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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.

In all those examples, the military was key. Syria for example only went out of control once part of the military defected. Such defections won't happen in China, the commissars will make sure of that.

KTG17 wrote:
Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.

China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me

KTG17 wrote:
Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.

The Chinese defeated the US 60 years ago when they were just coming out of a civil war and were a good deal more primitive than they are now. Contemporary China is vastly more powerful than the China of Mao's day. Underestimating them is the worst mistake any American could make. You don't want a war with China. You didn't win last time and you won't win this time. It will just cost you a lot of lives for no gain. Negotiation with China and an eventual diplomatic solution for North Korea is the only option that should be seriously considered.

Some nice revisionist history there.

Let's examine some of it though. The Chinese attacked NATO forces with a army that was full of combat veterans who had over a decade of combat experience. They were armed with equipment that was on par with NATO equipment. They fought NATO forces to a stalemate. They did not win. They had conducted a well prepared assault on overextended forces, and pushed those forces back. Then were unable for 2 years to make any headway against them.

Contrast that to today. Chinese forces have zero combat experience. The vast majority of their equipment is still extremely inferior to that used by those they'd be fighting. They are advancing, and in 15-20 years, if their oncoming welfare crisis doesn't destroy them, they could reach technological near-peer status with US forces, but anytime soon, not even close.

They also don't have anything close to the ability to defend their global assets, and US forces will be able to, largely unopposed, capture and hold all of China's holdings around the world.

Don't get me wrong, it would be a nasty fight, undoubtedly. Unless we made the decision to do a full scale invasion of China though, there is nothing that China can realistically do to defeat us militarily, as of yet.

Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you. When you guys are once again back at the 38th parallel, having lost lots but gained nothing, don't say I didn't warn you.
The idea that the US could defeat China was madness 60 years ago and it is even more mad today. Any war between the US and China would end in nothing but a bloody stalemate once again.
The Chinese military has no real combat experience, but neither does the US. Low-intensity warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq against a bunch of goatherds with IEDs is a completely different thing from a conventional war. The Chinese military is a well-trained, well-equipped and professional force, not to mention the fact that it is huge. The technological gap is if everything smaller now than 60 years ago. On average, Chinese equipment may be about a generation behind the latest US equipment, but the disparity in numbers makes up for that . China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything. Not to mention the Chinese will do the same to US assets.

And please, pray tell, how would China do that. Would they do it with their 60% force of Mig-21s? Their massive stock pile of old cold-war era tanks? Their non-operational carrier? As I already stated, their soldiers have zero combat experience, where the US alone, the majority of the force is combat veterans, and has a massive reserve pool of combat veterans. Even those who have no combat experience are trained to a higher standard that nearly any other force in the world. The US's training and maintenance budget is almost double all of China's military budget.

There is a single category in which China has an edge on US forces, and that is in numbers. Ask the Iraqi's how well that helped them out. You can call it patriotic fanboism all you want. Cold hard facts are what they are. The US military has a better equipped, better trained, and better experienced force then China has. We have a logistical capability that no 10 countries combined can even build a fraction of. We have spent more then a century developing a force whose sole job is to fight and win on land that is not our own.

China has none of that. And you cannot argue otherwise.

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.

In all those examples, the military was key. Syria for example only went out of control once part of the military defected. Such defections won't happen in China, the commissars will make sure of that.

KTG17 wrote:
Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.

China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me

KTG17 wrote:
Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.

The Chinese defeated the US 60 years ago when they were just coming out of a civil war and were a good deal more primitive than they are now. Contemporary China is vastly more powerful than the China of Mao's day. Underestimating them is the worst mistake any American could make. You don't want a war with China. You didn't win last time and you won't win this time. It will just cost you a lot of lives for no gain. Negotiation with China and an eventual diplomatic solution for North Korea is the only option that should be seriously considered.

Some nice revisionist history there.

Let's examine some of it though. The Chinese attacked NATO forces with a army that was full of combat veterans who had over a decade of combat experience. They were armed with equipment that was on par with NATO equipment. They fought NATO forces to a stalemate. They did not win. They had conducted a well prepared assault on overextended forces, and pushed those forces back. Then were unable for 2 years to make any headway against them.

Contrast that to today. Chinese forces have zero combat experience. The vast majority of their equipment is still extremely inferior to that used by those they'd be fighting. They are advancing, and in 15-20 years, if their oncoming welfare crisis doesn't destroy them, they could reach technological near-peer status with US forces, but anytime soon, not even close.

They also don't have anything close to the ability to defend their global assets, and US forces will be able to, largely unopposed, capture and hold all of China's holdings around the world.

Don't get me wrong, it would be a nasty fight, undoubtedly. Unless we made the decision to do a full scale invasion of China though, there is nothing that China can realistically do to defeat us militarily, as of yet.

Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you. When you guys are once again back at the 38th parallel, having lost lots but gained nothing, don't say I didn't warn you.
The idea that the US could defeat China was madness 60 years ago and it is even more mad today. Any war between the US and China would end in nothing but a bloody stalemate once again.
The Chinese military has no real combat experience, but neither does the US. Low-intensity warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq against a bunch of goatherds with IEDs is a completely different thing from a conventional war. The Chinese military is a well-trained, well-equipped and professional force, not to mention the fact that it is huge. The technological gap is if everything smaller now than 60 years ago. On average, Chinese equipment may be about a generation behind the latest US equipment, but the disparity in numbers makes up for that . China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything. Not to mention the Chinese will do the same to US assets.

And please, pray tell, how would China do that. Would they do it with their 60% force of Mig-21s? Their massive stock pile of old cold-war era tanks? Their non-operational carrier? As I already stated, their soldiers have zero combat experience, where the US alone, the majority of the force is combat veterans, and has a massive reserve pool of combat veterans. Even those who have no combat experience are trained to a higher standard that nearly any other force in the world. The US's training and maintenance budget is almost double all of China's military budget.

There is a single category in which China has an edge on US forces, and that is in numbers. Ask the Iraqi's how well that helped them out. You can call it patriotic fanboism all you want. Cold hard facts are what they are. The US military has a better equipped, better trained, and better experienced force then China has. We have a logistical capability that no 10 countries combined can even build a fraction of. We have spent more then a century developing a force whose sole job is to fight and win on land that is not our own.

China has none of that. And you cannot argue otherwise.

The comparison to Iraq is not that great. Iraq was a different magnitude than China. What the real problem with a war with China in NK is is where the US draws the line. Will they do another round of 1950 and just focus on the war in the Korean peninsula? Or will they attack China proper? All the gear the US posseses is great, but only if they can actually finish the war. What if it ends up like the Vietnam War, with China as a secure base? Does the US risk the incredible economic/political/potential nuclear consequences of going after Chinese territory? The problem with China is that their country is politically better suited to long term and costly conflict, they just need to not lose. Any occupation attempt is doomed to fail, China is so vast that the CCP might never choose to capitulate. Not an unreasonable guess as the CCP has build an image of never bowing to foreign powers like the weak dynasties that sold out China.

