China and Taiwan: Followup

[gh0st]

What are you talking about? Vietnam isn't by any means a superpower and the US lost that war, yes they didn't throw everything they had at them but they got their asses kicked none the less. I don't see how you could just underestimate china so easily.

Politically we lost that war. Militarily, we beat the shit and a half out of the vietcong and NVA. Our objective was to halt the spread of communism, and when saigon fell that objective was a failure so you're right, we did lose. However it was due to far more factors than the NVA. China doesnt have the same terrain as Vietnam either. Things would be much different. For example, technology has advanced eons beyond that. Now we can launch laser guided bombs through meter wide windows right up the ass of its target. We can be anywhere in the world in 24 hours - a far cry from our status in the late 60's. Whats changed the most though is the complete and utter superiority of our airforce. In vietnam the vietnamese had the support of chinese planes which, at the time, were just a little worse than our own so our kill ratio went way down. Now though, it would be a chicken shoot. Oh yeah, now we have night vision too so that may help. starlight scopes sure look shitty by comparison to our modern weapons and optics.

 

[brink's]

And I dont see how you can underestimate America so easily. Besides, Vietnam didnt attempt to invade another country, which would rely heavily on air and sea superiority.


.

In no way did I underestimate the USA, I just don't think they could steamroll such a powerfull country so easily.

Contrary to popular belief Southvietnam was a different country the North.

 

[seinfeldrules]

In no way did I underestimate the USA, I just don't think they could steamroll such a powerfull country so easily.

Contrary to popular belief Southvietnam was a different country the North.

Nobody, at least not I, claimed it would be an easy victory.

And I should have specified a non-landlocked country, my mistake.

 

[gh0st]

In no way did I underestimate the USA, I just don't think they could steamroll such a powerfull country so easily.

Nooo we wouldnt steamroll them. But we sure wouldnt get our asses handed to us like some people would have us believe.

 

[staticprimer]

I think you guys are neglecting to acknowledge what the scale of a war with China would be. An all out war with China would mean the largest war since WWII; larger than the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and certainly larger than the wars we have had in the last two decades, which we can hardly call wars in prospective. The death toll, both civilian and military, would be so much higher than anything we are used to these days. The 17,000+ Iraqi and 1,000+ American deaths would pale in comparison to the potential of a war with China. We wouldn't be talking in the thousands, more like hundreds of thousands or even millions. And also remember, they have much larger numbers and they would be fighting on their homeland, so they would have the advantage of attrition, which is what the war would probably turn in to. Don't assume our stunning military success against third world countries means we should automatically be able to trounce a real opponent.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I think you guys are neglecting to acknowledge what the scale of a war with China would be. An all out war with China would mean the largest war since WWII; larger than the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and certainly larger than the wars we have had in the last two decades, which we can hardly call wars in prospective. The death toll, both civilian and military, would be so much higher than anything we are used to these days. The 17,000+ Iraqi and 1,000+ American deaths would pale in comparison to the potential of a war with China. We wouldn't be talking in the thousands, more like hundreds of thousands or even millions. And also remember, they have much larger numbers and they would be fighting on their homeland, so they would have the advantage of attrition, which is what the war would probably turn in to. Don't assume our stunning military success against third world countries means we should automatically be able to trounce a real opponent.

Again, nobody is saying its easy. Furthermore, a war to protect Taiwan doesnt necessarily mean invading mainland China. I do agree that we would see enormous casualties in very short amounts of time. With current technology I dont think the conflict could last too long one way or another.

 

[staticprimer]

Sorry, It just seemed to me that you were thinking that it would be a piece of cake like the last few wars we have been in. I too think that we would emerge on top, but also fear that it would be a phyrric victory.

And war on the Chinese mainland in some form or another would almost certainly be enevitable, Taiwan is just too small to wage effective war on!

 

[The Mullinator]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/index.html
I think this thread is in need of a proper guide to the Chinese military.

