Perhaps someone should show a map of US involvement in South America since WW2, or in other parts of the world for that matter? Ah, the joys of political relativism.
The US needs to STFU in this regard, and worry about its own problems.
Oh, it's perfectly fine for the UK to be protective of allies well outside of its own physical territory, but it's not okay for the US to protect the sovereignty and territory of its trading partners.
Pacific wrote:Perhaps someone should show a map of US involvement in South America since WW2, or in other parts of the world for that matter? Ah, the joys of political relativism.
The US needs to STFU in this regard, and worry about its own problems.
The US, last I checked, didn't claim to own South America. (Meddle in it's affairs constantly, sure)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Oh, it's perfectly fine for the UK to be protective of allies well outside of its own physical territory, but it's not okay for the US to protect the sovereignty and territory of its trading partners.
More interestingly, it's OK for the UK to invade sovereign nations and force them to allow British interests to peddle dangerous narcotics.
Melissia wrote:Oh, it's perfectly fine for the UK to be protective of allies well outside of its own physical territory, but it's not okay for the US to protect the sovereignty and territory of its trading partners.
Considering the US gave the Falkland situation any kind of legitimacy this time around they can apparently do both at the same time...
Jihadin wrote:
China has summoned a senior US diplomat in a dispute over the South China Sea.
Yeah, because how dare the state department say that landing troops is inflaming the situation. Don't they know that landing a 5,000 man 'Funsize' battalion is just China's way of greeting the neighbors?
Jihadin wrote:
China has summoned a senior US diplomat in a dispute over the South China Sea.
Yeah, because how dare the state department say that landing troops is inflaming the situation. Don't they know that landing a 5,000 man 'Funsize' battalion is just China's way of greeting the neighbors?
Funsized battalions are the best sized battalions...
Apart from party sized...
Melissia wrote:They ate them up, too, with something along the lines of a twenty to one casualty ratio (or fifty to one, if you include non-combat casualties).
"Retreat Hell! We're just attacking in another direction."
I've been saying for years that the South China Sea dispute is most likely going to cause a major war in the future. Always nice when a country seeks to seize control of international waters and screw the global economy.
BaronIveagh wrote:
More interestingly, it's OK for the UK to invade sovereign nations and force them to allow British interests to peddle dangerous narcotics.
Melissia wrote:Oh, it's perfectly fine for the UK to be protective of allies well outside of its own physical territory, but it's not okay for the US to protect the sovereignty and territory of its trading partners.
That would be...China?
Good to see the US standing up to China anyway. Hopefully in future we'll hear the Japanese speaking up a bit more. The West has suppressed Japanese militarism too much, we could do with some of that in the Far East right now.
Oh no. He's like the Queen of England. He doesn't really have any political power anymore. The Japanese royal family is (as I understand it) popular among the Japanese. He's not looked on as divine much anymore but he's still a guy people look up to.
That said, the Emperor didn't have political power before 1945 either. Always the puppet never the master as they say
Japan really needs to be allowed to rebuild its military forces, especially its Navy. Ideally, Japan, India, South Korea, and Australia should have enough military might in the Far East that China won't say boo.
Jihadin wrote:Is he in power though.................the mentality of the japanese is not the same as it was in '45.
Japan is more than Tokyo. It is a very old fashioned country, in a way that few outside really understand. Tradition is big there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Japan really needs to be allowed to rebuild its military forces, especially its Navy. Ideally, Japan, India, South Korea, and Australia should have enough military might in the Far East that China won't say boo.
India will have its own agenda. Korea, Japan, Indonesia and Australia combined don't have half of China's manpower, or anything like its economic might.
Guess it's up to uncle Sam
India and China are likely going to go at it with one another sooner or later. India, while not as invested as others, doesn't want China to seize the SCS, and they get less attention but they're on the upswing too. Tibet is another area of contention for China and India, as is most of SE Asia.
Japan has the economic ability to, allied with others, pose as a deterrent to Chinese expansion. Had an interesting paper to read where the author argued one reason China is so aggressive about the SCS is that Japane is the only other (parable) economic power in the region but has no military, and thus couldn't oppose the move.
Mountain Pass fight. Neither China nor India willing to do a meat grinder strairght up fight for a pass......airborne troops all the way to seize the other end of the pass. The killer of it be the harsh condition both have to fight in. Itscold up in them mountains...might cold
Melissia wrote:They ate them up, too, with something along the lines of a twenty to one casualty ratio (or fifty to one, if you include non-combat casualties).
And after my uncle's platoon was overrun he survived, but was crazy ever after. Dad would talk about a lot of things, but never Korea. Never Korea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
China took over Tibet years ago to pave the way for a ground war with India.
They may find it difficult to fight a ground war over the Himalayas.
I hear that Fraz. My Grandather was one of very few survivors and has only talked about it twice that I know of. And both times he got crazy drunk first. Was your uncle a marine?
dogma wrote:
They may find it difficult to fight a ground war over the Himalayas.
Tibet contains major passes through the Himalayas, and unlike Nepal (now a Maoist country), had a boarder with China. Further, China has been building rail lines and road systems throughout Tibet, as well as a few major military depots.
There's speculation that some of the depots in Tibet may in fact be Soviet style non vertical ICBM launch systems for a nuclear decapitation first strike. I think this says all that needs to be said.
My International politics fu might be weak, but wouldn't the next big brawl be between Pakistan vs India instead of China vs India? What does China want in India?
BaronIveagh wrote:
Tibet contains major passes through the Himalayas...
Indeed it does, but this is 2012, even India has reconnaissance aircraft and satellites that turn those passes into choke points.
BaronIveagh wrote:
...and unlike Nepal (now a Maoist country)...
Nepal is not Maoist. Its PM is Maoist, but the country is not.
BaronIveagh wrote:
There's speculation that some of the depots in Tibet may in fact be Soviet style non vertical ICBM launch systems for a nuclear decapitation first strike. I think this says all that needs to be said.
Jihadin wrote:You mention ICBM which is stratigic. Tactical nukes are different
Granted, however, the launch setups I referred to also can handle things like cruise missile launches. IIRC they look like huge ass railroad turn tables inside, with the item being launched taken from the magazine and moved to a correct facing on the table.
dogma wrote:
But they're still deployed via air, or strategic, forces. The age of nuclear torpedoes and nuclear artillery is long gone.
Well, I've never seen anyone use a torpedo in a mountain pass besides a bangalore, so that would be a new one. However, neither one of us have any idea what the Chinese have in those mountains, so it's entirely possible the Chinese still do have a few nuclear artillery shells laying around.
Either way, isn't that off topic? We're talking about the south china sea conflict, which hasn't become hostile but might if China continues its aggressive land-grab.
Hulksmash wrote:I hear that Fraz. My Grandather was one of very few survivors and has only talked about it twice that I know of. And both times he got crazy drunk first. Was your uncle a marine?
Both of them were.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Tibet contains major passes through the Himalayas...
Indeed it does, but this is 2012, even India has reconnaissance aircraft and satellites that turn those passes into choke points.
BaronIveagh wrote:
...and unlike Nepal (now a Maoist country)...
Nepal is not Maoist. Its PM is Maoist, but the country is not.
BaronIveagh wrote:
There's speculation that some of the depots in Tibet may in fact be Soviet style non vertical ICBM launch systems for a nuclear decapitation first strike. I think this says all that needs to be said.
Which has nothing to do with a land war.
Worse to worse drop a nuke into the pass and make it impassible?
Frazzled wrote:
Worse to worse drop a nuke into the pass and make it impassible?
No! Don't! Radioactive, laser-eye kung-fu pandas! The horror!
They could hit them with 1,000,000 of those rickety almost eyewateringly bright wooden trucks so common in India and Pakistan. No army borne could handle that.
And they have Godzilla. You can't forget about Godzilla. After all, Godzilla may attack Tokyo every three to five years, but only HE gets to attack Tokyo.
"HO! Its Godzilla!"
"I'll alert Tokyo for the monthly evacuation."
"No, he's attacking...Beijing!?!??"
"Ok, I'll just make some tea then."
Frazzled wrote:And they have Godzilla. You can't forget about Godzilla. After all, Godzilla may attack Tokyo every three to five years, but only HE gets to attack Tokyo.
"HO! Its Godzilla!"
"I'll alert Tokyo for the monthly evacuation."
"No, he's attacking...Beijing!?!??"
"Ok, I'll just make some tea then."
Current japanese military forces has no foot print. Its a defense force. How is the "Defense" force suppose to project power in SCS? Also remember in a few more yrs the US Navy will be mothballing quite a few ships limiting our "projection of power" oceanwide.
Yeah, but those ships are getting replaced and existing ships will be undergoing retrofits.
The Railgun will also be ready in a few years. It'll bring ship to ship bombardment back, that can't be intercepted. It eliminates a key flaw in our current missile based combat technology.
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, but those ships are getting replaced and existing ships will be undergoing retrofits.
The Railgun will also be ready in a few years. It'll bring ship to ship bombardment back, that can't be intercepted. It eliminates a key flaw in our current missile based combat technology.
Sounds like it also makes carrier fleets obsolete...
It won't invalidate them, but it will relegate them to a support role. Unless the Carrier's themselves will mount them as well, which will probably be the case.
Given the maintainance issues, ships probably won't mount more then a handful of Railguns. Maybe 1 on light cruisers, 2-3 on medium ships, and 5-10 on Carriers. Then they might bring back the battleship as well. have it mount a dozen or so in addition to the normal battleship weaponry.
In a true combat situation(2 well equipped armed forces fighting a proper war) drones just don't have the sustained firepower to be practical. They really are a precision tool.
Good for killing commanders and hidden bunkers. Not so great against a massive army.
Melissia wrote:Drones aren't usually as well equipped as a good CAS craft...
A drone gets shot down...meh. A multibillion $ carrier with several thousand crew on it? We care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:In a true combat situation(2 well equipped armed forces fighting a proper war) drones just don't have the sustained firepower to be practical. They really are a precision tool.
Good for killing commanders and hidden bunkers. Not so great against a massive army.
Melissia wrote:Drones aren't usually as well equipped as a good CAS craft...
A drone gets shot down...meh. A multibillion $ carrier with several thousand crew on it? We care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote:In a true combat situation(2 well equipped armed forces fighting a proper war) drones just don't have the sustained firepower to be practical. They really are a precision tool.
Good for killing commanders and hidden bunkers. Not so great against a massive army.
Neither is an aircraft carrier.
I disagree. The carriers planes can decimate an army, killing thousands with the damage caused by the air power.
You guys with all your tactics and weaponry stats seem to be forgetting the number one aspect of winning in modern warfare.
Will to fight.
Everything else is utterly, utterly irrelevant. You could lose one man per 1000 enemy and STILL fething lose in this day and age. Its why the US lost in Vietnam, despite winning every single major battle.. all of them! And killing 1 million VC, compared with what.. 66,000 Americans?
And have you seen the state of Afghanistan?! All the British and American public do is whine about it, and we have lost pretty much feth all. I guarantee when they were tossing figures around in 1999 US/UK command would have been over the moon with less than 3000 dead soldiers 13 years down the line. 3000 soldiers really is nothing to the guys in charge, Its not even one Brigade. And all we do is cry about it because we feel every single loss.. you think China has that problem?
The Chinese are fething lethal because more than anyone else, they give less of a feth when they lose men. Add in that awesome commie propaganda and a better ability to juke the stats, and that's why the mother fethers are scary, I don't care how much better everyone else is.
Only China could lose a 10,000 men and pretty much get away with it.. they would just toss around a figure ten times lower and blame it on some ridiculous gak.
Frankly chaps, as much as I hate to admit it, if we go up against the Chinese for anything other than them actually invading our mainland (thus forcing our hand and giving the public the will to fight) we will lose, and lose hard.
Still, the good side is we all have ice cream and cookies and Lazy Boys, and they don't.
No carrier flight commander wants to even get near China land based air units. I'm sure China willing to throw at least 2 air division at a carrier grp in a chance to knock them off
Jihadin wrote:No carrier flight commander wants to even get near China land based air units. I'm sure China willing to throw at least 2 air division at a carrier grp in a chance to knock them off
Which is why railguns would be pretty dang useful.
We could do an invasion and probably have tremendous success. China's military is smaller than the US in absolute numbers, and many of their most populated and valuable areas are right there along the coast.
It's the active occupation where we'd be doomed to failure. The food bill for the civilian population would be on our heads, and that'd be horrendous.
sourclams wrote:We could do an invasion and probably have tremendous success. China's military is smaller than the US in absolute numbers, and many of their most populated and valuable areas are right there along the coast.
It's the active occupation where we'd be doomed to failure. The food bill for the civilian population would be on our heads, and that'd be horrendous.
Mate, seriously.. you must be off your tits.
Modern weaponry have made invasions immensely costly. We could possibly go in, achieve an objective, and then feth off pronto, but a proper invasion!?
And also their quality of life is way worse.. they would sell their lives far more cheaply. I bet the fethers could rustle up more suicide bombers than Al Queda as well.
All China would have to do it open all the armouries, dish every gun and bomb they had out and then let the people crack on, it would be a total fething nightmare. You think we see plenty of IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan!? Well they at least have to smuggle the complicated ones in from Iran and Pakistan and Syria and such. Imagine China!
Even the toilet roll would explode when you were taking a dump.
If we do a land invasion on China with current US forces the marine brigade is going to be seriously hurting within 24 hrs. If the 82nd comes in it has to seize an airfield for follow on forces. If combined then I say seven days before US forces start coming out. We cannot conduct a land invasion with current forces on China. Don't put it pass them either to use MOAB on us
Thats whats wrong with this country. We have no balls for a real fight. Or at least the people in power and the press don't, and they are what matters.
Its war, people die. Deal with it.
If we were to invade china, I for one would seriously consider tactical nuclear weapons. And I would want some anti-ICBM cover to be in place before going in.
And even then, boots on the ground only where needed and in overwhealming force. No half hearted deployments. If one regiment is sufficient, send 2.