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
There have been plenty of spontaneous events that triggered the overthrow regimes that had tight grips of their country. Look at how fast the Arab Spring spread out of control. The Chinese history of revolts and the overthrows of rulers. Just because they are Communist the last 70 years doesn’t change who they are.

In all those examples, the military was key. Syria for example only went out of control once part of the military defected. Such defections won't happen in China, the commissars will make sure of that.

KTG17 wrote:
Just everyone note the date and time. I hardly think the Chinese will give up their little islands and navy in the South China Sea for North Korea. There is no way the Chinese will win a naval war against the US, and while they could occupy then entire Korean Peninsula, getting boxed in there is not what they are aspiring for.

China does not need to win a naval war against the US. The Chinese navy just needs to defend Chinese coastal waters, and under cover of coastal defenses they are more than capable of doing so. The Chinese aren't stupid. They aren't going to send their ships out to open sea to be slaughtered by the US Navy. Also, a few useless little rocks for the entire Korean peninsula seems a fair trade to me

KTG17 wrote:
Besides, what better way than to get to know your enemy than to sit back and watch him use all of his advanced tools while you are learning how to build them yourself. The Chinese are simply not ready for the scale of the theatre that war would involve. If the Chinese attacked any US forces they would be kissing all of their global assets goodbye.

The Chinese defeated the US 60 years ago when they were just coming out of a civil war and were a good deal more primitive than they are now. Contemporary China is vastly more powerful than the China of Mao's day. Underestimating them is the worst mistake any American could make. You don't want a war with China. You didn't win last time and you won't win this time. It will just cost you a lot of lives for no gain. Negotiation with China and an eventual diplomatic solution for North Korea is the only option that should be seriously considered.

Some nice revisionist history there.

Let's examine some of it though. The Chinese attacked NATO forces with a army that was full of combat veterans who had over a decade of combat experience. They were armed with equipment that was on par with NATO equipment. They fought NATO forces to a stalemate. They did not win. They had conducted a well prepared assault on overextended forces, and pushed those forces back. Then were unable for 2 years to make any headway against them.

Contrast that to today. Chinese forces have zero combat experience. The vast majority of their equipment is still extremely inferior to that used by those they'd be fighting. They are advancing, and in 15-20 years, if their oncoming welfare crisis doesn't destroy them, they could reach technological near-peer status with US forces, but anytime soon, not even close.

They also don't have anything close to the ability to defend their global assets, and US forces will be able to, largely unopposed, capture and hold all of China's holdings around the world.

Don't get me wrong, it would be a nasty fight, undoubtedly. Unless we made the decision to do a full scale invasion of China though, there is nothing that China can realistically do to defeat us militarily, as of yet.

Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you. When you guys are once again back at the 38th parallel, having lost lots but gained nothing, don't say I didn't warn you.
The idea that the US could defeat China was madness 60 years ago and it is even more mad today. Any war between the US and China would end in nothing but a bloody stalemate once again.
The Chinese military has no real combat experience, but neither does the US. Low-intensity warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq against a bunch of goatherds with IEDs is a completely different thing from a conventional war. The Chinese military is a well-trained, well-equipped and professional force, not to mention the fact that it is huge. The technological gap is if everything smaller now than 60 years ago. On average, Chinese equipment may be about a generation behind the latest US equipment, but the disparity in numbers makes up for that . China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything. Not to mention the Chinese will do the same to US assets.

And please, pray tell, how would China do that. Would they do it with their 60% force of Mig-21s? Their massive stock pile of old cold-war era tanks? Their non-operational carrier? As I already stated, their soldiers have zero combat experience, where the US alone, the majority of the force is combat veterans, and has a massive reserve pool of combat veterans. Even those who have no combat experience are trained to a higher standard that nearly any other force in the world. The US's training and maintenance budget is almost double all of China's military budget.

There is a single category in which China has an edge on US forces, and that is in numbers. Ask the Iraqi's how well that helped them out. You can call it patriotic fanboism all you want. Cold hard facts are what they are. The US military has a better equipped, better trained, and better experienced force then China has. We have a logistical capability that no 10 countries combined can even build a fraction of. We have spent more then a century developing a force whose sole job is to fight and win on land that is not our own.

China has none of that. And you cannot argue otherwise.

I can not, because what you say is true. But the same was true in Vietnam, and yet you lost. The same was true for the Germans when they invaded the Soviet Union, and yet they lost. Technology usually loses out against numbers, provided both sides are well-motivated and the technological gap isn't too big (like guns vs bow and arrow big). It doesn't matter if your tank is two generations ahead of the enemy's when the enemy has 10 tanks for every tank of yours. Iraq was a backwater third-world country, China is a massive superpower that rivals the US with the second or third-most powerful military in the world. If think fighting China will be anything like fighting Iraq... well, as they say, pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Please don't underestimate China.

The Chinese military is NOT well trained. Yes there will be elite units that will be, but the bulk of the Chinese military suffers from corruption, lack of experience, and leadership.

Military operations involve a lot more than a soldier with a gun or an aircraft with a missile. Its a combination of managing a system, exploiting the advantages you have over your enemy with information, logistics, and combined arms. And yes, the US has been perfecting all of it since Desert Storm. The Chinese haven't really fought anyone, and when they have its been with ground forces only.

Not to say that the Korean isn't going to be a bloody affair, but the Chinese will lose everything else and for what? The US isn't leaving Southeast Asia, and going to war against it will just make the US invest more and more there. The whole point of the island building and their navy is to deter the US in a FUTURE conflict, especially over Tawian, to protect their Maritime Silk Road, and disputes with nations along the South China Sea. They are not ready now, and an all-out war with the US is going to crush that plan as well as set it back 10-20 years.

Also, it isn't like much of a conflict is going to appear anywhere near the coast of the United States. That should tell you something too.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I can not, because what you say is true. But the same was true in Vietnam, and yet you lost. The same was true for the Germans when they invaded the Soviet Union, and yet they lost. Technology usually loses out against numbers, provided both sides are well-motivated and the technological gap isn't too big (like guns vs bow and arrow big). It doesn't matter if your tank is two generations ahead of the enemy's when the enemy has 10 tanks for every tank of yours. Iraq was a backwater third-world country, China is a massive superpower that rivals the US with the second or third-most powerful military in the world. If think fighting China will be anything like fighting Iraq... well, as they say, pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Please don't underestimate China.

First of all, read a book on the Vietnam war. I hate hear the ignorance behind saying the US lost that war. The whole point of us fighting in that war was to stop the North from taking over the South, and while WE WERE THERE, they did not. It wasn't until AFTER the US left, did the North re-invade the South and took it over. The North Vietnamese DID NOT defeat the US military.

