Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

*yes, and my flag too..

I'm surprised at all of you..Don't you know that you never get involved in a land war in asia!!





GG

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 this talk of invasion is just silly.

If the area in dispute is water, all you need to do is make sure you wreck the opponents navy, and control the airspace over the disputed territory.

Jobs a gud 'un.

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.

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.

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.

YEP>

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.

Azza007 wrote:

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:

Azza007 wrote:

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.

Only if its convenient for them.

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.

Dogma you and i have never been more in agreement

xole wrote:

Azza007 wrote:

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.

I can see China taking Alaska. Out of the box thinking way I can see them doing it

Remember you are taking on the high tech fleet

Wait, we're talking about China, aren't we?

Wait, we're talking about China, aren't we?

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.

Melissia wrote:

Remember you are taking on the high tech fleet

Wait, we're talking about China, aren't we?

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.

BaronIveagh wrote:

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.

Jihadin wrote:I can see China taking Alaska. Out of the box thinking way I can see them doing it

Anyone else having a flashback to the Battle of Anchorage sequence in Fallout 3?


And I still have not heard a reply from you about why the US should not employ mercenaries to supplement our troops.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Jihadin wrote:I can see China taking Alaska. Out of the box thinking way I can see them doing it

Anyone else having a flashback to the Battle of Anchorage sequence in Fallout 3?


And I still have not heard a reply from you about why the US should not employ mercenaries to supplement our troops.

Would it be cheaper than drafting?

You find your answer under the "US drones" thread on mercenaries.

Probably not on an individual basis. 4 weeks of basic training for a draftee and equipping him is probably less then finding and paying Mercs.

How much does basic field gear run the army?

We covered that in the "Female in combat" thread

Just breed orks. Its easier. Plus let them at the works in your junk yards and they will equip themselves. YES!

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.