Lead the way Templer and set the example. My platoon be right behind you following....................................."20 bucks says he makes it 50 ft...any takers?"
Templar, your still seeing things narrowly, people are people, they don't much change dependant on nationality, they change dependant on circumstance.
We are the way we are because we have a good quality of life and good passage of information. Peoples lives matter to us, and we can see every coffin on TV. This is less of an issue in China.
You can argue that its either a good or a bad thing sure, we have loads of problems of our own, more obesity, we are obsessed with reality TV, we get upset and depressed about stupid pointless gak, such is life, that's what happens when you live in a first world democracy, but I cant say which is better.
Basically, the better your quality of life, the less stomach you have for a war with a load of casualties.
Is it really that bad a thing that we give a feth when thousands of our young people die?
Grey Templar wrote:Thats whats wrong with this country. We have no balls for a real fight. Or at least the people in power and the press don't, and they are what matters.
Its war, people die. Deal with it.
If we were to invade china, I for one would seriously consider tactical nuclear weapons. And I would want some anti-ICBM cover to be in place before going in.
And even then, boots on the ground only where needed and in overwhealming force. No half hearted deployments. If one regiment is sufficient, send 2.
Sorry we have plenty. We just aren't keen on getting Americans killed in foolish crap thats not in our vital interest.
Should we care about that area? Meh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Templar, your still seeing things narrowly, people are people, they don't much change dependant on nationality, they change dependant on circumstance.
We are the way we are because we have a good quality of life and good passage of information. Peoples lives matter to us, and we can see every coffin on TV. This is less of an issue in China.
You can argue that its either a good or a bad thing sure, we have loads of problems of our own, more obesity, we are obsessed with reality TV, we get upset and depressed about stupid pointless gak, such is life, that's what happens when you live in a first world democracy, but I cant say which is better.
Basically, the better your quality of life, the less stomach you have for a war with a load of casualties.
Is it really that bad a thing that we give a feth when thousands of our young people die?
In China's defense you're talking an invasion of China. If China's projecting power, well outside their immediate locale they don't get involved militarily. Sounds like epicaly smart foreign policy to me.
The US is the only reason, basically, that China hasn't used its size to militarily bully most of the other nations around there.
China has had what two wars with India. They've had artillery clashes with Vietnam and control north Korea. They seem to bully their nations as desired.
Again, why on earth should we care? Sell them all stuff, at a reasonable price.
Because we don't want China to control the vital sea routes in that region, which are very important for trade and, therefor, our economy. China will not allow free trade if it controls them.
It's the same reason we also hunt down pirates in the region.
Melissia wrote:Because we don't want China to control the vital sea routes in that region, which are very important for trade and, therefor, our economy. China will not allow free trade if it controls them.
It's the same reason we also hunt down pirates in the region.
Are you saying China is suddenly going to go pirate and raid commerce through there? (most of which is from China anyway and none of it is manufactured here)
Oh noes!!! Oh wait it all comes from China anyway. One the positive I found a US made item in Target yesterday. I was positively giddy and instantly bought it. It was tacticool!
Kovnik Obama wrote:My International politics fu might be weak, but wouldn't the next big brawl be between Pakistan vs India instead of China vs India? What does China want in India?
I think you'll find that most major conflicts between two principle nations often begin with a dispute over a tertiary nation.
Because we don't want China to control the vital sea routes in that region, which are very important for trade and, therefor, our economy. China will not allow free trade if it controls them.
I highly doubt we go to war with them over SCS. Nor can we really threaten them with military action unless we reinstitute the draft and prep for it. We go to war if they try to take over Taiwan but that be a naval engagement betweent the carrier fleet and they're air wings. Plus sending in troops to Taiwan to deter a land invasion from them which be more like a airborne invasion
Anything other than blockading China and bombing would be a bad idea.
An invasion is just flat out stupid unless India was on board with it and launched one at the same time as American amphibious landings.
It's hard to really say though, massive allied casualties were expected in the Gulf War and Iraq got steamrolled. China's forces could prove to be woefully incompetent.
Melissia wrote:More likely it'd end up as some fighters shot down or something.
Unless it gets out of hand then its a shooting war and maybe a nuke war. You want you and everyone you've known dying in a mushroom cloud so that Vietnam can make money off oil vs. China making money off oil?
A US carrier is a prize to bag and CHina not going to be careful about dealing with it. They will go balls out to nail it. Taking a US carrier out puts a major dent in US combat operation in the region. Before you say land based fighters on our sides bear in mind. The airbase does not move.
Jihadin wrote:A US carrier is a prize to bag and CHina not going to careful about dealing with it. They will go balls out to nail it. Taking a US carrier out puts a major dent in US combat operation in the region. Before you say land based fighters on our sides bear in mind. The airbase does not move.
Plus it would have a very high chance of making us run away screaming like girly boys.
Of course if thats low chance we go all "awakaned a sleeping giant" thing thats a problem.
Of course if thats low chance we go all "awakaned a sleeping giant" thing thats a problem.
Only works if the US population is totally behind the war effort to end China expansionalism. To see it to the end. Like Matty mention. Think Putin might be entice for some cheap real estate in northern china....
or did I missread what your saying Frazz?
edit
Besides we be in a shooting war with Iran before we go into a shooting war with China.
Amaya wrote:At this very moment? Maybe a handful of Marine units, 20,000 Marines tops.
So, likely, they could only hold for about 48 hours against a serious effort by the Chinese to dislodge them. Longer with heavy support, of course, but... it'd really only be a matter of time without reinforcements landing behind them.
Personally, I'd land near Zhanjiang while launching a simultaneous larger assault on Hainan island. It'd maximize the advantage of the US marines and Hainan airfield would allow the US to use land based aircraft to support, as well as the ability to quickly move troops onto or off of Hainan to reenforce or withdraw as needed. The peninsula would also allow more effective support fire from the Navy. The proximity to Hong Kong would also allow the US to likely seize a deep water port largely intact if they move quickly. To add to the effectiveness, inciting Tibet and inner Mongolia to rebel at the same time would force China to fight on three fronts simultaneously.
Chinese forces in southern China still use the Type 62G to a degree, as it's better able to handle mountainous terrain then the Type 96 and 99. The up side to this is that it's largely inferior to the Striker, and piss poor in FIBUA
I'll bet India would be interested in a coalition if this went down too.
Then there is the probability that portions of the Chinese army are not as good as they appear on paper. Its always in the interest of dictatorships to embellish their fighting strength.
Only two units capable on putting significant amount of "boots on ground" in a 24 hrs period
As for Tibet and Mongolia rebellion all China has to do is leave their troops in a containment position and concentrate on the bigger threat.
If we're to hold ground and advance all 10 active duty divisions, reserves and national guard units have to mobilized. Problem will be how to get all the bodies, equipemnt, and vehicles in play on mainland China as quick as possible. Amphibous invasion is not doable. If we stage out of Japan then be aware China has missiles that reach the ports and bases there.
Need to think on the scales of Operation Barbarossa but with todays technology
edit
Then there is the probability that portions of the Chinese army are not as good as they appear on paper. Its always in the interest of dictatorships to embellish their fighting strength.
China will no doubt implement forced conscription. Mind you we just invaded their homeland/fatherland/motherland/land of the dragon whatever they call it. They're going to be pissed off
Of course if thats low chance we go all "awakaned a sleeping giant" thing thats a problem.
Only works if the US population is totally behind the war effort to end China expansionalism. To see it to the end. Like Matty mention. Think Putin might be entice for some cheap real estate in northern china....
or did I missread what your saying Frazz?
edit
Besides we be in a shooting war with Iran before we go into a shooting war with China.
My point is if you sink a carrier all bets are off. Its Zombie Roosevelt time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Amaya wrote:At this very moment? Maybe a handful of Marine units, 20,000 Marines tops.
So, likely, they could only hold for about 48 hours against a serious effort by the Chinese to dislodge them. Longer with heavy support, of course, but... it'd really only be a matter of time without reinforcements landing behind them.
Personally, I'd land near Zhanjiang while launching a simultaneous larger assault on Hainan island. It'd maximize the advantage of the US marines and Hainan airfield would allow the US to use land based aircraft to support, as well as the ability to quickly move troops onto or off of Hainan to reenforce or withdraw as needed. The peninsula would also allow more effective support fire from the Navy. The proximity to Hong Kong would also allow the US to likely seize a deep water port largely intact if they move quickly. To add to the effectiveness, inciting Tibet and inner Mongolia to rebel at the same time would force China to fight on three fronts simultaneously.
Chinese forces in southern China still use the Type 62G to a degree, as it's better able to handle mountainous terrain then the Type 96 and 99. The up side to this is that it's largely inferior to the Striker, and piss poor in FIBUA
And then five million screaming Chinese hit you like the Ork tide. And then you die.
I'd just like to point out that China is not North Korea in terms of blind obedience of the leadership and collectivist mentality.
Partly as a result of the 1 child act, many of the current 20-somethings have grown up being told that they were a special snowflake for their entire lives. Urban Chinese (which is almost anyone near the coasts) can be very individualistic, entrepreneurial, free-minded individuals.
I have no doubt that there's a very strong undercurrent of the old-school Communist thought and that China could levy a gigantic army of volunteers in the event of outright invasion, but very few of the Chinese individuals I know, even the oldguard Communists, are dogmatically indoctrinated enough to go all suicide bomber everywhere.
sourclams wrote:I'd just like to point out that China is not North Korea in terms of blind obedience of the leadership and collectivist mentality.
Partly as a result of the 1 child act, many of the current 20-somethings have grown up being told that they were a special snowflake for their entire lives. Urban Chinese (which is almost anyone near the coasts) can be very individualistic, entrepreneurial, free-minded individuals.
I have no doubt that there's a very strong undercurrent of the old-school Communist thought and that China could levy a gigantic army of volunteers in the event of outright invasion, but very few of the Chinese individuals I know, even the oldguard Communists, are dogmatically indoctrinated enough to go all suicide bomber everywhere.
So there kids are as loser wussies as our kids are? In that case I embrace my Chinese (parents) brothers and weep with them, knowing that, as a species, we are all doomed.
Jihadin wrote:
As for Tibet and Mongolia rebellion all China has to do is leave their troops in a containment position and concentrate on the bigger threat.
As far as Northern China is concerned, Mongolia *is* the bigger threat. They're heavily outfitted by the Former Soviet Union and the United States started supplying them with arms as well, though on a more limited basis. ATM it's a mixed bag of BTRs and Humvees for their mech infantry. Airforce and heavy armor is almost exclusively Russian stuff. Mig 29s, etc. I don't think it'd be hard to get them to join in to regain Inner Mongolia from the Chinese. Tibet, you're essentially correct save for the possibility of India using it as a land route in. China would have to keep a much larger force present or risk India simply over-running them. The other somewhat frightening possibility is Chinese nuclear facilities in Tibet falling into the hands of Tibetan rebels. There's a high chance they would try to use them.
Jihadin wrote:
If we're to hold ground and advance all 10 active duty divisions, reserves and national guard units have to mobilized. Problem will be how to get all the bodies, equipemnt, and vehicles in play on mainland China as quick as possible. Amphibous invasion is not doable. If we stage out of Japan then be aware China has missiles that reach the ports and bases there.
Depending on how much prep time we're talking, the Navy still has some toys from the old days in mothballs capable of moving about 20,000 men each. And the United States is docked at Pier 82 in Phili awaiting conservation. She's old and needs work, but her primary systems are nearly identical to an Iowa class battleship and the Navy designed her with quick conversion into a super troop transport in mind.
The most effective option, I think, would be to build up at Mindinao and Okinawa, and then hit Hainan. Then push northeast to Hong Kong. With Hainan and Hong Kong in hand, we can reenforce at our pleasure from any base in the Pacific. Assuming no one reaches for the nuclear option.
Jihadin wrote:They're going to be pissed off
Depends. The Middle Kingdom's rulers have not held the Mandate of Heaven for many years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
And then five million screaming Chinese hit you like the Ork tide. And then you die.
That's why I selected that terrain. The Chinese can't hit you with all five million at once, because of the geography. It funnels them into narrow kill zones and slows their advance.
Back in the '80s I think there was legitimate concern by various forward-thinking individuals that the 1 child policy and the Chinese cultural preference for males would result in an overabundance of young men for whom military service would be a natural occupational niche, and worried about increased Chinese aggression in the surrounding regions.
Turns out that the 1 child policy and the need for a young male heir to care for the elders in their dotage resulted in a lot of mollycoddled boys, who were always perfect and told they were good at everything, and were kept as far away from military service as possible because if he gets bumped off, the parents' retirement plan is SOL.
sourclams wrote:Back in the '80s I think there was legitimate concern by various forward-thinking individuals that the 1 child policy and the Chinese cultural preference for males would result in an overabundance of young men for whom military service would be a natural occupational niche, and worried about increased Chinese aggression in the surrounding regions.
Turns out that the 1 child policy and the need for a young male heir to care for the elders in their dotage resulted in a lot of mollycoddled boys, who were always perfect and told they were good at everything, and were kept as far away from military service as possible because if he gets bumped off, the parents' retirement plan is SOL.
It also means in a generation or two, China's Han population will undergo a massive demographic collapse, as the 1 chide rule does not extend to Mongolians or other minorities.
Another potential ally against China would be Australia. The Aussie government was not too happy when 'rogue' Chinese military vessels started committing piracy in Australia's national waters, seizing Australian nationals and Australian ships. (and Australian beer)
BaronIveagh wrote:
That's why I selected that terrain. The Chinese can't hit you with all five million at once, because of the geography. It funnels them into narrow kill zones and slows their advance.
And then you do what exactly. If everything goes as planned you've just created Anzio. Instead of facing some German defenders you now have an amry even Zhukov would poop a brick to face, forming up in deep echelon to exterminate you. Whats the big plan again?
BaronIveagh wrote:
That's why I selected that terrain. The Chinese can't hit you with all five million at once, because of the geography. It funnels them into narrow kill zones and slows their advance.