We are not questioning China's abilities in certain areas. They can field far more troops than the US can, and invading the Chinese mainland would be foolish. But in a narrow area like Korea it would be a big enough bloody affair to give them a black eye, their economy would be devastated, they would face social upheaval at home, and lose everything in the South China Sea and everything they are building to support their Maritime Silk Road.

KTG17 wrote:
The Chinese military is NOT well trained. Yes there will be elite units that will be, but the bulk of the Chinese military suffers from corruption, lack of experience, and leadership.

Military operations involve a lot more than a soldier with a gun or an aircraft with a missile. Its a combination of managing a system, exploiting the advantages you have over your enemy with information, logistics, and combined arms. And yes, the US has been perfecting all of it since Desert Storm. The Chinese haven't really fought anyone, and when they have its been with ground forces only.

Not to say that the Korean isn't going to be a bloody affair, but the Chinese will lose everything else and for what? The US isn't leaving Southeast Asia, and going to war against it will just make the US invest more and more there. The whole point of the island building and their navy is to deter the US in a FUTURE conflict, especially over Tawian, to protect their Maritime Silk Road, and disputes with nations along the South China Sea. They are not ready now, and an all-out war with the US is going to crush that plan as well as set it back 10-20 years.

Also, it isn't like much of a conflict is going to appear anywhere near the coast of the United States. That should tell you something too.

Yet US naval forces in East Asia are also suffering from a list of mishaps currently. Not on a crippling scale of course, but still.

You don't understand the CCP. The whole reason for claiming islands is to keep the US further away. How does that make sense if they let the US just set up on the Yalu river? Completely invalidates the efforts in the South China Sea. Like you say, the US won't leave anyway, why lett them get closer though.

China is still a nuclear power, escalation is extremely risky. Plus China is better equipped politically to suffer casualties if a potential war drags on. It not going to go full on from the get go and any attacks on the Chinese coast carry a significant escalation risk. What is the end game?

On Vietnam, the US neither won nor lost that war strictly from a military point. A war with China is going to end up the same way, you can't invade them just like North Vietnam due to Chinese escalation. The US risks massive damage too, with no guarentee that the CCP would lose power. Its a lose lose for the US either way, same as China if they go full out in Korea.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
The Chinese military is NOT well trained. Yes there will be elite units that will be, but the bulk of the Chinese military suffers from corruption, lack of experience, and leadership.

Military operations involve a lot more than a soldier with a gun or an aircraft with a missile. Its a combination of managing a system, exploiting the advantages you have over your enemy with information, logistics, and combined arms. And yes, the US has been perfecting all of it since Desert Storm. The Chinese haven't really fought anyone, and when they have its been with ground forces only.

Not to say that the Korean isn't going to be a bloody affair, but the Chinese will lose everything else and for what? The US isn't leaving Southeast Asia, and going to war against it will just make the US invest more and more there. The whole point of the island building and their navy is to deter the US in a FUTURE conflict, especially over Tawian, to protect their Maritime Silk Road, and disputes with nations along the South China Sea. They are not ready now, and an all-out war with the US is going to crush that plan as well as set it back 10-20 years.

Also, it isn't like much of a conflict is going to appear anywhere near the coast of the United States. That should tell you something too.

Yet US naval forces in East Asia are also suffering from a list of mishaps currently. Not on a crippling scale of course, but still.

You don't understand the CCP. The whole reason for claiming islands is to keep the US further away. How does that make sense if they let the US just set up on the Yalu river? Completely invalidates the efforts in the South China Sea. Like you say, the US won't leave anyway, why lett them get closer though.

China is still a nuclear power, escalation is extremely risky. Plus China is better equipped politically to suffer casualties if a potential war drags on. It not going to go full on from the get go and any attacks on the Chinese coast carry a significant escalation risk. What is the end game?

In the event of China entering the conflict regarding Korea, we'd have to take pains to not hit the mainland, unless militarily necessary. We don't need to do that to hurt them though. Their naval might will not be enough to meet us on open water, so they'll be penned up, just like the German's were, against the British. We can effect a crippling blockade. Marine and Airborne strikes on their remote islands, hitting their base in Africa, and taking any major economic holdings they have in other parts of the world would be a huge blow to their prestige, where they'd be utterly incapable of retaliating. Conflict on the Korea front, N. Korea will be spent by the time China mobilizes enough forces to push in. That would be about the same exact time that the entire US military will be mobilized, and our much greater logistical capability will be putting several brigades on the ground per day, while we'd quickly establish air dominance over China's significantly older Air Force. In the end, it would be economics that sealed the deal, as others have repeatedly said. Shutting down the sea lanes will utterly cripple China within a matter of weeks. They just don't have the self-sustaining economy that they had in the 19th century and earlier that made them such a tough nut to crack.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yet US naval forces in East Asia are also suffering from a list of mishaps currently. Not on a crippling scale of course, but still.

You don't understand the CCP. The whole reason for claiming islands is to keep the US further away. How does that make sense if they let the US just set up on the Yalu river? Completely invalidates the efforts in the South China Sea. Like you say, the US won't leave anyway, why lett them get closer though.

China is still a nuclear power, escalation is extremely risky. Plus China is better equipped politically to suffer casualties if a potential war drags on. It not going to go full on from the get go and any attacks on the Chinese coast carry a significant escalation risk. What is the end game?

Those islands, which they are trying to claim to keep the US away, will be no more of a defense right now than any of the island the Japanese had during WWII. China does not have a system in place yet for them to properly support each other. Those islands will be lost in a war today one by one, especially after the Chinese navy is lost. So then what?

The Chinese are very patient. They worship Sun Tzu. And I highly doubt Sun Tzu is going to advise getting into a fight with a more powerful opponent when you have more to lose.

I am not denying that they wont want US troops in Northern Korea, but if they see that the US is bent on removing Kim, and I think we are heading that way, then they will step aside for certain assurances. After all, if they said, "We'll defend Kim if the US attacks first, but he is on their own if he attacks them first," then they have already accepted a situation that would have US troops in North Korea. So for me, there is obviously some wiggle room, and once everyone see's the US is going on with it, then there will probably be some behind-door agreements.

I am trying to look at this as objectively and rationally as possible. I just think the Chinese have way too much to lose. Losing face over Korea is one thing. Having their military knocked back into the 1930s is going to be a much greater loss of face.

 djones520 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
The Chinese military is NOT well trained. Yes there will be elite units that will be, but the bulk of the Chinese military suffers from corruption, lack of experience, and leadership.

Military operations involve a lot more than a soldier with a gun or an aircraft with a missile. Its a combination of managing a system, exploiting the advantages you have over your enemy with information, logistics, and combined arms. And yes, the US has been perfecting all of it since Desert Storm. The Chinese haven't really fought anyone, and when they have its been with ground forces only.

