Just because they claim to be a third world country whenever it suits their needs (pollution, human rights, copyright law) doesn't mean they are. (China runs a fine line in their propaganda, in the interior, they claim to be a superpower that is slighted by the others, kept down by the malicious intervention of foreigners; Externally, they claim to be a developing country, that can't be asked to implement things like proper emmission control, because they lack the technological base to make it work).

Guys, I don't understand why you're discussing an eventual war between the USA and China. They don't like each other, alright, but all those discussions about war tactics are a bit pointless since a war between the two countries will be fought in the future and surely not now. This means that most weapons, aircraft and ships would not be in active service at that point.

Mobius is right here. A military confrontation beyond the occasional posturing is severely unlikely.

[Hellstryker]

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.

As someone stated earlier we should be able to get in and cripple them via bombers before any of that would be allowed to happen.

Guys, I don't understand why you're discussing an eventual war between the USA and China. They don't like each other, alright, but all those discussions about war tactics are a bit pointless since a war between the two countries will be fought in the future and surely not now. This means that most weapons, aircraft and ships would not be in active service at that point.

Mobius is right here. A military confrontation beyond the occasional posturing is severely unlikely.

QFT.

[Mobius]

As someone stated earlier we should be able to get in and cripple them via bombers before any of that would be allowed to happen.

We don't know how effective their SAMs are. Giving that even North Korea is probably developing new missile technologies we have to presume that China may get full knowledge of them and/or even support their development. All you need is minimal visual/radar contact...it's not difficult to use nuclear warheads against aircraft, even if you don't have a perfect lock. Nuclear weapons are strong enough to obliterate entire bomber formations and, if you open the formations to prevent that, you'd have to deal with countless interceptors exploiting the fact that the bombers' fighter escort will be spread in a wide area.

I really have to say, however, that even the most advanced and modern Chinese aircraft designs look very old. How do they pretend to compete with modern fighters with "advanced" planes that resemble the Saab Gripen? The Gripen is good, alright, but you can't use it to compete with F-22s.

[General Battuta]

As someone stated earlier we should be able to get in and cripple them via bombers before any of that would be allowed to happen.

We don't know how effective their SAMs are. Giving that even North Korea is probably developing new missile technologies we have to presume that China may get full knowledge of them and/or even support their development. All you need is minimal visual/radar contact...it's not difficult to use nuclear warheads against aircraft, even if you don't have a perfect lock. Nuclear weapons are strong enough to obliterate entire bomber formations and, if you open the formations to prevent that, you'd have to deal with countless interceptors exploiting the fact that the bombers' fighter escort will be spread in a wide area.

I really have to say, however, that even the most advanced and modern Chinese aircraft designs look very old. How do they pretend to compete with modern fighters with "advanced" planes that resemble the Saab Gripen? The Gripen is good, alright, but you can't use it to compete with F-22s.

Using nuclear weapons on 'bomber formations' over your own country sounds criminally stupid.

And, for that matter, so do 'bomber formations'.

[Mobius]

They don't necessarily have to be used above China...interceptors should be able to fire them before the bombers get too close, several hundred miles away. Weren't the Delta Dagger and Delta Dart American interceptors supposed to use the same tactic?

Also, air-to-air nuclear warheads don't necessarily have to be extremely powerful, with impressive radioactive fallout, because aircraft are somewhat fragile. In any case, even if their own warheads have dangerous effects to their own soil, shooting down enemy bombers before they delivery their payload is always a good thing.

[The E]

Using nuclear weapons on 'bomber formations' over your own country sounds criminally stupid.

And, for that matter, so do 'bomber formations'.

Exactly. Assuming the US would try to attack, they wouldn't group their Bombers in formations a la WW2. I mean, how many B2s are there? 20? Putting them in a situation where they can be targeted by nuclear airburst would be really, really stupid. And escort fighters? Having those around would kinda defeat the "stealth" approach, wouldn't they? Maybe, maybe the Us would send a flight of F22s or F35s ahead on "Wild Weasel"-Missions, but escorting bombers that aren't supposed to be seen in the first place, sounds like a waste of time....

They don't necessarily have to be used above China...interceptors should be able to fire them before the bombers get too close, several hundred miles away. Weren't the Delta Dagger and Delta Dart American interceptors supposed to use the same tactic?

Also, air-to-air nuclear warheads don't necessarily have to be extremely powerful, with impressive radioactive fallout, because aircraft are somewhat fragile. In any case, even if their own warheads have dangerous effects to their own soil, shooting down enemy bombers before they delivery their payload is always a good thing.

