Why do you think China has a more sophisticated cyber intelligence infrastructure than the US? I find that claim incredibly hard to believe.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 18, 2025, 2:42 pm
Thread Rating:
What's your thoughts on Trump?
|
Equipment on a par with American equipment is in numbers much smaller than our own. Massive numbers of soldiers can in some circumstances be valuable, but any putative war between the two nations will be naval/aerial, where land troops can't bring might to bear except by missiles, and those only with the range and accuracy to hit ships on the open sea.
I think your analysis is overly simplistic insofar as it doesn't take into account the likely nature, cause(s), and scope of the operational aspects of such a conflict.
I would gamble on America winning a war against China.
Based on the battle experience and history of both countries plus the military spending of America. Anyone who's done anything competitive ever knows the value of experience, and America has a fuck load of experience of fighting across the world and experience with all kinds of weaponry ranging from nukes to subtle espionage. It would be interesting to see what alliances would be made. Russia would probably be laughing along with a large majority of the Muslim middle east. Based on what I remember from my days in the Islamic forums they would pray for horrible things to happen to China nearly as much as America. Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them. Impersonation is treason. Quote:Based on the battle experience and history of both countries plus the military spending of America. Best ask what we spend it on. Obsolete aircraft because they are based in states that need jobs. Tanks that the army doesn't want or need because they are assembled in states that need jobs. And then there is the personnel costs.... http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201...anizations Quote:How many generals does it take to run the U.S. military? At the end of World War II there were 2,000 generals and admirals overseeing 12 million U.S. military personnel. Today, nearly 1,000 flag officers preside over about 1.3 million people. I bet the Chinese have a lot more grunts. (December 6, 2016 at 10:08 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I would gamble on America winning a war against China. Ye've fuck all experience against a well equipped, motivated and modern army. And thearmy's experience against half trained and idiotically lead insurgents doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies that the army's leadership is up to anything much other than feathering their own retirement nests. As minimalist has said, quite a lot of the spending difference is pork barrel and corporate welfare, another huge chunk goes into the category of "we haven't afucking clue" (which likely means bribery and other corrupt payments). I think ye're overestimating theUS's position quite a bit here.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home (December 6, 2016 at 10:08 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I would gamble on America winning a war against China. Depends. Obviously the country that is being attacked will have a home advantage against the country that is attacking. I don't think for one second America can come out of that scenario unscathed and victorious(think the Vietnam wars). Nukes are also highly unlikely. (December 6, 2016 at 10:08 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I would gamble on America winning a war against China. I remember watching a video about this a few weeks ago. Obviously the video probably isn't entirely accurate, but it suggests that China would have an advantage at the beginning but eventually the US would have the upper hand, and that's just on their own - If a war between the US and China were to actually happen, no doubt the entire West would back the US.
Two nuclear superpowers going to war without using nukes on each other sounds farcical. Why do we even keep all these nukes around if no one is going to use them?
What a waste.
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
(December 6, 2016 at 10:08 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I would gamble on America winning a war against China. We would need to understand what the objectives are and how they would be attained. Neither China nor the US will wage a war to conquer one another, that's a sure way to lose with very high casualties either from a foolish land invasion or more foolish nuclear exchange. China might invade Taiwan if they feel it is pushing for independence. The US would need to defend Taiwan from attack, most likely on the island itself, leaving China free from any concerns of invasion. Even assuming we succeed, this is an island nation that is less than 200 miles from China and across the entire Pacific for the USA. It's main resource is its people. That means military bases and lots of personnel just like we have in South Korea, with the understanding that if China decided to strike again they might inflict significant losses before the US could respond in force again. It also means significant aid to the Taiwanese if a war caused damage to infrastructure, as it likely would. If I'm the US I don't like any of those scenarios and am likely to seek some kind of negotiation or accommodation from the start because a war would be costly and an almost certain failure. And even before we get to any of that, we have two nations who would suffer economic harm from a war. Possibly massive economic harm. So if the USA came up to China seeking a peaceful resolution, they would listen. And we would need to weigh the cost of swallowing our pride against a huge military mess with the attendant loss of life and cost in money and material.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould (December 7, 2016 at 6:13 am)Bella Morte Wrote: If a war between the US and China were to actually happen, no doubt the entire West would back the US. No doubt? Depends on who's starting it and why. I would remind you that not even in the case of Iraq the whole west backed the US. Because it was considered an unjustified war of agression by most of the larger western powers. Only the UK and Spain remained, apart from the usual suspects in Eastern Europe. And Micronesia, of course. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)