Not to say that the Korean isn't going to be a bloody affair, but the Chinese will lose everything else and for what? The US isn't leaving Southeast Asia, and going to war against it will just make the US invest more and more there. The whole point of the island building and their navy is to deter the US in a FUTURE conflict, especially over Tawian, to protect their Maritime Silk Road, and disputes with nations along the South China Sea. They are not ready now, and an all-out war with the US is going to crush that plan as well as set it back 10-20 years.

Also, it isn't like much of a conflict is going to appear anywhere near the coast of the United States. That should tell you something too.

Yet US naval forces in East Asia are also suffering from a list of mishaps currently. Not on a crippling scale of course, but still.

You don't understand the CCP. The whole reason for claiming islands is to keep the US further away. How does that make sense if they let the US just set up on the Yalu river? Completely invalidates the efforts in the South China Sea. Like you say, the US won't leave anyway, why lett them get closer though.

China is still a nuclear power, escalation is extremely risky. Plus China is better equipped politically to suffer casualties if a potential war drags on. It not going to go full on from the get go and any attacks on the Chinese coast carry a significant escalation risk. What is the end game?

In the event of China entering the conflict regarding Korea, we'd have to take pains to not hit the mainland, unless militarily necessary. We don't need to do that to hurt them though. Their naval might will not be enough to meet us on open water, so they'll be penned up, just like the German's were, against the British. We can effect a crippling blockade. Marine and Airborne strikes on their remote islands, hitting their base in Africa, and taking any major economic holdings they have in other parts of the world would be a huge blow to their prestige, where they'd be utterly incapable of retaliating. Conflict on the Korea front, N. Korea will be spent by the time China mobilizes enough forces to push in. That would be about the same exact time that the entire US military will be mobilized, and our much greater logistical capability will be putting several brigades on the ground per day, while we'd quickly establish air dominance over China's significantly older Air Force. In the end, it would be economics that sealed the deal, as others have repeatedly said. Shutting down the sea lanes will utterly cripple China within a matter of weeks. They just don't have the self-sustaining economy that they had in the 19th century and earlier that made them such a tough nut to crack.

In the end economics go both ways with no clear assurance that any other country will observe a blockade. Plus the CCP is tenacious. Its not going to be easy to crack them regardless. Politics and economics will be decisive, the military can only do so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yet US naval forces in East Asia are also suffering from a list of mishaps currently. Not on a crippling scale of course, but still.

You don't understand the CCP. The whole reason for claiming islands is to keep the US further away. How does that make sense if they let the US just set up on the Yalu river? Completely invalidates the efforts in the South China Sea. Like you say, the US won't leave anyway, why lett them get closer though.

China is still a nuclear power, escalation is extremely risky. Plus China is better equipped politically to suffer casualties if a potential war drags on. It not going to go full on from the get go and any attacks on the Chinese coast carry a significant escalation risk. What is the end game?

Those islands, which they are trying to claim to keep the US away, will be no more of a defense right now than any of the island the Japanese had during WWII. China does not have a system in place yet for them to properly support each other. Those islands will be lost in a war today one by one, especially after the Chinese navy is lost. So then what?

The Chinese are very patient. They worship Sun Tzu. And I highly doubt Sun Tzu is going to advise getting into a fight with a more powerful opponent when you have more to lose.

I am not denying that they wont want US troops in Northern Korea, but if they see that the US is bent on removing Kim, and I think we are heading that way, then they will step aside for certain assurances. After all, if they said, "We'll defend Kim if the US attacks first, but he is on their own if he attacks them first," then they have already accepted a situation that would have US troops in North Korea. So for me, there is obviously some wiggle room, and once everyone see's the US is going on with it, then there will probably be some behind-door agreements.

I am trying to look at this as objectively and rationally as possible. I just think the Chinese have way too much to lose. Losing face over Korea is one thing. Having their military knocked back into the 1930s is going to be a much greater loss of face.

They lose the islands, then what? Will the US occupy every sandbank so they don't come back a year later? The ease of man made islands is also that they are expendable to an extent. NK is something they can't build out from the sea.

My point was never that the Chinese will go to war. Personally I think they have some backup plan to seize as much as NK as possible without coming into conflict with the US. The "were helping/peacekeeping" shtick. I think there should be room for assurances although Idk how capable the current US admin is on that front or how accepting SK is. China wants NK, do SK and the US accept that?

Loss of face is the major deal though. The CCP styles itself as strong and looking out for China. Losing the war might be less damaging to the party in the end than rolling over. At least you can spin a loss, not really spinning rolling over.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
They lose the islands, then what? Will the US occupy every sandbank so they don't come back a year later? The ease of man made islands is also that they are expendable to an extent. NK is something they can't build out from the sea.

My point was never that the Chinese will go to war. Personally I think they have some backup plan to seize as much as NK as possible without coming into conflict with the US. The "were helping/peacekeeping" shtick. I think there should be room for assurances although Idk how capable the current US admin is on that front or how accepting SK is. China wants NK, do SK and the US accept that?

Loss of face is the major deal though. The CCP styles itself as strong and looking out for China. Losing the war might be less damaging to the party in the end than rolling over. At least you can spin a loss, not really spinning rolling over.

Lets look at a possible situation where China gets involved:

1) US declares ultimatum. NK gives the middle finger.
2) US mobilizes. NK mobilizes. China warns the US.
3) US declares last and final ultimatum. NK says go stuff yourselves. China warns US.
4) US bombing starts. And I assume the South Korea army mobilizes too. Fighting all along the border, but NK buckles pretty quickly.
5) China responds - whether it be sending ground troops to North Korea, or attacking bases, ships, or troops with aircraft, maybe even with their navy too.

What do you think the reaction of the American people is going to be? Its going to be pretty much in line with how it felt about the Japanese. Now everything Chinese becomes a target. Hitting the mainland short of the North Korean border (like bases, staging areas, etc) is possible, but do you think the US is going to leave those islands and their navy intact? No, the US Navy is going to hunt down every Chinese ship and sink it. Marines will capture the islands, and the US Air Force will control the air space in the South and East China seas. There will be very little fighting in the Chinese mainland, but now there will be no shipping in or out of the South China sea, and China will have to rely on land routes. The US will sanction China, and China will be unable to process any transactions in US dollars. Their stock market will crash. Debt (already at scary levels) will explode, the Yuan will devalue as they CCP prints helicopter money, inflation goes crazy while housing busts, and so on and so on. Any company doing any business like manufacturing will have to move operations elsewhere, which will cause all sorts of unemployment. When a ceasefire is called, the US will be in possession of anything they captured, like those islands. Do you think the US is just going to give them back? No, they will use them as the US uses Okinawa and other former captured territories, for awhile at least. And yes, at some point the Chinese can try to take them back, but then what? To start the whole thing all over again?

