{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/25/2017 12:51:52 AM
40
Going to war with China would be a disaster. I think the U.S. would definitely win because they may have more ground troops but our air force and navy dominate theirs.
English
-
China invades us. They have to deal with Texas. And goodluck with that. Those guys down there can be hardcore sometimes.
-
They have no laws to abide by...especially if they're being attacked...[spoiler]RIP China[/spoiler]
-
Edited by oscarthepooch: 2/26/2017 3:24:08 AMThats true. Any invasion into America would be met with strong resistance the minute you hit the bible belt. That being said if America falls, China falls. None of the three powers can survive without the others.
-
we'd win but it wouldn't be easy as we'd probably have to invade and on there home turf with numerical superiority it'd be an uphill battle but our navy, air force and Intel networks are so far ahead of there's they couldn't hope to invade us least not without help... But it will never come to that because at this point were married bitterly married. There's an old expression if you owe the bank a 1000$ then the bank owns you but if you owe the bank 1000000$ then you own the bank, that sums up out relationship with China pretty well.
-
Yes it does, plus the three major powers are so dependant on one another that if one fell the other two would surely fall.
-
Plus, because so many products are made in China, the private sector might oppose the war.
-
It's a web of interdependency. The U.S, Russia, and China all need each other. If one dies all three die. Only a fool would think otherwise.
-
China would win. America isn't politically stable enough to fight a large scale war, a draft would likely spark a revolution and internal political factions would exploit a weakened government to gain power. Besides America, China, and Russia need each other to survive. Without one, the other two weaken and die off. War isn't just about who has the best equipment and the most people, the entire structure and stability of the nation are just as important.
-
There is a great YouTube video about this and basically the US beats everyone regardless. And the divide in America would go away as soon as somebody really posed a threat
-
This is probably the worst strategic military assessment I've ever seen. It's also filled with non-sequiturs.
-
I don't think we'd lose but I'm not sure we'd win either. I think he has a point Americans just don't have the heart for a real sustained war anymore. Vietnam is a decent example on paper there's no reason we couldn't have crushed the Vietcong and given enough commitment of time, manpower and resources I'm sure we would have but we gave up before the job was done.
-
Thats exactly my point. The biggest determiner of war is if you have the will to fight, without that there's no war.
-
Edited by Sturmgeist: 2/25/2017 10:57:05 PMYou're talking about sentiment of the country. That has nothing to do with service members or strategic capability. There is no country on Earth that comes even close to our strategic capability, especially for sustained, projected global warfare.
-
You're absolutely correct, not since rome has such a power existed, our worst enemy is ourselves.
-
I agree we undoubtedly have the strongest most well equipped military in human history but what does it matter if we lack the will to use it?
-
Edited by oscarthepooch: 2/26/2017 3:38:22 AMIt's not a strategic assessment so much as an opinion on the internal problems stopping the U.S from being able to defend itself. Internal division is a huge liability in wartime. Only a nation with a unified and patriotic people can fight a war and expect to survive, and America's people are neither. They'd go for each other's throats in the event of a war. [spoiler]There's many cases of internal conflict defeating a country, just look at Russia in WW1[/spoiler]
-
China would have very little chance of defeating the US. Despite having over four times the population it's military only has approximately 50% more personnel. On top of that, the US military is better equipped, it's soldiers have more experience in the field and China has few options in terms if mobilizing it's army as its Navy and Airforce pale in comparison to that of the US. Also, beyond North Korea and [b][i]maybe[/i][/b] Russia, China would have very few allies (unless the US screwed themselves by attacking first, alienating their own allies). That being said, invading China would bea fool's errand. Tactical bombings and ranged missiles to destroy infrastructure would be the optimal plan of attack. China, on the other hand, does not have the capacity to mount an equivalent retaliation on US soil. Their best bet would be to bunker down and make US victory so costly that negotiating becomes the clearly better alternative. The nuclear option is not on the table for China. The US is better equipped AND more spread out. China may have four times the population but roughly 95% of that resides only in the eastern half. The US could do significantly more damage with significantly less assets (of which they have significantly more). A US/China war would completely suck for the US, but it'd suck way more for China.
