China thinks it can defeat America in battle

Peter Grimm · Jul 7, 2014

Fenton said:
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.

Correct. Just would re-emphasize that the "fallout" from a nuclear attack wouldn't be nearly as bad as the hype-machine makes it out to be. The explosions would be massive though. We've seen this during tests.

The other thing... ICBM's have never really been tested. Who's to say how well they even work? My suspicion is that while the American ICBM's most likely function as they should, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Chinese ICBM's had a higher rate of malfunction and you ended up with stray missiles that missed their targets completely.

"Made in China" doesn't inspire the greatest confidence in me, but that's just an opinion. If they can't build a car or an airplane, what makes you believe they can build a perfectly functioning set of ICBM's?

Further.... a little known/ considered fact about nuclear weapons is REACTION EFFICIENCY. Only about 2 pounds of the Uranium/Plutonium in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs actually exploded. The rest fell dormant.

While I believe the US have the technology and experience to improve reaction efficiency, I don't see anything from the Chinese side to lead me to believe the same.

In summary, just because they "have the bomb" doesn't mean they're playing with the same deck that we are. I suspect we outgun the Chinese by quite a large margin.

Peter Grimm · Jul 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
Preventing war can be a good thing!

Agreed.

Fenton · Jul 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
Preventing war can be a good thing!

Thats what Nuclear weapons and new technology have been doing for the last 50 years

Montecresto · Jul 7, 2014

Fenton said:
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.

Famous last words. Jesus Christ, with the size of our Military Industrial Complex and our Pentagon offensive budget, we could blow the earth up huh?

Peter Grimm · Jul 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
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?

Bingo. That's exactly the right question to be asking. That's the question the Chinese leadership are asking themselves, and that's the question the American leadership are asking themselves.

China won't risk war with the USA over Taiwan, so as long as they believe we are willing to go to war over the island, they won't attack it. If we back off of Taiwan, they will take it.

That's why you see this dance take place every few years. They're testing us, testing our resolve.

Montecresto · Jul 7, 2014

Peter Grimm said:
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.

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

What an incredible argument!!!!

Paxaeon · Jul 7, 2014

Zinthaniel said:
Why does china want to invade Taiwan?

`
`
I asked the question if the Chinese have the military capability to even launch an amphibious attack on Taiwan but the military chicken hawks here keep talking in terns of nukes and MAD. Regardless of who's the best, a guy type of question, without having boots on the ground, all of this is just silly military jargon. If China does not have the amphibious capabilities to land troops, the argument is useless.

The idea is to take the entire countries infrastructure (Taiwan) whole, with as little damage as possible. A scorched earth with a dead or irradiated population is not a military victory, Taiwan has a very valuable infrastructure,

Fenton · Jul 7, 2014

Peter Grimm said:
Correct. Just would re-emphasize that the "fallout" from a nuclear attack wouldn't be nearly as bad as the hype-machine makes it out to be. The explosions would be massive though. We've seen this during tests.

The other thing... ICBM's have never really been tested. Who's to say how well they even work? My suspicion is that while the American ICBM's most likely function as they should, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Chinese ICBM's had a higher rate of malfunction and you ended up with stray missiles that missed their targets completely.

"Made in China" doesn't inspire the greatest confidence in me, but that's just an opinion. If they can't build a car or an airplane, what makes you believe they can build a perfectly functioning set of ICBM's?

Further.... a little known/ considered fact about nuclear weapons is REACTION EFFICIENCY. Only about 2 pounds of the Uranium/Plutonium in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs actually exploded. The rest fell dormant.

While I believe the US have the technology and experience to improve reaction efficiency, I don't see anything from the Chinese side to lead me to believe the same.

In summary, just because they "have the bomb" doesn't mean they're playing with the same deck that we are. I suspect we outgun the Chinese by quite a large margin.

Agreed

Its a ideological reason Russia and China lagg behind in technology, and will always lag behind.

The Chinese have to steal tech, and I've talked to a couple of people who would know, that they steal the tech we basically want them to steal.

