Yes, notice that you ALSO said population.

Plain and simple,

1. China will not go nuclear with the U.S. our arsenal is far superior and we could knock out most of thier ICBM before they launched.

2. China yes has a shit load of people, but military wise they could not support a "huge force" per say. And how would they invade the U.S. ?? Swim I suppose... Would be kinda hard to get past our air defenses and ships as they blasted the few troop transports they may or may not have.

3. Would be hard to fight the U.S. due to a supply side issue, we could bomb the shit out of the "military industries" and put them back in the stone ages and they would have a hell of a time doing the same in the U.S.

4. It would suck, and yes lots of U.S. soldiers and Chinese would die. But I don't think China is that huge of a military power. I would be more affraid of North Korea putting up a harder fight.

:2 cents:

V

What difference does population size make when all you do is drop bombs out of the sky at night until there's enough dead that it's safe to send in troops?

The would be an entirely different situation and you know it... or have you skipped out on most of history? dumbass.

So, according to you, now there are situations which would be acceptable for the U.S. to get involved?? lol.

Dude!! Have you ever heard of sarcasm? Wasn't that post obvious enough?? Or are you always this slow? :1orglaugh

uhmm... yeah. Is this getting to be over your head?

If you don't know world politics, don't pretend like your opinion matters.

Yes, but between the two of us, you're the only one who acknowledged just population size in referring to a countries military ability. I acknowledge population and military size.

What does size have to do with ANYTHING? What was the ratio of U.S. pilots fighting ground Taliban fighters in Afghanistan? Who ended up winning? Who ended up running?

Let's look at it this way...

if California decided that it has the population and resources it needs to become it's own country, and the rest of the US says no... and they come to the point where they're going to go to war...

the US would be highly pissed if other countries stepped up and starting attacking on behalf of California.

It's not their business, they have no right to take sides or to be involved in what is clearly the US's matter.

You write a WHOLE paragraph talking about how the U.S. shouldn't butt into anybody else's business and then you turn around and say in one sentence: "Well there are cases where they can butt in you know??" Make up your mind confused soul!

I love how you find it that simple to cast off China as nothing.

China is replacing all of its approximately 20 CSS-4 Mod 1 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with the longer range CSS-4 Mod 2. China also is developing two follow-on, extended-range versions of the DF-31: a solid propellant, mobile ICBM and a solid propellant submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM).

That's right... you also shouldn't kill someone else, but if it's an absolute last resort and in self defence... then it's acceptable.

As in... there are cases where you can.

You do realize that not everything is black and white right?? That there are extra circumstances sometimes?

Do you have a problem accessing your common sense reasoning center?

actually if america dares to mess with china, china does not need to fight it directly
it will just say , hey terrorist little friends, i got extra nuclear bombs to sell
oh baby baby hit me one more time!
but this time a nice little nuclear bomb

ameria just announced ' does not like taiwan to change the current status' ,america seems to know their shit,
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

God Damn that's Einsteinian like.

This is missing the point. The Chinese Nationalists who fled the mainland did so to avoid tyranny at the hands of a Stalinist government who to this day does not respect the rule of law. The government of China is IMHO nothing more than a bunch of pathetic tyrants.

Current Chinese wealth and power is an illusion that is only allowed to exist at the favour of the foreign nations that trade with them. If there is war and this money is cut off the party will fall. This time the kids will not want to go back to the rice paddies like their parents did.

In fact many say that by enriching China you are actually setting them up for the fall. If the war had been in 1968 China would have nothing to lose and resolution would be more difficult. Now China has everything to lose.

China has no plans to attack America, they want Taiwan. IF a war breaks out between China and US it would be Americas own fault.
Debating who is stronger is pointless,
either country could ruin the other.

Right now the US is hated by most of the world (much more then normal), so its a very bad time for them to make another enemy.

The US has unfinished business in the Middle East and they still have to worry about nuclear armed N.Korea.
Does America want another fight?

Let California become its own country.

:2 cents:

V

Something interesting to think about a war with China is the amount it would cost and the number of troops it would require.

If you use the current Iraq war as an example, China has roughly 50 times the military that Iraq does (or did have) in both spending $ and troops.

There are currently 130,000 soldiers in Iraq, and Bush recently received $87 billion to pay for the war in Iraq.

Considering that since China has 50 times the military that Iraq does (or did have), you could assume that a similar war with China would cost 50 times as much and would require 50 times the number of troops.

50 x 130,000 = 6.5 million troops required

50 x $87 billion = $4.35 Trillion to pay for the war

A war against China is a war against the ruling party. It will not be a conventional military conflict.

My point is that it also wouldn't be a "walk in the park" as many seem to believe. I think it's foolish to cast off China as some piddly little country that would easily be dominated. If a war between America and China were to occur, America would eventually come out on top, but it would come at a severe price of both dollar cost and the lives of Americans. :(

i don't believe america coming out on top is a foregone conclusion... for one thing, we really are a disliked country right now. who's to say other countries wouldn't side with china?

as far as dropping bombs and not landing there, can you spell "anti aircraft"?

and maybe it will cost china megazillions of dollars to fight us, but you know what? it's far for us to come fight them, too.

seems like everyone loses in this scenario except the company who sells the gas to keep us driving.

:thumbsup EXXON MOBIL


V

The 87 billion is in large part set aside to build Iraq's infrastructure. Rebuilding it's power grid, building schools, hospitals, highways, etc.