Also here is an excellent article detailing possibilities for China if they did want to invade Tawain (its at the end of the article):
http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html

By the sounds of it China is really not that capable of doing much in Tawain.

 

[Calanen]

Ghostfox said:

Even brittian could easly defend hong kong or tawian from China, hong kong maybe on the mainland but it is a small area, that can easly be defended, and tawian is separeted by the sea.

Hmm ghostfox - can't agree with you there. It took Japan about 12 hours to take over Hong Kong during the second world war. There was a book written about it called 'Not the Slightest Chance'.

Japan had a lot less people than China does.

The USA and allies could defeat China, eventually. But it would be a horrible war that would go for 5 or more years, and involve the deaths of 100s of millions of people (most of them chinese). There is no way the USA will go to war over a crappy chinese island.

 

[Calanen]

Don't assume our stunning military success against third world countries means we should automatically be able to trounce a real opponent.

Fighting China will be a lot llike fighting Iraq. Their equipment is old, so are their tactics. The US equipment is better than the Soviet stuff. The one thing they do have though, is millions of people, just like Stalin did. So they can keep throwing millions into the lines, and no1 is allowed to protest the war like in a democracy, so there is no civil dissent. Meanwhile at home, America has got all the green left and liberal all over them while they are trying to fight this war. The US population would only I think support such a war, if China did something despicable to the US itself. It is not likely to do so. America will wipe the floor with China, but just like the SS and Wehrmarcht against the Russians, as General Von Paulus said to Hitler:

'For every million I kill or capture, another million comes to take its place'

 

[bliink]

Fighting China will be a lot llike fighting Iraq. Their equipment is old, so are their tactics. The US equipment is better than the Soviet stuff.

They still have their soviet nukes!

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

They still have their soviet nukes!

But in Soviet China Nuke...uh...launches you?


I still say a million soldiers practically bread to fanatically oppose all enemies, are something to contend with...technology or not.

 

[kirovman]

And there will be no civil dissent, because 95% will support the war.
Genuinely. The other 5% will keep quiet, I suppose.

Everyone goes on about Taiwan being a different country, but China just doesn't see it from that view at all.

And Taiwan only has proper diplomatic relations with a handful of nations, and the US only says it 'might' intervene in a Taiwan war, uh if we can be bothered.

That's not as determined as "You will give up your WMD Mr Hussein/Jong-Il"

Something funny about sour relations between Singapore and Taiwan last year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3697244.stm

Taiwan's foreign minister has sparked a diplomatic row by calling Singapore "the size of a piece of snot".
Chen Tan-sun was angry over comments made by Singapore's foreign minister, George Yeo, who recently said Taiwan should not press for independence.

"It was nothing but an effort to embrace China's 'balls', forgive me using such a word," Mr Chen told supporters on Monday.

 

[short recoil]

China has 20 dong feng 5 ICBM's 13,000km range.
and another 200 missile based and 200 tactical nukes.
Now, nukes will probably never be used.......but they are always there.

Dont even think about america attacking china, they would NOT do it, they would have to be idiots (yeah, yeah i know about bush.......)
America would sustain serious damage to its forces.......no matter what you patriotic americans think, it would not be like iraq in any way......EVERY person in china would fight you.

If america attacks china i will eat everyone on the forums hats.

 

[Calanen]

And there will be no civil dissent, because 95% will support the war.
Genuinely. The other 5% will keep quiet, I suppose.

People tend to support wars at first, until their friends start getting killed. Or they are at risk of getting killed. Then they tend to oppose them. But there is no scope for this in china. 95% may support a war for Taiwan on Day 1, but on Day 600 after having the bejesus bombed out of them by B52s day and night, electric grids fail, food becomes scarce. Then you get civil disobedience and in a democracy thats the end. But in a dictatorship, you can use the same troops you are fielding in battle to kill the people that oppose the action. In a democracy, you don't have that option. So a dictatorship like China's is better for having a long war than America's democractic system.

Hopefully, though this is all needless speculation.