-
True, but what happens when we run out of experienced personnel? They'll all die off sooner or later. Germany had the same problem in WW2, and it cost them the war.
-
They'd run out well before we would. As I said, the US would not be utilizing ground troops. Also, as I pointed out, they'd have a lot of trouble attacking the US, making it a mostly defensive war for them. We could strike from several more locations than they could retaliate from.
-
Edited by oscarthepooch: 2/25/2017 3:42:27 PMTrue, but a defensive war is far easier to win than an offensive one, plus China would likely have a much higher moral than we would. We would win every initial battle, but sooner or later we'd start to lose ground. China is big enough that it falls into the "too big in invade" category. We would need the expend massive amounts of recourses to keep our soldiers supplied, and with the rate we might initially advance at we would fall into the same pitfall the Central Powers fell into at Kaiserschlacht. [spoiler]EDIT: An attack on their infrastructure would need to be done with electronic attacks, not bombs. The quickest way to win a modern war is to turn the lights off. [/spoiler]
-
Edited by Sturmgeist: 2/25/2017 11:03:40 PM[quote]True, but a defensive war is far easier to win than an offensive one, plus China would likely have a much higher moral than we would. We would win every initial battle, but sooner or later we'd start to lose ground. China is big enough that it falls into the "too big in invade" category. We would need the expend massive amounts of recourses to keep our soldiers supplied, and with the rate we might initially advance at we would fall into the same pitfall the Central Powers fell into at Kaiserschlacht. [spoiler]EDIT: An attack on their infrastructure would need to be done with electronic attacks, not bombs. The quickest way to win a modern war is to turn the lights off. [/spoiler][/quote] This is absolutely incorrect. It is far easier to win an offensive war than a defensive one. Give me one example in history where a nation stayed completely defensive and won. The only advantage defensive strategy provides is ease of sustainment and ease of massing concentration of force through utilization of interior lines. A well sustained offensive with planned penetrative breaches can easily defeat this, even with fewer numbers. If you don't believe me, then go ask Gen Joseph Hooker how that defensive strategy worked out for him.
-
Edited by oscarthepooch: 2/26/2017 2:52:36 AMI'm mainly going off the German invasion of Russia in WW2 and Napoleon's before that. They're the only modern day incursions into large countries I can think of. You're absolutely correct as far as a defensive strategy goes, it will never win you a war, but a good defence can lead to a weakened enemy which opens the door up to an offensive later on. Let's once again use Russia as our case study, after the devastating defeat in Russia Germany was left wide open for a Russian offensive.
-
The Russian strategy was a practice in countermobility. It relied on attriting the Germans through the muddy season into winter while conducting a reverse scorched earth strategy. The whole point of that defense was to lull the Germans into a false penetration of Stalingrade. This, ultimately, allowed the Russians to go on the offensive once the false penetration became a full envelopment of the Germans, cutting them completely off from their supply. This was also conducted in conjunction with the knowledge that allied forces would be mounting a counteroffensive in the west. The Russian plan wouldn't have worked otherwise. The point is that the defensive strategy was, as all defensive strategies should be, a method of attaining momentum and going on the offensive. It was also part of a larger strategy involving a theater strategic offense.
-
Edited by LahDsai: 2/25/2017 4:37:51 PMThat's why I said an invasion would be a fool's errand. There's no way we'd do that. Taking out a few key cities would create such a crisis it'd cripple the Chinese. Good luck keeping morale high when you have near a billion displaced civilians. They wouldn't be able to keep their populace fed let alone in fighting condition. They'd be forced to the negotiation table (something the US would want in lieu of a ground war). That's hardly "defeating" America.
-
True enough, but a high causality rate will do that too. However going after civilian targets would get us into a bit of trouble with our allies. Although if we did go after civilian targets we would break them very quickly.
