• 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

Thrilla said:
nah, it wouldn't take nukes

conventional weapons would do the trick just fine.
Click to expand...

They have nukes also. If they want a fight to the finish we'll have to accept a nuclear face-off, or if we get lucky, years of guerrila war
 
The other thing I would worry about in such a conflict is the fact that a modern US carrier battle group has never really slugged it out with another major world land-based power. They're great for eviscerating soviet-era garbage flown by tinpot dictators in the third world, or supporting ground operations in such nations, but they've never really gone up against a modern air force. There's a lot of vulnerability when so much of your fighting power revolves around a single ship. Put a big enough hole in the right spot and you've destroyed 60-100+ aircraft, taken air superiority over the area, and now have a potential turkey shoot of the rest of the battlegroup. While they have their own defenses, they're big and slow. Modern missile technology has become pretty effective, and while we simulate naval warfare plenty nobody has really seen what happens when you fire 50+ missiles at an aircraft carrier. Big and slow probably means big and dead these days.
 
Grand Mal said:
Depends on what you call destruction, I guess. A nuclear war is winnable, in a last-man-standing kind of way, but it'd be tough to sell the idea to people who live in a target city. Those pictures you posted took a generation of recovery. No doubt you've also seen pictures of Hiroshima days after the bomb- that's how LA and Seattle and Honolulu would look.
It'd take grim determination on the part of a Commander-in-Chief to accept that degree of destruction in America for the sake of honouring a treaty with Taiwan.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. A nuclear bomb detonated in a major city would be catastrophic, even if it didn't result in complete annihilation. Still not something I'd ever want to see in my lifetime.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Completely agree. A nuclear bomb detonated in a major city would be catastrophic, even if it didn't result in complete annihilation. Still not something I'd ever want to see in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Nukes are only effective as a threat against a non-nuclear opponent. The existence of nuclear weapons (and effective delivery vehicles) is the best insurance against war between major powers. We'll have to be satisfied with local skirmishes between proxies.
Unless China is willing to accept a certain degree of destruction. Hmm... That'd load the MAD equation to one side.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Agreed. Nukes are only effective as a threat against a non-nuclear opponent. The existence of nuclear weapons (and effective delivery vehicles) is the best insurance against war between major powers. We'll have to be satisfied with local skirmishes between proxies.
Unless China is willing to accept a certain degree of destruction. Hmm... That'd load the MAD equation to one side.
Click to expand...

I think nuclear war is inevitable. Call me a pessimist, but human history shows that when man has shiny new weapons at his disposal, he uses them. It's only been like 70 years since the Hiroshima bomb. That's the blink of an eye in historic terms.
 
If we want to see what a modern nuke will do to a big city, it's unlikely we'll find out via a conflict with China. It's much more likely that the Islamic crazies that are taking over Syria and parts of Iraq will get hold of one left behind by the breakup of the Soviet Union.

I, for one, would much rather just speculate on the aftermath.
 
Grand Mal said:
No doubt you've also seen pictures of Hiroshima days after the bomb- that's how LA and Seattle and Honolulu would look.
Click to expand...

Actually, no it is not. Here is a picture of Hiroshima before the war:

hiroshima_before_destruction_22.jpg


Here is one from after:

arial_view_hiroshima.gif


What you should pick up on is how there are structures still standing and how those structures differ from the ones that are not. I don't imagine it will take long for you to notice the problem with presuming LA or Seattle would look like Hiroshima.

Dittohead not! said:
If we want to see what a modern nuke will do to a big city, it's unlikely we'll find out via a conflict with China. It's much more likely that the Islamic crazies that are taking over Syria and parts of Iraq will get hold of one left behind by the breakup of the Soviet Union.

I, for one, would much rather just speculate on the aftermath.
Click to expand...

The whole loose nukes paranoia is likely exaggerated if not deliberately fabricated. Hell, if there are any nukes unaccounted for out of Russia's stockpiles I would not be surprised if it turns out they were secreted away by the Americans, the Chinese, the French, the British, or even the Israelis. No way would these things be sitting on the black market for long and no one is going to pay nearly as much money as a major nuclear power looking to take a nuke off the market and get themselves a handy off-the-books weapon in the process. Just as likely that Russia itself used the chaos to take some of its nuclear stockpile off the books. Like dirty bombs, I suspect it is basically just another shrewd propaganda technique employed to get the public behind some policy initiative or just keep them terrified and ready for anything the establishment might throw at them. All about creating the siege mentality and distracting the people from things like the hundreds of thousands of random citizens who have lengthy dossiers about them at the NSA because they were in the wrong chat room or discussion forum.
 
Demon of Light said:
Actually, no it is not. Here is a picture of Hiroshima before the war:

hiroshima_before_destruction_22.jpg


Here is one from after:

arial_view_hiroshima.gif


What you should pick up on is how there are structures still standing and how those structures differ from the ones that are not. I don't imagine it will take long for you to notice the problem with presuming LA or Seattle would look like Hiroshima.