 

[Razor]

The fact of the matter is, America and Europe could defeat China on Chinese soil, as long as they walked together. America might also use it as an excuse to try to pull North Korea into the war and get rid of them as well. But any invasion of China by the allies would be a massive, massive undertaking and would cost millions of lives on both sides. But the point is, if there is going to be a war, which there most probably won't be, all the allies need to do is make sure Taiwan is free. If China continued with the war afterwards, then that is when things get messy.

But how bloody and long the war is, and whether there will be one, would depend on a number of things.

1) Does the west give a crap if China invades Taiwan if they are reassured that the Taiwanese businesses are kept as normal, a long with the Chinese people.
2) If the west do give a crap, can China launch a surprise attack and take Taiwan before the west can respond.
3) How much of the west would actually respond
4) How determined would China be to hang onto Taiwan if they see that the west were taking the situation very seriously
5) Would North Korea get involved - this would most probably bring in South Korea as well, as America would be using South Korean bases as a staging post, unless South Korea refused to stop any problems with North Korea.
6) Once the allies retake Taiwan, in whatever shape Taiwan is in at the liberation, would China keep on fighting.

But you all have to remember, this isn't France or Scotland or Spain getting invaded, this is Taiwan, a tiny little island between China and Japan. Would the anti-war protestors care about this when they think that China will be nice to the Taiwanese people, just like the Chinese government says they will? They didn't care enough not to protest when an evil tyrant was getting booted out.

 

[kirovman]

The fact of the matter is, America and Europe could defeat China on Chinese soil, as long as they walked together. America might also use it as an excuse to try to pull North Korea into the war and get rid of them as well. But any invasion of China by the allies would be a massive, massive undertaking and would cost millions of lives on both sides. But the point is, if there is going to be a war, which there most probably won't be, all the allies need to do is make sure Taiwan is free. If China continued with the war afterwards, then that is when things get messy.

But how bloody and long the war is, and whether there will be one, would depend on a number of things.

1) Does the west give a crap if China invades Taiwan if they are reassured that the Taiwanese businesses are kept as normal, a long with the Chinese people.
2) If the west do give a crap, can China launch a surprise attack and take Taiwan before the west can respond.
3) How much of the west would actually respond
4) How determined would China be to hang onto Taiwan if they see that the west were taking the situation very seriously
5) Would North Korea get involved - this would most probably bring in South Korea as well, as America would be using South Korean bases as a staging post, unless South Korea refused to stop any problems with North Korea.
6) Once the allies retake Taiwan, in whatever shape Taiwan is in at the liberation, would China keep on fighting.

But you all have to remember, this isn't France or Scotland or Spain getting invaded, this is Taiwan, a tiny little island between China and Japan. Would the anti-war protestors care about this when they think that China will be nice to the Taiwanese people, just like the Chinese government says they will? They didn't care enough not to protest when an evil tyrant was getting booted out.

I don't think North Korea would get involved, they can't really contribute anything that China needs. The alliance is a nice sentiment, but they're unnecessary, they are like a 6th finger really.

China has no interests in North Korea becoming militarily able though (especially nuclear).

And Taiwan is too far away for NK to contribute too. It's not really between China and Japan. It's much further south than that. Somewhere equidistant to Shanghai and Guangzhou.

Irrelevant extra point: My dad went to Taipei last month. He said it was boring compared to Beijing.

 

[No Limit]

China doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell against America, much less Britain acting with numerous allies (even Europe couldnt stay out of this war). America can defeat any conventional army in the world, China is no exception. Thats why the big numbers dont mean shit. Our training is better, our equipment is better, we have superior discipline. China would be digging its own grave over a prolonged war.

What is discouraging is the fact that while china may only have a 2.5 million man army, they have about 300million military aged males. My worry would be whether or not we have enough bullets to physically lob at that many people.

Things would get sticky with a NK intervention there. The threat of nukes that close to the korean penninsular would.. well, suck. The US could defeat, even on two fronts (with the other being barely a front), NK and China but I mean its all about the politics. This would, however, be a world war by all definitions. I see no reason why europe and the rest of the civilized nations would stick this one out, too many interests at risk.

You are missing the point if you are looking at this on who could win, looking at it like that is extremely arrogant. Yes, I think the US and our allies would win in something like this. But do you understand how many people 2.5 million is? Do you have any idea how many would die on both sides? A war with China would destroy this world and it would take decades to fix.

The US has said it will defend Taiwan so if China attacks there is a huge chance the US and the rest of the world would get involved; again, this would be a disaster no matter who wins. I know so many of you like to bash the UN but this is a time where the UN could play a huge role in getting this resolved; the US can't do it alone. I just hope they act quickly.

 

[gh0st]

You are missing the point if you are looking at this on who could win, looking at it like that is extremely arrogant. Yes, I think the US and our allies would win in something like this. But do you understand how many people 2.5 million is? Do you have any idea how many would die on both sides? A war with China would destroy this world and it would take decades to fix.

The US has said it will defend Taiwan so if China attacks there is a huge chance the US and the rest of the world would get involved; again, this would be a disaster no matter who wins. I know so many of you like to bash the UN but this is a time where the UN could play a huge role in getting this resolved; the US can't do it alone. I just hope they act quickly.

Keep thinking America gives a shit what the UN thinks or does. They arent a military organization and will not help with this conflict. They will pull a league of nations, and blow it. Did I say the US could win alone? Well yes we could, but thats not what I said.

 

[Gray Fox]

Seinfeldrules:

Again, nobody is saying its easy. Furthermore, a war to protect Taiwan doesnt necessarily mean invading mainland China. I do agree that we would see enormous casualties in very short amounts of time. With current technology I dont think the conflict could last too long one way or another.
__________________

(I can't believe I quoted you but) qfe, like he said us does not need to invade taiwan to protect it, simple as that. now if they were to invade then yes those 2.5 million troops would be a big problem.

Calanen:

Hmm ghostfox - can't agree with you there. It took Japan about 12 hours to take over Hong Kong during the second world war. There was a book written about it called 'Not the Slightest Chance'.

Actually you quoted Grey Fox, but anyway people stop using wwII as an example, if you do that then I can just as easly take WWI for example, look at the trenc war, hundreds of thousands were gunned down rushing becasue each side had machine guns. Listen hong kong is a small area, so the forces of the uk would not be streched, it would be like a choke point for china, and the UK has way superior equipment.

 

[No Limit]

Keep thinking America gives a shit what the UN thinks or does. They arent a military organization and will not help with this conflict. They will pull a league of nations, and blow it. Did I say the US could win alone? Well yes we could, but thats not what I said.

Your arrogance in that post clearly shows. Yes, because the UN disagreed with us in Iraq lets have millions of people die so we could do this alone to show everyone what a huge penis America has. I really don't think you grasp how serious this is.

 

[kirovman]

Here's a web forum with the Taiwan issue. (moderated by the Chinese government).
There's more forums there about other issues, from political issues to General Discussions. They even have a forum about Chinese-European relations.

China Daily is quite a funny newspaper, because I read a British paper, the Daily Telegraph the same day, a headline was "Hong Kong fears decreasing democracy", and the chinadaily had the same story with the headline "Hong Kong looks to bright future"

I will quote a few posts from there, just for interest

I don't think there is need to start a war with the Island.

Economy will rule; splitting from Mainland is nothing else than assuming that the US will keep the Island running.

BTW, which means that the American companies would be "kindly" invited to leave the country and their assets.

No, I don't think we are going to see independence over the straits. I'd rather think that the logical move is abiding by the principle "1 country 2 systems", which BTW works perfectly well; although some here try to sell out a different story.

Some of you even say, Taiwan people are not Chinese.
They forget that in Taiwan people speak Chinese, either a Fujian dialect or Mandarin, or both. They write Chinese characters. They eat Chinese food. They follow Chinese customs. They have relatives on the mainland. Chen Su Bian's hometown on the mainland is not too far from my hometown. They have just finished celebrating Lunar New Year, the Year of the Rooster. Many of them came back to their hometowns to celebrate new year with their relatives. Many of them now work in China. Still, some Yankees say they aren't Chinese. Who educated these Yankees, I wonder?

Now, you assume "Taiwan" does not want reunification. When you say "Taiwan", you imply all the people living on the island of Taiwan. That's not factual. People in Taiwan are split on the issue of reunification. They do not have a unanimous opinion. You put your words in their mouths.

I don't have to detail the pros and cons of reunification and why they feel the way they feel. There are people who want to "retake" China mainland, there are people who want reunification, there are people who want independence, and there are people who don't care much about it one way or the other.

There is one thing that is true. The continuing sale of arms by Warshington has stiffened the attitudes of Taiwan politicians who want to continue to enjoy their rule of the island. Is this your basis for saying "Taiwan" doesn't want reunification?

The day when Taiwan returns to China peacefully will also mark the opening chapter of America's waning influence in the Asia Pacific and the world. As a Chinese living in Taiwan, I hope Taiwan's leaders will not put China in a situation where the use of force is the only resort. I hope Taiwan will never become the battleground of China and America!

Taiwan is a part of the Republic of China. The chinese communist rebelled and took away the chinese mainland from the Republic of China. So Taiwan never left democractic china. So it is the chinese mainland under the chinese communist that need to be reunited with Republic of China.

The CCP is doing a great job in China, Chinese people don't need democracy! Democracy is for western people and their suckers like Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore... China has their own way of governing themselves so foreigners shouldn't have a say about how Chinese people are to be ruled.

Plus, if the CCP gives up its power, China will break into pieces. The CCP is the only reason why China is one piece today!!! Mao's courage saved China and Taiwan from foreign aggression! The CCP is not the issue... the issue is the Americans, the Europeans, and the Japs who tried to steal from China.

They would not destroy themselves to benefit others! Look at how hard they fight to protect their wealth!

It is the "cornered Japanese" that i worry about actually! Simple deduction. A small naval force in Singapore would be the solution and probably a naval base in Myanmar!

*racist expletives deleted*

I shudder at the implications!

I cannot blame the Japanese, their nation has NO RESOURCES, not enough land; so the people like Hi tech. They are always having MANGA of EXOSKELETON because it could be their SURPRISE WEAPON should the AMERICANS sacrifized the JAPANESE!

Unbelieveable stupid game!

The Japs would have to head towards ASEAN to get the OIL to sustain themselves! Taiwan should not be a problem so soon!

 

[Razor]

Here's a web forum with the Taiwan issue. (moderated by the Chinese government).
There's more forums there about other issues, from political issues to General Discussions. They even have a forum about Chinese-European relations.

China Daily is quite a funny newspaper, because I read a British paper, the Daily Telegraph the same day, a headline was "Hong Kong fears decreasing democracy", and the chinadaily had the same story with the headline "Hong Kong looks to bright future"

I will quote a few posts from there, just for interest

There are a few good points there, what happens if America and the western world intervene to help the Taiwanese government when half the Taiwanese people would be interested in closer ties with China.

In my opinion, as long as the Taiwanese government, along with the Taiwanese people, ask for the help of the western world to protect them from China, the war would have some sort of justification. If it is just the Taiwanese government trying to hold onto power, whilst the Taiwanese people are hugely divided, the war wouldn't be as justified. What the western world would need to do is step in and stop China forcing a decision on the Taiwanese people, and then ask the Taiwanese people what they want to do, but this should be done before any sort of hostilities.

a) reunify with China and become communist
b) reunify with China and try to sort out a way to keep a democratically elected government
c) don't reunify.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Kirov have any posts that show an opposite perspective?

 

[kirovman]

Kirov have any posts that show an opposite perspective?

Yeah, looks like they were posted by westerners though.

Actually one quote I posted said China belongs to Taiwan (Republic of China), funnily enough.