Welllll.....But those Missiles were designed to take out large, WW2-style bomber formations. Against modern air tactics (which revolve around getting a stealthy platform capable of delivering a stealthy stand-off weapon into range) they are highly ineffective.

[Mobius]

As I said before, we can't base our assumptions on current technologies because the two countries aren't going to engage each other in a conflict anywhere soon. You're giving for sure that stealth planes will never, ever lose their advantage...how can you say that? There could be stuff like optical tracking, even by satellite, able to spot stealth planes....even at extremely low altitudes(in that case, ground-based observation networks would be more effective). In a generalized discussion about an eventual conflict that *could* take place in the future I'd never give for sure that stealth technology is going tol remain as effective as it is today.

(And, if I really have to go for the nitpicks, the F-35 is a "not so stealthy" plane, thus meaning that it may be detected... )

About the WWII-style bomber formations matter: read above. If it's clearly stated that bombers may be detected (so the presence of an escort complement will be required) the bombers can't spread in a wide area if they want to be adeguately protected by their little friends.

[The E]

Ahh, I see your point. So, you are essentially saying that advances in radar (or other sensor) tech will render current stealth technology null and void, thus requiring a return to the old "quantity has a quality all of its own" approach. That could be true. I don't believe so. Remember, it's really hard to detect something like a B2 on approach to its target (if american propaganda is to be believed), and if it carries something like this, it will launch its payload and RTB before impact, or even before crossing your border. Granted, that wouldn't stop a "proactive" defence, thus requiring an escort for our bomber, but that shouldn't be a problem, really....Damn. Have to read a couple Tom Clancy novels. I'm sure I remember a similar scenario in one of his books....

[Solatar]

So we've gone from New Hampshire declaring war against the Federal Government to the US nuking China?

Just had to point that out. 

[The E]

So we've gone from New Hampshire declaring war against the Federal Government to the US nuking China?

Just had to point that out. 

Well, the one thing is about as realistic as the other, isn't it?

[BloodEagle]

So we've gone from New Hampshire declaring war against the Federal Government to the US nuking China?

Just had to point that out. 

Well, the one thing is about as realistic as the other, isn't it?

Well, so long as Congress creates The Department of Lampshade Hanging.... 

[Hellstryker]

Ahh, I see your point. So, you are essentially saying that advances in radar (or other sensor) tech will render current stealth technology null and void, thus requiring a return to the old "quantity has a quality all of its own" approach. That could be true. I don't believe so. Remember, it's really hard to detect something like a B2 on approach to its target (if american propaganda is to be believed), and if it carries something like this, it will launch its payload and RTB before impact, or even before crossing your border. Granted, that wouldn't stop a "proactive" defence, thus requiring an escort for our bomber, but that shouldn't be a problem, really....Damn. Have to read a couple Tom Clancy novels. I'm sure I remember a similar scenario in one of his books....

"The AGM-129A is carried exclusively by the US Air Force's B-52H Stratofortress bombers."

Which is not a stealth craft and is extremely old.

[The E]

Yes, well, but it would really surprise me if it can't be retrofitted to be compatible with the B2. We are talking about a hypothetical war scenario here, after all.

[BengalTiger]

"The AGM-129A is carried exclusively by the US Air Force's B-52H Stratofortress bombers."

Like that's the whole truth...

Speaking of sensor tech- there was an F-117 shot down by a modded SA-3 from IIRC 8 miles away, but it's retired due to being too detectable (in other words- 1 plane lost in 20 000 missions over the enemies' cities is too detectable)

The F-35 is harder to detect than the F-117, and the B-2 and F-22 are a whole different league. I've read that the Raptor is the stealthest plane currently used by the USAF, because it's much smaller than the B-2.

Optical satellite tracking will work against anything, unless it's invisible to the naked eye- paint a plane dark blue and it's invisible above an ocean, light the bottom up with bright blue and it's invisible from below.
Now in hostile environments the F-22, 35 and B-2s are to be used during night time, hence their dark gray color, which blends in with the night. Only contrails can save you, but those happen only in high tropospheric flight, and can be avoided.

And if camo isn't enough, then there are Standard SM-3's, which can kill ICBM's, or... satellites (also shot down historically by a missile fired from an F-15, the US did that stuff more than once). The Chinese and Russians also have A-Sat weapons.

I wouldn't be surprized if the first week of WW 3 would be shooting down satellites and flying nukes.

