PDA

View Full Version : OT: Would China ever attack the U.S



WilhelmSchulz.
05-09-2006, 01:37 PM
This is a purly a political discousion.
So would China ever attack the U.S? I say yes.
Now let the ranting begin! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WilhelmSchulz.
05-09-2006, 01:37 PM
This is a purly a political discousion.
So would China ever attack the U.S? I say yes.
Now let the ranting begin! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kaleun1961
05-09-2006, 01:43 PM
Hey! Don't you know that political discussions are forbidden in this forum?

rls669
05-09-2006, 01:45 PM
China has no capacity to attack the US itself except with ICBMs, and that would be suicide. I have no doubt they'll be clashing in the Middle East and Asia as the resource wars heat up.

Celeon999
05-09-2006, 01:47 PM
Ahh i see someone is trying to challenge the authority !

You are still very young and still have much to learn my young padawan. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But to answer the question : Nope.

Why ?

Germany has reserved itself all copyrights for "World war Nr.3" 60 years ago . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


But we will inform you in time when we decide to make use of them or sell them to someone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

azreal01
05-09-2006, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rls669:
China has no capacity to attack the US itself except with ICBMs, and that would be suicide. I have no doubt they'll be clashing in the Middle East and Asia as the resource wars heat up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true, except that few countries in the world have the ability to strike at other countries over long distances (US, Russia, England and China are the current countries and Russia's units are in such terrible shape that they wouldn't work anymore). Countries like Korea, Iran will completely develop Nuclear power AND atomic weapons long before they have the technology to lauch intercontinental missles. Delivery of nuclear devices (or any other long range attacks) is ridiculously difficult and most attempts to "Nuke" us from far (even if they did create a missle that could fly the distance) would result in a large missle hitting an incorrect area of the US with no detonation. ICBM's account for wind, rotation of the earth, distance, trajectory, etc and detonate just a few moments before striking the ground for maximum damage. If not detonated, it would smash into the ground, split into pieces and destroy the complex structure of the bomb rendering it useless (other than the radiation poisoning to those coming near it to "check it out"). China's current ICBM inventory is inferior to the US by a long shot, inaccurate and unable to guarantee a detonation. The US could detect a pre-launch from China within minutes while they "heat up" their missiles, make calls to have it stopped and release and strike with their "Minuteman" missles all before China got complete their launch. China also does not have air or ship capabilities to strike the US. The only way to beat the US would be if the US "invaded" China's mainland which would result in 500,000 troops versus 1.3 BILLION people (read a massacre of US troops) just by the sheer numbers.

BueJack
05-09-2006, 02:33 PM
My old friend Nostradamus says that:-

The 'West' will attack the east (Iraq/Iran) and when the west thinks this is over the 'Yellow tide from the east' will sweep the west away..

Now where's my really big padlock to 'slot' over my really small brain.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HeibgesU999
05-09-2006, 02:46 PM
They've attacked us already.

Invaded, and carried our jobs back with them to China.

WilhelmSchulz.
05-09-2006, 03:41 PM
True but I didint mean a invasion/nuke attack(no one is that dumb) sominthing along the lines of this.

Senario-
China invades Tiwan(corect my spelling) and to prevent the U.S from intervening(to restore democracy) Chinese SSK's and SSN's attack U.S shiping and warships/sub's.

Could that happen?

DarkOmen13
05-09-2006, 04:08 PM
I'm sure it's possible, though i think it more likely that they would have others on their side. By themselves countries might not be able to match the US, if they feel threatened at some point maybe they'll form an alliance?
Maybe not, just a thought.

And before you think it's tactically stupid, look at what they're already doing in Iraq and Afganistan. I don't believe for a second that they will win that.
Go look at history as far back as you like and
you will find that the east has never lost, ever.
The romans got nowhere with them, the crusades took control of most of their cities but they took them back eventually, as i believe will happen again.

That's just my opinion after studying a lot of historical warfare.
I expect this thread to be closed, but i'll gladly argue my opinion (in a mature manner) with anyone. Maybe i am wrong, maybe someone will teach me something? I'm willing to see.

D.

