Total War, usa, china Options

[bayard]

Well I believe them a little more than you to tell you the truth. But if you provide your sources then I might believe your numbers.

[easy_layup]

The us military in Korea and Vietnam v.s today completely different. China's subs are no match for american subs or anti submarine warfare assets. Us would rule the oceans but to beat China you must go inland. This is where China has the clear advantage. You are correct in you theory about logistics. This is why the USA won't go to war with China unless backed into a corner. China's subs are good as compared to most other nations but both England and the USA build the quietest most efficient subs in the world. Russia has the Akula class which is comparable to first generation La class attack boats. The US has invested heavily into building leathal subs. It was my job in the Navy to hunt subs so in this area I feel quite confident. To find a US boat you look for a hole in the sound every ocean makes. A needle in a hay stack. Other boats have distinctive mechanical sounds. We have every Russian boat made cataloged and identified by thier unique sounds. Some Russian boats we were able to track at 50 miles or greater . Unfortunately for China many of her boats are of russian design and or manufacture. Russia builds a great fighter but as boats go they are weak in quality control. They have lost more subs than USa, england and france combined. Land war in china? China wins,war on the ocean USA . China just doesn't have the assets in place.

the us navy and air force will have a hard time fighting too close to china just cuz china can easily acsess many missles

[tinman01]

Actually, Chinese developed their own submarine technologies after a decade of using Russian submarine technologies. China new-generation submarines are virtually silent with diesel engines as if they are ghosts contrast to nuclear-engine submarines which are very noisy. I heard new Chinese submarines can dive deeper and travel faster than any other submarines.

Chinese new-generation submarines are superior to US submarines, because China has always interested and invested a lot of money on building a better submarine. Mao once said even if making a better submarine destroys China economically, so be it. Chinese think whoever owns the the better submarines will rule the seas. That is why they set building a better submarine on high priority. Last years the world produced 20 advanced submarines. 15 of them were made in China whereas US had one. Right now I think China dominate the all the seas and oceans. Due to the superior of Chinese submarines, right now US and Japan are thinking to building a network of sensors hide under the sea to detect Chinese submarines.

Couple of years ago, Taiwan and China were high in tensions due to some political reasons. China was threaten to attack Taiwan. The US sent air carriers, submarines and destroyers to Taiwan sea straits as a way of protecting Taiwan. Upon on the straits, US naval ships and submarines detected fainted signals emit from Chinese submarines. US commanders then ordered their submarines and destroyers to investigate the locations of these Chinese submarines. As soon as they began to investigate these Chinese submarines, the signals from these submarines emit were disappear and untraceable as they were ghosts. The US commanders immediately felt threaten, scared and unsecured, because they were not sure where were those Chinese submarines, and those Chinese submarines could be potentially anywhere waiting or hunting them. Therefore they ordered all their ships and submarines back away from Taiwan straits and retreated hastily back to the Hawaii.

Diesel/electric boats are indeed quiet. But underwater time very limited. As far as deep diving? Deep divers historically make alot of noise. Faster? not a deisel /electric boat. As far as more new boats than USA your probibly correct, however, US Subs and ships under go complete refits every 7 or 8 years. A sub coming out of a refit is like a new boat. I'm not saying a chinese boat wouldn't be hard to track because I havent been in the game for 14 years. But I have friends who still are. One of which has done alot of west pac cruises. He tells me that tracking a chinese boat is much easier than finding an LA class. His opinion .
Bottom line is there will never be a war with china and the USA unless some seriously bad karma comes around the bend.

[dgs_vex]

sucks to be him. living under water sucks alot. and indeed a really boring task to live under water for three months. and you miss all the ports on the way back.

diesel engine subs dont have any real advantage over nuclear power subs in terms of stealth. the only problem with nuclear powered subs is that it produces really hot water, which is properly disolved in seawater to mask its water. diesel engine subs on the other hand constantly resurfaces to recharge its batteries. what do expect? diesel just happnes to burn oxygen in the process. very unamazing, but in the case of china, they dont have to travel so far because their miltary isnt calibrated to invade the US.

[SUNDAY]

In case there will be really total war between USA and China. It will be WWIII.

1. How it would start?
- Independance of Taiwan, If China out of patience
- North Korea Nuclear and Missile threat might be reason
- Internal conflict of PRC itself might cause war

What else ?
2. World War 3 started, what countries will be China's allies, and what countries are enemies?