The whole loose nukes paranoia is likely exaggerated if not deliberately fabricated. Hell, if there are any nukes unaccounted for out of Russia's stockpiles I would not be surprised if it turns out they were secreted away by the Americans, the Chinese, the French, the British, or even the Israelis. No way would these things be sitting on the black market for long and no one is going to pay nearly as much money as a major nuclear power looking to take a nuke off the market and get themselves a handy off-the-books weapon in the process. Just as likely that Russia itself used the chaos to take some of its nuclear stockpile off the books. Like dirty bombs, I suspect it is basically just another shrewd propaganda technique employed to get the public behind some policy initiative or just keep them terrified and ready for anything the establishment might throw at them. All about creating the siege mentality and distracting the people from things like the hundreds of thousands of random citizens who have lengthy dossiers about them at the NSA because they were in the wrong chat room or discussion forum.
Click to expand...

What? Humour me, tell me why Seattle or Los Angeles would look different from Hiroshima after a nuclear attack.
 
In a war all plans go in the trash after the shooting starts.

How many of those Chinese transports would be sunk?

Any ideas.

My guess is more than half of them.

Taiwan has a well trained, motivated military.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
What? Humour me, tell me why Seattle or Los Angeles would look different from Hiroshima after a nuclear attack.
Click to expand...

Actually, he may be on to something:

hiroshimaaftermath-s.jpg


Here is another example:

ap110503171685_wide-5d2e0c9a38344a5ee227d81ef41a134d0ae731ff-s6-c30.jpg


Look at the buildings that survived... all seem to have the basic cubic structure. However, if Demon of Light has ever been to any West Coast city, I'm sure he'll know that the number of houses/buildings built of light materials (wood, steel, glass) outweighs the number of houses built out of concrete. I would venture to guess that most of the houses built out of concrete in LA lay in the outskirts of the city. IMO half the houses within 10 mins of DT LA would be destroyed. Besides, if you take a look at the buildings, they look pretty burnt in the inside, so yeah, Seattle and LA wouldn't survive.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
I don't think so.

I believe that the USA would make the Chinese sorry that they were ever born.

Lets wait and see what happens. I'd like to see at least one nuclear war before I die.
Click to expand...
There could only be one.

As for conventional warfare, have you somehow failed to consider that China is a little more capable than Vietnam?
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of places where superpowers could put under their influence in the world before they have to challenge each other. I do not think it will happen in our lifetime. Hopefully people smarten up till then.
 
Ray410 said:
No nation is going to militarily challenge the United States while Obama is working so hard to destroy it from within.

Obama and his accelerating destruction of our military and our culture is the best friend the enemies of America ever had.
Click to expand...

Bullseye, and that is the reason China knows they can kick our ass. Can you imagine Obama putting forth his military strategies against China!!?? What a disgrace he is.
 
We have air and sea superiority that no other nation possesses. We would be out of our minds to make it a land battle.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Would you pick on the biggest, baddest kid in the yard?

If other people know you can probably beat them up, they won't be quick to pick a fight with you. And that leads to peace.

The reluctance to fight leads to massive battles like WW2.
Click to expand...

The point being, the US has shown little restraint in keeping out of war!
 
Hard Truth said:
They have nukes also. If they want a fight to the finish we'll have to accept a nuclear face-off, or if we get lucky, years of guerrila war
Click to expand...

Years of a guerrilla war with China defined as lucky!?!?
 
Demon of Light said:
Actually, no it is not. Here is a picture of Hiroshima before the war:

hiroshima_before_destruction_22.jpg


Here is one from after:

arial_view_hiroshima.gif


What you should pick up on is how there are structures still standing and how those structures differ from the ones that are not. I don't imagine it will take long for you to notice the problem with presuming LA or Seattle would look like Hiroshima.



The whole loose nukes paranoia is likely exaggerated if not deliberately fabricated. Hell, if there are any nukes unaccounted for out of Russia's stockpiles I would not be surprised if it turns out they were secreted away by the Americans, the Chinese, the French, the British, or even the Israelis. No way would these things be sitting on the black market for long and no one is going to pay nearly as much money as a major nuclear power looking to take a nuke off the market and get themselves a handy off-the-books weapon in the process. Just as likely that Russia itself used the chaos to take some of its nuclear stockpile off the books. Like dirty bombs, I suspect it is basically just another shrewd propaganda technique employed to get the public behind some policy initiative or just keep them terrified and ready for anything the establishment might throw at them. All about creating the siege mentality and distracting the people from things like the hundreds of thousands of random citizens who have lengthy dossiers about them at the NSA because they were in the wrong chat room or discussion forum.
Click to expand...
Let's hope you're right. Like I said, I'd much rather just speculate on what a modern nuke would do to a large city.
 
shrubnose said:
Instant, low cost urban renewal.
Click to expand...

Because radiated wastelands that require reconstruction of he entire city are cheap? Or are you referring to the no-longer present population?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom