China can wait. The Army’s focus should be Europe.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Furthermore, we know what a war with China might look like.

We conducted wars in N. Korea and Vietnam. China used these as proxy wars against the US. Guess who prevailed.

We were driven out of N. Korea and Vietnam in humiliating loses, effectively failing to achieve real lasting objectives.

That cost the US over 100,000 American lives and ruined countless others.
 
And, let's not even dive into the apparent biological weapons being unleashed on the west, right now. Bird flus killing hundreds of millions of livestock birds, and H1N1 that is now killing various mammals en mass. Coincidence? How about other ailments that might be used on the US. And, a lot of our infrastructure seems to be failing or being attacked...

This is not a game and folks need to pull heads out of the sand. The US and our paltry 5% global population is in for a rude, very rude, awakening. Half the world is aligning against us.
 
China is a peer in some areas, lagging in others. They have more than their share of problems, some similar and some vastly different.

https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/us-china-scorecard.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-military-us-taiwan-xi-11666268994

Mr. Xi’s ambition, according to China’s most recent defense white paper, is to complete a modernization of the military by 2035 and turn it into a “world-class force” by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China.



https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/news/china-and-the-united-states-military-comparison-in-2023

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/balance-of-superpowers-china-us.html

 
Last edited:
buster said:
China is a peer in some areas, lagging in others. They have more than their share of problems, some similar and some vastly different.

https://www.rand.org/paf/projects/us-china-scorecard.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-military-us-taiwan-xi-11666268994

Mr. Xi’s ambition, according to China’s most recent defense white paper, is to complete a modernization of the military by 2035 and turn it into a “world-class force” by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China.
Click to expand...
Very tough to ever take these articles seriously. The Chinese have had very successful information operations campaigns throughout western publications and western universities. Not one thing the Chinese publish should ever be taken as fact, accurate, verified, or accredited. Something as simple as Chinese birth rates are more likely than not propaganda to achieve a strategic goal.
 
GON said:
Very tough to ever take these articles seriously. The Chinese have had very successful information operations campaigns throughout western publications and western universities. Not one thing the Chinese publish should ever be taken as fact, accurate, verified, or accredited. Something as simple as Chinese birth rates are more likely than not propaganda to achieve a strategic goal.
Click to expand...
Agree. I always look at a variety of sources.
 
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/2...88B8QLCKtyScykQlNgwm_tuKxtNRkt3r1JRFCO1NXkdyE

https://www.reuters.com/markets/asi...wxNypvRvitheqW9NmfJsI9_WjvCs7wM63oYP2cH_t1EjQ

The problem with investing in China is that the CCP could step in anytime without reason.
Even if you abide by the rules, and everything is in tip top condition, ironically this could be the trigger for any of the CCP apparatchiks,or proxies of CCP leadership, to want in. End of day, CCP leaders like Xi Jinping and his ilk are simply greedy for more wealth and jealous of any potential competitors, challengers or contenders. …


https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-tren...VepBphUuGnG1LHA_5iOyJQK7kI#Echobox=1663279318

Tech war: record number of Chinese chip firms going out of business in sign of Beijing’s sputtering self-sufficiency drive​

  • As many as 3,470 firms – including those that use the Chinese word for ‘chip’ in their brands or operations – deregistered between January and August

 
"Putin wanted to re-establish the Russian empire. He invades Ukraine planning a 4 day walk through and 13 months later, he has lost tens of thousands of troops plus uncounted military equipment. It solidified NATO which with Trump had been in disagreement. Major worldwide companies have left Russia. The "stan" countries are drifting away from Moscow's influence. And Putin has made ICC's list of most wanted international terrorists. So after a little over a year, Putin's list of accomplishments include a few of his critics "falling out of windows" and little else. Good going Putin."

https://thediplomat.com/2022/05/public-opinion-on-china-waning-in-central-asia/

https://news.yahoo.com/xi-snubbed-p...Fb4L5izcgWMa_P5JNaRYJ3ObDTnR8C8oszaJOKecJ78bE

Russia's GDP is 1/15th of ours and 1/10th of Europe's. China would fall on its face if the world stopped buying their cheap junk. Xi knows this. Demographics remain unfavorable for China.
 
Last edited:
leadcounsel said:
I'm going to have to disagree here. Do you have any real facts to support this?