And then you do what exactly. If everything goes as planned you've just created Anzio. Instead of facing some German defenders you now have an amry even Zhukov would poop a brick to face, forming up in deep echelon to exterminate you. Whats the big plan again?
Frazzled wrote:
And then you do what exactly. If everything goes as planned you've just created Anzio. Instead of facing some German defenders you now have an amry even Zhukov would poop a brick to face, forming up in deep echelon to exterminate you. Whats the big plan again?
Point of fact, Zhukov's army was larger then anything that would be faced short term in Southern China.
And if they're echelon deep, it will make it so much easier to hit them from Hainan. Granted, it'd be close air missions the likes of which the US hasn't flown for a dogs age, but that was why I opted that Hainan should be the first objective. The extensive air fields and infrastructure should be easy enough to take mostly intact in a surprise assault.
Once we start rolling B-52 missions from Okinawa and Hainan, it becomes very difficult for the Chinese to move and support their army.
As a last resort, blow Three Gorges Dam. The ensuing devastation would bog down even the largest army for weeks.
And if they're echelon deep, it will make it so much easier to hit them from Hainan. Granted, it'd be close air missions the likes of which the US hasn't flown for a dogs age, but that was why I opted that Hainan should be the first objective. The extensive air fields and infrastructure should be easy enough to take mostly intact in a surprise assault.
Ask Matty about US Air Support. Hell I called two in myself in a far distant land
You cannot invade mainland China with the current US forces. You will have to implement the draft.
Jihadin wrote:Current japanese military forces has no foot print. Its a defense force. How is the "Defense" force suppose to project power in SCS? Also remember in a few more yrs the US Navy will be mothballing quite a few ships limiting our "projection of power" oceanwide.
You dont need to project power to be able to pose a threat....and the Japanese Military is very capable of performing offensive actions, regardless of the fact that its technically a defense force. Just as technically the IDF is a defense force.
And for those who are speaking about Mongolia revolting...China doesn't occupy or control Mongolia, Mongolia is a separate country with excellent ties to the USA and Russia, thanks to the USSR haha
Tibet revolting against chinese rule is more likely and the Uighur regions are the most likely to revolt.
I think the President and Congress need to take a clear stand on this issue and possibly press nations in the region to create a NATO like organization possibly led by Japan and South Korea
Huffy wrote:
And for those who are speaking about Mongolia revolting...China doesn't occupy or control Mongolia, Mongolia is a separate country with excellent ties to the USA and Russia, thanks to the USSR haha
Tibet revolting against chinese rule is more likely and the Uighur regions are the most likely to revolt.
China does control Inner Mongolia. Outer Mongolia is the separate nation with ties to Russia and the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:
Ask Matty about US Air Support. Hell I called two in myself in a far distant land
You cannot invade mainland China with the current US forces. You will have to implement the draft.
I think it's possible, but would require the US to entirely disengage for all other peace keeping and combat theaters. I do think that it would, however, require the entire national guard and reserves, as well as recommissioning a lot of hardware we've kept in mothballs for the last twenty to thirty years, plus reigniting a lot of industries to support it, particularly steel and munitions. Manpower wise, in the later stages, you're right, though, to sufficiently cover the terrain we'd need more manpower.
Currently the US has about 180k 'security consultants' on tap, some of whom have their own private air forces and fleets. That might be a viable alternate source of manpower.
Huffy wrote:
And for those who are speaking about Mongolia revolting...China doesn't occupy or control Mongolia, Mongolia is a separate country with excellent ties to the USA and Russia, thanks to the USSR haha
Tibet revolting against chinese rule is more likely and the Uighur regions are the most likely to revolt.
Chine does control Inner Mongolia. Outer Mongolia is the separate nation with ties to Russia and the US.
You mean Mengkukuo?? I thought people were referencing the actual nation of Mongolia...however I even doubt revolution in Inner Mongolia...since it has been part of China for quite a while, I couldn't put number to it however.
I honestly can't see any war with China going well on a land front, it's far easier for them to defend than for us to attack. As well as the USA not having the military resources to commit nor the public will to commit to a large war without significant changes in the social and political environment.
I can see limited naval war with China, however I do think that the Army and Marines should be gutted to more money could be funneled to the Navy and Air force. would it win a war?? no..but it would stall/stalemate the conflict.
Not feasible.
Ground forces is ten divisions of the US Army.
USMC about 2 Divisions.
Immediate boots on ground is 82nd Airborne Div (a light infantry division) and a combined arms marine brigade MEU
How do you propose using 12 divisions if we can get them all at once into mainland China to conduct combat operations. Espacially when a division is going to require to take a major city.
Reserves and National Guards are needed just to augment the divisions on this scale of an assualt.
Security firms are not going to used as mercenary forces period.
How do you propose replacement of troops that either wounded or opted out.
More interestingly, it's OK for the UK to invade sovereign nations and force them to allow British interests to peddle dangerous narcotics.
Bringing up 19th century ethics in the 21st century is wrong. Funnily enough the UK is challenged that way by people whom should know better but choose not to, like the Argentine government.
It would not be fair to bring up how the US massacred native populations, invaded Spanish owned territories or uprooted and enslaved blacks. All things done back at the same time as the Opium Wars. So we let it slide, you should to.
Why the hell are people talking about invading china now, anyway? THAT is unlikely to happen. Destroy all of their military-grade docks perhaps. Shatter their navy, definitely. But invade? I doubt that we'd seriously do that.
On the topic of invasion, why not ask China's red northern neighbors for help? I mean, if China were in such a dangerous position, wouldn't they be threatened as well?
Melissia wrote:Why the hell are people talking about invading china now, anyway? THAT is unlikely to happen. Destroy all of their military-grade docks perhaps. Shatter their navy, definitely. But invade? I doubt that we'd seriously do that.
I'm assuming people are talking about any kind of war with China as a hypothetical 'our military is stronger than theirs' situation? Because, any kind of war would be incredibly fething stupid, and the public would be within its rights to ask for their leaders to be rounded up and put in a deep (and dark) hole for utterly failing their people. It would immediately turn the world's economy on its arse overnight. Seriously, both Europe and the US have got so much money tied up in China, and theirs increasingly in the Western Economy, that there would be riots in pretty much every city when both our industry and economies come grinding to a halt.
What is happening here (I don't want this to sound patronising at all but I think there are a few people missing the wider geo-political picture):
- China has increased massively in economic and political power over the past 30 years.
- As countries increase in power, they start to exert that influence over neighbouring countries - the extension of that 'hard power' is not something that is unique to China, and in fact has been a characteristic of every 'power' going back to time immemorial. In modern history, industrialisation has allowed the reach of that power to extend further than ever before, as evident with the British Empire, and then the US and Soviet powers.
- More recently, the 'hammer' of the world (with the rest of us as mere nails), at least since 1989, has been the US. Not a single person with a stars and stripes flag above their user name* has any right to admonish China for the way it is behaving in the South China sea. By comparison to how the US has behaved in 'expressing its power', they have been kittens wearing tiny woollen gloves, playfully batting at a roll of soft toilet paper, even when bringing hostile relations with Tibet and Taiwan into account. In that last twelve years alone the US has taken part in two major military actions in order to "increase the geo-political stability of the middle east" (Donald Rumsfelds words, not mine) and shore up American industrial and economic interests in the region. It's estimated that more than a million people have died as a result of those conflicts, and Iraq in particular has been left with a shattered civil infrastructure, with higher infant mortality rates, a lowered standard of living and perhaps most importantly a loss of security with hundreds dying each month because of sectarian violence.
- The US has almost a quarter of a million troops stationed world-wide, in dozens of countries. China in the example here has moved 5000 troops. The US has unparalleled naval supremacy, with aircraft carriers and fleets that can be positioned to strike practically anywhere on Earth. China has one aircraft carrier, which is not even approaching the US level of sophistication as it is a retro-fitted old Soviet model. Can anyone see how this might look from a non-US point of view?
I think anyone saying China is going beyond its rightful boundary needs to take a long hard look at what we in the West (and primarily the US) has been doing for the last twenty years, and going back to the second World War if one is to account for the massive global involvement in foreign affairs. If anything the world might benefit from having a second super-power on the scene eventually; the current self-appointed 'policemen of the world' have hardly made things a safer place, and have shown little trepidation in their willingness to use massive military force to obtain a strategic end, and with little thought or care to the recipients of such violence or the future consequences. The Chinese could hardly do any worse.
Jihadin wrote:Security firms are not going to used as mercenary forces period.
Ok, regardless of the rest of it, which I went over and decided I'll take your word for, I have to ask 'Why?' on this one. The US has a long tradition of using mercenary forces, and in a highly effective manner (as do many of our allies).
All those who think good ole' USA should march in missiles firing free. Remember you are taking on the high tech fleet of a superpower within range of their own air defence net, not some middle eastern rogue state with weapons last upgraded in the early 80's.
Orlanth wrote:All those who think good ole' USA should march in missiles firing free. Remember you are taking on the high tech fleet of a superpower within range of their own air defence net, not some middle eastern rogue state with weapons last upgraded in the early 80's.
xole wrote:We would hardly be doing it alone...ally.
I don't know what's right in this situation, but I have to say it's looking to get messy.
I doubt very much that we would send troops in to support this one. The public would go mental and lynch the liars in charge. There would be very few scenarios where we would be sending in troops.
xole wrote:We would hardly be doing it alone...ally.
I don't know what's right in this situation, but I have to say it's looking to get messy.
I doubt very much that we would send troops in to support this one. The public would go mental and lynch the liars in charge. There would be very few scenarios where we would be sending in troops.
if a U.S. vessel was attacked in "neutral" waters? Since China is a super power, it would hardly be the "you go deal with it" attitude that exists in the middle east. Like it or not, your nation is our ally.
But, as it hasn't happened yet, I suppose this is all just hypothetical. We should have a thread about colonizing the galaxy and obliterating any hypothetical aliens we find.
xole wrote:We would hardly be doing it alone...ally.
I don't know what's right in this situation, but I have to say it's looking to get messy.
I doubt very much that we would send troops in to support this one. The public would go mental and lynch the liars in charge. There would be very few scenarios where we would be sending in troops.
if a U.S. vessel was attacked in "neutral" waters? Since China is a super power, it would hardly be the "you go deal with it" attitude that exists in the middle east. Like it or not, your nation is our ally.
xole wrote:We would hardly be doing it alone...ally.
I don't know what's right in this situation, but I have to say it's looking to get messy.
I doubt very much that we would send troops in to support this one. The public would go mental and lynch the liars in charge. There would be very few scenarios where we would be sending in troops.
if a U.S. vessel was attacked in "neutral" waters? Since China is a super power, it would hardly be the "you go deal with it" attitude that exists in the middle east. Like it or not, your nation is our ally.
But, as it hasn't happened yet, I suppose this is all just hypothetical. We should have a thread about colonizing the galaxy and obliterating any hypothetical aliens we find.
Just because we are allies does not mean we HAVE to send in troops. We can aid in other ways. All I am saying is it would have to be a direct attack on us or severe attack that we couldn't ignore on others for people to want to go anywhere near China.
They have a sizable Navy with the capability of actually pulling off a land invasion. Tech wise second generation. Strategic wise its geared towards support from the mainland. As in we have to go in and get them bringing the US Naval carrier group in range of their land based air wings. Since their not a "blue water fleet" the Pacific ocean is the US playground atm.
Thanks in part to our "ally" Pakistan, China is just a few years out from stealth aircraft. They have quite advance SS and AS missiles now, and by the thousand.
sourclams wrote:Back in the '80s I think there was legitimate concern by various forward-thinking individuals that the 1 child policy and the Chinese cultural preference for males would result in an overabundance of young men for whom military service would be a natural occupational niche, and worried about increased Chinese aggression in the surrounding regions.
Turns out that the 1 child policy and the need for a young male heir to care for the elders in their dotage resulted in a lot of mollycoddled boys, who were always perfect and told they were good at everything, and were kept as far away from military service as possible because if he gets bumped off, the parents' retirement plan is SOL.
It also means in a generation or two, China's Han population will undergo a massive demographic collapse, as the 1 chide rule does not extend to Mongolians or other minorities.
Another potential ally against China would be Australia. The Aussie government was not too happy when 'rogue' Chinese military vessels started committing piracy in Australia's national waters, seizing Australian nationals and Australian ships. (and Australian beer)
China is already having reproduction level problems. The male-female ratio of 20-somethings is around 5-1(or worse) and a large portion of the women are not interested in having kids.
Due to their very near sighted policy there is going to be almost total reproductive collapse in the next 10-15 years.
Well, I've said my piece, If you lot think we would beat the Chinese I think you are allowing what you want to happen to overide what your brain is telling you would actually happen.
Clearly I would like us to mallet the Chinese, but frankly I think they would feth the both of us. We just dont have the will to fight, we are nations of fat, happy, comfortable Westerners, how on earth can you expect us to compete with that hunger?
We would be off with our tails between our legs if we lost ten thousand troops, the Chinese would suck up 100,000 losses and pour another million men into the meat grinder, nothing like 300 million poorly educated, indoctrinated peasants to make an army with... we would be down to our fething leathermans inside a month Even if we killed 20 men for every loss!
As for wiping out their navy, they have 20 nuclear subs for every one of ours don't they!?
mattyrm wrote:Well, I've said my piece, If you lot think we would beat the Chinese I think you are allowing what you want to happen to overide what your brain is telling you would actually happen.
Clearly I would like us to mallet the Chinese, but frankly I think they would feth the both of us. We just dont have the will to fight, we are nations of fat, happy, comfortable Westerners, how on earth can you expect us to compete with that hunger?
We would be off with our tails between our legs if we lost ten thousand troops, the Chinese would suck up 100,000 losses and pour another million men into the meat grinder, nothing like 300 million poorly educated, indoctrinated peasants to make an army with... we would be down to our fething leathermans inside a month Even if we killed 20 men for every loss!
As for wiping out their navy, they have 20 nuclear subs for every one of ours don't they!?