Someone mentioned China's aircraft carrier(s), which are really not that impressive. They don't even know how to use them yet. But they are important symbols to the Chinese image. While we care about our aircraft carriers, we care more about the sailors on them. China isn't as concerned with the rank and file. The loss of those carriers, the islands, and so on, will be a big hit on their growing prestige. And for what? To keep Kim in power?

I don't see the Chinese really taking the US on until they are ready militarily to occupy Taiwan, and they are nowhere near ready for that. Everything they are building now is to allow them to do that one day, and to lose all this work over NK is just foolish to me.

I hardly think that China defending an ally from US aggression is on a par with Pearl Harbour.

KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
They lose the islands, then what? Will the US occupy every sandbank so they don't come back a year later? The ease of man made islands is also that they are expendable to an extent. NK is something they can't build out from the sea.

My point was never that the Chinese will go to war. Personally I think they have some backup plan to seize as much as NK as possible without coming into conflict with the US. The "were helping/peacekeeping" shtick. I think there should be room for assurances although Idk how capable the current US admin is on that front or how accepting SK is. China wants NK, do SK and the US accept that?

Loss of face is the major deal though. The CCP styles itself as strong and looking out for China. Losing the war might be less damaging to the party in the end than rolling over. At least you can spin a loss, not really spinning rolling over.

Lets look at a possible situation where China gets involved:

1) US declares ultimatum. NK gives the middle finger.
2) US mobilizes. NK mobilizes. China warns the US.
3) US declares last and final ultimatum. NK says go stuff yourselves. China warns US.
4) US bombing starts. And I assume the South Korea army mobilizes too. Fighting all along the border, but NK buckles pretty quickly.
5) China responds - whether it be sending ground troops to North Korea, or attacking bases, ships, or troops with aircraft, maybe even with their navy too.

What do you think the reaction of the American people is going to be? Its going to be pretty much in line with how it felt about the Japanese. Now everything Chinese becomes a target. Hitting the mainland short of the North Korean border (like bases, staging areas, etc) is possible, but do you think the US is going to leave those islands and their navy intact? No, the US Navy is going to hunt down every Chinese ship and sink it. Marines will capture the islands, and the US Air Force will control the air space in the South and East China seas. There will be very little fighting in the Chinese mainland, but now there will be no shipping in or out of the South China sea, and China will have to rely on land routes. The US will sanction China, and China will be unable to process any transactions in US dollars. Their stock market will crash. Debt (already at scary levels) will explode, the Yuan will devalue as they CCP prints helicopter money, inflation goes crazy while housing busts, and so on and so on. Any company doing any business like manufacturing will have to move operations elsewhere, which will cause all sorts of unemployment. When a ceasefire is called, the US will be in possession of anything they captured, like those islands. Do you think the US is just going to give them back? No, they will use them as the US uses Okinawa and other former captured territories, for awhile at least. And yes, at some point the Chinese can try to take them back, but then what? To start the whole thing all over again?

Someone mentioned China's aircraft carrier(s), which are really not that impressive. They don't even know how to use them yet. But they are important symbols to the Chinese image. While we care about our aircraft carriers, we care more about the sailors on them. China isn't as concerned with the rank and file. The loss of those carriers, the islands, and so on, will be a big hit on their growing prestige. And for what? To keep Kim in power?

I don't see the Chinese really taking the US on until they are ready militarily to occupy Taiwan, and they are nowhere near ready for that. Everything they are building now is to allow them to do that one day, and to lose all this work over NK is just foolish to me.

My guess for step 5, China invades NK too to preserve a buffer.

The exact same happened in 1950, the US didn't go after China. Nothing like the war with Japan. China will try to keep escalation low. As for navy and islamds? More where those came from, most of its outdated or easily replaced anyway. The assets at the periphery aren't that valuable. Its unlikely the PLAN will even leave its mainland ports where it has air defences, no reason to sail out. As for shipping? There could still very well be. The US has no real right to stop neutral ships, if it does that will be very damaging politically. The China US sanction way goes both ways. Both countries will suffer immensly with no assurance that other countries will back US sanctions. Its not going to be a cakewalk for the US.

As for those islands? Keep them, China can and will build more. No need to take them. In the future when the PLAN is modernized they will be far too exposed for the US to hold anyway. Sinking US carriers is also a significant blow to US prestige. The Chinese cpuld more easily brush off a few tiny islands and the loss of a practice carrier. Which one is riskier for prestige?

Its not about Kim to China, its about NK. You could knock off Kim any day as log as the Chinese keep NK. Any deal will likely involve the removal of Kim amd nuclear weapons but an independent NK. There are many ways to avoid direct conflict, so I think its unlikely. China just helping invade if the US is set on invading or sneak occupying from the back seems more likely

KTG17 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I can not, because what you say is true. But the same was true in Vietnam, and yet you lost. The same was true for the Germans when they invaded the Soviet Union, and yet they lost. Technology usually loses out against numbers, provided both sides are well-motivated and the technological gap isn't too big (like guns vs bow and arrow big). It doesn't matter if your tank is two generations ahead of the enemy's when the enemy has 10 tanks for every tank of yours. Iraq was a backwater third-world country, China is a massive superpower that rivals the US with the second or third-most powerful military in the world. If think fighting China will be anything like fighting Iraq... well, as they say, pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Please don't underestimate China.

First of all, read a book on the Vietnam war. I hate hear the ignorance behind saying the US lost that war. The whole point of us fighting in that war was to stop the North from taking over the South, and while WE WERE THERE, they did not. It wasn't until AFTER the US left, did the North re-invade the South and took it over. The North Vietnamese DID NOT defeat the US military.

We are not questioning China's abilities in certain areas. They can field far more troops than the US can, and invading the Chinese mainland would be foolish. But in a narrow area like Korea it would be a big enough bloody affair to give them a black eye, their economy would be devastated, they would face social upheaval at home, and lose everything in the South China Sea and everything they are building to support their Maritime Silk Road.

Yes, and the Soviets did never lose the war in Afghanistan .
The US was forced to withdraw its troops. That means they failed their objective and lost the war. Saying the US did not lose the Vietnam war because it withdrew its troops before Saigon fell would be like saying that someone who is losing in a multiplayer game but alt+f4s out before getting the game over screen did not lose the game. Chickening out before the end doesn't mean you don't lose.
The US failed to achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. North Vietnam did achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out who won and who lost.

And as to China, it seems you are blinded by nationalism. At the height of US power, you couldn't defeat a much more primitive Chinese army in Korea. Now you are facing a much stronger China and you think you will win? This is madness.

 sebster wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
And in reverse US economy would suffer catastrophically from losing trade with China. It's economic MAD. And it's not like China doesn't have nukes of their own to use against US.