China's ground forces are larger, Navy is similar, air power similar, technology superior in some regards but similar, presumably inferior in nukes but it's largely unknown.

Everything I have reviewed proves China is a PEER military. It also has conducted very successful unconventional warfare against us. It has crippled various US networks at times, including when I was on Active Duty and they used infected USB to infiltrate our networks thereafter prohibiting the use of USBs in our computers by policy. They have infiltrated our schools, colleges, compromised politicians, and much more. Let's not even get to the major 2020 even that collapsed the US economy. China could probably call our debts, and significantly harm or cripple our economy. China has no significant debt, but the US has crippling $32 Trillion in debt. How would we even fund a war?

And in case you need a scoreboard reminder, the US just lost an 8 year occupation in Iraq and a 20 year occupation in Afghanistan. The opponents were largely illiterate, had no manufacturing base, no Navy, no armor, no air power, no satellites, no cyber warfare ability, zero ability to strike the US on our own soil (post 9/11/01), no real supply chains, no healthcare/medics, and were largely using hand-me-down small arms and home made IEDs.

So, yeah... there's that pesky fact. If we cannot defeat such forces, what is the rational basis to think the US could defeat a global superpower, manufacturing hub of the world, that has the largest global population at 4x the US population (near infinite number of people), and well connected to energy and food producing nations (Russia, Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Brazil)...

I'm a former military officer. Military doctrine requires a assaulting force to have a minimum 3 to 1 ratio to prevail. We are on the losing end of that equation. China could go at us and lose 3 to 1 and still prevail. Further, the average Chinese person is more hardened than the average US person. The math is against us in every metric.
Click to expand...
This is the scary part of fighting a war against a non-equal enemy: They don't need to conquer us, they only need to waste our resources and demoralize us into retreat. This is why N Korea is so scary, as is Afghan, Iraq, Vietnam, and very soon Ukraine (for Russia).

China may not need to win, they only need to drag us down and collapse the world economy.
 
buster said:
Russia's GDP is 1/15th of ours and 1/10th of Europe's. China would fall on its face if the world stopped buying their cheap junk. Xi knows this. Demographics remain unfavorable for China.
Click to expand...
Putin, basically wants to stop NATO and this is the last attempt to do so (and looks like it failed as after this war Ukraine is for sure going to join NATO instead of going back to Russia). Russia is also not having a real capitalist economy vs China is really just communist in name only and capitalist in practice (they copied even our social security system and medicare system). Their economical powers are vastly different.

Regarding to "stop buying their junk and they will fall", they pretty much have a firewall around the country and yet their internet economy still bloom and sustained itself. I'm not so sure if we stop using them as manufacturing hub they will go starving anytime soon.
 
PandaBear said:
Putin, basically wants to stop NATO and this is the last attempt to do so (and looks like it failed as after this war Ukraine is for sure going to join NATO instead of going back to Russia). Russia is also not having a real capitalist economy vs China is really just communist in name only and capitalist in practice (they copied even our social security system and medicare system). Their economical powers are vastly different.

Regarding to "stop buying their junk and they will fall", they pretty much have a firewall around the country and yet their internet economy still bloom and sustained itself. I'm not so sure if we stop using them as manufacturing hub they will go starving anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Good point and you're probably right.
 
leadcounsel said:
Exactly.
I honestly do not understand the delusions - perhaps based or rooted in Hollywood - of perceived US military strength.

I'm a US Army combat vet and student of history. I think I have some authority to say that folks are in for a big surprise if they think the US Army is somehow going to defeat China or Russia, or BOTH. It's simply impossible.

Historically, the US has effectively "lost" in Korea (technically a stalemate, but a superpower should win), lost badly in Vietnam, lost (a 20 year loss) in Iraq, and lost in Afghanistan. Then there's small loses, Lebanon, Somalia, Bengazi, and a long list of places we were pushed out of. None of these had real militaries, supply chains, air power, etc. The US had every conceivable advantage.

China and Russia are absolutely PEERS in most regards, better in some aspects, worse in others, but PEERS.