As for the Sovremenny- it's pretty modern, but not as modern as the Arleigh Burke class, and wiki claims China has 4 such ships. While a salvo of cruise missiles launched from it could be deadly if they Zerg-rush enemy CIWS systems, there are a few dozen planes that could sink such a DD per carrier.

I'll probably post some more thoughts later today.

[Kosh]

they claim to be a superpower that is slighted by the others,

Actually I can't think of a single person I've ever met who believes that.

Now, the one thing that should be done with regards to China, is to stop treating them like a third world country.

The funny thing about China is that it is a first, second and third world country all at the same time depending on where you go. A friend of mine once said if you want to see what China will be like in 10 years go to Shanghai, if you want to see how it was like 10 years ago go to Beijing, and if you want to see what it was like 100 years ago go to Xi'An.

Externally, they claim to be a developing country, that can't be asked to implement things like proper emmission control, because they lack the technological base to make it work).

The biggest problem is not necessarily the tech base, it is the cost as well as generally uneven enforcement at the local level.

Guys, I don't understand why you're discussing an eventual war between the USA and China. They don't like each other, alright, but all those discussions about war tactics are a bit pointless since a war between the two countries will be fought in the future and surely not now. This means that most weapons, aircraft and ships would not be in active service at that point

Good point.

For starters, the only reason to produce stuff in China is because it's too expensive to manufacture mass produced items in countries like the USA, because peope in the western world actually expect to earn enough to afford living in the western world through their work.

Very true, unless people want to pay $500+ for shoes.

[The E]

I wouldn't be surprized if the first week of WW 3 would be shooting down satellites and flying nukes.

Umm....No. You're still stuck in the cold war way of thinking. During the cold war, it was believed that WW3 would be much like WW2, with added nukes. I don't think thats propable. Why? Because: Big wars of conquest are ultimately too expensive. When Germany opened WW2, it needed to keep on conquering in the hope of aquiring enough assets to pay of its debts. Then theres the post-war occupation, which is hardly cost effective either. I recently read Halting State by Charles Stross, where he describes a much more propable (and less risky, more profitable) way of how WW3 might play out, through subtle manipulation of Information leading to the desired results.

they claim to be a superpower that is slighted by the others,

Actually I can't think of a single person I've ever met who believes that.

Oh, okay. I remember reading this some time ago, but of course my source may be wrong about this.

Externally, they claim to be a developing country, that can't be asked to implement things like proper emmission control, because they lack the technological base to make it work).

The biggest problem is not necessarily the tech base, it is the cost as well as generally uneven enforcement at the local level.

Okay, but I still believe that's a pretty lame excuse.

[Kosh]

Okay, but I still believe that's a pretty lame excuse.

Well the fact that it is for the most part a developing country doesn't help the cost issue. Still the biggest problem is regionalism. There actually are plenty of environmental regs on the books, the problem is the disconnect between the central government and the local governments who too often will ignore central government directives about many things, including the environment. Take what happened last November as a classic case of regionalism:

Even the Hong Kong government became concerned and appealed to the central government for intervention to help Hong Kong-invested businesses in the Pearl River Delta in particular ride out the financial crisis, to help the semi-autonomous region stabilize its economy.

Yet Wang Yang, who was elected as a politburo member in October 2007 and appointed as Guangdong party chief at the beginning of this year, seems happy to see the demise of such labor-intensive SMEs. During an inspection trip to Zhanjiang city in western Guangdong on November 12, Wang said the Guangdong authorities would make no effort to save these "backward" enterprises.

"What are these enterprises which have gone under? Are any of them large enterprises with a big name? No! My judgment is that, generally speaking, these bankrupt enterprises belong to a backward productive force, which is bound to be eliminated by the market."

No sooner had Wang said this than Premier Wen, Wang's one-time mentor, publicly demanded Guangdong take "heavy-handed" measures to help SMEs. While making an inspection tour in Guangdong on November 14, Wen said SMEs played a decisive role in China's economic and social development. SMEs are very important in boosting economic growth, in increasing fiscal income and employment and safeguarding social stability, said Wen, with Wang seen on TV footage enthusiastically nodding and saying "yes, yes!"

But a week later, on the sidelines of a conference, Wang insisted again that Guangdong would not try to save its "backward productive forces", and would continue with its own policy to upgrade its economy.

Although they usually are not so open about their defiance, it does happen quite often.

[The E]

Hmmm, interesting. Thanks for that link, Kosh. Seems like China risks running into the objective reality problem the USSR couldn't handle (Disconnect between reality and party ideology). Kudos to those guys making those decisions on the regional level.