HeibgesU999
05-09-2006, 04:15 PM
With American's dependence on oil, we could find ourselves in a position like the Japanese in the years preceding WWII.

We need it but, no one wants to give us any.

You would need some kind of surprise attack to take out the United States.

I would say that war with the EU is more likely than a war with China.

WilhelmSchulz.
05-09-2006, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DarkOmen13:
And before you think it's tactically stupid, look at what they're already doing in Iraq and Afganistan. I don't believe for a second that they will win that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but look at the opning weeks of Enduring Freedom. We easly crushed the regular Iraqi army(tanks, infantry ect.). What is going on now is a gorila action. The U.S reg. army is while not unable to fight it, it is fairly hard to combat. That is a task more suited for spec. ops. And that is where we will fail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

StgShultz
05-09-2006, 04:49 PM
My vote is Nope, Nada, Never.
They don't need to. With us stupid westerners transfering so much manufacturing over there they are alot richer milking our greed for cheap commodities.
The world stressed over Russia vs US for decades and it never happened. I would be more worried about rouge counties.
Anyway alot of this hype is generated by the arms manufacturers so that they always have a ready market for their wares. Don't for get also the media - doom & gloom news sells papers.

PzkpfwIV
05-09-2006, 04:50 PM
You must be a neo con:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu

Likud is 4U.

Kaleun1961
05-09-2006, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WilhelmSchulz.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DarkOmen13:
And before you think it's tactically stupid, look at what they're already doing in Iraq and Afganistan. I don't believe for a second that they will win that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but look at the opning weeks of Enduring Freedom. We easly crushed the regular Iraqi army(tanks, infantry ect.). What is going on now is a gorila action. The U.S reg. army is while not unable to fight it, it is fairly hard to combat. That is a task more suited for spec. ops. And that is where we will fail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mind got busy when I read that line about gorilla actions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a299/K-61/Comedy%20Pics/virdon209.jpg

The_Silent_O
05-09-2006, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WilhelmSchulz.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DarkOmen13:
And before you think it's tactically stupid, look at what they're already doing in Iraq and Afganistan. I don't believe for a second that they will win that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but look at the opning weeks of Enduring Freedom. We easly crushed the regular Iraqi army(tanks, infantry ect.). What is going on now is a gorila action. The U.S reg. army is while not unable to fight it, it is fairly hard to combat. That is a task more suited for spec. ops. And that is where we will fail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mind got busy when I read that line about gorilla actions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a299/K-61/Comedy%20Pics/virdon209.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I had to deal with gorillas like that before http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif, just come loaded down with bananas and they will submit! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The_Silent_O
05-09-2006, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WilhelmSchulz.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DarkOmen13:
And before you think it's tactically stupid, look at what they're already doing in Iraq and Afganistan. I don't believe for a second that they will win that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but look at the opning weeks of Enduring Freedom. We easly crushed the regular Iraqi army(tanks, infantry ect.). What is going on now is a gorila action. The U.S reg. army is while not unable to fight it, it is fairly hard to combat. That is a task more suited for spec. ops. And that is where we will fail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif WS:

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) = Afganistan
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) = Iraq

Just setting you straight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

...Run! LOok oUt! here comes TARG! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WilhelmSchulz.
05-09-2006, 05:09 PM
Thanks Otto. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

DarkOmen13
05-09-2006, 06:07 PM
That's my point, beating their standing army actually means nothing. By the time it's finished they will have killed just as many as we have when we destroyed their army. It will take time but they will get there.
At some point we will have to withdraw, the most powerful warloed will take over and it will be back to square one, only with the loss of many more lives.

Though i complain about how it's all being handled, i admit i'm not seeing an alternative.

I hope this discussion does'nt get closed. I can understand if some moron turns it nasty or racist etc, but otherwise i enjoy talking about this sort of thing with intellegent people like yourselves. It's rather hard to find good intellegent people to to talk to.

D.

Kaleun1961
05-09-2006, 06:36 PM
There really isn't a modern army that can stand up and go toe to toe with the US. Uncle Sam's doctrine, since WW2 had been to try to fight the battle on ground of their choosing and employ massive firepower and air support. It's a winning tactic. However, the Viet Namese were the first to show the world the efficacy of guerilla tactics against American troops. They hoped to wear down the will of the US, which did work in the end. I think the Iraqis and their backers are trying to do the same thing, constantly bleeding the Americans and hoping that the American public will compel their gov't to withdraw.