13 nuclear subs in total according to Wiki. Besides, the US always has the nuclear obliteration card, although I sure hope no one's going to be mad enough to play it.
Bakc in the day, before Nixon went on his visit, Mao was openly talking about how the Chinese were the only nation that could "win" a nuclear war because they would only see it as temporay population control.
Also, the Chinese Navy is no match for the USN in a blue water engagement. FACT. However, the Chinese Navy and the Chinese Air Force vs the USN in a South China Sea showdown is another matter entirely.
Jihadin wrote:You find your answer under the "US drones" thread on mercenaries.
Do you honestly think the Chinese will give a damn about prisoners, merc or otherwise?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:Bakc in the day, before Nixon went on his visit, Mao was openly talking about how the Chinese were the only nation that could "win" a nuclear war because they would only see it as temporay population control.
Mao also thought the cultural revolution was a good idea.
mattyrm wrote:Well, I've said my piece, If you lot think we would beat the Chinese I think you are allowing what you want to happen to overide what your brain is telling you would actually happen.
Clearly I would like us to mallet the Chinese, but frankly I think they would feth the both of us. We just dont have the will to fight
Speak for yourself. China taking over would be, from a feminist perspective, a leap of about seventy five years back. I would fight tooth and nail.
mattyrm wrote:Well, I've said my piece, If you lot think we would beat the Chinese I think you are allowing what you want to happen to overide what your brain is telling you would actually happen.
Clearly I would like us to mallet the Chinese, but frankly I think they would feth the both of us. We just dont have the will to fight, we are nations of fat, happy, comfortable Westerners, how on earth can you expect us to compete with that hunger?
We would be off with our tails between our legs if we lost ten thousand troops, the Chinese would suck up 100,000 losses and pour another million men into the meat grinder, nothing like 300 million poorly educated, indoctrinated peasants to make an army with... we would be down to our fething leathermans inside a month Even if we killed 20 men for every loss!
As for wiping out their navy, they have 20 nuclear subs for every one of ours don't they!?
Inversely the same thing would happen to them if they invaded Europe or North America. Its not in people's nation to take massive casualties attacking another nation for very long, especially when there is no continguous border.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Well, I've said my piece, If you lot think we would beat the Chinese I think you are allowing what you want to happen to overide what your brain is telling you would actually happen.
Clearly I would like us to mallet the Chinese, but frankly I think they would feth the both of us. We just dont have the will to fight, we are nations of fat, happy, comfortable Westerners, how on earth can you expect us to compete with that hunger?
We would be off with our tails between our legs if we lost ten thousand troops, the Chinese would suck up 100,000 losses and pour another million men into the meat grinder, nothing like 300 million poorly educated, indoctrinated peasants to make an army with... we would be down to our fething leathermans inside a month Even if we killed 20 men for every loss!
As for wiping out their navy, they have 20 nuclear subs for every one of ours don't they!?
13 nuclear subs in total according to Wiki. Besides, the US always has the nuclear obliteration card, although I sure hope no one's going to be mad enough to play it.
I wouldn't get in a nuke shooting war over any country in Europe. Why on earth would I care about a former enemy like Vietnam?
Do you honestly think the Chinese will give a damn about prisoners, merc or otherwise
Um you ask why the US doesn't use mercs?
Yeah I do, the only thing I found in the drone thread was the discussion about mercs not being covered under the Geneva convention. Which China is not terribly likely to be following anyway.
They don't like China very much, want to hold onto their islands which are also the first in line to be annexed by China.
Their tenacity in a fight needs no introduction.
I wonder what the current generation of Americans think about doing that with old wounds. I wonder if it is politically survivable, because frankly an alliance with Hanoi would solve a lot of problems.
1. Mercenaries as you seem to think, do not exist in todays day and age. Blackwater, Dyncorp, Triple Canopy are all PMCs. Which by law are only to be used in Non-Aggressive manner. Contractors are also not allowed to fire until fired upon. Yes, even the whole Blackwater incident when they shot a whole bunch of civilians was a defensive measure.
2. Each contractor costs upwards of $250,000 a year and must accept the contract before doing it. Last I checked, PMCs weren't spearheading the charge into Afghanistan, or Iraq.
3. Every single able bodied individual in china has been in thier military. They have mandatory service of 6 months. Basically making it so that an entire population has already completed the equivalent of Boot camp and AIT. China has an able and ready force even now numbering in the Millions. They're reserves number in the 10s of millions. They can conscript 100s of millions. and most of them know how to shoot already.
4. Nuclear weapons are not an option. You really think Korea/Japan/Russia/Mongolia/India want to deal with the effects of Radioactivity after the war? Really? Don;t care what they think? Russia has more ICBMs then we have interceptors to stop them.
5. So we now have Stealth Ships/C-130s/ Magical space craft to magically make it so China doesn't know 12 Divisions of Infantry heading towards them? Really?
6. China has nukes to. Surprise. We can only intercept a nuke within a certain radius to make sure its effects don't hit us. Those US bases in Japan? Gone. South Korea? Gone.
7. North Korea. Chinas puppet. 2nd front South Korea. And the NKs probably will lob Nuclear artillery into south Korea.
8. So...... India and japan are going to risk complete nuclear destruction over our political/military goals? No.
9. The Chinese are not going to celebrate our arrival as their saviors.
3. Every single able bodied individual in china has been in thier military. They have mandatory service of 6 months. Basically making it so that an entire population has already completed the equivalent of Boot camp and AIT. China has an able and ready force even now numbering in the Millions. They're reserves number in the 10s of millions. They can conscript 100s of millions. and most of them know how to shoot already.
Where are you getting this information? I can't find it.
3. Every single able bodied individual in china has been in thier military. They have mandatory service of 6 months. Basically making it so that an entire population has already completed the equivalent of Boot camp and AIT. China has an able and ready force even now numbering in the Millions. They're reserves number in the 10s of millions. They can conscript 100s of millions. and most of them know how to shoot already.
Where are you getting this information? I can't find it.
Orlanth wrote:The US does have a viable option: arm Hanoi.
They don't like China very much, want to hold onto their islands which are also the first in line to be annexed by China.
Their tenacity in a fight needs no introduction.
I wonder what the current generation of Americans think about doing that with old wounds. I wonder if it is politically survivable, because frankly an alliance with Hanoi would solve a lot of problems.
Hanoi is better than China.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mercenaries do exist these days, actually. They do a light of fighting in third world countries, but they're not especially reliable.
Orlanth wrote:The US does have a viable option: arm Hanoi.
They don't like China very much, want to hold onto their islands which are also the first in line to be annexed by China.
Their tenacity in a fight needs no introduction.
I wonder what the current generation of Americans think about doing that with old wounds. I wonder if it is politically survivable, because frankly an alliance with Hanoi would solve a lot of problems.
Hanoi is better than China.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mercenaries do exist these days, actually. They do a light of fighting in third world countries, but they're not especially reliable.
True, they are especially prevalent in Africa currently. But I do not think the OP was referring to those.
mattyrm wrote:Well, I've said my piece, If you lot think we would beat the Chinese I think you are allowing what you want to happen to overide what your brain is telling you would actually happen.
Clearly I would like us to mallet the Chinese, but frankly I think they would feth the both of us. We just dont have the will to fight, we are nations of fat, happy, comfortable Westerners, how on earth can you expect us to compete with that hunger?
Mattyrm I think you've got a little bit of an outdated concept of what China is like these days. I visited a couple of times around 2000, and again recently, and you would not believe how much the country has changed in just 12-13 years. A friend of mine described Beijing as being like an architects playground, and I would agree with him, parts of it are starting to make London look like a provincial backwater by comparison - in the richer industrial areas, its almost like Japan was in the 80's, where the economy is super-heating and they have more money than they know what to do with.
Admittedly the situation is somewhat (a lot!) different when you go out into the sticks, but then it is not the peasantry who run the country or who are dictating foreign policy. There are now far too many middle class Chinese who will take their Beemers and Gucci handbags from Europe, thank you very much, and likewise there is so much Chinese investment now in Europe that doing anything to jeopardise that would be absolutely, stark-raving bonkers. Just the other day in the news there was talk of them investing billions in the Nuclear Industry in the UK, and bidding against EDF (French owned power company which bought out British Energy) for the rights to build a load more power sites. Any kind of conflict would not only be 'zero gain' for either side, but it would also be massively against that countries interest. And history has shown that wars generally only take place when the men in bowler hats decide that a good deal can be made out of doing so.
It's why the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in the Middle East (I forget which country) had the token 'we are upset at you.. please apologise' response, despite countries having gone to war for less if it suited them.
3. Every single able bodied individual in china has been in thier military. They have mandatory service of 6 months. Basically making it so that an entire population has already completed the equivalent of Boot camp and AIT. China has an able and ready force even now numbering in the Millions. They're reserves number in the 10s of millions. They can conscript 100s of millions. and most of them know how to shoot already.
Where are you getting this information? I can't find it.
Comrade wrote:1. Mercenaries as you seem to think, do not exist in todays day and age. Blackwater, Dyncorp, Triple Canopy are all PMCs. Which by law are only to be used in Non-Aggressive manner. Contractors are also not allowed to fire until fired upon. Yes, even the whole Blackwater incident when they shot a whole bunch of civilians was a defensive measure.
Visit Africa or South East Asia recently? Mercs can be found, in the old fashioned sense. Ireland and several other struggling European nations have been a hotbed of recruitment lately.
Comrade wrote:
2. Each contractor costs upwards of $250,000 a year and must accept the contract before doing it. Last I checked, PMCs weren't spearheading the charge into Afghanistan, or Iraq.
No, but the US isn't using them for that there either. And at 250k, they're paying too much unless the mercs are covering their own gear expenses and have them in the field round the clock. The most I've ever seen was $500 an hour for merc air support.
Comrade wrote:
3. Every single able bodied individual in china has been in thier military. They have mandatory service of 6 months. Basically making it so that an entire population has already completed the equivalent of Boot camp and AIT. China has an able and ready force even now numbering in the Millions. They're reserves number in the 10s of millions. They can conscript 100s of millions. and most of them know how to shoot already.
And they can feed them for a week. One of the problems with China's gigantic army is that they can't actually commit the whole thing due to logistics.
Comrade wrote:
4. Nuclear weapons are not an option. You really think Korea/Japan/Russia/Mongolia/India want to deal with the effects of Radioactivity after the war? Really? Don;t care what they think? Russia has more ICBMs then we have interceptors to stop them.
I might point out that radioactivity from nuclear detonations is far lower then, say, a reactor meltdown.
Comrade wrote:
5. So we now have Stealth Ships/C-130s/ Magical space craft to magically make it so China doesn't know 12 Divisions of Infantry heading towards them? Really?
The reason I suggested the step off points I did was that it's relatively easy to conceal large ship movements, and large numbers of US ships are a common sight in them. You don't need stealth, the Pacific is a fething big place. Finding a single ship in it can be a pain, even for the USN who have listening posts all over the pac rim for finding Russian subs.
Comrade wrote:
6. China has nukes to. Surprise. We can only intercept a nuke within a certain radius to make sure its effects don't hit us. Those US bases in Japan? Gone. South Korea? Gone.
You think that A) those places don't have their own interception capability or B) that China, who's typical nuke is in the low kiloton range, is going to have a gigantic impact?
Comrade wrote:
7. North Korea. Chinas puppet. 2nd front South Korea. And the NKs probably will lob Nuclear artillery into south Korea.
Not as much as you seem to think at this point. China and NK have been locking horns lately over things like NK's nuclear ambitions. Further, NK's primary payload against SK has long known to be poison gas against civilian areas, rather then a nuclear strike.
Comrade wrote:
8. So...... India and japan are going to risk complete nuclear destruction over our political/military goals? No.
Depends on how aggressive China gets beforehand. Remember that this whole scenario is based on the idea that the US is Invading in response to Chinese aggression, which both India and Japan would view as a issue of the highest order.
Comrade wrote:
9. The Chinese are not going to celebrate our arrival as their saviors.
In a lot of places, you're right, but there are some that would, mostly western China, Macao and Hong Kong, as anti-government sentiment runs high there.
Comrade wrote:
True, they are especially prevalent in Africa currently. But I do not think the OP was referring to those.
Yeah, actually I was, and resent the 'not terribly reliable' bit. Mercs were very reliable until the UN started telling countries that they had to pick between paying mercs to remain stable and their UN sponsored food aid. The result is disasters like Mali and a half dozen other rebellions and military junta's springing up where well paying democracies used to be.
In other news for the company formerly known as Blackwater, they finally settled their illegal arms trafficking case in the US. Interestingly enough, they were never charged for their purchasing and import of Brazillian EMB 314 Super Tucano close air support aircraft, which surprises me. Maybe I should have picked up that surplus guided missile frigate.
North Korea will launch an attack onto South Korea when the majority of US forces tied into dealing with China. Only division there is 2ID and they're at 110% manning. So that holds down one division from 12.
Why the kick for mercenaries to augment US forces. Justify using them in combat.
Jihadin wrote:
Why the kick for mercenaries to augment US forces. Justify using them in combat.
Because when fighting a numerically superior force, every warm body with a gun that doesn't rabbit is useful. Further, many mercs have actual combat experience being the smaller force in opposing a numerically larger army. Guys who have been fighting in south east Asia might know a few things about the sort of terrain and tactics that only experience brings. All are good reasons to recruit mercs for this sort of operation.
Testify wrote:
The state's monopoly of power is necessary for stability.
That has not been born out though by the situations that arose from the UN's decree against mercenaries. It actually caused previously stable nations to destabilize and unstable ones to destabilize further.
Yeah, I don't know why various people have such a knee jerk reaction to mercs.
People who fight for money are nothing new. In fact, until the beginning of the last century, they often made up significant portions of a nations military forces in the field. Some of the most elite fighting units ever have been mercs.
In a real war, Mercs give you a new tactical option. They arn't technically your soldiers, so you can use for some of the more distasteful actions you wish to take and you can then play the "not in complete control" card. Loose cannons are useful if let go in the general direction of the enemy.