American superiority was never mandated on the basis of what was best for " the motherland" or on the basis of what was best for the central committee of the workers party

It was born out of the free exchange of ideas and will continue to excel based on that reason.

Fenton · Jul 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
Famous last words. Jesus Christ, with the size of our Military Industrial Complex and our Pentagon offensive budget, we could blow the earth up huh?

No, I don't think we could " blow up earth ".

You need to educate yourself objectively instead of perpetuating this left wing military industrial complex nonsense.

Bevause everyone I've ever had the misfortune of meeting thats ever used those buzz words, was woefully inept when it came down to our Military technological capabilities.

Montecresto · Jul 7, 2014

Peter Grimm said:
Bingo. That's exactly the right question to be asking. That's the question the Chinese leadership are asking themselves, and that's the question the American leadership are asking themselves.

China won't risk war with the USA over Taiwan, so as long as they believe we are willing to go to war over the island, they won't attack it. If we back off of Taiwan, they will take it.

That's why you see this dance take place every few years. They're testing us, testing our resolve.

Ok. Personally I wouldn't be so dismissive of China's growing (I meant GROWING) capability. Every time this subject comes up I'm amazed by the cockiness and arrogance that follows. China is no ME country pushover, and the people who know the best, not any posters here but the Pentagon, has made its concerns clear to congress!

The development of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is of the utmost importance for not only U.S. strategic thinkers but as we as U.S. allies—specifically Australian strategic policy planning. There’s a growing realization in Asia and the United States that the PLA is gradually coming closer to developing a comprehensive “counter intervention” capability, better known in Western strategic debate as “anti-access/ area denial” (A2/AD). Beijing’s aim is to raise the costs of US military intervention in a conflict with one of its neighbors in East or Southeast Asia to a prohibitively high level—with potentially enormous ramifications for a regional security order long based on uncontested US military power in the Western Pacific. The newly released US Defense Department report on China’s Military is further testimony to China’s becoming a major military power in Asia.

China's Military Might Grows: Cause for Concern? | The National Interest Blog

Peter Grimm · Jul 7, 2014

Paxaeon said:
`
`
I asked the question if the Chinese have the military capability to even launch an amphibious attack on Taiwan but the military chicken hawks here keep talking in terns of nukes and MAD. Regardless of who's the best, a guy type of question, without having boots on the ground, all of this is just silly military jargon. If China does not have the amphibious capabilities to land troops, the argument is useless.

The idea is to take the entire countries infrastructure (Taiwan) whole, with as little damage as possible. A scorched earth with a dead or irradiated population is not a military victory, Taiwan has a very valuable infrastructure,

Mainland China have reasons to want to take Taiwan above and beyond the economic value it brings. I won't go in to a history lesson right now, but, in a nutshell, the current government of Taiwan used to be the government of all China. When the communist uprising happened, the Chinese leadership fled the mainland and settled in Taiwan (used to be the same country).

The communists, who are now the legitimately recognized government of mainland China, never "finished the job" so to speak and took out the old government in Taiwan. Taiwan became its own country, with the USA backing it (because it's not communist).

So, the Chinese would love to take Taiwan for the same reason the communists in Russia killed the whole royal family when they took over there..... so that nobody can challenge the legitimacy of their rule.

Also, to answer your question, China are able to land troops on Taiwan.

Fenton · Jul 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
What an incredible argument!!!!

You should respond to it then, intelligently.

Fenton · Jul 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
Ok. Personally I wouldn't be so dismissive of China's growing (I meant GROWING) capability. Every time this subject comes up I'm amazed by the cockiness and arrogance that follows. China is no ME country pushover, and the people who know the best, not any posters here but the Pentagon, has made its concerns clear to congress!

