Korean Conflict
- Thread starter ryansride2017
- Start date
- Status
The US should spend tax money and life and limb helping to protect South Korea so they can sell cars and electronics etc here, but not bail out any US manufacturers
. S. Korea is wealthy now, time for them to provide all of their own defense. We have plenty of fine military hardware we could sell them.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
DO NOT underestimate the Chinese navy. Their technology isn't that far behind ours- that coupled with their numbers and the fact that their war ships are more heavily armed makes them a formidable adversary. BTW, they also have a bit of military technology that could be a bit problematic to us in the event of a conflict.
This info comes from someone who was in the NAVY.
Also remember that there are more English speaking Chinese than there are Americans... Yeah, lets start a fight with the most populated country in the world which also happens to be a financial and military superpower whom we are in MAJOR debt to. Great idea.
Id have to agree. China has more and more "good stuff", read the international news. Actually, a LOT of info on how to do much of this comes from the Israelis, as they channel much of our military knowledge to China and others.
DO NOT underestimate the Chinese navy. Their technology isn't that far behind ours- that coupled with their numbers and the fact that their war ships are more heavily armed makes them a formidable adversary. BTW, they also have a bit of military technology that could be a bit problematic to us in the event of a conflict.
This info comes from someone who was in the NAVY.
Also remember that there are more English speaking Chinese than there are Americans... Yeah, lets start a fight with the most populated country in the world which also happens to be a financial and military superpower whom we are in MAJOR debt to. Great idea.
Id have to agree. China has more and more "good stuff", read the international news. Actually, a LOT of info on how to do much of this comes from the Israelis, as they channel much of our military knowledge to China and others.
There is no power in the world that can stand against our Navy if we just take off the restraints.
However if we do not allow the boys to fight then the outcome is always in doubt.
I seriously expect Pandabear's scenario to become true.
However if we do not allow the boys to fight then the outcome is always in doubt.
I seriously expect Pandabear's scenario to become true.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
S. Korea is wealthy now, time for them to provide all of their own defense. We have plenty of fine military hardware we could sell them.
One of the few times when we agree
. Provide SK weapons and intelligence and let them defend themselves.
As far as Chinese fleet, don't they have Russian "Sunburn" (IIRC) missiles? Those are thought to be quite deadly to surface ships.
S. Korea is wealthy now, time for them to provide all of their own defense. We have plenty of fine military hardware we could sell them.
One of the few times when we agree
As far as Chinese fleet, don't they have Russian "Sunburn" (IIRC) missiles? Those are thought to be quite deadly to surface ships.
[/quote]There is no earthly reason why China would want war.[/quote]
China would be stupid to attack us. The first thing we would do is to make all the debt we owe China null and void. Don't think they could handle that. Might have some implications for the world economy also.
However, China is a place with millions of males in the 18-22 year old group with no women due to the one child policy. Its essentially excess population. Historically nations with too many males have gone to war to do two things: acquire more land for the excess population and use the females there to provide mates for the excess males or burn off that excess population in war.
Do we really want to bet China won't fight?
Dan
China would be stupid to attack us. The first thing we would do is to make all the debt we owe China null and void. Don't think they could handle that. Might have some implications for the world economy also.
However, China is a place with millions of males in the 18-22 year old group with no women due to the one child policy. Its essentially excess population. Historically nations with too many males have gone to war to do two things: acquire more land for the excess population and use the females there to provide mates for the excess males or burn off that excess population in war.
Do we really want to bet China won't fight?
Dan
Last edited:
Dan,
that's the scary part about China.
I've read (alleged) statements of a Chinese General around the turn of the century...Was basically eyeing off Australia, and the "stupidity" of having at the time 20M people on an area the size of mainland US.
Heaps of males, a significant number of which know in their heart that they will never be a father. Overcrowding.
And a majority of those interviewed supported expansion to improve their standard of living.
that's the scary part about China.
I've read (alleged) statements of a Chinese General around the turn of the century...Was basically eyeing off Australia, and the "stupidity" of having at the time 20M people on an area the size of mainland US.
Heaps of males, a significant number of which know in their heart that they will never be a father. Overcrowding.
And a majority of those interviewed supported expansion to improve their standard of living.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Dan,
that's the scary part about China.
I've read (alleged) statements of a Chinese General around the turn of the century...Was basically eyeing off Australia, and the "stupidity" of having at the time 20M people on an area the size of mainland US.