Grey Templar wrote:They arn't technically your soldiers, so you can use for some of the more distasteful actions you wish to take and you can then play the "not in complete control" card. Loose cannons are useful if let go in the general direction of the enemy.
While, yes, that does occasionally happen, particularly when working for the US or Israel (I'm not anti-Semitic, but never work for the Israelis, they're worse then the CIA), it's more common outside war zones that the employer is directly involved in. Unless working for Israel.
Frankly, its really a wonder the various countries around keep bugging Israel. I wouldn't poke the Nuclear armed country too much. Palastinians(who really are scum, even the neighboring countries won't let the refugees come in) can do it because they are too close for Nuclear strikes, but Syria and Iran really should stop.
If it were up to me, I'd blow up the Syrian and Iranian capitals just show that Israel means business.
Peace is impossable as long as the Muslims of the region have their heads up their sunburned bums. Which they will have forever.
Grey Templar wrote:
Peace is impossable as long as the Muslims of the region have their heads up their sunburned bums. Which they will have forever.
I pretty much blame both sides. Every time one side mellows out enough to start making serious moves toward peace, the other snorts a line of coke off the sacred book of your choice and goes apeshit.
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, I don't know why various people have such a knee jerk reaction to mercs.
People who fight for money are nothing new. In fact, until the beginning of the last century, they often made up significant portions of a nations military forces in the field. Some of the most elite fighting units ever have been mercs.
In a real war, Mercs give you a new tactical option. They arn't technically your soldiers, so you can use for some of the more distasteful actions you wish to take and you can then play the "not in complete control" card. Loose cannons are useful if let go in the general direction of the enemy.
I don't know if many people in our military would agree having a loose cannon in their theatre of operations to be a good thing. This is, of course just my opinion, after all the Blackwater stuff in the news, or even regular armed forces possibly going over the line and causing repercussions.
Orlanth wrote:The US does have a viable option: arm Hanoi.
They don't like China very much, want to hold onto their islands which are also the first in line to be annexed by China.
Their tenacity in a fight needs no introduction.
I wonder what the current generation of Americans think about doing that with old wounds. I wonder if it is politically survivable, because frankly an alliance with Hanoi would solve a lot of problems.
Why would a US supported Hanoi be a greater deterrent than the Philippines? They already have a very strong connection with the US (going back decades), and have already placed themselves in opposition to Chinese expansion into the SCS.
sourclams wrote:
Partly as a result of the 1 child act, many of the current 20-somethings have grown up being told that they were a special snowflake for their entire lives. Urban Chinese (which is almost anyone near the coasts) can be very individualistic, entrepreneurial, free-minded individuals.
There's also that whole thing about the gender imbalance and its effect on the ability of young men to have sex. It sounds silly when I say it like that, but there has been some serious research into the idea that the one-child generation will be willing to seek satisfaction in social/political pursuits, since they have a relatively low chance of finding it in sexual/familial pursuits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Once we start rolling B-52 missions from Okinawa and Hainan, it becomes very difficult for the Chinese to move and support their army.
I think you seriously overestimate the technological gap between US and Chinese forces.
That sounds like some interesting research to look into, how to turn the lack of gratifying one of the most basic impulses a person can have into exploration other constructive channels.
sourclams wrote: China's military is smaller than the US in absolute numbers...
If by The US, you mean the entire population of the US, sure. The reality is that they're roughly the same size (though China's active force is larger)...if you don't consider the People's Armed Police, which in the event of an invasion you would need to. That adds another 1.5 million combat personnel.
Relapse wrote:@Dogma,
That sounds like some interesting research to look into, how to turn the lack of gratifying one of the most basic impulses a person can have into exploration other constructive channels.
Yeah, its all fairly theoretical at this point, due largely to the obvious constraints on direct research, but its an offshoot of the scholarship surrounding how the absence of economic opportunity, when its perceived as deserved, leads to greater political and social involvement. I'll see if I can find some publicly available articles on the sexual connection.
Frazzled wrote:
Worse to worse drop a nuke into the pass and make it impassible?
The aftermath of a nuclear strike can be bypassed by way of NBC containment. It would make it harder to pass, but not impassable. You would be better served just using aerially deployed mines. Just as effective as a nuclear strike, with a lower chance of escalation.
dogma wrote:
I think you seriously overestimate the technological gap between US and Chinese forces.
I think you seriously underestimate what a heavy bombing campaign can do to any army's logistics. Particularly in terrain where bridges and passes form choke points. It's using the enemies own size against them. A smaller army can supply by air. The Chinese military, however, requires too much by way of supplies to effectively supply their troops with that method.
dogma wrote:
The aftermath of a nuclear strike can be bypassed by way of NBC containment. It would make it harder to pass, but not impassable. You would be better served just using aerially deployed mines. Just as effective as a nuclear strike, with a lower chance of escalation.
Not really. It's easy to rig a vehicle with a mine flail, assuming they just don't march everyone across it anyway. The Russians used to clear minefields by marching prisoners in front of advancing troops to clear them.
BaronIveagh wrote:
I think you seriously underestimate what a heavy bombing campaign can do to any army's logistics. Particularly in terrain where bridges and passes form choke points. It's using the enemies own size against them. A smaller army can supply by air. The Chinese military, however, requires too much by way of supplies to effectively supply their troops with that method.
You're assuming the bombers would get through at a sufficient rate to successfully create that kind of disruption. China has modern air defense systems and interceptor aircraft. As was said before, this isn't like fighting some oil dictatorship in the Middle East. Air superiority is not a given, and its not like World War II where we can pump out bombers by the thousands*, or train people quickly enough to crew them.
*During WWII we built ~13,000 B-17s. Since the introduction of the aircraft, we have built 744 B-52s. B-17s cost ~1.8 million 1998 USD to build, in 1998 (when the most recent B-52 refit was introduced) each plane cost ~53.4 million USD.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Not really. It's easy to rig a vehicle with a mine flail, assuming they just don't march everyone across it anyway. The Russians used to clear minefields by marching prisoners in front of advancing troops to clear them.
NBC isn't necessary either, at least if you don't care about the health of your troops. The point is that we're not just talking about military objectives, but political considerations. Using nuclear weapons is a pretty big international faux pas, probably the biggest.
dogma wrote:
You're assuming the bombers would get through at a sufficient rate to successfully create that kind of disruption. China has modern air defense systems and interceptor aircraft. As was said before, this isn't like fighting some oil dictatorship in the Middle East. Air superiority is not a given.
That's why I was talking B-52s. They're more durable then most other options, able to complete the mission even if missing significant pieces of their air frame. Coupled with their ability to deploy stand off munitions at range, they could effectively engage within US AA and fighter support range.
In addition, the loss of Hainan would cripple the Chinese air power in the area, initially. Victory would hinge partially on the US ability to take Hainan and neutralize a quarter of China's air power in that region in doing so.
By comparison: we were also flying those B-17s into the heaviest AA and fighter concentration that has ever been, far surpassing even modern Moscow and Washington, and doing it without much in the way of fighter cover.
BaronIveagh wrote:
That's why I was talking B-52s. They're more durable then most other options, able to complete the mission even if missing significant pieces of their air frame.
Yes, and then they sit on the ground having those pieces replaced, which takes time. Time that small forces do not have against an enemy that is only marginally inferior on a technical level.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Coupled with their ability to deploy stand off munitions at range, they could effectively engage within US AA and fighter support range.
With cruise missiles, that can be shot down.
BaronIveagh wrote:
In addition, the loss of Hainan would cripple the Chinese air power in the area, initially. Victory would hinge partially on the US ability to take Hainan and neutralize a quarter of China's air power in that region in doing so.
Assuming you can take Hainan, and assuming that China would be totally unaware of your intentions.
BaronIveagh wrote:
By comparison: we were also flying those B-17s into the heaviest AA and fighter concentration that has ever been, far surpassing even modern Moscow and Washington, and doing it without much in the way of fighter cover.
And if you lose one B-52, you've effectively lost 25 B-17s. The modern American military is not built for attrition.
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, I don't know why various people have such a knee jerk reaction to mercs.
People who fight for money are nothing new. In fact, until the beginning of the last century, they often made up significant portions of a nations military forces in the field. Some of the most elite fighting units ever have been mercs.
In a real war, Mercs give you a new tactical option. They arn't technically your soldiers, so you can use for some of the more distasteful actions you wish to take and you can then play the "not in complete control" card. Loose cannons are useful if let go in the general direction of the enemy.
Sorry, what merc is going to volunteer to put his boots on the ground in mainland China, knowing he's outnumbered 10, maybe 1000 to one?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Peace is impossable as long as the Muslims of the region have their heads up their sunburned bums. Which they will have forever.
I pretty much blame both sides. Every time one side mellows out enough to start making serious moves toward peace, the other snorts a line of coke off the sacred book of your choice and goes apeshit.
I hate to say it but that does seem to sum up an awful lot of it, on all sides.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xole wrote:Don't we have like 3 times as many planes as China does? Well...estimated to have. China is kind of funny with numbers.
We don't have them over the Chinese mainland.
Thats the central issue. Its not that CHina's military is the combination of Bruce Lee and Hitler, its that they are the equivalent of WWII Soviet Russia X10 and we have to cross the Pacific to get there. Just as they have a doe's chance in hell of invading North America, we have a similar chance invading mainland China. Frankly thats just fine.
dogma wrote:Time that small forces do not have against an enemy that is only marginally inferior on a technical level.
You're assuming that any invasion will be met by their very best units which will just happen to be loitering near the landing zone. While China's military does, indeed, have technical ability equal the US, it's not as even. China's best stuff tends to gravitate toward the top. That's the other reason that units in Southern China are still using the Type 59 and 62. Upgraded though they may be, they're still knockoffs of the soviet T 55.
dogma wrote:
With cruise missiles, that can be shot down.
You do know what TALDs are, right?
dogma wrote:
Assuming you can take Hainan, and assuming that China would be totally unaware of your intentions.
Well, yes, there's always the assumption you can actually make the landing in the first place. Based on what is known about the place, it should not pose much of an obstacle if surprise can be achieved.
dogma wrote:
And if you lose one B-52, you've effectively lost 25 B-17s. The modern American military is not built for attrition.
No it is not. However, used properly, that lost B 52 might buy days on the ground.
Lets look at the typical US first strike, shall we? Assuming, again, that surprise can be achieved, typically it starts with stealth bombers hitting radar installations with EMPs as well as stealth cruise missiles (yes, we have those) followed by a massive barrage of regular cruise missiles against air bases and AA sites in range, as well as an equal number of TALDS to swamp anti-missile systems with targets. This is followed with bombers and F 22s batting cleanup and hittng additional targets such as the bridges on the Yellow and Yangtze rivers, any communications not already knocked out, and C&C.
Frazzled wrote:Sorry, what merc is going to volunteer to put his boots on the ground in mainland China, knowing he's outnumbered 10, maybe 1000 to one?
"Hi, we have an operation in Asia that pays well and has air support. Due to operational secrecy, we can't tell you a lot, but you'll be fighting alongside a national military in a hot warzone'.
Frazzled wrote:
We don't have them over the Chinese mainland.
That was, again, sort of the point of taking Hainan, so that we did.
So you're sitting on an island. Big fething deal. Then what party boy? China is the size of the USA. Japan conquered most of their coastal areas and Manchuria and still couldn't take them out.
BaronIveagh wrote:
You're assuming that any invasion will be met by their very best units which will just happen to be loitering near the landing zone. While China's military does, indeed, have technical ability equal the US, it's not as even. China's best stuff tends to gravitate toward the top. That's the other reason that units in Southern China are still using the Type 59 and 62. Upgraded though they may be, they're still knockoffs of the soviet T 55.
Again, this isn't WWII, countries with a modern military have modern surveillance equipment. You're not going to launch a surprise invasion. Pretending otherwise is foolish.
BaronIveagh wrote:
You do know what TALDs are, right?
Yes, and?
You seem to be trying to prove definitive superiority. I'm only pointing out why you're wrong. The burden of proof is on you.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Based on what is known about the place, it should not pose much of an obstacle if surprise can be achieved.
Surprise? Against a modern military state that would be expecting an attack (China has surveillance technology too)?
Good luck. You may as well try a ground war over the Himalayas.
BaronIveagh wrote: However, used properly, that lost B 52 might buy days on the ground.
And what does the ground force do afterwards? Assuming the payload actually landed?
BaronIveagh wrote:
Lets look at the typical US first strike, shall we? Assuming, again, that surprise can be achieved, typically it starts with stealth bombers hitting radar installations with EMPs...
Grey Templar wrote:
People who fight for money are nothing new. In fact, until the beginning of the last century, they often made up significant portions of a nations military forces in the field. Some of the most elite fighting units ever have been mercs.
No. Mercanaries are more expensive than conventional forces, are less reliable, less accountable and much less trustworthy.
The only roll they have is for when the state requires troops of such a low standard that were they to wear their country's flag, there would be a public outcry - so they call them mercs instead.
Grey Templar wrote:
People who fight for money are nothing new. In fact, until the beginning of the last century, they often made up significant portions of a nations military forces in the field. Some of the most elite fighting units ever have been mercs.
No. Mercanaries are more expensive than conventional forces, are less reliable, less accountable and much less trustworthy.
The only roll they have is for when the state requires troops of such a low standard that were they to wear their country's flag, there would be a public outcry - so they call them mercs instead.
Whats that have to do with what I said?
The period I was referring to was the 1800s and earlier.
Professional standing armies only really began appearing in the 1800s, prior to that it was largely peasent levies, merc units, and some official standing military units.
Grey Templar wrote:
Whats that have to do with what I said?
The period I was referring to was the 1800s and earlier.
Professional standing armies only really began appearing in the 1800s, prior to that it was largely peasent levies, merc units, and some official standing military units.
When you say before the 1800s (psst...the nineteenth century), you also mean after the 5th/6th centuries.