Absolutely, economic MAD is a good way of putting it. I wasn't suggesting that the economic impact was purely to China, not by a long shot. I was just saying the argument that China wouldn't be affected was quite silly. Outside of that limited focus, yeah the US would also be screwed. In fact lots of other countries would also be screwed. Hell, here in Australia we'd suddenly find ourselves stuck in an awkward place between our #1 trading partner, and our #2 trading partner who is also our #1 alliance partner. Japan would also be screwed.

Everyone would be screwed, basically.

Indeed.

Which is why I think that in the event of a US invasion of North Korea that China would stand by and do nothing. It's a no-win situation for them to enter a conflict they would lose, even if it would hurt their enemy a lot too.

They'd be far better off just sitting idle and keeping peaceful relations with the US. Xi isn't stupid, he knows what the consequences would be and I think would choose the logical path of staying out of the conflict. At least directly.

They'll send troops to the border to keep the refugees from streaming into China, under pretense of making sure the US doesn't just keep going once they get to the border. They'll force their way into talks regarding the rebuilding of Korea and try to get some concessions, and likely will get a lot of them.

So, if there were to be a war with NK and china getting involved even in a small part, what would happen to the gaming industry? Seems like almost much every modern board game with a few exceptions is produced in China and then shipped out on big boats. What would it to do companies like CMON or Fantasy Flight, or even GW?

 Necros wrote:
So, if there were to be a war with NK and china getting involved even in a small part, what would happen to the gaming industry? Seems like almost much every modern board game with a few exceptions is produced in China and then shipped out on big boats. What would it to do companies like CMON or Fantasy Flight, or even GW?

That really depends on how the war goes. Theoretically neutral countries and ships should still be able to trade with China if its just a Korean affair with the two involved. Practically it depends on all the logistics being kept in place and no interdiction occuring. It could be a massive problem for the companies involved depending on how easy it is to set up shop elsewhere. The smaller the business the more it would suffer I assume. GW might have enough resources to take the hit and start elsewhere.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I hardly think that China defending an ally from US aggression is on a par with Pearl Harbour.

It will be if the Chinese kill American troops.

But not if Americans kill Chinese troops?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The US was forced to withdraw its troops. That means they failed their objective and lost the war. Saying the US did not lose the Vietnam war because it withdrew its troops before Saigon fell would be like saying that someone who is losing in a multiplayer game but alt+f4s out before getting the game over screen did not lose the game. Chickening out before the end doesn't mean you don't lose.
The US failed to achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. North Vietnam did achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out who won and who lost.

And as to China, it seems you are blinded by nationalism. At the height of US power, you couldn't defeat a much more primitive Chinese army in Korea. Now you are facing a much stronger China and you think you will win? This is madness.

How do you think the Soviets were able to defeat the Germans in Eastern Europe? Were the Afghanistani better fighters than the Germans? Did they have better tanks, aircraft? How was it the Soviet military was able to help defeat one of the best armies in Europe only to choke in Afghanistan a few decades later? Surely Soviet weapons improved, so what was the problem?

Do you really think the same country that defeated Japan somehow couldn't actually do the same against a 'primitive' army in Korea, or the North Vietnamese in Vietnam? What was the difference between those wars? What were their objectives. Not all wars are fought equally.

Quit simplifying results and look into what really happened. Were the Soviets ever completely committed in Afghanistan like they were in WWII? No. Was the US completely committed in Korea or Vietnam like it was in WWII? No. There lies the difference.

The reason a NK war is so problematic is that everyone knows the level of commitment involved, and the destruction it will bring. There isn't going to be anyway to half-ass that.

BTW, the US was NOT as its height of power in Korea. That was the problem. Truman cut the military budget after WWII and scrapped all sorts of men and military equipment. The US simply was not prepared for that war and comparing the US military to then and now is like comparing night and day.

 Just Tony wrote:

Pfffffffffffft, the left and the media have been trying to impeach him since before he was even nominated. I don't buy into that garbage at all. And in the event it DOES happen, how do you think President Pence will handle things?

There's a difference between media squawking and his own cabinet members turning stoolie on him to special prosecutors. And, while the leftist news doesn't cover this much, as it does not fit their agenda, there are conservative groups who would toast marshmallows as Trump burned as well.

 Just Tony wrote:

I don't know how China will fit into all of this, I just know that I don't have a Southeast Asia campaign ribbon... yet.

Well, first of all, you wouldn't get one then, either. Southeast Asia is, well, south of the proposed area of operations. It goes about as far north as Burma.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
But not if Americans kill Chinese troops?

I am saying that if the Chinese strike the American's first, it will galvanize Americans behind a war not seen since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

When America slashes back and kills Chinese in return, I expect that to galvanize the Chinese too. I never said that it wouldn't.

What I am saying is you are going to see a different level of commitment and support from the American people if another country 'attacks' us.

KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The US was forced to withdraw its troops. That means they failed their objective and lost the war. Saying the US did not lose the Vietnam war because it withdrew its troops before Saigon fell would be like saying that someone who is losing in a multiplayer game but alt+f4s out before getting the game over screen did not lose the game. Chickening out before the end doesn't mean you don't lose.
The US failed to achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. North Vietnam did achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out who won and who lost.

And as to China, it seems you are blinded by nationalism. At the height of US power, you couldn't defeat a much more primitive Chinese army in Korea. Now you are facing a much stronger China and you think you will win? This is madness.

How do you think the Soviets were able to defeat the Germans in Eastern Europe? Were the Afghanistani better fighters than the Germans? Did they have better tanks, aircraft? How was it the Soviet military was able to help defeat one of the best armies in Europe only to choke in Afghanistan a few decades later? Surely Soviet weapons improved, so what was the problem?

Do you really think the same country that defeated Japan somehow couldn't actually do the same against a 'primitive' army in Korea, or the North Vietnamese in Vietnam? What was the difference between those wars? What were their objectives. Not all wars are fought equally.

Quit simplifying results and look into what really happened. Were the Soviets ever completely committed in Afghanistan like they were in WWII? No. Was the US completely committed in Korea or Vietnam like it was in WWII? No. There lies the difference.

The reason a NK war is so problematic is that everyone knows the level of commitment involved, and the destruction it will bring. There isn't going to be anyway to half-ass that.

BTW, the US was NOT as its height of power in Korea. That was the problem. Truman cut the military budget after WWII and scrapped all sorts of men and military equipment. The US simply was not prepared for that war and comparing the US military to then and now is like comparing night and day.