Heaps of males, a significant number of which know in their heart that they will never be a father. Overcrowding.
And a majority of those interviewed supported expansion to improve their standard of living.
With expansion in mind, Long term, I could see China making a move on Africa. It would suite there needs in so many ways.
Dan,
that's the scary part about China.
I've read (alleged) statements of a Chinese General around the turn of the century...Was basically eyeing off Australia, and the "stupidity" of having at the time 20M people on an area the size of mainland US.
Heaps of males, a significant number of which know in their heart that they will never be a father. Overcrowding.
And a majority of those interviewed supported expansion to improve their standard of living.
With expansion in mind, Long term, I could see China making a move on Africa. It would suite there needs in so many ways.
I can't say I've ever read that China has been a positive force in Africa, standard practice seems to be bribe the appropriate corrupt official and then kick the local off the land and bring chinese workers to extract the resource. They may build a road that happens to help the locals but thats it.
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
DO NOT underestimate the Chinese navy. Their technology isn't that far behind ours-
How many Super Carriers have the Chinese?
Ans: Zero We have 11
How many modern Fast Attack subs have the Chinese?
Ans: None (We have 50+)
Compared to you Navy they are Thread bare. They can't even begin to project Naval Global Power. Yes they could sink some of our ships. I don't think they are ready for WWIII just yet.
DO NOT underestimate the Chinese navy. Their technology isn't that far behind ours-
How many Super Carriers have the Chinese?
Ans: Zero We have 11
How many modern Fast Attack subs have the Chinese?
Ans: None (We have 50+)
Compared to you Navy they are Thread bare. They can't even begin to project Naval Global Power. Yes they could sink some of our ships. I don't think they are ready for WWIII just yet.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
DO NOT underestimate the Chinese navy. Their technology isn't that far behind ours-
How many Super Carriers have the Chinese?
Ans: Zero We have 11
How many modern Fast Attack subs have the Chinese?
Ans: None (We have 50+)
Compared to you Navy they are Thread bare. They can't even begin to project Naval Global Power. Yes they could sink some of our ships. I don't think they are ready for WWIII just yet.
The problem is that near China or N.K. you aren't fighting their navy, your fighting their air force...
Some also suspect that N.K. itself, has enough surface to surface missles to overwhelm a carrier groups antimissile defences to have a good chance at sinking a carrier... I don't think carriers are obsolete yet but they do have their vulnerabilities.
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
DO NOT underestimate the Chinese navy. Their technology isn't that far behind ours-
How many Super Carriers have the Chinese?
Ans: Zero We have 11
How many modern Fast Attack subs have the Chinese?
Ans: None (We have 50+)
Compared to you Navy they are Thread bare. They can't even begin to project Naval Global Power. Yes they could sink some of our ships. I don't think they are ready for WWIII just yet.
The problem is that near China or N.K. you aren't fighting their navy, your fighting their air force...
Some also suspect that N.K. itself, has enough surface to surface missles to overwhelm a carrier groups antimissile defences to have a good chance at sinking a carrier... I don't think carriers are obsolete yet but they do have their vulnerabilities.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
DO NOT underestimate the Chinese navy. Their technology isn't that far behind ours-
How many Super Carriers have the Chinese?
Ans: Zero We have 11
How many modern Fast Attack subs have the Chinese?
Ans: None (We have 50+)
Compared to you Navy they are Thread bare. They can't even begin to project Naval Global Power. Yes they could sink some of our ships. I don't think they are ready for WWIII just yet.
The problem is that near China or N.K. you aren't fighting their navy, your fighting their air force..
I just responded to your comment about the Chinese Navy. Not their Air Force.
Of course the Chinese could defeat a carrier group in their back yard. That's not in question. But the cost would be unacceptably high.
Possibly the NKs could sink a carrier. But it would be the end of their country.
Just an Opinion.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
DO NOT underestimate the Chinese navy. Their technology isn't that far behind ours-
How many Super Carriers have the Chinese?
Ans: Zero We have 11
How many modern Fast Attack subs have the Chinese?
Ans: None (We have 50+)
Compared to you Navy they are Thread bare. They can't even begin to project Naval Global Power. Yes they could sink some of our ships. I don't think they are ready for WWIII just yet.
The problem is that near China or N.K. you aren't fighting their navy, your fighting their air force..
I just responded to your comment about the Chinese Navy. Not their Air Force.
