Related Information to China vs USA

China vs USA - Page 10

Name: Sabahmail

Comments: JoePublic,

Your comment are quite Childish, and more of fantasy in video war games.

Your statements are plain ignorant regarding the so called world siding with the USA against China. Nato - "No Action Talk Only"

The world you refer, involved only western world. I am sure not even Taiwan / Japan or India and even Russia would go to war with china if given 100% USA backing,

what nonsense to think the World(including western world) would follow USA lead which is world hegemony(ster), world blooper.

Please let USA finish the choke it had with Iraq and Afghanistan before fantasy a war with Iran.

Talk about China? Dream on, get your house in order first (economic sense) before a war with China. Cut back on money spend for bomb and missile, for torture contractor etc...

in a sense china did not became strong, it just USA being weak, retreating from it own principle of freedom and stepping everyone foot all over the world.

JoePublic I think your are also ignorant, because what you say mostly are from TV (CNN other news). Well, TV are bad for you. Hard to blame you since USA propaganda are privatize.

Message Edited... JB: I do not understand how people submit these things without checking their spelling, grammar or even making logical statements. Please submit PROPER posts that everyone can read or I will refuse to add these and you will just waste your time submitting them.

USA China

Name: Panzer

Comments: the things the USA has over China include: stealth technology, a blue water navy, more tanks and aircraft, if not men. Where are you from, the middle east? Their government is spreading propaganda, not mine. several news stations have a decadently liberal outlook (MSNBC). It is you who has the childish view with your flag-burning anti American rhetoric, your government's lies against the greatest nation God gave man, filled with those who would lay down their lives for a cause greater than themselves. whats wrong with ending tyranny? Or disarming mentally ill, anti-civilization dictators who would deny statehood to a sovereign nation (Israel) are you from the U.K., the nation overflowing with political correctness, where children are severely reprimanded for not praying to Allah in a public school? In a lone battle, the U.S.A. could defeat China with correctly applied assets. Aas for our freedom, its probably better than yours. So now, according to you, optimism and patriotism is now childish. May we liberate you one day. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

China vs USA History & Civil Business Politics

The US would not be able to defeat China. Get a peace treaty...sure. We could bomb away and make a few places rubble, but in reality, we do not have enough bombs now to do the job without switching to nukes. We had to slow down bombing in Iraq because we were going through them too fast and that country is still standing and it is TINY. Defeat? There is no way that they US military could take over the entire country in a lone battle. That would require every man, woman and child in the US to suit up, lock and load and head over to China to quell the people there and they STILL would be out numbered.

There were 1.3 BILLION people in China in 2006. 450 MILLION were men between the ages of 15 and 64 years old. In 2003, there were a estimated 300 MILLION Americans. Put it another way...there were 50% more men in China between 15 and 64 years of age than there were total people in the US. Yet again, knowing that there was a estimated 90 million men in the US for 2007, it can be said that there were 5 times more men in China than in the US capable of fighting. To just start tipping the scales you will need greater than a 5 to 1 kill ratio of fighting men. The only modern warfare event in large magnitude that comes within a sniff of these numbers is the ease with which Germany/Russia/Slovakia invasion of Poland was carried out. Tanks and blitzkrieg agaisnt a cavalry was good for about 3 weeks of war and a casualty ratio of 5 polish per invader. You have to know that China is WAY bigger than Poland and they dont rely on a cavalry, so you are probably going to get a bit more casualties. For a extra gruesome thought, do you even think you are going to want to step foot in a county where you likely are going to have to kill greater than 25% (approx. 300 MILLION...5 times more than all of WWII) of the population to 'win'? Might be a few diseases waiting for you should you decide that is a good idea.

In reality, there is no way that a battle between China and the US could be lone as there are too many other interests at risk.

It is great to have pride in your country, but to truly defeat someone like was done in WWII (the last time it was done) require bloodshed that will not be tolerated today by "civilized" countries.

Now I am not affliated with MSMBC or CNN, Democrat or Republican but I do love my country and it is arrogant statements of our own granduer that do not endear us to a great majority of the rest of the world.

Edited: Vincenzo on 25th Jul, 2008 - 8:58am

Page 10 USA China

Any war with a powerful nation would be nuclear because neither side will allow for their borders to be crossed. When nukes come out no one wins and everyone loses.

USA China

Name: Juan

Comments: The United States has ALWAYS thrived on Conflict, if it wasn't for this they wouldn't be where we are today. In A War I see the American Navy bombing Chinese Industrial Cities, and causing havoc on the Ground, with Japan and Taiwan as a Staging ground, Troops, Tanks, and Planes would be quickly accessible. The PLAAF is Obselete, and when going toe to toe with the Best Air Force in the World they would suffer heavily from loss of Pilots.

Their Ground force is only bigger than America's by a few Hundred Thousand, so with the USAF in Command of the Air the Chinese army would begin crumbling. Within a Month of the Conflict, Shanghai and Hong Kong would fall, However as we reach into Tibet, the Mountainous areas would give the Chinese an Advantage. So In attempt to show Progress American Troops would instead take Beijing. Once Beijing is taken the Chinese would be asking for A Treaty so the war would end there.

China vs USA

As I said, you could probably get a treaty, but a unconditional surrender of China is a dream.

Don't think that Beijing is the keystone to the entire country as they have some fairly autonomous provinces that do take order from Beijing but can function effectly without them and do so on a regular basis.

Please take a look at China's Mandatory Military Service requirements:

Source 6
Source 7

China has about 1.2 million in service now and several million more that can quickly be conscripted. Oh and dont forget, you wont be using the Panama Canal anymore as it is owned and operated by the Chinese.

China USA - Page 10

Name: Panzer

Comments: You really think a Chinese businessman will argue with a carrier strike group?

China USA Politics Business Civil & History - Page 10

I think we have a large chunk of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and still cant bring the bad guys to a unconditional surrender. China is a weee bit bigger than the two of those countries put together and has about half a million more troops than us. So argue, no, but give up...nah. They will probably tell you to go bomb one of the 3.7 million sq miles of land.

Treaty sure...surrender...not a chance unless you nuke the entire country and the who would want it anyway.

Afghanistan and Iraq...420,000sq miles
China...3.7 million sq miles


Edited: Vincenzo on 7th Aug, 2008 - 2:45pm