Yes. The Soviet Union could have won the war in Afghanistan by simply conscripting a few million men and sending them into the mountains to murder the feth out of every Afghani. The US could have won the Vietnam war if it had nuked Hanoi and sent a few extra million soldiers. They could have. But they didn't. And so they lost. The Soviet Union or the US never fully committed to those wars, true. They were not a total war like the Great Patriotic War was. And neither was the previous Korean War. And neither will be the next. That would ridiculous. A total war is incredibly disruptive to a country. You only commit to fight a total war when there is an existential threat, when your territory is being invaded. You don't fight total wars simply because you want to remove some regime you don't like in a far-away country.
Also, even after Truman slashed the military budget, the US military budget at the time of the Korean War was still higher than it is today (in relative terms of course):

And just in case you are wondering, China's military budget at that time was an insignificant fraction of the US's budget. Money and material only get you so far in a war.

KTG17 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
But not if Americans kill Chinese troops?

I am saying that if the Chinese strike the American's first, it will galvanize Americans behind a war not seen since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

When America slashes back and kills Chinese in return, I expect that to galvanize the Chinese too. I never said that it wouldn't.

What I am saying is you are going to see a different level of commitment and support from the American people if another country 'attacks' us.

Definitely. But China isn't stupid. They do not want war. They won't attack the US first and they will not attack US territory. Chinese officials have made that plenty clear. They will only strike if the US strikes them or North Korea first. A strike on North Korea is a strike on China. China is bound by treaty to defend North Korea. Chinese officials have made that plenty clear as well.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The US was forced to withdraw its troops. That means they failed their objective and lost the war. Saying the US did not lose the Vietnam war because it withdrew its troops before Saigon fell would be like saying that someone who is losing in a multiplayer game but alt+f4s out before getting the game over screen did not lose the game. Chickening out before the end doesn't mean you don't lose.
The US failed to achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. North Vietnam did achieve its objectives in the Vietnam War. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out who won and who lost.

And as to China, it seems you are blinded by nationalism. At the height of US power, you couldn't defeat a much more primitive Chinese army in Korea. Now you are facing a much stronger China and you think you will win? This is madness.

How do you think the Soviets were able to defeat the Germans in Eastern Europe? Were the Afghanistani better fighters than the Germans? Did they have better tanks, aircraft? How was it the Soviet military was able to help defeat one of the best armies in Europe only to choke in Afghanistan a few decades later? Surely Soviet weapons improved, so what was the problem?

Do you really think the same country that defeated Japan somehow couldn't actually do the same against a 'primitive' army in Korea, or the North Vietnamese in Vietnam? What was the difference between those wars? What were their objectives. Not all wars are fought equally.

Quit simplifying results and look into what really happened. Were the Soviets ever completely committed in Afghanistan like they were in WWII? No. Was the US completely committed in Korea or Vietnam like it was in WWII? No. There lies the difference.

The reason a NK war is so problematic is that everyone knows the level of commitment involved, and the destruction it will bring. There isn't going to be anyway to half-ass that.

BTW, the US was NOT as its height of power in Korea. That was the problem. Truman cut the military budget after WWII and scrapped all sorts of men and military equipment. The US simply was not prepared for that war and comparing the US military to then and now is like comparing night and day.

Yes. The Soviet Union could have won the war in Afghanistan by simply conscripting a few million men and sending them into the mountains to murder the feth out of every Afghani. The US could have won the Vietnam war if it had nuked Hanoi and sent a few extra million soldiers. They could have. But they didn't. And so they lost. The Soviet Union or the US never fully committed to those wars, true. They were not a total war like the Great Patriotic War was. And neither was the previous Korean War. And neither will be the next. That would ridiculous. A total war is incredibly disruptive to a country. You only commit to fight a total war when there is an existential threat, when your territory is being invaded. You don't fight total wars simply because you want to remove some regime you don't like in a far-away country.
Also, even after Truman slashed the military budget, the US military budget at the time of the Korean War was still higher than it is today (in relative terms of course):

Spoiler:

And just in case you are wondering, China's military budget at that time was an insignificant fraction of the US's budget. Money and material only get you so far in a war.

KTG17 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
But not if Americans kill Chinese troops?

I am saying that if the Chinese strike the American's first, it will galvanize Americans behind a war not seen since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

When America slashes back and kills Chinese in return, I expect that to galvanize the Chinese too. I never said that it wouldn't.

What I am saying is you are going to see a different level of commitment and support from the American people if another country 'attacks' us.

Definitely. But China isn't stupid. They do not want war. They won't attack the US first and they will not attack US territory. Chinese officials have made that plenty clear. They will only strike if the US strikes them or North Korea first. A strike on North Korea is a strike on China. China is bound by treaty to defend North Korea. Chinese officials have made that plenty clear as well.

Yeah though China did also warn NK too in one statement. If they start the war. Or fore thr first missile then they do not get protected from the US and are on there own.

KTG17 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
But not if Americans kill Chinese troops?

I am saying that if the Chinese strike the American's first, it will galvanize Americans behind a war not seen since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

When America slashes back and kills Chinese in return, I expect that to galvanize the Chinese too. I never said that it wouldn't.

What I am saying is you are going to see a different level of commitment and support from the American people if another country 'attacks' us.

Not in the MAGA era. One side will blame the other, parasitic politicians will claim that it's all the other guys fault, and at least one side will turn Vichy. I mean, seriously, you have Der Fuehrer, President Treason in the White House

 jhe90 wrote:

Yeah though China did also warn NK too in one statement. If they start the war. Or fore thr first missile then they do not get protected from the US and are on there own.

Aye, the Chinese have made their position perfectly clear. If North Korea attacks anyone and starts a war, they are on their own and the US can do whatever it wants to them. But if the US or anyone else attacks North Korea first, then China will get a bit angry.
It is a smart move from the Chinese, aimed to ensure that there will be no war. North Korea won't dare to attack or start a war without Chinese back-up, and South Korea and the US don't want to attack North Korea or start a war if it gets them in trouble with China. Ergo no war, yay!

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, if you are so determined to live in your own star-and-stripe filled fantasy world, I don't think I will be able to stop you.

Dude, you claimed China beat the US in Korea, and that CHina losing trade with the US wouldn't impact them much. You really need to look at your own fantasy world first.

Any war between the US and China would end in nothing but a bloody stalemate once again.

You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.

China doesn't have much in the way of global holdings. Sure, there is plenty of Chinese-owned businesses and such, but outside of the US the US would have trouble seizing anything.

So they don't have many global holdings, except for the roughly $10tn in global holdings they have. Gotcha. And the idea that the US would be unable to ensure Chinese assets outside of the US is bonkers for two reasons. First is you're trying to talk about a few trillion in the US as if that weren't much to worry about. Second is most of the rest of the holdings are in countries with strong security ties to the US. Hypothetically, if the US does some incredibly stupid stuff in the next couple of years culminating in an overt war of aggression in NK which China responds to by defending NK, then maybe Europe opts to stay out, maybe. But anything close to a neutral situation and Europe sides with the US, and freezes those Chinese assets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed.

