• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China thinks it can defeat America in battle

Kind of a shame too.

Oh, yes, what a shame we're unlikely to see tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of Chinese dead, homeless, refugees, and suffering from radiation burns, hundreds of square miles of the Earth rendered uninhabitable by humans, and Russia emerging as the most powerful nation on Earth. Such a shame.
 
Shrub's right.

My oldest is in the Navy, and long before he joined I was a avid researcher and Fan of our Navy.

Tom Clancy has a great book on Subs.

You cant overlook the threat that is our huge, silent and invisible mobile Nuclear missle launchers.

That can park undetected off any Coast in the World and rain down massive destruction in a span of about 15 minutes.

The Russians, Chinese, Iran, etc are more threatened by our Boomers than anything else we have, and they should be

I hope you realize that the Russians and Chinese have "Boomers" as well.
 
The US may be able to win a battle, especially at sea, but on land and even in the air and an overall war... nope. Reason... China 1.5 billion people, USA 320 million.

But saying that, China has zero reason to invade Taiwan. Why? There is tons of business going both ways and it would cost the Chinese economy billions if they did so.

Numbers aren't everything.
 
Oh, yes, what a shame we're unlikely to see tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of Chinese dead, homeless, refugees, and suffering from radiation burns, hundreds of square miles of the Earth rendered uninhabitable by humans, and Russia emerging as the most powerful nation on Earth. Such a shame.

Don't be so negative.
 
`
Question: What kind of amphibious landing capabilities do the Chinese have?
 
I don't believe in MAD. Personally, I think the whole nuclear annihilation argument is a giant BS scare tactic meant to prevent another world war.

Oh Yeah! What about all these frustrated Pentagon Generals always saying we should have nuked Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. The leading soldiers love the soldier business and are frustrated when they are not allowed to play with all their toys. Millitary men are in the Military because they like war. It'a a career. The USA has been in the business of war forever so it's a great Country for Military types. The psychopathology is prescient, don't you think?
 
Of course it was, any criticism of Obama is only hyperbole, derangement, or racism.

You just keep swinging from one extreme position to another. Neither of which is any close to the truth.
 
Don't be so negative.

Oh, I'm being quite optimistic that a real war between China and the United States would still leave at least some of human civilization in the 21st. century. I'm not sure that's really the case at all.
 
The US may be able to win a battle, especially at sea, but on land and even in the air and an overall war... nope. Reason... China 1.5 billion people, USA 320 million.

But saying that, China has zero reason to invade Taiwan. Why? There is tons of business going both ways and it would cost the Chinese economy billions if they did so.

Having a larger population doesn't equate to military victory.

Look at history as your guide. Alexander the Great was a king of tiny Macedon, yet he managed to conquer the heavily populated Persian Empire along with many other conquests.

The tiny island of Great Britain managed to conquer the semi-continent of India, even though India is vastly larger in terms of population. In fact, the British took Hong Kong.

The examples are endless.

In truth, military planning and strategy, technical superiority, resource allocation, mobilization and availability, as well as a general knack for war are what are generally required.

The US has better, more seasoned military commanders (when is the last time China was in a war?), has better military technology, has more guns, planes and bombs, and.... perhaps most importantly..... the US are seasoned and tested on the battlefield, unlike the Chinese.
 
I hope you realize that the Russians and Chinese have "Boomers" as well.


Yes, but not even close technologically.

I cant get much out of my oldest in terms of specifics, ( he's been in 8 years ), other than there is tech on our boats we wont know about for another 20 years.

And I'm not talking about the Rail Gun or Laser. He rolls his eyes when I bring them up.

And they don't seem to be too concerned with Russian or Chinese tech either.
 
Closer to 1.3 billion, but nevertheless, all that really requires is that we kill four Chinamen for every one of ours who gets killed.

Since I'd expect something closer to 10:1 if not 15:1 I fail to see where China would have a realistic advantage.

The Chinese would probably try to make their numerical superiority their primary advantage, which would be a huge mistake on their part.
 
Right on cue.
Don't you know another song?

I always take into consideration the quality and reputation of the poster who might respond. Obviously a wise consideration in this case.
 
Oh Yeah! What about all these frustrated Pentagon Generals always saying we should have nuked Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. The leading soldiers love the soldier business and are frustrated when they are not allowed to play with all their toys. Millitary men are in the Military because they like war. It'a a career. The USA has been in the business of war forever so it's a great Country for Military types. The psychopathology is prescient, don't you think?

We know what happens when you drop a nuclear bomb.... we're the only nation in history to have ever done it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How do those cities look today? Are they smoldering heaps of ash and destruction? Judge for yourself.




hiroshima-today-japan-2.jpg





Point is, rather than buying the hysteria and the hype, use your own eyes and ears.
 
We know what happens when you drop a nuclear bomb.... we're the only nation in history to have ever done it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How do those cities look today? Are they smoldering heaps of ash and destruction? Judge for yourself.




hiroshima-today-japan-2.jpg





Point is, rather than buying the hysteria and the hype, use your own eyes and ears.

I agree, I dont think Nuclear War would wipe out all of mankind, or make this planet unlivable.

But to be fair, those were Fission weapons.

Now, we have FUSION weapons that use a fissile trigger the size of the Hiroshima bomb to increase the yeild from 20-25 Kilotons to 40 Megatons.

The heat or Energy from the fissile triger fuses two Hydrogen isotopes ( Tridium and Deuterium) into Helium-3.
 
We know what happens when you drop a nuclear bomb.... we're the only nation in history to have ever done it. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How do those cities look today? Are they smoldering heaps of ash and destruction? Judge for yourself.






hiroshima-today-japan-2.jpg





Point is, rather than buying the hysteria and the hype, use your own eyes and ears.