Folks need to wake up to the fact that a actual conventional and unconventional war with these superpowers means hardships for Americans we have never endured. This might be entire loss of electric grids LONG TERM. A totally collapsed economic system where there are real long term shortages of critical needs. Energy costs could easily spike by a factor of 10. Our entire petro-dollar might become worthless. We could experience crippling ongoing sustained cyber attacks that take down the internet long term. We could experience shooting down of every passenger jet by SAMS, like the 1000s of Atlantic ships were sunk in WWII. That would cripple our travel industry and bankrupt the airlines. We could experience endless sabotaging of infrastructure by terrorist cells already here, to our rails, power stations, key infrastructure, etc. Halted global trade when every ship is sunk, means if we don't make it domestically (and we probably don't), we cannot get it.

In a war, Americans flinch at 5,000 dead and quickly lose commitment. Russia and China are unshakable with 100,000 dead. No doubt in my mind these nations would sacrifice 10 million for a cause. Russia did it in WWII. Would the US sacrifice 10 million?

This isn't a game. This could become pure survival.
Click to expand...

The goal of the Korean War was to prevent the South from being taken over by the communists. That objective was achieved. That's victory. We did suffer our greatest military defeat when the North was on the brink of collapse and China suddenly invaded. That was our greatest intelligence failure until 9/11. Regardless, the original objective of the war was still achieved. We may have been a super power but that war was still waged thousands of miles from home while North Korea/China were in their back yards. They had a major advantage. If we launched a sudden invasion of the North and were repelled it would be known as a defeat. At worst the war is a stalemate and that's only because MacArthur got greedy trying to take over the North. In reality, our objective was accomplished and that can't be spun any differently. The North did not take over the South and unify Korea as communist.

We had the same goal in Vietnam which of course was a failure. Our military did not suffer a single defeat in Vietnam though. Our politicians are mostly to blame for our loss. We had no business being involved in a civil war thousands of miles away in jungles. Regardless, the Korean and Vietnam War were a long time ago and have little bearing on our military today.


The goal in Afghanistan was to rid it of being a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has been decimated and haven't been able to pull off anything on our own soil since 9/11. Something nobody on 9/11 would've believed. I don't see how it's a failure. This was not a traditional war by any means where we could just raise up a flag over a capital city and say we won. I'm not saying it's a total victory by any means but the original objective and basis for the war was achieved. The war in Afghanistan is very grey. For the same reason gangs in inner cities will never go away, a true victory in a conflict like this is impossible.

The occupation of Iraq went very poorly. Our Government seriously screwed up with its troop levels and completely discharging the Iraqi army whom many went on to become insurgents. Regardless, the objective of the Iraq War was to oust Sadaam Hussein and instill a democratic regime. I'm not arguing this war is a victory but it's not a defeat. The main goal of the war was achieved in its first year. If Russia hypothetically took over and ousted Ukraine's Government by this point in time in their war you wouldn't be saying they lost because of civil unrest and an insurgency.

None of these countries had real militaries. That's exactly the problem. How are you supposed to fight or engage a country or group with no military? The United States has demolished every single conventional military in relatively recent memory. No contest. War in the 21st century is not black and white. War with terroists or guerilla groups will never deliver a traditional victory. It wouldn't be any different for any other world power.

You're right that Americans flinch at losses quite easily. It really depends on the war though. I think if we had a traditional conventional military to take on after 9/11, Americans would've been ready to lose hundreds of thousands. If we found nuclear weapons in Iraq, we would've been ready to take on more losses. Our biggest issue is fighting and engaging wars we have no reason being in. When war is waged, it's something to go all in for. It's why WW2 was a total success but every war since then has been very complicated except the Gulf War. Minus Korea, that's been the only traditional conventional conflict.

While it's true that America isn't infallible and our military isn't a perfect fighting force that can just topple over everything, you're seriously overestimating our perceived losses and overestimating our enemies. China has more men and ships/aircraft than America but our technology, navy and aircraft are superior. China recently said America's military is 20 years ahead of theirs. In fact, while this was a long time ago, China **** a brick when they seen how America rolled over Iraq in the Gulf War. Our military has long progressed since then. Russia can't even topple their own neighbor they share a border with while we annihilated Iraq's military 1000's of miles away. Our militaries are not equal. God knows what we have in secret after all the trillions of dollars spent since the 90's.

China has long seethed over Taiwan. There's one big reason standing in the way that they haven't done anything. In fact, many scholars believe China regrets the Korean War because this lead to America's commitment to Taiwan. If our militaries were truly on par or close to being so, China would've invaded by now given their geographical advantage.
 