The Roman Empire was entirely professional, as were the Greek City States, as was the Hellenic Empire (such as it was).
It's no coincidence that the Renaissance happened at the same time as professionalised armies. They created a more civilised, stable state.
Grey Templar wrote:its not Racisim, its a qualification of their actions over the last half century or so.
Remember, they are the ones who constantly break the peace.
By that definition, Israelis are scum.
No, the Israelis actions are completely justified. They are constantly under attack and some people have the audacity to question their right to defend themselves.
The Palastinians feed the cycle of violence by constantly attacking Israel(Civilian and Military targets with no discrimination) and the neighboring countries are no better.
They attacked Israel the day after they gained independence from Britan. What kind of messed up people do that?
Testify wrote:The Roman Empire was entirely professional, as were the Greek City States, as was the Hellenic Empire (such as it was).
It's no coincidence that the Renaissance happened at the same time as professionalised armies. They created a more civilised, stable state.
The Roman Legions were professional... Until the Romans decided they didn't want to be in the legions anymore so Rome started outsourcing their Military to Germanians... Who then sacked Rome...
That said, most of Rome's military was made of levies, not professionals (the Auxilla). They also, like most states of the time, regularly hired mercenaries to fight for them alongside the legion. Mercenaries are a staple of warfare, especially since the legions are a historical fluke, not a standard. Once Rome fell standing armies kind of vanished for a few more centuries. The Varangians were just hired Normans. These days we call them PMCs
They attacked Israel the day after they gained independence from Britan. What kind of messed up people do that?
The kind who disagree with Israel declaring itself an independent nation in the middle of a region predominantly made (at the time) up of Arabs who don't want to be part of that nation. Some people get testy when that kind of thing happens (though oddly enough most of Israel's neighbors today aren't that hostile to them anymore).
Grey Templar wrote:No, the Israelis actions are completely justified. They are constantly under attack and some people have the audacity to question their right to defend themselves.
Settlers.
I need say no more than that Israel supports these thieves, invaders, and murderers.
Grey Templar wrote:No, the Israelis actions are completely justified. They are constantly under attack and some people have the audacity to question their right to defend themselves.
Settlers.
I need say no more than that Israel supports these thieves, invaders, and murderers.
Grey Templar wrote:So, Israel can't live in their own land?
Define who's land it is. Jews made up a very very tiny minority in the region until the later half of the 18th century. The Palestinians had been there since the Conquests and Arabs were a majority since the 9th or 10th century.
Unfortunately, the Bible isn't a legal document (well.. it is, but it doesn't fly in a court of law ... Unless that court of law uses the Bible as it- Oh you get point), and God doesn't testify in courts to determine who owns what.
You seem to be trying to prove definitive superiority. I'm only pointing out why you're wrong. The burden of proof is on you.
Dogma, in any discussion with you, you insist that the burden of proof is on anyone but you.
dogma wrote:
Surprise? Against a modern military state that would be expecting an attack (China has surveillance technology too)?
Good luck. You may as well try a ground war over the Himalayas.
That was sort of the reason my plan was workable is that nothing out of the ordinary (as far as satellite and aerial reconnaissance are concerned) takes place until the very last moment. And, again, we can't even surveil the entire Pacific, and we've got a lot more hardware in it then the Chinese ever have.
dogma wrote:
And what does the ground force do afterwards? Assuming the payload actually landed?
Depends on the over all objective. Ideally, they move on Hong Kong and Macao to give the invasive force a deep water port to begin landing heavy equipment and then dig in on the far back of the river. A key objective would be Three Gorges Dam. Whoever holds it can more or less wipe out half the cities in Southern China at will. Beyond that, differs
Grey Templar wrote:Owned by people that are actively waging war on Israel. Seems like spoils to me.
By that definition, it's purely okay for Palestinians to go over ans murder a bunch of Israeli settlers and take their property back from the scum. After all they're at war, and it's perfectly okay to kill invaders-- and invaders are exactly what settlers are.
xole wrote:Our stealth bombers would hit them with bombs. If we wanted to EMP them that would involve nukes, which are kind of a touchy subject.
Actually there's a thing called an explosivly driven flux compression generator that sllows you to create a powerful but short range EMP using regular explosives.
Using a nuke to create a massive EMP actually would likely create little fallout, as the most effective way to create a massive nation wide EMP is to detonate the nuke about 130 miles up.
And why are people suddenly talking about Israel and Palestine?
Grey Templar wrote:Owned by people that are actively waging war on Israel. Seems like spoils to me.
By that definition, it's purely okay for Palestinians to go over ans murder a bunch of Israeli settlers and take their property back from the scum.
No, the difference is that they both had the ability and right to live together. And Israel was ok with that, but then the Palaistinians and neighboring countries decided to declare war. The palastinians never stopped fighting even after Israel kicked their butts.
Israel has the land by right of independence(from britan) and by right of conquest. The palastinians need to recognise a hopeless situation and either stop fighting their Israeli neighbors or move away.
Oh, so it's only okay for one group to be murderous xenophobic scum who attacks the other side at any opporrunity, destroying property and murdering children without being punished by law.
The other group doesn't have that right. They just have to sit there and be murdered with no legal recourse
LordofHats wrote:While I don't agree with Gray Templar Mel, I think that post is a bit... extreme
Is there a gentler word for racist then? Also for hypocrite?
Claiming that one side has the right to defend themselves, but not the other, for no reason than that they're not part of the first side, is at best a rather bizarre double standard. And claiming that all Palestinians are scum, for no reason other than being Palestinian, is racism. I guess I could say bigot, but that's not exactly any better than racist.
xole wrote:Our stealth bombers would hit them with bombs. If we wanted to EMP them that would involve nukes, which are kind of a touchy subject.
Actually there's a thing called an explosivly driven flux compression generator that sllows you to create a powerful but short range EMP using regular explosives.
Using a nuke to create a massive EMP actually would likely create little fallout, as the most effective way to create a massive nation wide EMP is to detonate the nuke about 130 miles up.
And why are people suddenly talking about Israel and Palestine?
It would create lots of fallout from the resulting nuclear exchange.
EMP burst to knock out commo doesn't work. All the US military commo gear and equipment are shielded from that. A EMP works best against a civilian target because they don't have shielding. So CHina basically shooting themselves in the foot if they try that route.
edit
Unless CHina sets one off above the US then we're screwed on the civilian side of the house
edit
I'll see your bs, and raise you scientific fact, bitch.
Baron Baron Baron....seriously? We're not "back the block" here. Ease up
Frazzled wrote:
It would create lots of fallout from the resulting nuclear exchange.
Simple way to do it: fire it from a sub right off shore in NK in the direction of US troops. It detonates at the top of the arc instead of coming back down. Instant EMP, it makes it look like another Korean rocket clusterfeth, AND, at least temporarily, pins the blame on someone else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:EMP burst to knock out commo doesn't work. All the US military commo gear and equipment are shielded from that. A EMP works best against a civilian target because they don't have shielding. So CHina basically shooting themselves in the foot if they try that route.
Granted a lot of chinese equipment might not be shielded but then we have to deal with the aftermath. We would need the civilian infrastructure mainly the airport/seaport to conduct logistical operations. EMP will knock them out and we can really ill afford the time to get them back up or clear the disable aircrafts and ships. EMP does does choose any sides but its own
Jihadin wrote:Granted a lot of chinese equipment might not be shielded but then we have to deal with the aftermath. We would need the civilian infrastructure mainly the airport/seaport to conduct logistical operations. EMP will knock them out and we can really ill afford the time to get them back up or clear the disable aircrafts and ships. EMP does does choose any sides but its own
If you calculate the detonation correctly, the EMPs AoE can be manipulated. Smaller area, lower altitude blast.
Yes I am sure its that easy. In fact, since China has lots of natural resources, I don't see why we don't do it now. Should be a cakewalk according yo BaronIveagh. Frankly I'm shocked France or Tawain haven't already taken over. Think of the increased tax base and how we could reduce the overall unemployment rate by adding 400mm or so emplyed persons. I don't see anything that could go wrong.
Why would a US supported Hanoi be a greater deterrent than the Philippines? They already have a very strong connection with the US (going back decades), and have already placed themselves in opposition to Chinese expansion into the SCS.
1. The Philippines are a pushover, Vietnam isn't. Vietnam is still communistic and thus can call on its people to perform sacrifices. Philippines are broadly westernised, western ideology, western political base etc, itsd easier to appeal to partisan self interest with a westernised nation than with a hardcore nation where the party line really means something.
2. Vietnam is first in the line. The Philippines will want to hold the islands off their own coast, this gives China the opportunity to deal with them last. As divide and rule is a strategy the Chinese are very good at I think they would win.
3. This doesn't mean don't support the Philippines, just dont start there. If Vietnam puts its foot down with US backing and says no other nations around the rim may join them. Back those that do with an offer to provide satellite intel if China flexes fleet muscles and offer to fast tracked sale of a limited number of land based anti-ship missiles at bargain prices.
4. Clinton visited Hanoi in the 90's the past is more or less laid to rest already. A US-Vietnamese alliance ought not to be too difficult to achieve, and there is certainly a need.
Its a tough move either way, China has already made very strong diplomatic noises about the little the US has already said and done. If the US wants to back their allies in the region it will help to make new ones in the process.
Use a lower yield then. There's more then one way to skin a cat.
Frazzled wrote:Yes I am sure its that easy. In fact, since China has lots of natural resources, I don't see why we don't do it now. Should be a cakewalk according yo BaronIveagh. Frankly I'm shocked France or Tawain haven't already taken over. Think of the increased tax base and how we could reduce the overall unemployment rate by adding 400mm or so emplyed persons. I don't see anything that could go wrong.
Never said it would be a cakewalk in the least. It would be a brutal, nasty sort of ground war and there would be a LOT of civilian casualties, even if both sides take the maximum precautions. Which I doubt.
4. Clinton visited Hanoi in the 90's the past is more or less laid to rest already. A US-Vietnamese alliance ought not to be too difficult to achieve, and there is certainly a need.
This. Is quite surprising how quickly past grievances can be forgotten based on the demands of present political interests.
Ok, Frazz, enlighten me as to how it's impossible.
Jihadin wrote:Start small like Baron says....and watch it escalate. Everything a legitimate target then
In most wars, everything is. However, that was part of the point in creating doubt as to who fired it. Making it look like a failed attempt by Korea gives the US plausible deniable.
That said, how does one defuse a nations launch capability? All I can really come up with is a decapitation strike on their capital, assuming they follow the Two Man rule in the same manner the US does. It would have to be the first strike, and it would have to be something that initially can't be traced back to the US. Some sort of engineered natural disaster.
I can tell you how to eliminate their launch capability over a large part of China, but not the whole thing.
BaronIveagh wrote:That said, how does one defuse a nations launch capability? All I can really come up with is a decapitation strike on their capital, assuming they follow the Two Man rule in the same manner the US does. It would have to be the first strike, and it would have to be something that initially can't be traced back to the US. Some sort of engineered natural disaster.
...
Or just help political extremists kill the party leadership which seems infinitely more plausible XD (and would make a decent "True Story" movie 80 years later )
LordofHats wrote:Or just help political extremists kill the party leadership which seems infinitely more plausible XD (and would make a decent "True Story" movie 80 years later )
DoD has their new private space program. Why not drop a small asteroid on them?
In most wars, everything is. However, that was part of the point in creating doubt as to who fired it. Making it look like a failed attempt by Korea gives the US plausible deniable.
You forget we have US troops on the penninsula to.
Ok, Frazz, enlighten me as to how it's impossible.
Jihadin wrote:Start small like Baron says....and watch it escalate. Everything a legitimate target then
In most wars, everything is. However, that was part of the point in creating doubt as to who fired it. Making it look like a failed attempt by Korea gives the US plausible deniable.
That said, how does one defuse a nations launch capability? All I can really come up with is a decapitation strike on their capital, assuming they follow the Two Man rule in the same manner the US does. It would have to be the first strike, and it would have to be something that initially can't be traced back to the US. Some sort of engineered natural disaster.
I can tell you how to eliminate their launch capability over a large part of China, but not the whole thing.
OK The US decides to invade China. Yes we've drunk the Koolaid.
Option 1: Your plan is to launch current forces. Fleet launches. They have to get through the Chinese Air Force and Missile forces to get there.
Problem one: Thats difficult. Thats difficult like Warsaw Pact WWIII difficult, except we're trying to invade them.
Problem two: they might pull a Frazzled and nuke your fleet.
Lets say you make it. Then what? How do you supply them? How do you keep them from surviving the juggernaut of 500 divisions of screaming Chinese that will come build and come at you within 3 months?
Option 2: DDay II this time its with helicopters. You wait to build up a massive invasion force that actually has a half decent chance.
Problem one: They again pull a Frazzled and nuke your harbors. Or wait and nuke your fleet at sea.
Or they don't and you land, and they nuke you there.
Er. then what?
See this is why nuke powers don't directly engage each other. Everyone dies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Then the asteroid hits. Creates a major problem. Creates a "winter" that last two yrs. After 18 minutes Frazzled is down to cannabalism.
Jihadin wrote:Then the asteroid hits. Creates a major problem. Creates a "winter" that last two yrs. After a year we're down to cannabalism.
A city smasher isn't large enough to cause a 'winter'. In and of itself, it's only equivalent to a few gigatonnes.
Frazzled wrote:
OK The US decides to invade China. Yes we've drunk the Koolaid.
Option 1: Your plan is to launch current forces. Fleet launches. They have to get through the Chinese Air Force and Missile forces to get there.
Problem one: Thats difficult. Thats difficult like Warsaw Pact WWIII difficult, except we're trying to invade them.
Problem two: they might pull a Frazzled and nuke your fleet.
Lets say you make it. Then what? How do you supply them? How do you keep them from surviving the juggernaut of 500 divisions of screaming Chinese that will come build and come at you within 3 months?
