|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mr. Pink
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: China
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| hellofaniceguy wrote: |
No matter what some folks think...the U.S. can not win a war against China. It's not even a stalemate; China would would put an azz whipping on the U.S.
The U.S.; Active Personnel 1,429,995 approx. China, 2,285,000 approx.
And North Korea would join in and help China...with its military which is larger than both the U.S. and China combined.
China also does not want the U.S. to invade NK as well; they don't want the U.S. to put military bases so close to its borders....
The U.S. would have to bring the war to China and fight on their grounds.
It does not take a military analysis with 10 PhD's or Generals with 30 years experience to know what the outcome would be. Look at it this way...the U.S. could not even take on Hitler alone! Hitler was doing good against the U.S. and would have continued doing so had not the rest of the world joined in and helped the U.S.! So going against China...forget it. No war. |
Why would any side use ground troops?
Also, why would anyone think the US public would go for any sort of engagement, be it in China or with Russia unless the other side provoked on a very large scale: I am talking attacking mainland USA here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Pink
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: China
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Mr. Pink wrote: |
Much like the US made known that South America was in their sphere of interest and anyone trying to influence that sphere would be messing with American interests and might be cause to go to war.
|
Please this is 2015. It's not the 19th century anymore. |
So, who besides the US has influence in the mid-south America region?
Also it was only 50 years ago the US almost went to full on nuclear war due to an incident in Cuba involving the Russians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hellofaniceguy wrote: |
No matter what some folks think...the U.S. can not win a war against China. It's not even a stalemate; China would would put an azz whipping on the U.S.
The U.S.; Active Personnel 1,429,995 approx. China, 2,285,000 approx.
|
There's more to war than numbers. Only someone completely ignorant in military affairs would think otherwise. But as I and others have said, it would not be a full-scale war. It would be at sea, and likely involve a small force of naval combatants, possibly not even much in the way of aircraft. The Chinese would probably lose a war against Japan. Japan's navy is considered to be significantly better in terms of quality. Its Air Force would be at least an even match. We haven't even brought in the US.
Not to mention the obvious fact that this battle would be fought over small islands that could barely hold 10,000 people on them and China's amphibious capability is really limited. You see there's this thing called logistics.
| Quote: |
And North Korea would join in and help China...with its military which is larger than both the U.S. and China combined.
China also does not want the U.S. to invade NK as well; they don't want the U.S. to put military bases so close to its borders....
|
North Korea would likely not. That would signal a widening of the war, which would draw in S. Korea, whose military is more than capable of handling North Korea. And what would North Korea do? Swim 1 million men to some disputed islands?
| Quote: |
| Look at it this way...the U.S. could not even take on Hitler alone! Hitler was doing good against the U.S. and would have continued doing so had not the rest of the world joined in and helped the U.S.! |
Really? Care to walk us through the timeline of the US being at war with Hitler and losing till Russia and Britain declared war? Any battles you wish to tell us about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
A potential war would be limited to a scrap over disputed islands and would be decided by how far China has come with its A2/AD strategy, they have some impressive missiles and in the necessary quantity. However, at the moment they do not look like they are able to target multiple fast moving targets all of which are brimming to the full with advanced and integrated defensive weapons systems.
Also at this moment in time China lacks a decent ASW capability and that is why Japan has invested so much in its world-class sub building programme. When combined with the US navy, China's surface fleet would be incredibly vulnerable.
China has learnt the lesson of what happens to a rising power that runs before it can walk. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan both made that mistake. In any case in a few decades the strategic picture in East Asia will change dramatically and China's current weaknesses will disappear.
You can already see it with the proposed corridor to Gwadar Port in Pakistan which would at a stroke remove the threat of an allied US blockade of the Malacca Strait. That is just one example of many of how China is slowly redrawing the strategic balance in the Asia-Pacific.
A limited war over some disputed islands will without a doubt occur, but only when China is in a position to win before a single bullet has been fired. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Never will happen. Wouldn't benefit the Chinese, or the Americans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Never will happen. Wouldn't benefit the Chinese, or the Americans. |
Whether or not it is beneficial to go to war is based more on the perception of any supposed benefits rather than a purely objective analysis.
It is quite conceivable that in the coming decades China would see the benefits of a short sharp conflict against a small regional ally of the US as a final stage of its strategy to take what it wants in small incremental stages. The Chinese are already building the necessary infrastructure and doctrine to be able to get what it wants quickly and painlessly, at least in the eyes of the Chinese military.
The real question is when not if... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Never will happen. Wouldn't benefit the Chinese, or the Americans. |
Whether or not it is beneficial to go to war is based more on the perception of any supposed benefits rather than a purely objective analysis.