So you'd use nukes against a nuclear-armed enemy?
 
North Korea thinks so too. At least the Chinese are closer.
 
I agree, I dont think Nuclear War would wipe out all of mankind, or make this planet unlivable.

But to be fair, those were Fission weapons.

Now, we have FUSION weapons that use a fissile trigger the size of the Hiroshima bomb to increase the yeild from 20-25 Kilotons to 40 Megatons.

The heat or Energy from the fissile triger fuses two Hydrogen isotopes ( Tridium and Deuterium) into Helium-3.

But is yield really the best measure of the destructiveness of a nuclear weapon? Just because it makes a bigger "boom" doesn't mean it's necessarily more dangerous.

Let me explain. In all the MAD projections, the astronomical casualty counts come from "nuclear fallout," not from the bang provided by the bomb. So how much fallout are we talking about?

Well, just take Hiroshima/Nagasaki and compare them with, say Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.

The bombs used on Japan held about 150 lbs of Uranium/ 15 lbs of Plutonium respectively. I believe a modern bomb has about twice that much.

When Chernobyl melted down, the single reactor that melted down had 180 TONS of nuclear fuel.

We would NEVER see this amount of fallout even during the worst case scenario of a nuclear war. And while Chernobyl is still contaminated, Three Mile Island is basically fine, and here's a picture of Chernobyl today:

Chernobyl-Today-A-Creepy-Story-told-in-Pictures-buildings1.jpg


Also, it's been widely documented that wildlife has almost completely returned to the site. In other words, nature has taken over the area again and is cleaning itself up.

Oh, and only 30 people died in the Chernobyl explosion.
 
So you'd use nukes against a nuclear-armed enemy?

I didn't say that. My point was just that the MAD argument is a byproduct of Cold War hysteria, and most likely overstated.

That said, there is no doubt that nuclear weapons are the most powerful and destructive weapons man has ever built. I wouldn't support using them unless we had a really, really good reason.

The argument, though, that because China have nukes and the US have nukes and therefore any war between the two countries would result in mutually assured destruction is bullcrap.
 
But is yield really the best measure of the destructiveness of a nuclear weapon? Just because it makes a bigger "boom" doesn't mean it's necessarily more dangerous.

Let me explain. In all the MAD projections, the astronomical casualty counts come from "nuclear fallout," not from the bang provided by the bomb. So how much fallout are we talking about?

Well, just take Hiroshima/Nagasaki and compare them with, say Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.

The bombs used on Japan held about 150 lbs of Uranium/ 15 lbs of Plutonium respectively. I believe a modern bomb has about twice that much.

When Chernobyl melted down, the single reactor that melted down had 180 TONS of nuclear fuel.

We would NEVER see this amount of fallout even during the worst case scenario of a nuclear war. And while Chernobyl is still contaminated, Three Mile Island is basically fine, and here's a picture of Chernobyl today:

Chernobyl-Today-A-Creepy-Story-told-in-Pictures-buildings1.jpg


Also, it's been widely documented that wildlife has almost completely returned to the site. In other words, nature has taken over the area again and is cleaning itself up.

Oh, and only 30 people died in the Chernobyl explosion.

Hard to say.

A Fusion weapon hasn't been set off in a large City yet, but I think it would look allot like when we Firebombed Hamburg Germany

Except all at once with fallout.

When you ger down to it, Nuclear weapons are just large Bombs with fallout.
 
Why on Earth would China invade Taiwan?

They have little to gain and they would undoubtedly suffer huge economic sanctions of their products which would tremendously hurt their economy. This would make the people unhappy and the leaders would have a rough go of it.
For what? Taiwan...that is slowly moving toward closer ties with China as it is?

Unless Taiwan suddenly gets extremely aggressive OR China has a huge economic downturn and it's leaders want to deflect blame...I would say the odds of China invading are almost nil.

China is winning the new 'cold war' just by dominating the economic trenches.
Just like America waited until the Soviet Union want bankrupt, China can sit around and wait for America to continue to economically crumble and then take over the top superpower spot by default.

This Taiwan nonsense is just some Neocon fantasy.


As for U.S. submarines (mostly comprised of old, relatively noisy by today's standards, Los Angeles-class, nuclear-powered attack submarines - diesel subs are inherently quieter then nuke subs) single-handedly stopping an invasion...I highly doubt it.

China is only about 100 miles from Taiwan. Has the author never heard of airborne forces?
China could gain total air superiority, drop a ton of troops to grab an airfield and then just re-enforce en masse...with only a few minutes flying time between China and Taiwan.

IMO, short of a pledge to defend Taiwan with nukes or a HUGE U.S. military buildup on Taiwan itself, America could not stop China from invading Taiwan if the China really wanted to.
 
Last edited:
Because people are idiots. Of course China could take an island 100 miles off its own bloody coast, I don't care how many submarines we have.

Newsflash #2.... North Korea could conquer South Korea and annihilate the US presence there as well.

The question is, what would happen AFTER either of those scenarios. Could China take Taiwan momentarily? Yes. Could they engage the United States in a drawn-out Pacific war on several fronts? Probably not.

Same goes for Korea.

So the real question is, which side is willing to commit more to the cause. If the US goes all-in and says we're not letting China take Taiwan at any cost, then while they could likely take it at first, we would likely be able to take it back after a long and bloody struggle on multiple fronts.

True enough, but unless we have mad leadership (I know), why would we want to engage China in a drawn out war on multiple fronts, with the hefty cost in blood and treasure, over an island 100 miles off their coast?
 
I don't believe in MAD. Personally, I think the whole nuclear annihilation argument is a giant BS scare tactic meant to prevent another world war.

Preventing war can be a good thing!
 
Back
Top Bottom