One side CHINA, RUSSIA, NORTH KOREA, PAKISTANI, VIETNAM, PLUS SHANGHAI-5 COUNTRIES KAZAKHSTAN, UZBEKSTANI, KYRGYSTANI maybe MONGOLIA

Opposite side- USA, TAIWAN, SOUTH KOREA, JAPAN, PHILIPHINE,

INDIA, EU stay neutral

[danoc]

One side CHINA, RUSSIA, NORTH KOREA, PAKISTANI, VIETNAM, PLUS SHANGHAI-5 COUNTRIES KAZAKHSTAN, UZBEKSTANI, KYRGYSTANI maybe MONGOLIA

Opposite side- USA, TAIWAN, SOUTH KOREA, JAPAN, PHILIPHINE,

INDIA, EU stay neutral

Russian Federation is defacto in NATO.(neutral)

VIETNAM is defacto a best friend of USA like Kasachstan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Mongolia. (neutral)

North-Korea? Do question South-Korea, Japan and Russian Federation about.

INDIA want Kaschmir and some other parts from China back. (or independent Tibet, and East-Turkestan as puffer between China and India)

EU is in NATO and allie of USA, Vietnam and Russian Federation.

-
btw you have forgot Thailand, Malaysia, Myan Ma (Burma) Bangladesh, Australia.

This post has been edited by danoc: Apr 10 2006, 02:18 PM

[sfca-scot]

Some of you people should beleive everything you read.

1. US is not producing 200+ nukes a year. The cold war is not back on... retarded. There is talk of devoping tactical nukes, the talks didn't go very far.

2. China does not have 6,000 nukes, no where near. China also does not have many ICBM's with which to deliver the nukes. Any other conventional missle system could be taken out with Patriot missle technology.

3. Its not that much more difficult to build a nuke power plant than a nuke missle. It takes more refined nuclear material to make a nuke bomb and more sophisticated lab and machining equipment. Also, the delivery sustems (such ICBM's) is just as complex.

4. China's army is set up defend the homeland and for land based warfare, its not cabable of invasions on a large scale away from the mainland. Most military experts think that china does not have the naval or air forces to take back taiwan.

5. It would be difficult to invade china though because of the shear size of the PLA. The US could likely dominate China in the air and at sea but making much progress on the mainland is unlikely. Really a moot point b/c China has ZERO ability to project force into the US and I can't see any scenario where the US would wish to occupy China. There is nothing but open land and very few natural resources and little strategic advantage. The US has the ability to keep china in check simply by keeping bases in the region and aircraft carriers in straight. The status quo of the borders is all the US would desire.

[Lucifer]

Some of you people should beleive everything you read.

1. US is not producing 200+ nukes a year. The cold war is not back on... retarded. There is talk of devoping tactical nukes, the talks didn't go very far.

2. China does not have 6,000 nukes, no where near. China also does not have many ICBM's with which to deliver the nukes. Any other conventional missle system could be taken out with Patriot missle technology.

3. Its not that much more difficult to build a nuke power plant than a nuke missle. It takes more refined nuclear material to make a nuke bomb and more sophisticated lab and machining equipment. Also, the delivery sustems (such ICBM's) is just as complex.

4. China's army is set up defend the homeland and for land based warfare, its not cabable of invasions on a large scale away from the mainland. Most military experts think that china does not have the naval or air forces to take back taiwan.

5. It would be difficult to invade china though because of the shear size of the PLA. The US could likely dominate China in the air and at sea but making much progress on the mainland is unlikely. Really a moot point b/c China has ZERO ability to project force into the US and I can't see any scenario where the US would wish to occupy China. There is nothing but open land and very few natural resources and little strategic advantage. The US has the ability to keep china in check simply by keeping bases in the region and aircraft carriers in straight. The status quo of the borders is all the US would desire.

no body really knows how many ICBMs China has. The main reason why US demands China to make its military more transparent. Plus, since Chinese can send capsuls to the space with liquid fuel boosters rockets , manuver the capsul onto different tracks, and retract the capsuls with precision, it should not be that much harder for China to build ICBMs with mutiple reentry viehcles. Plus China does have solid fuel booster technology as well. The main reason I believe China will build more ICBMs for self-defense reason is due to current US Neocon policy of diversification of nuclear weapons and its intend to use tatical nukes on regular basis. Anyhow, its going to be a lose-lose situationvfor both countries if nuclear exchange does happen.

This post has been edited by Lucifer: Apr 10 2006, 03:59 PM

[Lucifer]

Russian Federation is defacto in NATO.(neutral)

VIETNAM is defacto a best friend of USA like Kasachstan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Mongolia. (neutral)

North-Korea? Do question South-Korea, Japan and Russian Federation about.