The development of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is of the utmost importance for not only U.S. strategic thinkers but as we as U.S. allies—specifically Australian strategic policy planning. There’s a growing realization in Asia and the United States that the PLA is gradually coming closer to developing a comprehensive “counter intervention” capability, better known in Western strategic debate as “anti-access/ area denial” (A2/AD). Beijing’s aim is to raise the costs of US military intervention in a conflict with one of its neighbors in East or Southeast Asia to a prohibitively high level—with potentially enormous ramifications for a regional security order long based on uncontested US military power in the Western Pacific. The newly released US Defense Department report on China’s Military is further testimony to China’s becoming a major military power in Asia.

China's Military Might Grows: Cause for Concern? | The National Interest Blog

We just deployed a ship mounted Laser.

We have just deployed a weapon with a speed of light muzzle velocity.

Eventually, we'll be able to instantly knock out enemy Satellites and force them into the dark ages as far as communications go in a instant.

THAT'S American superiority and exceptionalism.

Peter Grimm · Jul 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
Ok. Personally I wouldn't be so dismissive of China's growing (I meant GROWING) capability. Every time this subject comes up I'm amazed by the cockiness and arrogance that follows. China is no ME country pushover, and the people who know the best, not any posters here but the Pentagon, has made its concerns clear to congress!

The development of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is of the utmost importance for not only U.S. strategic thinkers but as we as U.S. allies—specifically Australian strategic policy planning. There’s a growing realization in Asia and the United States that the PLA is gradually coming closer to developing a comprehensive “counter intervention” capability, better known in Western strategic debate as “anti-access/ area denial” (A2/AD). Beijing’s aim is to raise the costs of US military intervention in a conflict with one of its neighbors in East or Southeast Asia to a prohibitively high level—with potentially enormous ramifications for a regional security order long based on uncontested US military power in the Western Pacific. The newly released US Defense Department report on China’s Military is further testimony to China’s becoming a major military power in Asia.

China's Military Might Grows: Cause for Concern? | The National Interest Blog

If given a choice between going to war against China or going to war in the Middle East.... I would choose China in a heartbeat.

China is a centrally controlled, organized entity with a functioning government and a compliant (mostly) population. When you fight a war with China, you're fighting a government.

There isn't a government in the world that can stand up to the United States. That's not cockiness, that's a realization of where the world is right now. We are the lone superpower for a reason.

The Middle East, on the other hand, is driven more by religion than by government. Guerrilla fighting is the norm, and the enemy is highly motivated (70 virgins in heaven, God on their side, etc).

I'm much more comfortable picking the USA in a conventional war, much less comfortable picking the US in an ideological/religious struggle.

I don't think our efforts in Iraq/Afghanistan, for example, will bear fruit in the long run.

Montecresto · Jul 7, 2014

Fenton said:
No, I don't think we could " blow up earth ".

You need to educate yourself objectively instead of perpetuating this left wing military industrial complex nonsense.

Bevause everyone I've ever had the misfortune of meeting thats ever used those buzz words, was woefully inept when it came down to our Military technological capabilities.

The threat of a growing complex of defense contractors and the MIC phrase has originated from Ike, hardly a left winger, and hardly buzz words. And blowing up the earth was an exaggeration to point. Sad that your dependence on US tech has you thinking that stopping China's military, would be associated with knocking of Gaddafi, or maybe Saddam Hussein.

Peter Grimm · Jul 7, 2014

Fenton said:
We just deployed a ship mounted Laser.

We have just deployed a weapon with a speed of light muzzle velocity.

Eventually, we'll be able to instantly knock out enemy Satellites and force them into the dark ages as far as communications go in a instant.

THAT'S American superiority and exceptionalism.

That's cool, my caveat to that, though, is unless something is tested, you never really know how well it's going to work.

Guess that's the engineer in me.

A war with China would be decided via conventional weapons, with some new stuff sprinkled in. That's what history has taught us.

Montecresto · Jul 7, 2014

Peter Grimm said:
If given a choice between going to war against China or going to war in the Middle East.... I would choose China in a heartbeat.

China is a centrally controlled, organized entity with a functioning government and a compliant (mostly) population. When you fight a war with China, you're fighting a government.