Of course the Chinese could defeat a carrier group in their back yard. That's not in question. But the cost would be unacceptably high.
Possibly the NKs could sink a carrier. But it would be the end of their country.
Just an Opinion.
Something that we need to look at here is that just because a nation has an advanced military doesnt mean that they can win a war.This has happened before.
You also have to look at the huge army that China already has which is almost 3 million,plus,the huge population that is available to replace the ones hurt etc. in battle.It is almost an unending supply.
China's 3 million man army is almost twice that of the US. China's population is over 1 billion,yes,billion and the US has a population of a little over 300 million.That is a pretty big difference.
We have also learned that an air campaign will not win a war,there must be ground troops involved and that is where it really gets scary.
One of the worst things that anyone can do is underestimate the military and resolve of another country.
You also have to look at the huge army that China already has which is almost 3 million,plus,the huge population that is available to replace the ones hurt etc. in battle.It is almost an unending supply.
China's 3 million man army is almost twice that of the US. China's population is over 1 billion,yes,billion and the US has a population of a little over 300 million.That is a pretty big difference.
We have also learned that an air campaign will not win a war,there must be ground troops involved and that is where it really gets scary.
One of the worst things that anyone can do is underestimate the military and resolve of another country.
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
DO NOT underestimate the Chinese navy. Their technology isn't that far behind ours-
How many Super Carriers have the Chinese?
Ans: Zero We have 11
How many modern Fast Attack subs have the Chinese?
Ans: None (We have 50+)
Compared to you Navy they are Thread bare. They can't even begin to project Naval Global Power. Yes they could sink some of our ships. I don't think they are ready for WWIII just yet.
The problem is that near China or N.K. you aren't fighting their navy, your fighting their air force..
I just responded to your comment about the Chinese Navy. Not their Air Force.
Of course the Chinese could defeat a carrier group in their back yard. That's not in question. But the cost would be unacceptably high.
Possibly the NKs could sink a carrier. But it would be the end of their country.
Just an Opinion.
Well I don't know about that, it sounds to me that the N.K. have fortified themselves underground to the point that they are very tough nut to crack... With Seoul within artillery range they've got a lot of leverage.
I think they've pretty much established a MAD situation with conventional weapons, and they are not very vulnerable to a surprise attack either.
Lets just say the smart play would be not to get a carrier group within range, because N.K. might sink it and S.K. might not want to go to war over it... Potentially NK could kill millions of people in an hour or two...
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
DO NOT underestimate the Chinese navy. Their technology isn't that far behind ours-
How many Super Carriers have the Chinese?
Ans: Zero We have 11
How many modern Fast Attack subs have the Chinese?
Ans: None (We have 50+)
Compared to you Navy they are Thread bare. They can't even begin to project Naval Global Power. Yes they could sink some of our ships. I don't think they are ready for WWIII just yet.
The problem is that near China or N.K. you aren't fighting their navy, your fighting their air force..
I just responded to your comment about the Chinese Navy. Not their Air Force.
Of course the Chinese could defeat a carrier group in their back yard. That's not in question. But the cost would be unacceptably high.
Possibly the NKs could sink a carrier. But it would be the end of their country.
Just an Opinion.
Well I don't know about that, it sounds to me that the N.K. have fortified themselves underground to the point that they are very tough nut to crack... With Seoul within artillery range they've got a lot of leverage.
I think they've pretty much established a MAD situation with conventional weapons, and they are not very vulnerable to a surprise attack either.
Lets just say the smart play would be not to get a carrier group within range, because N.K. might sink it and S.K. might not want to go to war over it... Potentially NK could kill millions of people in an hour or two...
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
The problem is that near China or N.K. you aren't fighting their navy, your fighting their air force...
What exactly does the DPRK have in their air arsenal?
The MiG-21 Fishbed? A good plane in it's day but if you are going after one F-15, you had better bring a whole squadron of MiG-21s
If you are going after a single Raptor, you had better bring your whole air force. You won't see the Raptor until it's weapon bay doors are open....then it is too late. Beware of Raptors with open weapon bay doors.
I don't even know what kind of gunships they have....Maybe Hind-Ds? Vs the AH-64 Apache Longbow? Neither is designed for air to air, but my money is on the Apache. I personally know an old UH-1C/AH-1G/AH-1S pilot that swears he could take on any Hind D anytime in an AH-1S Cobra. I believe him.
