Related Information to China vs USA

China vs USA - Page 11

Name: Panzer

Comments: The population is on the eastern seaboard. You can destroy buildings and wipe out people with a lot more stuff than a bomb. As for the general population, are they armed? No, thats a billion people with sticks and rocks vs the most powerful armed force in recent history.

USA China

Only 43% of the population is in urban areas. Sure the majority is on the east side, but you still need to take the whole thing for a total victory. Again, look at Iraq. Most of Iraq's population is focused in three major areas and we still cannot get a unconditional surrender from them. Also, not everyone in Iraq is walking around with a weapon. It is not us versus the entire nation of Iraq. It is simply us against a few rebels and we cannot close the deal. There is no way that if this is what we are reduced to in a SMALL - TINY country like Iraq that we could simply go into China and take it over as you suggest. Seize Fire...sure. Peace Treaty...sure. Unconditional Victory...no way. All it would take is a very small percentage of the people to rise up and we would lose our total victory.

China already has 1.2 million in service now. They are free to draw up MILLIONS more in a heartbeat. They actually make AK-47's. Getting one into each of their hands should serve as little problem. China makes things.

All they have to do is not engage us as a typical military force and go guerilla. If the past several wars have shown our enemies anything, it is not to fight the US toe to toe, but go in a guerilla fashion and you will outlast the will of the US people to support the war.

China vs USA History & Civil Business Politics

Name: Panzer

Comments: A) We Are Outlasting The Guerrilla Forces In Iraq
B) My Plan Hinges On Destroying Material An Army With No Tanks Or Planes Or Ships Or Bases Cannot Succeed
C) Dropping A Ak-47 In A Mans Hand Is Not The Same As Giving Him Months Of Training
D)if They Do Drum Up Millions More How Would They Deal With, Say, A Tank? Spray Wildly And Hope They Chip The Paint? Try Saying "Million Man Army" To A B-52. The U.S. To, Could Bring Up A Huge Military, Extend Terms, Ect. Say, "Thousands Of Dismounts" To An Abrams Tank. Watch The Machine Gunners Perk Up. If Both Sides Commit To The Total Annihilation Of Each Other, The U.S. Could Destroy Many Missile Silos Within Hours, Completely Undetected Until Its To Late. Putting An 8000 Lb. Bomb Through The Politburo's Window Also Seems Like A Good Start.

Page 11 USA China

Name: Peace

Comments: Dear Panzer

I do not think you can win wars with weapons, if so the Nazi Germany (Panzers are their invention) would naturally won the WWII or The Spanish Armada would squash the tiny British Navy. Never before in history I have read that ADVANCED WEAPONS win a war, remember Alexander? the Persians are more advanced than the Macedonians. Remember Thermopylae? (the settings of the movie 300) the Spartan halted the superior Persian. AND....get this, The VCs actually won...and what do they had? no training and an AK47...plus millions less soldiers than China.

So to win a war with China using weapons? bad idea...learn from the past and get real, bomb all factory, silos, bunkers, etc etc? can you even FIND them? do you even KNOW how many military buildings they had? or do you even sure that the World will not condemn the US for annihilating millions and glorifying and assisting the victimized China INSTEAD? (China will certainly do its best to make the US look bad) Many things can be done to win a war, EVEN if you are losing.

Nukes, you want to alienate the US into a pariah state? and A LOT of countries would like to see that happening (Iran?), oh and remember the Mutual Destruction Pact? if we do launch nukes...then EVERYBODY will be free to launch nukes and blaming the US for starting it all! Then we'll be losing allies, because allies are ALLIES only because it's in their best interest, they will not mind stabbing the US in the back (some will probably cherished it) especially given a good reason to.

Sure, even if we somehow have an unconditional surrender, what do we EVEN do with it? USA have better ways to compete with China through trade not conflict. You are disillusioned with the US's victories, this is the first step to defeat my friend.

USA China

You US cannot whip up MILLIONS quickly. Do you understand how our service works? The US cannot even get armour out to the troops quickly after we had our troops shot up in Iraq. How on earth do you believe we can just whip up millions to fight half way around the world? The US is a behemoth that is slow and powerful.

How are you going to get all these wonderful tanks to China. What country is going to let us base our planes, with China sitting right next door? Planning on using the Panama Canal? Actually, you might as well forget all trade passing through the Canal because China has that control. Russia might not be to excited at the idea of letting us troll her shores.

Guess what...millions upon millions of Chinese are fully versed in the art of shooting a AK-47 because they have had and continue to have conscription. They have a pool of talent to draw from in a heartbeat. They wont be shooting each others toes off.

In WWII, the largest undertaking of the US in conscription was done over a course of 7 years. 1940 to 1947...there were 10 million put into service. China could do that with the stroke of a pen and

Again, in your scenario, the Chinese basically have to see a B52 in the sky, watch the bombs fall our and try in mass to catch them in order to kill them all. There are so many people there that they could just bum-rush a tank, climb all over it with a blow torch cut off what isnt needed and wait for you all to come out to eat. Heck, they could all run at it with RPG's/grenades in hand and throw themselves into the tracks. And after all that, they would still have people left to fight.

Obviously you are way into the military toys we have in the US and that is great (I can almost hear the animalistic "home improvement like" grunts as you write down their names). But the fact is, we wont win a total victory in Iraq as we will leave and there will still be rebels there waiting to topple the government. We didnt win in Vietnam. We didnt win in Korea. The idea of bombing China back to the stone age is as old as the US trying to bomb Tokyo into another century, Germany trying to bomb England to pieces or the firebombing done to Germany at the end of the war. B52's equal broken buildings but not broken people. Tanks shoot other tanks, buildings, bridges and many other rather stationary targets. They are not really that good and killing individuals. At one shell per person, we would long run out of shells before they run out of people.

This is not to say that Daisy Cutters cannot kill a bunch of people. It is not to say that we would not kill a bunch of Chinese in a war. What it is to say is that we (without the use of nuclear weapons) would not be able to achieve a total surrender or as you phrase it annihilation of China. If you did nuke it up...who would want it anyway?

Edited: Vincenzo on 15th Aug, 2008 - 8:13am

China vs USA

Name: Panzer

Comments: 1,000,000 VC/NVA dead to what, 58,000 USA troops? Terrible loss, huh? And a Hong Kong businessman now has the right to shut down the canal to the US navy despite the massive firepower it can bring. the Panama Canal thing is kind of a moot point all things considered. As for finding factories and all, yellow pages, satellites, observers, ect. Besides, now a days, we can just apply large amounts of force on key pressure points, you don't need to hit every square inch of land. As for not wining past wars, that was only because politicians didn't feel like winning. if we are determined to win at all costs, we will. and you know what deaths in Iraq were in July? 5.

China USA - Page 11

It isnt that the politicians didnt feel like winning. It was that the people grew tired of war. Just like today. Sure...bombing Afghanistan after 9/11 felt good, but you know what...we are tired of it now. The revenge has been dished out and the people are ready to worry about getting a flat screened TV or Wii for the kids now. The attention span of the average adult is 40 mins and we have exceeded that greatly.

Your cavalier attitude for the 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam is touching as I am sure your view of the 36,000 dead in Korea. America has no desire to stay in Iraq much longer and is up in arms about what would be a measly 4000 plus casualties in your view. And you think that anyone in their right mind would sign the US up for what you are talking about? And you know that China is far better armed than what the Vietnamese were...I gave you the data.

In your fantisful world where we all line up in a blaze of glory to find out who has the best and most effective toys...sure America sends planes and the Chinese businessmen call signal for a "fair catch" to end their misery. Later the tanks come in and even tough they get stuck in the tight roads of a Chinese city, they blast their way out with unlimited munitions. But that is a delusional view of how the real world would work in a scenario.

The Panama Canal is not a moot point unless you are planning to exterminate 1 Billion people in a week. If you are...I would be highly interested in the international view of America following that little jaunt around the world. The Panama Canal is crucial to the US and stopping trade through it would put a aweful hit into the US way of life.

Your plan is identical the the "Shock and Awe" strategy of Iraq. I honestly feel like I am conversing with Rumsfeld. I understand it, but it didnt work in Iraq and it wont work in China, which is WAY bigger. And you HAD politicians that REALLY wanted it to work in Iraq. So much so, they depleated our cruise missile stocks (as we had to use the sparingly) and traditional missile stockpiles.

We are going to have to agree to disagree as I see no way for a unconditional surrender of China short of nuking it to oblivion. Now we can do that, but we wouldnt be able to go visit our victory sites for a few centuries.

China USA Politics Business Civil & History - Page 11

That is just it if the real mission was to eliminate all threat total annihilation would be required same as if they did enter China. Sweep the country killing all that moves leave non standing right or wrong would be the only way to place the country into submission. Pounding continuously with bombs to help stop production of ammo and weapons a must but the feat of winning a ground war against such numbers is unlikely without the aid of other countries. Vincenzo you are very correct they are a walking army and are trained and willing to fight for their country it would take the States and the UN a long time assemble a standing army in China of equal force.

Conscription does have advantages for the a country when the time comes to fight as you have people who understand the tactics and understand what is required of them to fight. This makes China a very formidable foe to fight against. Also they are not as soft as us and have a attitude hat is not what can others do for me unlike North America. Generally speaking North Americans are selfish and that would work against us.