INDIA want Kaschmir and some other parts from China back. (or independent Tibet, and East-Turkestan as puffer between China and India)

EU is in NATO and allie of USA, Vietnam and Russian Federation.

-
btw you have forgot Thailand, Malaysia, Myan Ma (Burma) Bangladesh, Australia.

nah....its not going to be that easy for usa to form an alliance against china like what usa did to soviet b/c today's china is fundementally different from soviet union. US tries to mimics NATO to form a miniNATO in EAst Asia without much success. The only US ally currently on board of miniNATO is Japan, even australia has reservation to join such alliance to screw up the region. SK administration is looking hesitant. India has openly declare that its not in the interest of India to follow US contianment of China. Mongolia is a non-factor. Russia has been pushing around by US for too many times ever since the collapse of soviet union. u think Russia is dumb enough to believe that US bases in former soviet republics will be good for interest for Russia. On the contrary, Russia and China are very likeily to form an alliance to counter US neocon expansionism. China has tremedous needs of Russian energy. Russia has tremedous needs of Chinese hard currency. If these two giants really go together once again, US has no one but himself to be blamed. It's what neocon's aggressive stance that cause China and Russia go together. But it might not be a bad thing. The world needs a power( be it China or Russia or Chi-Rus alliance) to check US dominance like what former soviet union did. The multi-polars world will be only good for human race just like you dont want to have only one political party in a democratic system.

This post has been edited by Lucifer: Apr 10 2006, 04:15 PM

[SUNDAY]

Russian Federation is defacto in NATO.(neutral)

VIETNAM is defacto a best friend of USA like Kasachstan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Mongolia. (neutral)

North-Korea? Do question South-Korea, Japan and Russian Federation about.

INDIA want Kaschmir and some other parts from China back. (or independent Tibet, and East-Turkestan as puffer between China and India)

EU is in NATO and allie of USA, Vietnam and Russian Federation.

-
btw you have forgot Thailand, Malaysia, Myan Ma (Burma) Bangladesh, Australia.

You forget that Russia and China relationship improving dramatically. Also Central Asian countries joined Shanghai Cooperation Organization
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), is composed of China and five post-Soviet states, namely Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The organization was founded in 2001, though its predecessor, the Shanghai Five grouping, has existed since 1996. Its aims revolve around security-related issues.
Lately it become more obviously against USA. Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan demanded US to get out of the country, clearly under pressure of Russia and China. Mongolia's situation very awkward, due to Mongolia's support for US war on terror and in Iraq. This little country will be joined Shanghai 5 under its giant neighbours pressure. That alliance secures China north west border.
Shanghai 5 map
Greens are OBSERVERs
(IMG:http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i90/sunday2000/SCO_Map.png)
EU will stay neutral just like Iraq war except UK.
Vietnam had a recent war against US, china helped them.
China is playing very active to influence ASEAN.

This post has been edited by SUNDAY: Apr 10 2006, 04:44 PM

[danoc]

nah....its not going to be that easy for usa to form an alliance against china like what usa did to soviet b/c today's china is fundementally different from soviet union. US tries to mimics NATO to form a miniNATO in EAst Asia without much success.

did you hear that in the next time a NATO will became worldwide organisation. (they do search now for new Partners)

A time where NATO was only North-Atlantic organisation is long over.
Soviet Union is dead and NATO need new work now. EU build Eurocorps as European Deffenses.
Canada and USA want developt new defense strategic without NATO forces.
Irak-war was good test for new global coalitions and their funktion on battlefields and political area.

Now USA do know that a time like in 80'ens or 90'ens is over. (USA do win, others do pay for it.)

Hightech-wars are very costly and dont help USA and their people.

Therefore is a role of "global policemen" go now on international Organisations and NATO is best candidate for it.
a problem is a world is a ball and nato is only in a north hemisphere and european Oversea Departmens.
therefore needs NATO new partners around a world for local presence.

I think China do know that new technologiacal and invasation-wars are very costly and make war-parties pure and vulnerable for other parties in a political and industrial wars. (see great britan empire and French Republic after WW2)

therefore i think that this ideology about "we need a enemy for better grow is very not uptoday".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at: sunday do you know realy what Changhai 5 group is?

Russian Federation and central asian countries kick out most of american bases from Central Asia.
only NATO-Bases with international controle are now present in those countries.

i dont think that they do let China a make same in the futurelike USA before.

they do have more good options with international forces as with only one-land-army.
(you can better controle what they do in you countries, their bases)

therefore i dont think that China do have good chance to get this countries as war-partners again USA or some-other.
they do need only to wait and to see how pure this both contrahents became for their "business invasation" in a future.