As for troops... I don't know that you would need to match them man for man. It's no secret that the US air force is simply unmatched. They own the air and can inflict a shitload of damage on the ground that directly affects Chinese troops making them less effective. If there were a war with China, I would suspect the US to rely heavily on night time air strikes taking out strategic targets. They'd be moronic to just start droppin' troops on the ground and have them start battling it out.

well somethings gonna happen coz these rich fuckers wanna kill us all, no religion = no morals, no morals = no conscience

china has VERY advanced russian air power, dont under estimate

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I was simply providing a comparison between what the US has deployed in the war on Iraq and what the numbers would be if it were to deploy the same ratio against a country like China. Either way, you have to admit that the US would require considerably more troops to fight a war against China than Iraq.

Fighting China is basically like fighting 50 Iraqs, and that's assuming you don't bring into account the fact that China also has nuclear weapons, and Iraq didn't.

China will only go to war with Taiwan if Taiwan want to declare independence. Taiwan is owned by China but the ones that fled to Taiwan and created their own government wants to be it's own country.

China will never invade USA. If USA wanted to help out Taiwan it would be hitting China. "Not China attacking USA"

Nobody really knows how advanced China military really is. They upgraded their tanks and airforce so attacking China would not be easy. They have bought a ton of weapons for Russia and many other countries such as Israel.

The design of the J-10 is technology from the Lavi. China is mass producing the J-10 aircraft. They are also selling these to other countries.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news095.htm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/20...3_108423.shtml
http://pub137.ezboard.com/ffighterpl...picID=71.topic
http://pub89.ezboard.com/faircraft51...picID=49.topic
http://pub137.ezboard.com/ffighterpl...picID=83.topic
http://www.politicsforum.org/soviet/...pic.php?t=4093

Let's not forget the Soviets already had enough Nuclear power to blowup the whole world if they wanted to. China has worked very closely to develop weapons. I am not saying that China will beat USA but China has no plans to INVADE USA.

I am saying attacking China will not be as easy as attacking IRAQ

http://www.sinodefence.com/

Plus I don't understand why everyone keeps talking about Nukes. It doesn't take take many Nukes to Kill millions of people. Both USA and China has them.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/chnukes.html

If they have the power to launch a man into space, they have the power to send nukes anywhere in the world. Nobody wants a Nuke war, 20 minutes and everything is over.

Let's not forget no more cheap toys for the Kids for Christmas. No more cheap labour.

Which is one reason why I seriously doubt that the US would want to tangle with China over an issue such as Taiwan's independence.

The US might not like China taking over Taiwan, but it is unlikely to do anything militarily to prevent it from happening.

Thats not true. Iraq has no air or sea power, half their troops surrendered and their equip is far more outdated then China's.

Anyone can beat the shit out a little kid, even 50 in a row, but try fighting just one person who is very similar in strength and it becomes a different story.

Calling Chinas military "50 Iraq's" is an under statement.

Don't forget America is fighting Iraq with the aid of England, Canada and Australian troops. I'm sure they make up at least 20% of the force in Iraq.
Would those same allies help fight China? I honestly doubt it.

You're right, I was trying to be conservative with my estimates. :winkwink:

Not only does China have roughly 50 times the military budget than Iraq did, but China has a more advanced military than Iraq did, since Iraq was under sanctions for so long they had no ability to acquire better weapons.

My point is that people that think a war with China would be an easy task are ignorant and foolish.

http://www.fighter-planes.com/data99.htm

Anyone into Jets? :thumbsup

We should do the same thing to China that we did to Russia. Sit around watching porn while the country fucks itself to death, then make friends with whats left over, so everyone wins.

I think we need to supply them with a massive ammount of marijuana to keep them happy and subservient, and get boybands kickin over there. Should speed up things a bit.

From the badass link just posted:

"Like the Soviets, the Chinese rely mainly on ballistic missiles to deliver nuclear weapons. This fact, and the fact that the Chinese arsenal is extremely small compared to those of the United States and Russia, explains China's vehement opposition to relaxation or abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) between the Soviet Union and the United States. China's air delivery vehicles ? the Hong-6 and the Qian-5 ? are both aging platforms that lack the ability to penetrate air defenses. "

One last thing:

I sale used bomb sheltir cheap.

North Korea is a bigger threat than China.

"North Korea threatens to attack US! (Using ICBM to hit US West Coast!)"

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...826530206.html

Lot's of Articles on Russia, China and North Korea.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/k-icbm/browse

I agree. In fact, I don't think China is any threat at all. Not because they aren't powerful, but because they have little reason for a war with America.

IMO North Korea and Iran are the biggest threats to America right now.

You talking about the Gravity Bomb

Year Deployed: Unknown
Dimensions: Unknown
Weight: Unknown
Circular Error Probable: Unknown
Yield: Unknown -- strategic version approximately 3 megatons, tactical version 5-20 kilotons
Locations: Unknown
Number Deployed: Unknown
Primary Contractor: Unknown

Very little is known of Chinese gravity bombs other than they exist. The Qian-5 attack aircraft has been reported as carrying a tactical nuclear weapon with a yield of 5-20 kilotons. Several bombs have been dropped by Hong-6 bombers in atmospheric nuclear tests (like the one pictured above) with yields ranging from 15 kilotons (12/24/67) to 4 megatons (11/17/76). Given the range of yields in airborne nuclear tests, the Chinese probably have at least two bomb variants: a tactical one with a low kiloton yield, and a strategic one in the 1-3 megaton range.

Like the Soviets, the Chinese rely mainly on ballistic missiles to deliver nuclear weapons. This fact, and the fact that the Chinese arsenal is extremely small compared to those of the United States and Russia, explains China's vehement opposition to relaxation or abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) between the Soviet Union and the United States. China's air delivery vehicles ? the Hong-6 and the Qian-5 ? are both aging platforms that lack the ability to penetrate air defenses.