HeibgesU999
05-09-2006, 07:02 PM
America used the same tactics against Britain in our Revolution. We were excellent terrorists/guerillas!

Play not to lose. (Wasn't Washington 3-6 as a general, but always preserved his force, and the Battle of Boston is basically the same as the Dien Bien Phu).
Terrorize loyalist population. (Tar and featherings, lynchings, illegal confiscation of property)

And sharpshooters from Vermont killed so many English and Confederate Officers, that in both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, Vermonters were characterized as terrorists by the enemy.

As far as Sadaam goes, the enemy of our enemy is our friend. That is precisely why Reagan and the smart people who worked for Reagan, supported Sadaam against the Iranians.

By taking Sadaam out of power, we have almost guaranteed we will never have another government in Iraq as friendly to us as he was.

We should have let Sadaam take Kuwait. We should have been kissing his butt. But you could also argue that since his kids were so nuts, the regime would have ended with his death, and there would have been chaos eventually anyway.

Acunnon
05-09-2006, 08:00 PM
Wars are living things they grow evolve and change in unexpected ways. A war between the P.R.C. and the good old U.S.A. is not an €œif€ but a €œwhen€. History tells us it will most likely be over some misunderstanding or a war of alliance. I think when the war comes what little navy china has will be annihilated in a matter days as will the majority of there air forces. After that the cruse missiles, B2s, F117s, and F22s will have all but free range in the sky. I think an invasion will be unlikely (the pentagon four stars may be blunt be they are not stupid) and massive bombing will continue until peace is demanded by someone. Just my thoughts.

WilhelmSchulz.
05-09-2006, 08:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
There really isn't a modern army that can stand up and go toe to toe with the US..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong. Although there is no modern army on the oposing side there are many nation's that can go toe to toe to us, like Germany, the U.K, Isrial, ect. Luckly there are all on our side. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

hueywolf123
05-09-2006, 09:04 PM
At least with the Chinese, we know who made all their weapons.
All the missiles will have 'Made in China' stamped on them and probably won't work properly

Acunnon
05-09-2006, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WilhelmSchulz.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
There really isn't a modern army that can stand up and go toe to toe with the US..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong. Although there is no modern army on the oposing side there are many nation's that can go toe to toe to us, like Germany, the U.K, Isrial, ect. Luckly there are all on our side. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Singularly I do not think any of the nations you mentioned could stand "toe to toe" with the US but put them together yea that would be a stand up knockdown drag em out fight.

fuser59
05-09-2006, 10:28 PM
I believe something is developing... Just check out the 5 th audio link on left side of Hal Lindsey's site entitled (Prophecy in the 20th Century)

Prophecy in the 20th Century (http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/audio.asp)

hueywolf123
05-09-2006, 11:31 PM
It won't matter who wins or looses, once hollywood gets hold of the story, Tom Cruise will save the world and America will be the victors, I mean, they haven't ever let the truth get in the way of a good story so why should they ruin a good average?

hueywolf123
05-09-2006, 11:34 PM
Anyway, if anyone is smart enough, you don't even have to go toe-to-toe with the US, declare war then hide. Come out in a couple of years time and they will have defeated themselves with friendly fire

Celeon999
05-10-2006, 02:08 AM
No no no. IF Tom Cruise save´s the world, the only victorious will be Scientology because they get all the money he makes with his movies anyways.

He Tom ! We Dianetik freaks have developed another electronic device that spooks all those terrible mind ghosts out of your head. We can proof scientificly that it really works it only costs you 125.000.000 $ !

Batteries not included !

I guess thats the way it works inside this sick organisation.

Now THATS an horror scenario! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Then you can see Cruise holding an kitchen mixer with light diodes glued to it holding on his head and saying : "Yes ! Soon i will be ghost free !"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Celeon999
05-10-2006, 02:13 AM
Now lets hijack or stop this thread before Targ shows up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kaleun1961
05-10-2006, 07:56 AM
Tom Cruise, there's another example of Hollywood fruitcakery. I love how so many of these actors think because they can read a script they are somehow conveyed with wisdom that enables them to become experts on foreign policy, energy, physciatry [Tom].