Fazit:

modern wars are business-wars with independent partners.

Military Forces became more and more flexible "international police" with costly peacemaker thechnologic.

noone can attack or conquer other country without a pay it with his industry, his political and business power and nature resoursess. (pyrrhic victory)

btw. Mongolia have bouth with her support more influences and contacts in UN, NATO and WTO.
For that are 100 Soldiers very fantastically cheap prise.
-

This post has been edited by danoc: Apr 10 2006, 06:26 PM

[Chinese DesertFo...]

China will not engage in a "total war" with the U.S. under current circumstances, because the outcome will not be in China's favor.

And as I've already said in this thread,

But I have no problems with the current economic focus of China's rise, because someday it will translate into much more military power than a premature and lopsided funneling of money into the military. (ie North Korea)

Economics should be China's main focus for now.

[Lucifer]

did you hear that in the next time a NATO will became worldwide organisation. (they do search now for new Partners)

that's a good thing! once it becomes worldwide, it will reduce US influence over NATO.
Just look at UN. US admin absolutely hates this worldwide organization.

This post has been edited by Lucifer: Apr 10 2006, 05:12 PM

[danoc]

that's a good thing! once it becomes worldwide, it will reduce US influence over NATO.
Just look at UN. US admin absolutely hates this worldwide organization.

UN is not a organisation for "make" it is only "talking area" and i think they do very good job for better developmend and understanding around a world.
(USA admin hate it because their national propaganda dont work in international area. but it is a problem of USA and not UN)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it did, it did.

millitary influences are changed, politicaly not.

problem is EU-grow are their "uncompatible" political systems.

they have problem with their rapid politcal grow.

( political grow and "make different countries political systems as compatible" needs many money and EU have not enough for it.)

chinese industry do kill her friends in european continent.

but it is not good for China.

if USA and european cuntries go down, then we have many little "i wish to be Superpower" countries and politicans.(like iran and islamistic dschihad)

fazit:

-new wars(industrial and political)

-export market and investmens for China go down.

(it happen now and jet. many european countries want to close their markets for chinese products now, because they have enough from "one way" money- and technological- transfers into China.)

it were better for China to give other countries a more political indepence and to bound they with "two way" partnerchips and industrial exchange.

bad for china is her "one china, two systems" politic.

China is defacto closed country, with closed political system, closed market, and closed industries, open is only investment area and export.


China do let investmens, but it have 2 stock-markets and close ways for all little investmen from china into forign countries. (and i mean "investment" and not "buy forign firma, transfer her knowhow into china and close it")

that is not good for the future of China.

noone want have partner only for giving, anybody wants give and get.

-

This post has been edited by danoc: Apr 10 2006, 06:29 PM

[millersdude]

Some of you people should beleive everything you read.

1. US is not producing 200+ nukes a year. The cold war is not back on... retarded. There is talk of devoping tactical nukes, the talks didn't go very far.

2. China does not have 6,000 nukes, no where near. China also does not have many ICBM's with which to deliver the nukes. Any other conventional missle system could be taken out with Patriot missle technology.

3. Its not that much more difficult to build a nuke power plant than a nuke missle. It takes more refined nuclear material to make a nuke bomb and more sophisticated lab and machining equipment. Also, the delivery sustems (such ICBM's) is just as complex.

4. China's army is set up defend the homeland and for land based warfare, its not cabable of invasions on a large scale away from the mainland. Most military experts think that china does not have the naval or air forces to take back taiwan.

5. It would be difficult to invade china though because of the shear size of the PLA. The US could likely dominate China in the air and at sea but making much progress on the mainland is unlikely. Really a moot point b/c China has ZERO ability to project force into the US and I can't see any scenario where the US would wish to occupy China. There is nothing but open land and very few natural resources and little strategic advantage. The US has the ability to keep china in check simply by keeping bases in the region and aircraft carriers in straight. The status quo of the borders is all the US would desire.

Actually 6,000 nukes that China has is the low estimate accord to some military experts. The data/infos online you saw are extremely outdated. They might be true in the 1980 or earlier 1990s. There are some experts even said that China currently has as high as 30,000 nukes, because China each year produces 500 to 900 nukes. Right now, the uranium deal with Australia, China will even produce more nukes per year. According to China war doctrine, China won't do the nuclear strike first until the other nations strike China with nuclear weapons. If other nations nuke China first, China will fully retaliate with total destructions to enemy nations to ensure the enemy nations won't enable to fight back or make sure they have the same pains as China has. That is the reason drives China to build a very huge nuclear arsenal. China also develop small nuclear bomb technologies that can be carried in a suitcase. Image if some Chinese spy carried a small nuclear bomb in a small business briefcase and put on the streets of New York City, New York City certainly would be disappear if it explode.

As I post before, China DOES have the technologies and the means to destroy any air carrier, submarine, jetfighter (F/A 22, F16, etc...), tank, destroyer, etc... in the world. Please do more researches on modern Chinese weaponry before you speak. Also as I mentioned before, China DOES have the capabilities to produce many and many big ships, ICBM, and airplanes in a short time, because China is the manufacture capital of the world and China has a lot of resources to do it. A lot of your household items most likely to make in China such as your TV, PC, car components, microwaves, DVD players, etc... Therefore this enables China to invade USA easily with the army.

According to some military journal, China currently has the technologies that can launch the nuclear bombs from satellites while USA is still under-developed on this area.

[danoc]

Actually 6,000 nukes that China has is the low estimate accord to some military experts. The data/infos online you saw are extremely outdated. They might be true in the 1980 or earlier 1990s. There are some experts even said that China currently has as high as 30,000 nukes, because China each year produces 500 to 900 nukes. Right now, the uranium deal with Australia, China will even produce more nukes per year. According to China war doctrine, China won't do the nuclear strike first until the other nations strike China with nuclear weapons. If other nations nuke China first, China will fully retaliate with total destructions to enemy nations to ensure the enemy nations won't enable to fight back or make sure they have the same pains as China has. That is the reason drives China to build a very huge nuclear arsenal. China also develop small nuclear bomb technologies that can be carried in a suitcase. Image if some Chinese spy carried a small nuclear bomb in a small business briefcase and put on the streets of New York City, New York City certainly would be disappear if it explode.

in real, its a big problem for other counties to find out about chinese millitary budget and their technological developmend.

China do close a information about like in a time of cold war.

in all love for China, but to make their "friends and neighbours" into paranoide friends and neighbours is not very clever policy.

According to some military journal, China currently has the technologies that can launch the nuclear bombs from satellites while USA is still under-developed on this area.

forgot this $hit. it is very old information and is more propaganda for new investmens into "star wars "technology as real.

-

This post has been edited by danoc: Apr 10 2006, 07:02 PM

[han2]

This fantasy war between the U.S. and China will never happen -- these two countries are too interdependent on one another.

In the 1980s, many naive people in the U.S. fantasize about the looming war between Japan and the U.S. -- for no other reason than the fact that the Japanese economy was growing very rapidly back then. (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_rolleyes.gif)

[danoc]

This fantasy war between the U.S. and China will never happen -- these two countries are too interdependent on one another.

In the 1980s, many naive people in the U.S. fantasize about the looming war between Japan and the U.S. -- for no other reason than the fact that the Japanese economy was growing very rapidly back then. (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_rolleyes.gif)

in 80'ens it was a war between Japan and USA. it was economical war.

(USA did loose)

[han2]

in 80'ens it was a war between Japan and USA. it was economical war.

(USA did loose)

Obviously the economic competition ("war") has been happening between U.S.A. and Japan before talks about a real war that some screwloose thought may happen ("looming") between these two countries.

Back then, some even suggested that Japan, and not the Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) was the U.S. real foe.

Amazingly, once the Japanese economy slowed down, and the Soviet Union imploded, then China, which used to be considered U.S. strategic partner in containing the Soviet Union becomes the U.S. biggest threat.

This post has been edited by han2: Apr 11 2006, 03:55 AM

[danoc]

Obviously the economic competition ("war") has been happening between U.S.A. and Japan before talks about a real war that some screwloose thought may happen ("looming") between these two countries.

Back then, some even suggested that Japan, and not the Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) was the U.S. real foe.

if you see how many firms were bancrott and how many people have lost their work, money and exsitences, you can say it was a real war between them both.

Amazingly, once the Japanese economy slowed down, and the Soviet Union imploded, then China, which used to be considered U.S. strategic partner in containing the Soviet Union becomes the U.S. biggest threat.

yup.. that is modern art of war in globalisation time.

sorry. but i dont see that China is a biggest strategic partner of USA.
it is more Canada, britanian comenthwool(?) and Europe as China.

in the next short time China do more loose many points in USA and their economic.
(China cann't and dont want to make industrial transfers into other countries, therefore you can see in China now a biggest "production-costs-inflation".

Japan as investmen and ASEAN countries as a production around China are now a "big winner" in Soth-East Asia.

This post has been edited by danoc: Apr 11 2006, 04:18 AM