Not too worried about their air defense. They were still using ZSU 57-2s last I checked. They fire on Blackhawks periodically. To the best of my knowledge, they still haven't hit one.
Historically, the most dangerous aspect of MiG Alley was the Soviet pilots. Not the Chinese and certainly not the North Koreans
The problem is that near China or N.K. you aren't fighting their navy, your fighting their air force...
What exactly does the DPRK have in their air arsenal?
The MiG-21 Fishbed? A good plane in it's day but if you are going after one F-15, you had better bring a whole squadron of MiG-21s
If you are going after a single Raptor, you had better bring your whole air force. You won't see the Raptor until it's weapon bay doors are open....then it is too late. Beware of Raptors with open weapon bay doors.
I don't even know what kind of gunships they have....Maybe Hind-Ds? Vs the AH-64 Apache Longbow? Neither is designed for air to air, but my money is on the Apache. I personally know an old UH-1C/AH-1G/AH-1S pilot that swears he could take on any Hind D anytime in an AH-1S Cobra. I believe him.
Not too worried about their air defense. They were still using ZSU 57-2s last I checked. They fire on Blackhawks periodically. To the best of my knowledge, they still haven't hit one.
Historically, the most dangerous aspect of MiG Alley was the Soviet pilots. Not the Chinese and certainly not the North Koreans
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
Something that we need to look at here is that just because a nation has an advanced military doesnt mean that they can win a war.This has happened before.
You also have to look at the huge army that China already has which is almost 3 million,plus,the huge population that is available to replace the ones hurt etc. in battle.It is almost an unending supply.
China's 3 million man army is almost twice that of the US. China's population is over 1 billion,yes,billion and the US has a population of a little over 300 million.That is a pretty big difference.
We have also learned that an air campaign will not win a war,there must be ground troops involved and that is where it really gets scary.
One of the worst things that anyone can do is underestimate the military and resolve of another country.
No land war is necessary. We will be stopped dead in our tracks by the Chinese equivalent of the Iraqi IED, the IOU.
Something that we need to look at here is that just because a nation has an advanced military doesnt mean that they can win a war.This has happened before.
You also have to look at the huge army that China already has which is almost 3 million,plus,the huge population that is available to replace the ones hurt etc. in battle.It is almost an unending supply.
China's 3 million man army is almost twice that of the US. China's population is over 1 billion,yes,billion and the US has a population of a little over 300 million.That is a pretty big difference.
We have also learned that an air campaign will not win a war,there must be ground troops involved and that is where it really gets scary.
One of the worst things that anyone can do is underestimate the military and resolve of another country.
No land war is necessary. We will be stopped dead in our tracks by the Chinese equivalent of the Iraqi IED, the IOU.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: motorguy222
Something that we need to look at here is that just because a nation has an advanced military doesnt mean that they can win a war.This has happened before.
Yeah, well the rules of war changed at some point:
In 1968, during the Tet Offensive, the combined communist forces in Vietnam failed to achieve ALL of their objectives, were driven back, and suffered catastrophic losses. Cronkite comes on the news and says the war is unwinnable.
That would be like the Japanese succeeding in holding Iwo Jima, driving the US Marine Corps back into the ocean and then stating, "uh....we can't win."
It used to be that you would take the capitol of a nation, imprison it's dictator, and you won the war. But somewhere the definition of "win" changed. There are still those who believe we "lost" in Iraq and that we are losing in Afghanistan.
The only way to "win" now is to go in like Russia did in Chechnya and screw things up so bad - destroy so much that no one can fight back. They can barely eke out basic necessities. And even then you don't win.
Something that we need to look at here is that just because a nation has an advanced military doesnt mean that they can win a war.This has happened before.
Yeah, well the rules of war changed at some point:
In 1968, during the Tet Offensive, the combined communist forces in Vietnam failed to achieve ALL of their objectives, were driven back, and suffered catastrophic losses. Cronkite comes on the news and says the war is unwinnable.
That would be like the Japanese succeeding in holding Iwo Jima, driving the US Marine Corps back into the ocean and then stating, "uh....we can't win."
It used to be that you would take the capitol of a nation, imprison it's dictator, and you won the war. But somewhere the definition of "win" changed. There are still those who believe we "lost" in Iraq and that we are losing in Afghanistan.
The only way to "win" now is to go in like Russia did in Chechnya and screw things up so bad - destroy so much that no one can fight back. They can barely eke out basic necessities. And even then you don't win.
- Status