Okay now, people. Time to drink our Kool-Aid and board the shiny spacecraft.

Acunnon
05-10-2006, 09:52 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif we had such a nice bs thread going and now and now complaining about some fools lack on intelegence.

O well just another day at the forums. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Bucketlung
05-10-2006, 10:12 AM
Logically it makes the most sense for China to move against Russia. Russia has the natural resources and the living space the Chinese need and they can accomplish this without a big naval buildup. Plus they would be up against the wonderfully forward thinking and innovative Putin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I seriously wish the U.S. would withdraw from Korea and most of the Pacific and tell Japan it is time to reload. The isolationists before WWII were wrong but the pendulum has swung way too far the other direction. I think the politicians and military leaders are still fighting the last wars and that can get you in the next war.

I think the greatest threat to the world right now is soccer with bird flu a close 2nd.

Kaleun1961
05-10-2006, 10:26 AM
The most viable chance for a Sino-American war would be over Taiwan. At some point China will feel its oats and say enough is enough and want to bring their "rebellious province" inline. At the point America will have to decide if they really want a war over Taiwan. As someone earlier said, the most likely cause of a war with China would be over some alliance issue, not a direct confrontation. Nobody can envision China attacking the US directly; why bother? They are already winning through trade and immigration.

TheRealWulfmann
05-10-2006, 12:49 PM
There is certainly no monetary reason for China to attack the USA. That would only reduce its prosperity like Wal-Mart attacking customers trying to shop at their store.
Military action between nations like China-USA would be an extension of economical or political means and only when they serve those purposes would such action be considered.

There would have to be a fairly large change in relationships economically to warrant a China €"USA war.
Taiwan is the only possibility.
I would estimate China is wise enough and patient enough to wait for the opportunity to exert itself on this issue when success is likely and not a disastrous war that, in the near future, insures massive US ordnance destroying much of China€s recent success with little chance of materially hurting the US.
I have seen the Three Gorges Dam and trust me, we could not miss it!
When the results favor China she will act and I am sure most of America will have been persuaded China had reformed enough that Taiwan would not suffer for being reincorporated into the mainland eliminating public support for a few die hards.
This is also further reason to see more positive reform in China as it encourages more success, more benefits for social improvement than ******ing freedom.
China is not a communist country as most believe.
A Shanghai businessman once told me €œChina is a capitalist country ruled by communist.€
The US would not ever invade China and China has no means to conduct war far from its own borders.

The US is not nor will it be in a situation Japan was in pre-WWII.
We have natural resources. Japan did not.
We just use them unwisely and refuse to be realistic on die hard political whining about the caribou etc.
There is more oil under the Gulf of Mexico than in Saudi Arabia (some believe).
The reserves are also huge in Alaska.
When it is profitable we will ignore the green cry babies and drill.
Japan never had the option.

Wulfmann

Kaleun1961
05-10-2006, 01:45 PM
Good analysis, Wulfmann. There is a great geographical separation between China and the US, hence there is no possibility of some "border clash" incident. Neither is China likely to be rash in its ambition for reunification. The Chinese are an ancient and wise people; impetuousity is not in their character. They have time on their side and the patience to wait to achieve their goals. In spite of political differences, I don't think the Chinese have entirely forgotten that it was the US who helped them most in their war with Japan; Americans shed their own blood on their behalf, not likely to be forgotten.

Although trade is a great builder of friendship between nations, it is no guarantee of amity. France was Germany's largest trading partner in the 1930's. Sure, Nazi Germany was an aberration. What may act as a deterrent for some nations is how much of their assets are invested in a particular country. All of that could be appropriated in a blink in the eventuality of hostilities.

StgShultz
05-10-2006, 01:55 PM
I read some where that the chinese think ahead in generations......westeners plan ahead only to the next meal / political term.
Sound familiar?
Nobody is going up against China period. The ameraican public will never accept another Korea / Vietnam. Kuwait war was against a totally smaller country as is Iraq (oops they under estimated that one). Nobody will be fooled that China can be pushed over in 3 months.