I was just trying to point out what the Chinese and the Taiwanese (to some extent) think about this. A web forum based in China is a good start, I'll try to find a Taiwanese web forum too when I'm not so tired.
Most Chinese see it as a 'civil issue'

The web forum is linked in my post, go there and have a look through yourself.
Here's a pic I made earlier- do these guys shop at the same glasses and suit shop? And have the same hairstylist?:

 

[mortiz]

Politically we lost that war. Militarily, we beat the shit and a half out of the vietcong and NVA. Our objective was to halt the spread of communism, and when saigon fell that objective was a failure so you're right, we did lose. However it was due to far more factors than the NVA. China doesnt have the same terrain as Vietnam either. Things would be much different. For example, technology has advanced eons beyond that. Now we can launch laser guided bombs through meter wide windows right up the ass of its target. We can be anywhere in the world in 24 hours - a far cry from our status in the late 60's. Whats changed the most though is the complete and utter superiority of our airforce. In vietnam the vietnamese had the support of chinese planes which, at the time, were just a little worse than our own so our kill ratio went way down. Now though, it would be a chicken shoot. Oh yeah, now we have night vision too so that may help. starlight scopes sure look shitty by comparison to our modern weapons and optics.

All that technology means exactly jack if you don't know who your targets are. China has a population of nigh on 1.5 billion people, now how do you expect an American army to control that many people? Considering there is only 260 million people in the entire United States and China is over a huge geographical area I don't even think today’s technology could feasibly do it.

You've also got to remember that for some reason Asian governments are great at brainwashing their citizens, like in Vietnam one minute they could be plowing a field and the next minute they could be picking up an AK47 and firing it at troops, or blowing themselves up at checkpoints. Unless you intended to kill everyone you came across?

Invading China would make Iraq look like a punch up in the playground by comparison.

 

[bliink]

Invading China would make Iraq look like a punch up in the playground by comparison.

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken mp3, but China has nukes and they will use them if they think they're going to be defeated.
I mean, they aren't dumb, they probably know a carrier group could cripple them in 40 hours, and it only takes one bomb to wipe out a fleet of ships.

"China is making 140-150 nuclear warheads a year and she has accumulated 2,350 nuclear warh eads so far (1996!).
...
China does have ICBMs, SS18-class DF-5 with a range of 8000 miles, which can reach virtually every corner of every nuclear power (US, Russia, Great Britain and France). It has the same boosters (CZ-2C) as those used for Chinese spy satellites with a launch success rate of 100% (no failure out of 18 launches)."

Another thing to note is that china knows US satellites can see any silos, so they dont use them. They have mobile launching capability and most weapons are stored, hidden in mountains.

A US invasion would be out of the question.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The web forum is linked in my post, go there and have a look through yourself.

Keeps asking me for language packs and my XP CDs.

 

[kirovman]

Keeps asking me for language packs and my XP CDs.

Can't you click cancel and proceed to the forums?
The language on the forums is English anyways...

As for the war thing, I think China are smart. They won't fight a war they know they can't win (Wen Jiabao said that during the meeting of Congress), and yes, they have nukes, and if they feel they will lose, they will use them.

Don't underestimate the Chinese government's knowledge of where they stand in the world. They aren't about to get overconfident about any wars they may fight.
Their top leaders are University educated (Chinese respect phds more than everything) and they have experience being subservient in the communist party.
And they have been 'elected' as the best people to serve the party.
In some ways you might call that smart democracy (note: I don't agree with it), allowing only those who know about politics and served the country 'well' to vote in politics.

 

[gh0st]

Invading China would make Iraq look like a punch up in the playground by comparison.

Bring it on. I'd personally kill 1.5 billion commies Especially if they are brainwashed commies.

by the way mortiz, how do you explain Alexander the Great controlling the vast territory he conquered with so few troops?

 

[bliink]

by the way mortiz, how do you explain Alexander the Great controlling the vast territory he conquered with so few troops?

he fought in a time before armies even needed supply lines. War is a completely different thing now.