There isn't a government in the world that can stand up to the United States. That's not cockiness, that's a realization of where the world is right now. We are the lone superpower for a reason.

The Middle East, on the other hand, is driven more by religion than by government. Guerrilla fighting is the norm, and the enemy is highly motivated (70 virgins in heaven, God on their side, etc).

I'm much more comfortable picking the USA in a conventional war, much less comfortable picking the US in an ideological/religious struggle.

I don't think our efforts in Iraq/Afghanistan, for example, will bear fruit in the long run.

I fancy not going to war at all, and electing leaders that think the same way, rather than guys that might be interested in asking the Pentagon for a report on whether or not we could kick China's ass.

Helix · Jul 7, 2014

China thinks it can defeat America in battle

Dear fellow homo sapiens,

Please cut out this dumb bull****. There is a lot of beauty out there, as well as fun stuff to do. Also, the bonobos are laughing at us as they are sharing food and getting laid.

Thanks, and warm regards,

Helix

Montecresto · Jul 7, 2014

Fenton said:
You should respond to it then, intelligently.

In that case, I'll wait for an intelligent post from you concerning China's real (not imagined) military capabilities.

Fenton · Jul 7, 2014

Peter Grimm said:
That's cool, my caveat to that, though, is unless something is tested, you never really know how well it's going to work.

Guess that's the engineer in me.

A war with China would be decided via conventional weapons, with some new stuff sprinkled in. That's what history has taught us.

I know they've tested it against drones.

I doubt they would have deployed it without considerable R and D and testing.

Peter Grimm · Jul 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
I fancy not going to war at all, and electing leaders that think the same way, rather than guys that might be interested in asking the Pentagon for a report on whether or not we could kick China's ass.

I agree, however I also believe that peace is best secured via strength. Nobody's going to pick on the biggest, baddest kid in the schoolyard.

I think that's what a lot of the liberal types miss.... the military spending we do, the posturing, all of that PREVENTS wars.

Case in point: Taiwan. If we weren't the biggest and the strongest, China would have seized Taiwan by now. As it is, not a single drop of blood has been spilled.

Peter Grimm · Jul 7, 2014

Fenton said:
I know they've tested it against drones.

I doubt they would have deployed it without considerable R and D and testing.

I'm not against new technology, but testing something against drones and proving something out in the heat of battle are two different things. I think we would see these new weapons, but we would be fools to plan military victory around them.

Even "the bomb" didn't win WW2 for us. We were already knocking on Japan's door and that was via conventional means, we only tested our fancy new weapon right at the end and, as it happened, it worked so well it probably shortened the war by a few months.

jamesrage · Jul 7, 2014

shrubnose said:
The bad news first. The Peoples Republic of China now believes that it can successfully prevent the United States from intervening in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or some other military assault by Beijing.

Now the good news. China is wrong.--And for one major reason.It apparently disregards the decisive power of Americas nuclear-powered submarines.

Read more here: China thinks it can defeat America in battle - The Week

The USA will remain the only real world power for the foreseeable future.
And one of the main reasons for that is its submarine fleet.

Thank the trade agreements that allowed anti-american companies to outsource to china for China being able to build it's military up.

apdst · Jul 7, 2014

Montecresto said:
I fancy not going to war at all, and electing leaders that think the same way, rather than guys that might be interested in asking the Pentagon for a report on whether or not we could kick China's ass.

I fancy leaders who prefer peace, but aren't afraid to fight, if the need arises. Our current chump-in-charge is a ****ing coward.

Montecresto · Jul 7, 2014

Peter Grimm said:
I agree, however I also believe that peace is best secured via strength. Nobody's going to pick on the biggest, baddest kid in the schoolyard.

I think that's what a lot of the liberal types miss.... the military spending we do, the posturing, all of that PREVENTS wars.

Case in point: Taiwan. If we weren't the biggest and the strongest, China would have seized Taiwan by now. As it is, not a single drop of blood has been spilled.

Your kidding right!! Please say that you don't think that the Pentagons historically bloated budget has kept the US out of war!!