China is the # 1 threat to global security (Discuss)

[Dunenewt]

We won the Opium Wars and got Hong-Kong in return, which is probably the best part of China and is still resisting a lot of orders from Bejing even though it has been handed back.  You Americans should really watch what you say...Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq...

Russian's are still a match for USA and more than equal to China.  They have the best jet and tank technology in the world, and an army bigger and more ferocious than the US army.  Their Special forces are better as well and their nuclear arsenal could still turn America into one big Great Lake.

[ordos45]

I was unaware the spetznaz held the number two position in the world for special forces.  And see, you proved my point, the Opium Wars got Britain a Chinese colony. 

their nuclear arsenal could still turn America into one big Great Lake.

We could turn Russia into one big piece of glass too, hince the whole Mutually Assured Destruction thing that prevented World War Three.  Also, Britain would be gone before America, closer to Russia and all that.

You Americans should really watch what you say...Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq...

Vietnam- France got its butt kicked.  So we set up our puppet government.  We lost 58,000 troops and got our butt kicked, the whole time most of the American public was against the war and protests were everywhere.

Afghanistan- I distinctly recall British troops being at the forefront with US troops given Blair is more or less Bush's pet.

Iraq- See Afghanistan, with made up evidence of how dangerous Saddam was, courtesy of our friends at the CIA and MI-6.  Also see Vietnam in the realm of protests, as some protests against the Iraq War, not covered by the media, were larger than those seen against Vietnam.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

Russian's are still a match for USA and more than equal to China.

[Edric O]

In a non-nuclear war between China and the USA, the Chinese would take Taiwan and then nothing else would happen.

Why? Because both China and the USA are practically unconquerable. To begin with, any invasion army would have to cross the Pacific, which is no easy feat while the enemy has a reliable navy. And even if you could somehow land your troops on enemy soil, you would face stiff resistance from the local population and a huge chunk of your army would be pinned down by the need to hold on to the territory you've occupied. Not only that, but your supply lines will have to extend across the Pacific too. And given the sheer SIZE of both China and the USA, you would be looking at decades of fighting against enemy guerilla forces.

Face it: you're talking about a fantasy. Such a war simply isn't feasible, even IF the two sides had a reason for it - which they don't.

[GUNWOUNDS]

In a non-nuclear war between China and the USA, the Chinese would take Taiwan and then nothing else would happen.

Why? Because both China and the USA are practically unconquerable. To begin with, any invasion army would have to cross the Pacific, which is no easy feat while the enemy has a reliable navy. And even if you could somehow land your troops on enemy soil, you would face stiff resistance from the local population and a huge chunk of your army would be pinned down by the need to hold on to the territory you've occupied. Not only that, but your supply lines will have to extend across the Pacific too. And given the sheer SIZE of both China and the USA, you would be looking at decades of fighting against enemy guerilla forces.

Face it: you're talking about a fantasy. Such a war simply isn't feasible, even IF the two sides had a reason for it - which they don't.

I think we all realize that... which is why a war with them would most likely be carried out with "tactical nukes"

[Wolf]

I agree with you for the most part, Edric, but the war could end without decades of fighting. Basically, whichever side achieves air power first will win the war. The point of modern warfare is to obviate the need of a massive invasion. After World War II, it was realized that air power is the power that wins wars. After achieving air supremacy, the side that has it will use it to bomb enemy population centers and military installations until the enemy surrenders.

[GhostHunter]

I agree with you for the most part, Edric, but the war could end without decades of fighting. Basically, whichever side achieves air power first will win the war. The point of modern warfare is to obviate the need of a massive invasion. After World War II, it was realized that air power is the power that wins wars. After achieving air supremacy, the side that has it will use it to bomb enemy population centers and military installations until the enemy surrenders.

That theory is precisely what won us Vietnam, right?

[exatreide]

You can bomb the everlasting crap out of a country, but its Infantry that win wars not Air power. You think the Germans didn't fight after Berlin was bombed and shelled to dust? No they faught to the bitter end as would any population that still has a will to fight.

Airpower Supresse's but it dosnt win. Ground forces win.

[Wolf]

About Vietnam:

Wrong. It was not using that strategy that lost us Vietnam. What was Vietnam? A series of infantry skirmishes in jungle-terrain. A hellhole. There were not cities to bomb, and we shouldn't have sent in troopers. Granted, napalm made their debut in this war, and we dropped a ton of ordinance, but not correctly. Since this debate was China vs. US, I'll use them as an example. With cities to lose, China and the US would both probably surrender after the majority of their major population and industrial centers were bombed senseless. In Vietnam, our enemies were not in the cities, and where they were, they could not be bombed. But, most importantly, what the Vietnamese were reliant on to make war could not be easily bombed, unlike China and the US.

About Air Power:

Well, you need infantry to hold a country and to project long-term force over a nation. But, honestly, look at Japan. If you can blast the crap out of them from the air constantly, every day, you're going to win. Even without the atomic bombs, the US had reduced the majority of Japan's urban centers to dust. Under this sort of pressure, you wouldn't need too much infantry to literally conquer the nation, and one would hope that the country's leaders would be smart enough to surrender before hand.