Ok, here's where you're already doing it wrong. You're creating a situation where we'd have to fight the whole way there and then land. The better way to do it is to move the troops to, say, Luzon and Mindoro piecemeal under the guise of regular troop rotations. There are still facilities there from the second world war that would effectively disguise troop strengths from the air. Once troops strength has reached necessary levels, bring up the troop ships. Most of the ones I have in mind look like cruise liners from the air, and spotting a cruise ship near the Philippines off the usual route is fairly common around the islands. H hour minus ten the Navy pulls up. If timed to coincide with the usual joint exercise with Taiwan, this probably won't trigger any alarms initially. The whole thing, at speed, should be able to cross the south China Sea in a little under three hours.
The reason this might just work is that China uses an approach they call the 'two island chain' system, depending on being able to engage opponents at extreme long range. The flaw in this design is that the US has military bases inside the 'nearest' chain, meaning that Chinese defenses have very little time to react. Further , China has recently moved it's short range nuclear weapons to Western China to possibly engage India.
Key targets in stage 1 would be the PLAN base at Sanya and the International airport at Haikou. The PLAN base is absolutely crucial, being the only nuclear arms depot (known) on Hainan, and also the headquarters of the Chinese submarine service and home base of the entire Chinese South Seas fleet. Taking it intact would ideal. The rest of the island, despite it's size, could be over run within 24 hours as long as those two key facilities were taken. There's an ideal landing point at Yingzhouzhen about 20 miles away. Resistance from the People's Armed Police should be anticipated.
The PLAN base should be underlined as THE most important objective that any invasion of China could have. Seizing it neutralizes 1/3 of their entire nuclear capability, according to DoD.
A: Yulin submarine base
B: Yalong Bay (Sanya) surface fleet base
C: Nuclear submarine base
D: Sanya City
E: Yalong Bay
A: Finger piers for berthing nuclear submarines
B: Entrance of the underground submarine tunnel
C: Nuclear submarine maintenance facilities
China is not, at this time, in a position to be able to level a counter attack on Hainan, as they lack sufficient airborne and amphibious transport capability to deploy more then a single division and half a division of paratroops according to the DoD. Further, China's nuclear capability is fairly limited, compared to Russia and the US, so, again...
Supply: not as hard as it sounds with (hopefully) near total dominance of south china airspace and their southern fleet in hand. 'Ideally' there would be a buildup of necessary material before launching an invasion of this scope.
As far as the '500 divisions' thing goes, China recently began modernizing it's army in the US model away from protracted wars of attrition in 2000, because their logistics would collapse within a week to a month, according to thier own admission and DoD reports. This is a problem they have not gotten around yet, and have difficulty supporting even the deployment of the 500,000 man strong reserves they have.
Think the financial cost for this endeavor will collapse the econmy of America. The government will collapse with it and thus the vets will band together and create Heinlain "Federation"
Jihadin wrote:Think the financial cost for this endeavor will collapse the econmy of America. The government will collapse with it and thus the vets will band together and create Heinlain "Federation"
Actually, it would do the American economy a lot of good, as it would increase the number of manufacturing sector jobs and reduce foreign competition.
Jihadin wrote:Think the financial cost for this endeavor will collapse the econmy of America. The government will collapse with it and thus the vets will band together and create Heinlain "Federation"
Actually, it would do the American economy a lot of good, as it would increase the number of manufacturing sector jobs and reduce foreign competition.
Debateable. One of the reasons the Iraq war didn't do this is because we didn't actually need to make a whole lot. It was already lying around. If I recall correctly the U.S. army has enough vehicles/supplies to bring in another division at any moment.
Jihadin wrote:Dang guess the economy didn't pick up the two theaters of war we were fighting.
Too much surplus from the cold war. and I'm fairly sure that we're not burning through munitions at anything like the rate we do against another army as opposed to an insurgency. Every tank we have isn't burning through it's shot locker on a weekly basis and needing new parts every two weeks.
That and going to war with China would mean no more cheap Chinese labor for American manufacturers. They might have to *gasp* hire Americans to make it here.
Too much surplus from the cold war. and I'm fairly sure that we're not burning through munitions at anything like the rate we do against another army as opposed to an insurgency. That and going to war with China would mean no more cheap Chinese labor for American manufacturers. They might have to *gasp* hire Americans to make it here.
Jihadin wrote:Dang guess the economy didn't pick up the two theaters of war we were fighting.
Too much surplus from the cold war. and I'm fairly sure that we're not burning through munitions at anything like the rate we do against another army as opposed to an insurgency. Every tank we have isn't burning through it's shot locker on a weekly basis and needing new parts every two weeks.
That and going to war with China would mean no more cheap Chinese labor for American manufacturers. They might have to *gasp* hire Americans to make it here.
Them or Latin Americans, Southern Europeans, Indians, Indonesians. Plenty of cheap labour around.
Yeah, granted, manufacturers would be screaming to let them make it in Mexico. Or for us to conquer Mexico and let them use them as slaves.
Drug Cartels will say..."NO". Can't really take over mexico with all military units involved in China already. Unless we take over Mexico first and crushed the drug cartels.
Jihadin wrote:Think the financial cost for this endeavor will collapse the econmy of America. The government will collapse with it and thus the vets will band together and create Heinlain "Federation"
Actually, it would do the American economy a lot of good, as it would increase the number of manufacturing sector jobs and reduce foreign competition.
Actually financing a war is bad for a nation's economy. The way a nation can make money in wartime is to remain neutral and profiteer until one side gains the upper hand. Then third man in on the winning side and use superior wealth as leverage to create post-war agreements heavily in its own interest.
Can't get close to mainland channel. Has to be done with subs. China has the capability for anti sub warfare and enough hardware to pull it off.
edit
I'm going to play devil advocate and say China not going to wait for the blockade to run its course. I just gather as many air transport and throw as many air wing divisions I can to protect my airborne forces and take Alaska. Or come down south and take out Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia to spread US naval forces
whembly wrote:All we have to do is blockade and maintain air superiority... the natives will overthrow the communist regime themselves due to starvations.
Yeah, because that worked so well with Cuba.
Jihadin wrote:
I'm going to play devil advocate and say China not going to wait for the blockade to run its course. I just gather as many air transport and throw as many air wing divisions I can to protect my airborne forces and take Alaska. Or come down south and take out Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia to spread US naval forces
Again, China still runs into the problem that it doesn't have anything like enough heavy lift capacity to take a major city from US civilians (the invasion of Crete but worse) , let alone from armies in Vietnam or Thailand, according to intelligence. Granted, there's a lot of assumptions flying around here, but a rapid assault on Hainan would decapitate both submarine operations and their southern fleet in general as well as cripple their nuclear capabilities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Because certain people in this thread cannot comprehend military action without a land battle.
No matter how you fight it, in the end it takes boots on the ground to win wars.
Melissia wrote:Because certain people in this thread cannot comprehend military action without a land battle.
No matter how you fight it, in the end it takes boots on the ground to win wars.
The climax of world war II disagrees with you. The concept of an entire war being fought without traditional combat is not impossible, it just depends on what is being fought over.
xole wrote:
The climax of world war II disagrees with you. The concept of an entire war being fought without traditional combat is not impossible, it just depends on what is being fought over.
I have to ask who you think won the second world war without using infantry?
Who said I wouldn't just be using military airlift. Commercial airlines work quite well to. I did have a change of thought though. Instead of Alaska I'm going for Okinawa Use a sub to get a couple SF types into Canada and blow the pipe line in about 4-5 places. Start slamming Taiwan with missiles to get the US carrier fleet tied up nicely there within range of my antiship missiles from my other subs. Throw huge support behind NK drive for SK putting the US Naval/ground forces in a delimma. Not enough US forces to spread around to protect everything
Well, the first part of my statement is "the climax". We never invaded Japan Japan. We just bombed it a lot. That whole Japan affair was won by the navy and the planes therein, not the soldiers on the ground.
We have no need to step foot in China. We don't want their land. Only their cooperation. And possibly their nukes. If we were fighting for Tibet? Different story.
Melissia wrote:Because certain people in this thread cannot comprehend military action without a land battle.
No matter how you fight it, in the end it takes boots on the ground to win wars.
The climax of world war II disagrees with you. The concept of an entire war being fought without traditional combat is not impossible, it just depends on what is being fought over.
Unless you consider the use of WMDs acceptable you must put boots on the ground.
Jihadin wrote:Who said I wouldn't just be using military airlift. Commercial airlines work quite well to. I did have a change of thought though. Instead of Alaska I'm going for Okinawa Use a sub to get a couple SF types into Canada and blow the pipe line in about 4-5 places. Start slamming Taiwan with missiles to get the US carrier fleet tied up nicely there within range of my antiship missiles from my other subs. Throw huge support behind NK drive for SK putting the US Naval/ground forces in a delimma. Not enough US forces to spread around to protect everything
Um... Three points:
Without Hainan, you've lost the majority of your submarine facilities including all facilities for nuclear boats. As well as any subs docked at the time. You'll have a hard time with a diesel boat trying to navigate the NW Passage to land anyone anywhere, particularly since that sucker has been monitored heavily for submarine traffic since the Cold War. You'd be caught anywhere in the Strait, and on the north shore of Canada within ten miles of the coast as Canada has been patrolling it heavily for the last few years to catch other nations trying to violate what it considers it's territorial waters.
Taiwan already has more anti-missile systems then God, and the Chinese would be firing them at such short ranges that aircraft interception would be unlikely at best.
The NK/SK thing is possible but unlikely under Kim Jung Un. His father might have done it, but I think with Un they'd be risking another front as the North Koreans would resent in the extreme being China's proxy and likely soaking up the bulk of the casualties.
As far as landing on Okinawa, good luck. Again, the Chinese only have enough amphibious transport for one division and the SDF might have something to say about them landing
Melissia wrote:Because certain people in this thread cannot comprehend military action without a land battle.
No matter how you fight it, in the end it takes boots on the ground to win wars.
The climax of world war II disagrees with you. The concept of an entire war being fought without traditional combat is not impossible, it just depends on what is being fought over.
Unless you consider the use of WMDs acceptable you must put boots on the ground.
Alright. Why in the living feth do people do this? Either you do X or you do Y! That's a fallacy...false dilemma.
We have no need to walk into China. Why would we? Why would we give their horde of foot sloggers something to do?
xole wrote:We never invaded Japan Japan. We just bombed it a lot.
I might point out that
A the climax of WWII was probably Stalingrad, Normandy, or Iwo Jima, depending on who you ask. In all honesty, the nukes were more of closing statement.
B that boots on the ground were still required to occupy Japan.Further, it was not just the bombings that did it but it was the bombings coupled with the threat of a massive invasion.
As far as fighting on the ground, surprisingly, there was some of that too, but it was Japanese against one another in the final days before the surrender.
xole wrote:
That whole Japan affair was won by the navy and the planes therein, not the soldiers on the ground.
The United States Marines had something to do with it as well... oh, and some Army guys too, I hear.
Trick is capturing Hainan. Unless you Tomahawk it but heck I settle for a couple hundred Tomahawks trying to take it out. There is only so many in stores. Besides I'm pretty sure I can hire a few mercs to take a trip in the Canadian wilderness to wreck havoc on the pipeline. Taiwan stores of anti defense missile will only last so long and resupply from the US is iffy if I'm continously hitting the ports with my missiles and air strikes. Goal is to outlast the American staying power. Okinawa itself can be nailed with missiles and quite in range of air transport. I'm sure I can get enough screaming maniacs to take Okinawa. There's only a MEU equivalent station there.
xole wrote:
Alright. Why in the living feth do people do this? Either you do X or you do Y! That's a fallacy...false dilemma.
We have no need to walk into China. Why would we? Why would we give their horde of foot sloggers something to do?
Well, war tends to be a sort of polar event, either you win or lose, live or die. There are not a lot of half way points, and some of them are even worse then the two usual options.
And, something I have noticed, a lot of posters seem to think that the Chinese army from the Korean War is still around. It's not, any more then the US Army from WWII is. Just snce 1991 the Chinese military has changed dramatically in tactics and equipment, and is not in a position to conduct wars of attrition either, for all intents and purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Trick is capturing Hainan. Unless you Tomahawk it but heck I settle for a couple hundred Tomahawks trying to take it out. There is only so many in stores. Besides I'm pretty sure I can hire a few mercs to take a trip in the Canadian wilderness to wreck havoc on the pipeline.
Hainan is doable. It's defense is too centered on a huge early warning.
China only has 1600 odd combat aircraft. Between the US,Taiwan and Japan, we have almost that many F-16s alone.
Jihadin wrote:
Taiwan stores of anti defense missile will only last so long and resupply from the US is iffy if I'm continously hitting the ports with my missiles and air strikes. Goal is to outlast the American staying power. Okinawa itself can be nailed with missiles and quite in range of air transport. I'm sure I can get enough screaming maniacs to take Okinawa. There's only a MEU equivalent station there.
Granted, they have limited stores (IIRC it's something like 10k munitions for each system, but I may be wrong) but China also only has limited supplies of Cruise missiles, and given the near inversion of the situation on the ground in the air, I'm not terribly worried about it.
And, again assuming that Hainan is takeable, with your navy in US possession or sunk, how are you going to get them there? Dunkirk style?
Jihadin wrote:Think the financial cost for this endeavor will collapse the econmy of America. The government will collapse with it and thus the vets will band together and create Heinlain "Federation"
Actually, it would do the American economy a lot of good, as it would increase the number of manufacturing sector jobs and reduce foreign competition.
Until the nukes make most cities radiactive hells of course.
You have to come in range of my ground SAM sites and Air Wings. Since China Naval forces are geared towards supporting the mainland and surrounding areas Lets not forget my MANPADS 8)
Mind you to win you need to put boots on ground. If so when would you land these ground forces
I can see targets along the coast but what about further inland. Further in you go with your air power the factors stacks against US air units.
edit
Also bear in mind for a land invasion to work in China it has to be done in Jan to Feb. The farmlands are frozen hard enough to support armor units.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Dogma, in any discussion with you, you insist that the burden of proof is on anyone but you.