Ghostly_Magicia
05-10-2006, 02:40 PM
Well the only thing I could see would be Europe, Asia and Middle-East attacking America for 9/11 hoax and the drama the US keeps on spilling on the floor. But why bother wasting your time attacking the US when they're already friendly firing themselves? Like you guys said why bother attacking your enemy when they'll just end up destroying themselves by looking at one area and not the other and will lose morale.

Ah well what can you do really its human nature to fight since look at all the wars we created. Even if we create peace another war will break out

TheRealWulfmann
05-10-2006, 07:17 PM
One of the first things I quickly learned in China was they actually like Americans, the vast majority, while the vast majority deeply hate the Japanese in a manner that is hard to believe without the personal feelings conveyed even more in tone than words. They are taught by past generations so that young people act as if they were victimized themselves.
Kinda eerie

GM; 911 hoax????
That was an American hoax???
You are entitled to your anti-American feelings but I wouldn€t write us off so soon.
Our decline will not come quickly.
As for the world ganging up on the US that is rediculous.
Besides, the only nation with real power in the middle east can neutralize the rest of it all by herself.

Unlike Germany and France, China and the USA are widely separated in a manner that military measures are not a practical means of political solutions. The US can crush China today but has no reason, or will get any benefit and would never invade China.
Even in colonial days no one occupied China it is too vast in population to control by occupation.

A few here seem to miss the point of warfare as a political solution with arms and except for Taiwan, there is no benefit to either nation (In the near future) for the use of force.
Even with Taiwan, I believe the Chinese will evolve politically to the point of a peaceful reunification that will finally close that chapter.

As for the EU (The Fourth Reich by a different name) I do not see GB joining in future German ambitions but I can€t say their lap dogs will do anything to question their still masters.
I would like to think Germany has a better means of EU leadership than its past mistakes but we shall see.

Wulfmann

Acunnon
05-10-2006, 10:31 PM
I think a reunification between China and Taiwan is unlikely. Some one mentioned the animosity that Chinese fell towards Japan, most of Taiwan fells the same way towards China. I think China will make a move against Taiwan at some point and when they do the Taiwanese people will make the China pay in blood. This of course will bring the UN and of course by proxy the US. Again just my thoughts.

blastomatic1759
05-11-2006, 07:31 AM
i really dont see an "army" invasion , at least not after the useage of Biologic warfare. If they used nukes , it would definitely render any land effected pretty much useless. why invade if you cant utilize the land ? Nukes are good for straight up offing someone. There would be mass Guerrilla uprisings though. which in my opinion is the way to go. not really confonting the army directly , but just be annoying as hell. like shoot the same tire out on the same jeep everyday. attack their logistical support. its one of those things if you lived in a house and everytime you came outside someone threw rocks at you , you would eventually get tired of it and move.

Grrbob25
05-12-2006, 02:25 PM
I dont know...but in korea chinese troops would attack U.S troops and they couldnt resist them, the barrels were literaly melted on U.S machine guns and chinese would keep coming. And china has recenly brought a whole bunch of TU-160 "Blackjack" and TU-22 "Backfire" bombers from russia, the TU-160 can hit targets from america from russia, let alone closer china, with a 70 mega-ton atomic payload at supersonic speeds and come back. plus china has about 300,000 tanks, a standing army of 3 million and a reserve corp of over 300 million (for our duller friends thats more people than live in america) compared to america 221 M1A2 tanks and 1 million soldiers, plus the american army so so spread out in germany, italy, iraq, afganistan, and in korea, all and all china has a huge advantage, but quality vs. quantity may be in the U.S's favor...........

TheRealWulfmann
05-12-2006, 02:52 PM
China can not support that army more than 100 miles from its border. It is not about armies.
We have no reason to attack China, there is no gain.
They have no reason to attack us. It would destroy their own source of success. No gain.

The fact China has some deterrent is not a threat to the USA. Those bombers would never get here and China would be a glass parking lot with 5 or 6 people left barely alive after a massive US retaliation nuke strike.
What would be gained by China for destroying a fat cow she now freely feeds well off?????
How do you propose they cross the Pacific with all those inferior tanks (hence forth referred to as target drones?)
Since we would never move on China to take the land they would have to come here. Do you really think they could overpower our navy and air force to deploy their superior numbers?
Please, it€s not about addition, its calculus!