It is quite conceivable that in the coming decades China would see the benefits of a short sharp conflict against a small regional ally of the US as a final stage of its strategy to take what it wants in small incremental stages. The Chinese are already building the necessary infrastructure and doctrine to be able to get what it wants quickly and painlessly, at least in the eyes of the Chinese military.
The real question is when not if... |
You're British, aren't you?
Why is it that the Americans eventually superseded the British as the superpower without any conflict between the two, at least after the War of 1812?
- Common economic interests
- Mutual respect
- Common language and culture
The United States and China share two out of three of these same things. It is more likely than not that a war could be averted between the United States and China, even were China to supersede the United States in development, power, and global dominance in a decisive and definitive way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazzmaster
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't see China starting anything big enough to start a war with the US.
It would slow down their rise.
And the US wouldn't do anything to start a war with China.
It would accelerate their decline.
It would take a unique and convoluted chain of events to start a US/China war. Having said that, unique and convoluted chains of events have been known to start wars among countries who didn't want to fight in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Never will happen. Wouldn't benefit the Chinese, or the Americans. |
Whether or not it is beneficial to go to war is based more on the perception of any supposed benefits rather than a purely objective analysis.
It is quite conceivable that in the coming decades China would see the benefits of a short sharp conflict against a small regional ally of the US as a final stage of its strategy to take what it wants in small incremental stages. The Chinese are already building the necessary infrastructure and doctrine to be able to get what it wants quickly and painlessly, at least in the eyes of the Chinese military.
The real question is when not if... |
You're British, aren't you?
Why is it that the Americans eventually superseded the British as the superpower without any conflict between the two, at least after the War of 1812?
- Common economic interests
- Mutual respect
- Common language and culture
The United States and China share two out of three of these same things. It is more likely than not that a war could be averted between the United States and China, even were China to supersede the United States in development, power, and global dominance in a decisive and definitive way. |
Yes, I am and I know that that example is often cited.
However, the big difference is that by the late 19th century the US empire had a lot of leverage over the British Empire. Canada would ultimately be lost (at least that is what they thought in London) in the event of war. Also the US had growing influence in Ireland which combined with the Home Rule movement made the UK nervous. The theory in London was that the loss of one province would create a domino effect which was remarkably prescient for British politicians.
British planners knew that the Americas were of little economic value beyond trade with the US, surrendering the lead to the US in the region cost Britain very little. Also Britain only lost its ability to compete after fighting repeated German and later Japanese attempts to redraw the global balance of power. It took many decades after the formal US economic lead to translate into an overwhelming military lead that would eclipse British global and naval power.
The difference between China and the US is that the Asia-Pacific is not somewhere that the US can easily relinquish their dominant position. East Asia to America is of far greater economic and strategic value than the Americas were to the British Empire.
Also the US holds no leverage over China that would make a limited war an immediately disastrous proposition in the coming decades. China doesn't have to worry about losing something as (Symbolically/ Sentimentally) important as Canada was to the British Empire. Taiwan wouldn't fit the bill either cos that is in practice already lost, the situation can hardly get worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| The difference between China and the US is that the Asia-Pacific is not somewhere that the US can easily relinquish their dominant position. East Asia to America is of far greater economic and strategic value than the Americas were to the British Empire. |
And where would this war be fought? Asians tend to have a long long memory. Not only China, but Asian nations that are directly in the path of two giant nations fighting will not be as forgiving to who they precieve as the instigator. It would greatly reduce the precieved instigator's 'dominant' position. And because of China's default geographic position will always have a certain amount of influcence the Americans can't ever have.
China knows this, and since virtually every Asian nation borders them, or pretty close to them, will not be as willing to instigate an outright war. Remember, the only solid Asian ally the Americans really have is Japan, and even they can waiver if they see the Americans as the bad guy.
There will be no war China-US war, unless the Americans decide to nuke a Chinese city. Which I don't see ever happening. Unless your talking about some kind of economic 'trade' war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
And where would this war be fought? Asians tend to have a long long memory. Not only China, but Asian nations that are directly in the path of two giant nations fighting will not be as forgiving to who they precieve as the instigator. It would greatly reduce the precieved instigator's 'dominant' position. And because of China's default geographic position will always have a certain amount of influcence the Americans can't ever have.
China knows this, and since virtually every Asian nation borders them, or pretty close to them, will not be as willing to instigate an outright war. Remember, the only solid Asian ally the Americans really have is Japan, and even they can waiver if they see the Americans as the bad guy.
There will be no war China-US war, unless the Americans decide to nuke a Chinese city. Which I don't see ever happening. Unless your talking about some kind of economic 'trade' war. |
Probably around some disputed island chain in either the South China Sea or East China Sea. Think of the naval battle between Vietnam and China in 1988, but much bigger and lasting a few weeks longer.
Note that in my original post I foresee this as taking place in the next few decades. Unless an unforeseeable accidental confrontation erupts, within the next two to three decades China's economic lead over the US will become more pronounced and current deficiencies with the PLAN will have been overcome.