 

[staticprimer]

he fought in a time before armies even needed supply lines. War is a completely different thing now.

In addition, there were far less people during that time. The population of Europe didn't reach 60 million untill just before the black death, so you can imagine how few there were in Alexander's time. Also, they were sparsely populated, and news traveled extremely slowly, so the average didn't know or didn't care that Alexander conquered them.

 

[bliink]

so the average didn't know or didn't care that Alexander conquered them.

Old Woman: "I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective" :upstare:

 

[kirovman]

Bring it on. I'd personally kill 1.5 billion commies Especially if they are brainwashed commies.

by the way mortiz, how do you explain Alexander the Great controlling the vast territory he conquered with so few troops?

1.5 billion commies...That's assuming the whole Chinese nation are commies.

That includes some of my friends, my girlfriend, her family.

Let's try to look at the Taiwan issue constructively, not propose genocidal notions, please.
I'm sure there's a lot of people bent on killing 300 million capitalists in the world, lets not get down to their level.

Also with reference to Alexander the Great, look at his empire compared with the Mongolian Empire.

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/History_n2/a.html

All the way from Vietnam to East Europe, but they relied on military tactics, such as training the kids to being archers on horseback, and being absolutely brutal in war. I believe they never lost, and they killed anyone who fought against them, or defied them, they even invaded Baghdad, so best thing would have been to surrender.

But their huge Empire didn't last much more than 100 years, because they knew all about warfare, but they didn't know about society, so they collapsed.

 

[Laivasse]

Bring it on. I'd personally kill 1.5 billion commies Especially if they are brainwashed commies.

The knowledge that you're not even a rare type of person makes me want to live on another ****ing planet. At least I'll shed no tears when this one bites the dust.

 

[Pericolos0]

Bring it on. I'd personally kill 1.5 billion commies Especially if they are brainwashed commies.

if genocide is your idea to bring peace to the world.. go and try, we wont miss you

 

[PvtRyan]

I don't think China could win a war against the West: resources.

Sure they've got the manpower and overwhelming numbers, but I doubt they can deploy them all and wage all out war with the limited amount of fuel they have. They wouldn't win an attrition war I think.

But I don't think you can easily dismiss the Chinese army as outdated, they're investing a lot of money in development.
I think a Type 98 tank could kick the ass of an M1 any day.

 

[Razor]

This isn't about invading China Bliink and the others, so the Chinese wouldn't want to use nuclear weapons, all the war would be about is defending Taiwan, no invasion of the Chinese mainland - and i very much doubt a single carrier group could cripple the whole of the Chinese military.

 

[staticprimer]

Old Woman: "I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective" :upstare:

lol classic!

 

[kmack]

I know I'm starting to sound like a broken mp3, but China has nukes and they will use them if they think they're going to be defeated.
I mean, they aren't dumb, they probably know a carrier group could cripple them in 40 hours, and it only takes one bomb to wipe out a fleet of ships.

"China is making 140-150 nuclear warheads a year and she has accumulated 2,350 nuclear warh eads so far (1996!).
...
China does have ICBMs, SS18-class DF-5 with a range of 8000 miles, which can reach virtually every corner of every nuclear power (US, Russia, Great Britain and France). It has the same boosters (CZ-2C) as those used for Chinese spy satellites with a launch success rate of 100% (no failure out of 18 launches)."

Another thing to note is that china knows US satellites can see any silos, so they dont use them. They have mobile launching capability and most weapons are stored, hidden in mountains.

A US invasion would be out of the question.

yup, still a lot of people think we are so invincible that we could A. Intimidate them into staying out of taiwan, or worse yet B. take them in a war near the Chinese mainland.

Both are so absurdly out of the question its quite funny.

We will stay out of China's business, trust me, Bush is a coward, he lies about weaker countries and attacks them instead of acknowledging the real world problems (Africa in every way is worse off than Iraq, north korea and Iran both admit to having nukes, iraq didnt)

China can do whatever they want with no negative U.S. reprecussions.