Wulfmann

blastomatic1759
05-12-2006, 04:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif kinda reminds me of a quote from the man Mr. Rommel himself..."Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning."

blue_76
05-12-2006, 04:27 PM
war with china is very unlikely at this point, but there is another type of war thats been taking hold around the world.. the war of economics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif eventually china is going to dominate the world as a world economy which most countries will depend on. the cheap labor in china will in my view, kill most traditional bussinesses around the world.. it is already happening. people all over europe and even the US are left jobless while most bussinesses take advantage of the cheap labor in china. over the next 10 years or so, we will see a big shift in power. lets not also forget that china is still communist, which is pure dictatorship.. and as such, even though china needs the rest of the world for economic support, who is to say a dictator won't make a move to war once the economic need is gone? as long as there is dictatorship around the world, there will always be lust for more power. just my 2 cents. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BueJack
05-12-2006, 04:27 PM
Vietnam seems to come to light here... An almighty hi-tech force, humbled by ...peasants ??

humm dee humm dee humm..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BueJack
05-12-2006, 04:37 PM
I give only one guess for this question...

What was Hilters biggest military blunder of WW2. This concept he actually wrote about in 'Mein Kampf' and described it as 'foolhardy' - yet he did it ???.

Will the USA make this same mistake in a year or 2?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Acunnon
05-13-2006, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grrbob25:
I dont know...but in korea chinese troops would attack U.S troops and they couldnt resist them, the barrels were literaly melted on U.S machine guns and chinese would keep coming. And china has recenly brought a whole bunch of TU-160 "Blackjack" and TU-22 "Backfire" bombers from russia, the TU-160 can hit targets from america from russia, let alone closer china, with a 70 mega-ton atomic payload at supersonic speeds and come back. plus china has about 300,000 tanks, a standing army of 3 million and a reserve corp of over 300 million (for our duller friends thats more people than live in america) compared to america 221 M1A2 tanks and 1 million soldiers, plus the american army so so spread out in germany, italy, iraq, afganistan, and in korea, all and all china has a huge advantage, but quality vs. quantity may be in the U.S's favor........... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Russians build less than 30 TU-160 but it does have a range of 12,224 km with a max load of 30,471 kg (will likely reduce range at the load), not bad. The TU-22 in the later models has a range of 7000km and a payload of 24,000kg not very good by today€s standards. Both would be seen and shot out of the sky before they got past Hawaii.

general_kalle
05-13-2006, 01:15 PM
if china attacked us then it would be whole nato vs chine...a little unfair?

Kaleun1961
05-13-2006, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Acunnon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grrbob25:
I dont know...but in korea chinese troops would attack U.S troops and they couldnt resist them, the barrels were literaly melted on U.S machine guns and chinese would keep coming. And china has recenly brought a whole bunch of TU-160 "Blackjack" and TU-22 "Backfire" bombers from russia, the TU-160 can hit targets from america from russia, let alone closer china, with a 70 mega-ton atomic payload at supersonic speeds and come back. plus china has about 300,000 tanks, a standing army of 3 million and a reserve corp of over 300 million (for our duller friends thats more people than live in america) compared to america 221 M1A2 tanks and 1 million soldiers, plus the american army so so spread out in germany, italy, iraq, afganistan, and in korea, all and all china has a huge advantage, but quality vs. quantity may be in the U.S's favor........... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Russians build less than 30 TU-160 but it does have a range of 12,224 km with a max load of 30,471 kg (will likely reduce range at the load), not bad. The TU-22 in the later models has a range of 7000km and a payload of 24,000kg not very good by today€s standards. Both would be seen and shot out of the sky before they got past Hawaii. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless, of course, they chose to strike on a day when there were military exercises and they hid their bombs aboard hijacked aircraft as on 911.

pharmman17
05-14-2006, 09:15 AM
since you can fire missles from subs these days, i hear that Iraq is working on the missles and the sub...a sand sub...hey, maybe we'll see the dev team come up with "Sand Sub I"