[exatreide]

Not true Napalm made its debute in World war 2 not Vietnam.

But look at Germany. A CONSTANT air bombardment on its industrial complex's did nothing to destroy the will of the German military. Actully every year of ww2 German Production increased. The German industry's made more tanks,guns and planes in 1944 then they did in any other previous year.

And the bombing did nothing to destroy the will of the German troops, they faught tooth and nail. And would have kept fighting untill we moved troops in no matter of how much bombing would have stopped them.

The japs were even worse. in 1944-1945 they still had Manchuria, Korea and Parts of China. They were making guns in backyards and underground. IF we invaded they would have faught more fiercly then the Germans. Look  at Iwo Gima, Mount Cerabauchi, Gaudacanal. We bombed and shelled the shit out of these islands and the Japs attacked and defended incredibly fiercly.

It would have been very hard for the infantry to win the war with out bombers but it could be acomplished.

Its imposible for bombers to win wars with out the use of atomic armaments.

[Dunenewt]

Vietnam was started because America was scared about the spread of communism.  You never really won it.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, sure you may have won the initial battles but it seems you are losing the fight to give them stability and democracy.  Afghanistan has been basically forgotten since Iraq, and Iraq is just a mess.  Maybe you should take a lesson from us, in the south of Iraq where things are going much better.  However I did read the other day about one US General in Iraq, can't remember his name but he seems quite promising, and the man the US need.

[lowzeewee]

Sea

Basically if you don't focus on claiming victories on the seas, you can basically just ignore the sea threats, but you have to deal with those aircraft carriers and destroyers and cruisers carrying cruise missiles. Expensive.

Air

Air power is the most important aspect in an air/land/sea battle, though it is really expensive.

[Dunenewt]

Russia, as I said before has the best fighter jet technology, and probably the better tanks.  But their navy is pretty much a mess and needs servicing.

China has the manpower but relies on old Russian/Soviet technology. America has the money but not as many troops and politics would be a stumbling block as well.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

eh, usa has the most troops, and better trained troops. those 1,3 million american troops are highly trained.

well russia still got the good old typhoon atomic submarines, but they are replacing them with a new type of uboat.

how is china's airforce and navy? anyone know?

[Anathema]

The Chinese airforce uses copies from old MiG and Sukhoi models, and their tanks are ripoffs of Russian T-54 and T-55 tanks. Their infantry uses AK-47 clones. Long live the chinese copy industry ::)

Basicly, if China attacked Russia right now they'd suffer enormous casualties quickly because even though the Russian military is underfunded, it's still superior to what China has. Civil unrest would break out because of all the losses. Seeing as how unpopular the Chinese regime is, they would not risk such a war.

[Wolf]

Alright, I'll grant you that in World War II, bombing wasn't as effective as I'm making it out to be. But, here, again, I'm talking about modern warfare. Our aerial weapons today are much more accurate than they were in World War II, also, we can attack any time of the day, and with much more speed than we used to. The point is, look at Iraq during both Gulf Wars. Air power reduced their tank divisions and air force to scrap. It was air supremacy that allowed the US ground forces to occupy the country. Now, as you all know, I really dislike the idea of sending in massed infantry and armor into hostile territory. If we were just fighting to, say, make Iraq surrender, I believe the nation would have done so after a long time of bombing.

Now, about Germany; the Germans did not all fight tooth and nail. Many German units were given "stand and die" orders, because Hitler would have shot them had they retreated. They had no will to fight, and only during the Bulge (which, you will notice, was spearheaded by SS divisions, so that the normal army units wouldn't bug out) did German troops put up stiff resistance. After that battle, the German lines folded all the way to Berlin -- this could not have been acccomplished without air power. Think about the German invasion of Russia. At every major city (most notably, Stalingrad) there was a months-long battle that ended up ruining everything nearby and slaughtering good numbers on both sides. Because of air power, the Germans had no place to make a real stand. Also, I think the reason that German productivity was so high in 1944 was in part because of slave labor, and the in-general industrious nature of the German people.

Japan.

I think we can all agree that a land invasion of Japan would have been a slaughterhouse and a shooting gallery all in one. So, I suppose here bombing did very little to weaken the will of the people to fight. But, on the other hand, bombing did reduce Japan's ability to make war. Had we done no land invasion, and had we not used the atomic bomb, I imagine we would have bombed Japan into submission, Japan would stubbornly refuse to surrender, and after a few years, the people would eventually rise up and go mad. Because of air power, you can cut off an island from all means of escape. You can encircle them, take their off-land territories, and just sit there and reduce their technology level to that of the stone-age. You never need to invade, and even though the enemy may never surrender, you will prevent their being able to make war on you. Which is the goal of a military operation, I believe.

But, I think we can all agree on the bottom line; land air units are needed to win any war with the most flexibility of military power. Air campaigns are limited to... well... bombing the living daylights out of the enemy. Ground campaigns are limited to being subjected to high casualties.

Besides, we're good GDI loyalists, Newt & Rookie -- we can agree.

