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.

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?

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?

Jihadin wrote:

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.

Then you answered your own question

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.

Jihadin wrote:Then you answered your own question

I think my point was that they'd be just as screwed as regular troops if taken prisoner. Which means there's no real reason not to.

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.

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.

Where are you getting this information? I can't find it.

xole wrote:

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.

Where are you getting this information? I can't find it.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

Read that wrong. Service is still 2 years.

People Liberation Army, China

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.

Melissia wrote:

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.

Comrade wrote:

xole wrote:

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.

Where are you getting this information? I can't find it.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

Read that wrong. Service is still 2 years.

Then they should have a military around 20 million, if not more, according to the CIA website. However, their military is estimated around 3 million.

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.

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

The state's monopoly of power is necessary for stability.

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.

@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.

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,

It would be a good topic for a thread in it's own right, and probably generate some excellent discussion.

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.