The inherent power of China's A2/AD strategy combined with its growing naval dominance in the region will likely make Chinese military officials feel a short sharp conflict to win control over the remaining bits of real estate are worth the limited risks. After all such an operation would complete their long cherished goal of breaking the first island chain. Although Taiwan would most likely be absorbed slowly over time through sheer economic might.
I think you are making the mistake of thinking that the current China will be the same China in the next few decades. By that time China's place in the world will be so obviously eclipsing that of the US that a limited war would not instill the same sort of dread as it does today. Just think, the leaders of that time will be the young(ish) groomed sons of the leadership occupying already important positions in China. Their arrogance combined with their growing superiority over the US would radically change the security paradigm of the region.
Not that that has to be some sort of apocalyptic premonition. Does any major foreign global power play the same role as the US in the waters off California or New York? No, because the US is strong enough to shut it down as would be expected by a major global power.
China will inevitably push the US out of some strategic areas off the waters of the PRC, but that doesn't mean there will be WWIII. It is the strutting peacocks of weak, but insecure wannabes like Russia that are the most worry as unlike China they cannot get what they want without naked force from a position of weakness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, so you're thinking more 'skirmishes'. Kind of like that Chinese capturing that spy plane incident a few years back.
'Skirmishes' yes. Outright war no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
Ok, so you're thinking more 'skirmishes'. Kind of like that Chinese capturing that spy plane incident a few years back.
'Skirmishes' yes. Outright war no. |
Oh yeah, end of days type of scenario would be a bit far fetched. As would the impossibility of a land campaign with Fallout style weaponry.
Or at least I hope so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Never will happen. Wouldn't benefit the Chinese, or the Americans. |
Whether or not it is beneficial to go to war is based more on the perception of any supposed benefits rather than a purely objective analysis.
It is quite conceivable that in the coming decades China would see the benefits of a short sharp conflict against a small regional ally of the US as a final stage of its strategy to take what it wants in small incremental stages. The Chinese are already building the necessary infrastructure and doctrine to be able to get what it wants quickly and painlessly, at least in the eyes of the Chinese military.
The real question is when not if... |
You're British, aren't you?
Why is it that the Americans eventually superseded the British as the superpower without any conflict between the two, at least after the War of 1812?
- Common economic interests
- Mutual respect
- Common language and culture
The United States and China share two out of three of these same things. It is more likely than not that a war could be averted between the United States and China, even were China to supersede the United States in development, power, and global dominance in a decisive and definitive way. |
Yes, I am and I know that that example is often cited.
However, the big difference is that by the late 19th century the US empire had a lot of leverage over the British Empire. Canada would ultimately be lost (at least that is what they thought in London) in the event of war. Also the US had growing influence in Ireland which combined with the Home Rule movement made the UK nervous. The theory in London was that the loss of one province would create a domino effect which was remarkably prescient for British politicians.
British planners knew that the Americas were of little economic value beyond trade with the US, surrendering the lead to the US in the region cost Britain very little. Also Britain only lost its ability to compete after fighting repeated German and later Japanese attempts to redraw the global balance of power. It took many decades after the formal US economic lead to translate into an overwhelming military lead that would eclipse British global and naval power.
The difference between China and the US is that the Asia-Pacific is not somewhere that the US can easily relinquish their dominant position. East Asia to America is of far greater economic and strategic value than the Americas were to the British Empire.
Also the US holds no leverage over China that would make a limited war an immediately disastrous proposition in the coming decades. China doesn't have to worry about losing something as (Symbolically/ Sentimentally) important as Canada was to the British Empire. Taiwan wouldn't fit the bill either cos that is in practice already lost, the situation can hardly get worse. |
Interesting.
So I would factor the following history into your analysis.
In the Korean War, the United States learned to respect China's immediate border, and to allow it a buffer. Following this, the United States lost a long war with Vietnam because it refused to invade North Vietnam to respect this buffer, and in return China did not directly invade Vietnam during that time.
So how does this work, and considering Taiwan as well, with the island chain situation? Will the United States be more willing to test China's navy?
I think the conflict, if there is one, will be confined to a naval conventional conflict. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chellovek
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh Dave's, I'd forgotten why I stopped checking here 
"War is coming!", "Quick, MERS! Put on swimming goggles to protect your eyes!"
A key point that seems to be left out is need for oil, most of which is transported through the Straights of Hormuz. The US Navy patrols those Straights. My understanding is that China is aware of, and worried about, the potential for the US to put quite a nasty choke hold on them. China has no presence there, and maybe won't for a while, although they did open a base (I think) on Pakistan's coast.
I think quite a few of you overestimate China's strength at present. Like some others were saying, there might be skirmishes but that's a long way from a war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