Last edited:
Strommen95 said:
China recently said America's military is 20 years ahead of theirs.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and observations. I don't concur with all that you wrote, but an excellent, well composed post.

""China recently said America's military is 20 years ahead of theirs. ""
On the above quote from your post: here is my reply:

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”​


― Sun tzu, The Art of War

And of course Sun tzu is the PLA's "bible".
 
PandaBear said:
This is the scary part of fighting a war against a non-equal enemy: They don't need to conquer us, they only need to waste our resources and demoralize us into retreat. This is why N Korea is so scary, as is Afghan, Iraq, Vietnam, and very soon Ukraine (for Russia).

China may not need to win, they only need to drag us down and collapse the world economy.
Click to expand...

China's economy relies completely on America. Ours is intertwined with nearly the entire world and we're entirely self sufficient when it comes to natural resources. The stakes are not equal. A lot of jobs and manufacturing are already being outsourced away from China after COVID and now rising tensions.

Geopolitically, the United States has China contained through Indonesia/Australia/South Korea and Japan. All countries that hate China and are even more committed now to beefing up their military specifically for China. Japan has even flirted with making their military more offense based(a drastic change post-WW2) and developing nuclear weapons. While North Korea is partially a factor, this is mainly to off-set China's growing influence. The United States has many more cards to play than China does. While war is not a good thing for anyone, China would suffer a lot more from any potential conflict than America.

It's hard to project power against terrorism or guerilla groups. A conventional conflict is completely different. America's military is designed to fight and engage in a direct conventional war like one would be with China. Actually, our doctrine is to be able to engage in 2 1/2 simultaneous major conflicts which means decisively win 2 of them, draw in the third.

The scariest part about war with China is if they decide to nuke our naval fleet in the opening acts of potential conflict over Taiwan. Even if our militaries are hypothetically equal, one needs to have a major advantage when launching a sea-based invasion 90 miles away on an island that's not geographically friendly.
 
Strommen95 said:
China's economy relies completely on America. Ours is intertwined with nearly the entire world and we're entirely self sufficient when it comes to natural resources. The stakes are not equal. A lot of jobs and manufacturing are already being outsourced away from China after COVID and now rising tensions.

Geopolitically, the United States has China contained through Indonesia/Australia/South Korea and Japan. All countries that hate China and are even more committed now to beefing up their military specifically for China. Japan has even flirted with making their military more offense based(a drastic change post-WW2) and developing nuclear weapons. While North Korea is partially a factor, this is mainly to off-set China's growing influence. The United States has many more cards to play than China does. While war is not a good thing for anyone, China would suffer a lot more from any potential conflict than America.

It's hard to project power against terrorism or guerilla groups. A conventional conflict is completely different. America's military is designed to fight and engage in a direct conventional war like one would be with China. Actually, our doctrine is to be able to engage in 2 1/2 simultaneous major conflicts which means decisively win 2 of them, draw in the third.

The scariest part about war with China is if they decide to nuke our naval fleet in the opening acts of potential conflict over Taiwan. Even if our militaries are hypothetically equal, one needs to have a major advantage when launching a sea-based invasion 90 miles away on an island that's not geographically friendly.
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct on all points.
 
I think the US and the western democracies have to adjust their foreign aid and trade policies to help poorer countries around the world come into our influence sphere, instead of having the Chinese or Russians being their best option. Isolation will work for a while, but 2050,60,70 will come along and we might find that China controls 3/4 of the globes population and resources (including Russia) and can easily out spend us, militarily, and in every way, and we are out of options to compete for friends.... Right now I think we are letting our large international companies be too greedy in poorer foreign countries and these western companies are just looking out for their interest, so dealing with the west isn't really benefitting the poorer countries.
We also need to do some PR work as well on spreading democracy and human rights, and actually put that as the major priority. We have blown it in Afghanistan, although perhaps it neighbors make it impossible to be a secular democracy with western allies...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

supton
F9F vs MiG-15s
Replies
8
Views
3K
Hohn
C
  • Locked
Gun oil article
2 3
Replies
40
Views
34K
wpod
OVERKILL
  • Locked
Why Japan has no CANDU's
Replies
18
Views
4K
OVERKILL
wemay
  • Locked
LSPI: A KNOCK ON THE NEWEST ENGINES 2/4/16
2
Replies
35
Views
19K
SteveSRT8
dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
16K
MolaKule
Back
Top Bottom