[GhostHunter]

Russia, as I said before has the best fighter jet technology, and probably the better tanks.

[GUNWOUNDS]

[GhostHunter]

And another disabled in this war, but not destroyed (later repaired easily). I'm referring to an opposition stand-point.

[Dunenewt]

Emperor Harkonnen:USA doesn't have the most troops. India, China, Russia, and probably Pakistan all have bigger armies.

GhostHunter: An Abrams was lost in Iraq wasn't it?

Have you seen the Mig 35??? It can outperform the Raptor, and that fat lump called the JSF is too heavy to take of vertically as it was designed! lol!

[tutuco21]

i dont care for who have the biger army or most weapons of mas destruction

irac got plutonium? fine!

libia got some nukes? who cares?

the taleban hide cruizer missiles? they must be rich! this things are expencive

argentina works on a new virus? i hope it works! on then

the point is... weapons are made to kill,,,

i dont trust my beloved brasilian brothers wen the question is weapons

why should i trust USA?

why should i trust china?

why should i trust anybody?

the world only will be safe (secure) wen man guive up of the weapons

[Anathema]

You've got to be kidding...The Russians haven't had better jet technology since our jet's started taking down theirs in Korea 50 years ago

Soviet fighters have a better reputation then American ones. In Vietnam, the Vietcong had only acces to a couple of MiG fighters but the M4 Phantoms the Americans used had lots of trouble dealing with them.

The F22 supposedly performs better then current MiG models but it's also far more expensive then any other fighter in existance, but it has never been tested out in reality against worthy opponents.

(I'm sure they tested it in simulations, but they're not reliable. The Pentagon has a nasty habit of cheating in weapon tests to push designs through- the Patriot missile, for example)

Their fighters may not have been superior but could very well compete with American ones.

, and this was when the Soviet Union was still in power. Better tanks? We haven't even lost a single tank, not this war, but since they've been in combat, ever. And in comparison just look at the Iraqi tanks within two wars that were easily smashed by American armor - all Russian machinery.

I recall that a three or so M1A1 tanks were lost in the first Gulf War and that one M1A2 tank was destroyed after the end of the second Gulf War by Iraqi resistance using some Russian AT launcher.

Plus you really can't blame the Russians for the lousy performance of the Iraqi T-72 tanks. Most of them weren't even destroyed in tank combat but by air, and on top of that the Iraqi's didn't use uranium depleted shells for ammo. A direct hit with a uranium depleted 120mm shell will destroy any tank, even an Abrams.

Also, the Abrams is rather heavy compared to Russian tanks and expensive in both manufacturing and fuel costs, something most people don't take into account.

I think you need to mature and throw your American resentment out the window Newt, because the Russians have never been able to beat the Americans in any military aspect, (excluding the space race, which wasn't military but we won regardless)

OMG!

Space race not military? You think it was just some ego contest or something? The Americans almost pissed their pants when they heard the Soviet had launched the first artificial satelite, because with this technology they could land an atomic bomb anywhere on Earth. So don't say it wasn't part of the arms race. And only part the US won was the first moon landing, but the Soviets weren't far behind. Russian space equipment is still superior to US equipment this very day.

As for other military aspects, almost all Russian/Soviet tanks were superior to American tanks until the appearance of the M1A1 Abrams. Jet fighters well, I already mentioned that.

or at least for a duration longer than a few months. Further more, there is not a Navy on the face of the planet that could come within their American counterpart, at least not even remotely close for the next atleast 50 years.

Well, this is true at least.

This was assisted by the fact Switzerland was producing German weaponry (and holding stolen gold) under the claim of nuetrallity - you can't blame them: they produced for more revenue but it also gave the Germans more to fight with.

I never heard of Swizerland producing arms for Hitler, but I seriously doubt it was a meaningful contribution to the German industry. Besides, rookie talked of weapon production, not import.

[Wolf]

Actually, I'd have to say that the Russian Soyuz capsule is the most widely used spacecraft design next to the shuttle -- cheaper, too. Its a workhorse. You know how they built and crewed the ISS without the shuttle fleet after the Columbia was lost? With tried-and-true Russsian Soyuz craft. They may not be pretty, but they get the job done.

[ordos45]

The Soyuz may not be as pleasing to the eye as the shuttle, but I agree it's a wonderful workhorse.  Can you imagine if you went back to the 1960s America and told them one day our Space Program would be undergoing a redesign for safety, and that we were sending up astronauts on Russian spacecraft?  They would've thought you were insane, or a spy.  How things change in 40 or so years.  :)

[nampigai]

Soviet fighters have a better reputation then American ones. In Vietnam, the Vietcong had only acces to a couple of MiG fighters but the M4 Phantoms the Americans used had lots of trouble dealing with them.

The F22 supposedly performs better then current MiG models but it's also far more expensive then any other fighter in existance, but it has never been tested out in reality against worthy opponents.

(I'm sure they tested it in simulations, but they're not reliable. The Pentagon has a nasty habit of cheating in weapon tests to push designs through- the Patriot missile, for example)

Their fighters may not have been superior but could very well compete with American ones.

I think the F22 has been scrapped....