Generally because I poke holes in other people's arguments, which generally requires very little proof.
BaronIveagh wrote:
That was sort of the reason my plan was workable is that nothing out of the ordinary (as far as satellite and aerial reconnaissance are concerned) takes place until the very last moment. And, again, we can't even surveil the entire Pacific, and we've got a lot more hardware in it then the Chinese ever have.
Do you really think the Chinese aren't aware of their territorial vulnerabilities? And that, in any situation in which an invasion was likely, that they wouldn't keep a close eye on them?
Or are you proposing that the US invade China without any provocation?
BaronIveagh wrote:
Depends on the over all objective. Ideally, they move on Hong Kong and Macao to give the invasive force a deep water port to begin landing heavy equipment and then dig in on the far back of the river. A key objective would be Three Gorges Dam. Whoever holds it can more or less wipe out half the cities in Southern China at will. Beyond that, differs
All assuming air superiority, which is a really bad idea.
I'll see your bs, and raise you scientific fact, bitch.
I'm well aware that EMP generating devices exist, I was mocking you for suggesting that they're viable, or widely used, weapons. EMP devices are expensive, easily shielded against, and have an area of effect comparable to conventional payloads which are cheap, and not easily shielded against.
Jihadin wrote:You have to come in range of my ground SAM sites and Air Wings. Since China Naval forces are geared towards supporting the mainland and surrounding areas Lets not forget my MANPADS 8)
Mind you to win you need to put boots on ground. If so when would you land these ground forces
On the mainland or on Hainan? On Hainan a two pronged assault landing at the harbor at Wenchang on the north of the island, and drive toward Haikou, and then on the south end with a larger force and armor from the area along the coast near the Zongtian reservoir toward the sub pens about 10 miles away.
On the mainland, near Zhanjiang to seize the airport, cut off the peninsula, and seize control of the highway junction. If the Vietnamese are in on it with us, this would allow us to also seize the port at Beihai by forcing any reenforcements to either fight down the G16 or try to flank through Nanning, if we hit the bridges on the Pearl River and it's tributaries with air strikes. Otherwise we have to land a much larger second force and move west at least as far as Quinbei, and then hold the pass to block forces coming from Nanning.
It's my opinion that if we seize Hainan and can drive as far as Macao and Hong Kong up the G16 and S 32 that it might be possible to force them to the negotiating table, particularly if we significantly damage their airforce. Particularly since there's widespread anti-government sentiment there following certain political events there recently.
And MANPADs are only really effective against low flying aircraft like helicopters. F22 ewar suite is more then a match for the older model units that we'd encounter in Southern China.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
I'm well aware that EMP generating devices exist, I was mocking you for suggesting that they're viable, or widely used, weapons. EMP devices are expensive, easily shielded against, and have an area of effect comparable to conventional payloads which are cheap, and not easily shielded against.
Widely used, no, viable, yes. Against certain types of targets they're highly effective, others, as you say, they're no more effective then conventional munitions.
Against communication infrastructure in China, they would be highly effective, as the Chinese don't typically shield their comm sites. Radar, as far as we know, is a mixed bag. Larger installations are actually more vulnerable, as many of them are mid 50's and 60's Soviet hardware or local knockoffs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
All assuming air superiority, which is a really bad idea.
Odds are good when we outnumber their entire combat air strength with a single type of fighter.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Widely used, no, viable, yes. Against certain types of targets they're highly effective, others, as you say, they're no more effective then conventional munitions.
Against communication infrastructure in China, they would be highly effective, as the Chinese don't typically shield their comm sites.
There is literally no way you could know the bolded portion with any degree of certainty.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Odds are good when we outnumber their entire combat air strength with a single type of fighter.
Uh, what type of fighter would that be? The Chinese air force has ~1600 active combat aircraft.
dogma wrote:
There is literally no way you could know the bolded portion with any degree of certainty.
Well, yes, actually anyone can. Their telephone switchboards are Japanese designs these days. Most of their military comm gear is older Soviet gear or local knockoffs, and Russian gear made pre-1985 or so is not very well shielded (ask the Iraqis), a fact that came up as something they wish to correct as part of their drive toward military modernization.
dogma wrote:
Uh, what type of fighter would that be? The Chinese air force has ~1600 active combat aircraft.
F16. with over 4500 produced, the US and it's allies could field more then 1600 easily. The US alone has over 800 active. IIRC the Japanese use the F15 eagle.
You assuming all F16 and F15 are going to be thrown in the mix of this fight? Logistacal support is not there. Don't count the A10 to much because they have to grind their teeth on the target and China has a crap load on MANPADS with a range of three miles The attrition alone for US losses is unsustainable.
Anyone can read a CSIS study, that is true. But that doesn't grant a degree of certainty given that it is, obviously, a public study.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Their telephone switchboards are Japanese designs these days. Most of their military comm gear is older Soviet gear or local knockoffs, and Russian gear made pre-1985 or so is not very well shielded (ask the Iraqis), a fact that came up as something they wish to correct as part of their drive toward military modernization.
Again, no way you could know that. And again, conventional warheads are more effective.
dogma wrote:
F16. with over 4500 produced, the US and it's allies could field more then 1600 easily. The US alone has over 800 active. IIRC the Japanese use the F15 eagle.
We're not talking about allies, we're talking about the US. We're also not talking about the USAF, we're talking about force that could actually be involved in a first strike against China.
Again, when presented with a point that makes your own invalid, you deflect and pretend it didn't happen; changing the premises of your initial comment in order to protect your ego.
dogma wrote:
Again, no way you could know that. And again, conventional warheads are more effective.
Sure, they're if you don't care about killing civys. The Russian gear they used as a basis for it is available on the market. If you don't believe me, buy one and open it up. Going by the stats for the Russian version the Russians used for themselves is a mistake, as they loved selling their allies 'monkey models' that were not as advanced. (Example: the T-72 the Russians use and the T-72 they sold everyone else are two very different tanks)
dogma wrote:
We're also not talking about the USAF, we're talking about force that could actually be involved in a first strike against China.
Again, when presented with a point that makes your own invalid, you deflect and pretend it didn't happen; changing the premises of your initial comment in order to protect your ego.
How on earth does that invalidate my point? For much the same reason as that, do you think that the US would face every last combat aircraft the Chinese have within ten minutes of landing? Further, you think that the first strike against airfield and air bases will hit absolutely nothing?
And, bluntly, if, as jihadin pointed out, and I agreed, we would need every available combat division, do you think that similar preparations would not be required of other branches of service to carry off an invasion? Because if that's what you think, you don't know what we're talking about. To make this work would require overwhelming force at the point of attack. (In this case Hainan) I think that with current forces and sufficient preparation it's 'possible'. It would require, however, a great deal of effort and likely months of preparation, stockpiling, and subterfuge.
As far as total aircraft coverage, I think it safe to say we can field twice what they can between the four branches.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Sure, they're if you don't care about killing civys.
Its a military target. There are no civilians. And if there are, oops. Its total war you're discussing, not some surgical strike. You even talked about blowing up 3 Gorges, and now you're worried about civilians?
BaronIveagh wrote:
How on earth does that invalidate my point?
Really? Your point was that the Chinese Air Force was outnumbered by all produced F-16s. Who even thinks that is significant, especially given that most are not operated by the US, and none of them are going to participate in a first strike of any kind?
You clearly lack any context, or competence. You read Soldier of Fortune and think you're an expert.
Ketara wrote:Am I seriously reading people advocating an invasion of China?
Oy......spare me military enthusiasts...
Im hard as nails, and even Im not up for invading China, I couldn't carry enough ammunition for starters. Me and all the battle hardened veterans and elite soldiers can stay home and watch the real tough guys in action.
dogma wrote:
Really? Your point was that the Chinese Air Force was outnumbered by all produced F-16s. Who even thinks that is significant, especially given that most are not operated by the US, and none of them are going to participate in a first strike of any kind?
Well, no, again you totally misrepresent what was said.
BaronIveagh wrote: with over 4500 produced, the US and it's allies could field more then 1600 easily. The US alone has over 800 active.
The actual point, which you missed entirely attacking the F16 statement, what that the Chinese airforce was not going to win a war of attrition, nor even swamp the landing zone with a bajillion Chinese fighters.
And, technically, in a first strike situation, the Chinese airforce's main participation would be as targets on the ground. It's sort of the point of a 'first strike'.
A US first strike against a near peer would look like somewhere around 500 Tomahawks, 500 ITALDS, 150 SLAM-ERs, 200 AGM-86s, ??? AGM-158 Stealth Cruise Missiles, ??? unknown EMP or specials. And that is before we get into manned aircraft. Think of B-2s and F-22s alone delivering 2000 SDBs. All of this would be directed at C3 and Air defense networks. I would be very interested in hearing how to discern and defeat a mix of 50 ITALDS lined up 5 deep and 1km abreast shadowing a much more stealthy kill package of AGM-158s all headed towards a single air defense asset. They won't be able to reload the SAMs fast enough, not before their depots start taking Tomahawks.
The US airforce does first strikes very well.
And, frankly, I'm not justifying this at all, it's the idea that 'it can't be done' that irritates me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
Im hard as nails, and even Im not up for invading China, I couldn't carry enough ammunition for starters. Me and all the battle hardened veterans and elite soldiers can stay home and watch the real tough guys in action.
I hate to say this, but the average footslogger could almost certainly carry enough ammo. Again, this is the sort of thinking it's still the 1950's Chinese army that seems to dominate this board, when it's not even close to accurate. Though, if the HRM's armed forces were to join the US in such an operation, they'd be ideal for hitting that sub pen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Me and all the battle hardened veterans and elite soldiers can stay home and watch the real tough guys in action.
Table top war gamer guys!
...matty, I'll just have to take your word for that first part. On the second, I've been told by enough foot sloggers that 'real' tough guys have to carry a bajillion pound of gear on their backs, 20 miles a day, fighting all the way. I'll stick to my air conditioned, reasonably bullet resistant, chunk of French metal.
I hate to say this, but the average footslogger could almost certainly carry enough ammo. Again, this is the sort of thinking it's still the 1950's Chinese army that seems to dominate this board, when it's not even close to accurate. Though, if the HRM's armed forces were to join the US in such an operation, they'd be ideal for hitting that sub pen.
Average footslogger?! Im a green beret, I can carry ten times the average footslogger!
Anyway, I was being sarcastic, the point is mate, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not saying their military is as good as hours, I'm saying we are fat and comfortable, so we don't have the will to fight, and that is the single most important aspect of winning a modern war. A war where the public are better informed than ever before. We have a society that keenly feels every death, and they don't, so how can you expect us to win?
Elite Soldiers don't win modern wars, tax payers do. And the British and American ones would absolutely gak themselves when they saw 20,000 body bags.
Average footslogger?! Im a green beret, I can carry ten times the average footslogger!
Well, you should be fine then!
mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, I was being sarcastic, the point is mate, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not saying their military is as good as hours, I'm saying we are fat and comfortable, so we don't have the will to fight, and that is the single most important aspect of winning a modern war. A war where the public are better informed than ever before. We have a society that keenly feels every death, and they don't, so how can you expect us to win?
Elite Soldiers don't win modern wars, tax payers do. And the British and American ones would absolutely gak themselves when they saw 20,000 body bags.
A luxury the Chinese hardly have to worry about.
Well, you'll get no arguments there. I've long felt the public needs to quit being 'fat and comfortable'. Again, from my point of view, this was simply a 'how could it be done' rather then just assume that it can't.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, you'll get no arguments there. I've long felt the public needs to quit being 'fat and comfortable'. Again, from my point of view, this was simply a 'how could it be done' rather then just assume that it can't.
Yeah well, its an interesting thing to think about as a student of war obviously, but my point is simply that its a bit pointless to think about because the only way we could win is if things changed really drastically, you need hunger to win, we had it once, we lost it, its a natural successor of success!
The only way we could win is if we had the will to fight, and as I explained, it is all important and nothing else matters. The US killed 20 times the amount of enemy soldiers in Vietnam, 66,000 losses against a million. And they could have killed another million on top, but they still wouldnt have won, the VC had that hunger because quitting wasn't an option for one side, and the same thing will occur in a proper war with China, we could only win if we wanted it badly enough, and that would only happen if we got desperate, and we wont ever be desperate, because we arent.
The British and American public will never again allow our governments to get involved in a conflict that would cost us 66,000 lives, let alone more than that, which is potentially the case with a full blown war with a decent sized superpower. We are well fed, well educated and well informed, and they aren't.
Desperation breeds hunger and desire, and we ain't hungry.
Afghanistan has, effectively, repulsed every major power that's ever tried to take it over, thorugh little more than the indomitable will to fight. Even Americans, who were the most successful, still are effectively being defeated and pulling out because the fighting just doesn't stop.
mattyrm wrote:
The only way we could win is if we had the will to fight, and as I explained, it is all important and nothing else matters. The US killed 20 times the amount of enemy soldiers in Vietnam, 66,000 losses against a million. And they could have killed another million on top, but they still wouldnt have won, the VC had that hunger because quitting wasn't an option for one side, and the same thing will occur in a proper war with China, we could only win if we wanted it badly enough, and that would only happen if we got desperate, and we wont ever be desperate, because we arent.
That's probably why Nazi Germany was so effective at crushing partisans in Yugoslavia and France.
Your argument about the west lacking the guts to fight might be more valid if we had a war worth fighting for - the US public was never behind Vietnam, the British public was never really behind Afghanistan.
What we're dicussing here is China essentially claiming other nation's territory - an obvious threat to peace and stability in the area.
an obvious threat to peace and stability in the area.
Its not our (US) area to begin with. If China rolls in and literally claims it by flexing its military strength the US politicians are going to scream loud and clear because its a "no no" and thats pretty much it.
an obvious threat to peace and stability in the area.
Its not our (US) area to begin with. If China rolls in and literally claims it by flexing its military strength the US politicians are going to scream loud and clear because its a "no no" and thats pretty much it.
The US will never pick a fight with a power capable of fighting back that does not attack them directly first.