Which is why I think that in the event of a US invasion of North Korea that China would stand by and do nothing. It's a no-win situation for them to enter a conflict they would lose, even if it would hurt their enemy a lot too.

They'd be far better off just sitting idle and keeping peaceful relations with the US. Xi isn't stupid, he knows what the consequences would be and I think would choose the logical path of staying out of the conflict. At least directly.

They'll send troops to the border to keep the refugees from streaming into China, under pretense of making sure the US doesn't just keep going once they get to the border. They'll force their way into talks regarding the rebuilding of Korea and try to get some concessions, and likely will get a lot of them.

I agree the odds of China and the US fighting each other over NK would be close to zero. The loss of trade and the cost of fighting China next to their border would be too great for the US to start a war with NK. And if NK attacked and the US had to respond, then the cost to China of fighting the US would be far too great for them to fight.

That said, if the US did fight NK China won't do nothing. Simply because its on their border, they need to have a significant say in what happens there. Imagine if China invaded Mexico- the US would have no choice but to get involved, to make sure the outcome was acceptable to their own border security.

So China would at the very least be placing peacekeeping troops in NK. And it would be done with some extremely tense negotiations with the US, hopefully with a deal in principal completed before US troops actually landed on NK soil.

 sebster wrote:


Dude, you claimed China beat the US in Korea, and that CHina losing trade with the US wouldn't impact them much. You really need to look at your own fantasy world first.

You have absolutely no clue how warfare has changed. Modern war is brutal and insanely fast. One way or another military dominance is established in days. The only way it can reach stalemate now is if the defeated force manages to go to ground and fight a sustained guerilla war of attrition, a strategy that would make zero sense for two major powers fighting in another country.

A late friend of mine was at Chosin. China most definitely won, and forced one of the longest retreats in the history of the US military, driving the US and UN forces south of the 38th. So, let's not bs ourselves, if anyone 'won' in Korea, it was China.

And, to be honest, there's another way to win besides asymmetrical war. It's the same way the US and Russia won WW2 against Germany and Japan. Be able to shrug off losses of men and material. Something that the entire history of land war in Asia says China excels at this. For all the things that modern armies can do, they not built for sustained warfare. Effectively it's 'win right now or lose entirely'. China can just pile up bodies until a 'modern' army exhausts itself.

 djones520 wrote:

There is a single category in which China has an edge on US forces, and that is in numbers. Ask the Iraqi's how well that helped them out.

A little disingenuous there because saying that Iraq outnumbered the US is the same as China outnumbering the US is suggesting that the difference between the Earth and moon in mass is the same as the difference between Jupiter and Earth. It's the scale of the difference. and frankly, you stole the majority of your strategies from Germany, a country that was defeated. So do not presume that because the US military can walk over tinhorn dictators, it can walk over anyone.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
A late friend of mine was at Chosin. China most definitely won, and forced one of the longest retreats in the history of the US military, driving the US and UN forces south of the 38th. So, let's not bs ourselves, if anyone 'won' in Korea, it was China.

Chosin was at the back end of 1950, the war concluded in 1953. That's like arguing Germany won WWII because they had a decisive victory at Kiev in 1941.

And, to be honest, there's another way to win besides asymmetrical war. It's the same way the US and Russia won WW2 against Germany and Japan. Be able to shrug off losses of men and material. Something that the entire history of land war in Asia says China excels at this. For all the things that modern armies can do, they not built for sustained warfare. Effectively it's 'win right now or lose entirely'. China can just pile up bodies until a 'modern' army exhausts itself.

Being able to out produce the enemy was the US assumption for its military strategy in to 1970s. The US assumed that with the US and its NATO allies holding 4 of the 5 major industrial regions of the world (at that time) if war started they would be able out produce the Soviets and win. Then they realised that was a terrible idea. Studying the Israeli conflicts, in which vast quantities of material was destroyed in a matter of days, they realised there was simply no time to kickstart military industry, the scale of destruction would mean any conventional operations would be decided in a couple of days, one way or another. This means any conventional war would be won or lost with the gear you had at the start of fighting. This is the reason the US shifted to building up a much more expensive standing army from the mid-70s onwards.

If fighting broke out in NK, China's nearby industry would only be an advantage if heavy conventional fighting in the air and on land lasted for months, maybe even years. And it won't, one way or another air superiority will be established within days. Fighting on the ground won't resolve that quickly, but it won't be stretching out until China can crank out new lines of military production.

So if China decides to send forward large infantry forces as it did last time in NK, just think about how much war has changed. What modern air and power artillery can do to infantry that aren't burrowed in, but are trying to to advance in force.

 sebster wrote:
So if China decides to send forward large infantry forces as it did last time in NK, just think about how much war has changed. What modern air and power artillery can do to infantry that aren't burrowed in, but are trying to to advance in force.

China doesn't even need to give the guys weapons. Just send a million soldiers over to surrender, then a million more the next day, and the next. South Korea will buckle under the load of POWs and probably agree to discuss peace shortly.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Pfffffffffffft, the left and the media have been trying to impeach him since before he was even nominated. I don't buy into that garbage at all. And in the event it DOES happen, how do you think President Pence will handle things?

There's a difference between media squawking and his own cabinet members turning stoolie on him to special prosecutors. And, while the leftist news doesn't cover this much, as it does not fit their agenda, there are conservative groups who would toast marshmallows as Trump burned as well.

Doesn't change the fact that we've been hearing this same rhetoric with no actual grounds for impeachment in sight, and it still doesn't answer how President Pence would act if Trump WAS impeached. Impeachment won't magically undo the election. and won't get that party out of the oval office unless you are planning on impeaching several people.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

I don't know how China will fit into all of this, I just know that I don't have a Southeast Asia campaign ribbon... yet.

Well, first of all, you wouldn't get one then, either. Southeast Asia is, well, south of the proposed area of operations. It goes about as far north as Burma.

So North Korea doesn't fall under the Southeast Asia blanket? If so, whatever campaign ribbon it will be. I go where I'm deployed. Period. My feelings on the matter are irrelevant unless it's an unlawful order.

 Just Tony wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that we've been hearing this same rhetoric with no actual grounds for impeachment in sight, and it still doesn't answer how President Pence would act if Trump WAS impeached.

We've had two people turn state's witness, including Trump's NSA. Exactly what they've given Mueller, and what Mueller has from other sources is unknown, because Mueller hasn't released that stuff yet. This doesn't mean Mueller has a locked case on Trump, but concluding that we haven't seen what Mueller's got yet, therefore Mueller has nothing and its all okay is some amazing thinking.

Impeachment won't magically undo the election. and won't get that party out of the oval office unless you are planning on impeaching several people.

Exactly. And I would have thought the lack of any political gain for Democrats from impeachment would cause people to realise the investigation of Trump must not be a simple political game, but is probably because people believe he did some illegal stuff that needs to be investigated. But that hasn't happened, because reasons.