• US threatens China with military deployment over North Korea.
    82 replies, posted
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;27559205]Not quite, assuming we follow up from the Korean War/Vietnam era when things finally began to stabilize with the country and the military finally began to get its act together.[/quote] End of Vietnam War = some 40 years ago. Present day = Present day. [quote]You might want to take that up with Dr. Thomas Barnett then, who has worked for the United States Naval War College for six years, graduated from Harvard with a doctorate in Political Science (following up his BA from UW-Madison in International Relations with great respect to United States Foreign Policy), and acted as an adviser Pentagon routinely since 1990, because he made the same point I did about China's military's technological and tactical prowess lacking severely compared to the United States and most (although not all) European nations (which would likely become entangled in such a war, aiding the United States).[/quote] 1. He's a political scientist, not military specialist. 2. He's one guy, and you're asserting his OPINION of China to be right. 3. He's American, therefore he'd inherently say "Their army is shit, ours is da bomb." [quote]Along with 72 other nations (in terms of reactors), including the United States, France, Germany, Russia, India, and the United Kingdom. China's nuclear power (in both nuclear weapons and actual megawatts which they can generate) lacks, as well. They are FAR behind the French and utterly dwarfed by the United States.[/quote] They also have several anti-nuclear satellites which could more than easily blast away anything flung at it by the US or EU. [quote]With its economic might, being the very same which supports its mighty military, being dependent on the United States. They go to war with the United States, they lose their #1 buyer- not counting the backlash they'd be facing from the European nations.[/quote] China may be dependent somewhat on the US, but the US is unfathomably more-so dependent on China. China makes up an extremely large portion, over 75%, of US imports. Don't forget, the US also has a several-trillion-and-rising debt to China. [quote]But they don't. And that's what's important. In fact, within 25 years, 310 million people, the current population of the United States, will be senior citizens. Why is this relevant? Because they'll have to be focusing more economically on taking care of these elderly citizens. And given how their current system is functioning, it's going to be very difficult to care for that many- nevermind make the necessary adjustments within their care structure. Dr. Barnett comments on that as well. Demographically, they are aging faster than any other nation on the planet, ALREADY, and it is a very serious problem. Do you really think it is possible with this in mind for them to successfully maintain a war, nevermind a minimally functional military, with that kind of financial situation? Now, and/or within the future?[/quote] You just sort of dissed the US, whom you were helping in the entire argument. [quote]Which is their only strength: numbers. Numbers were something that mattered 65 years ago, but the technological changes for militaries the world over have changed that. We're capable of killing more people more efficiently than ever in history, and it's precisely because of our advances in weaponry that we're able to do so, along with the tactics we use to utilize such weapons.[/quote] Their only strength isn't numbers: what are, George I. Joe from Koh-Reea?? This ain't the 50s, my friend. China's army has rapidly advanced in technology and training, and today fields one of the world's most advanced, well-trained armies. [b]Large Numbers does not equal Shitty Quality[/b] [quote]And who takes in their staggering amounts of exports? The United States (Europe takes in quite a few, as well). This is why it would be suicide on their part to go to war with the United States. They would lose their #1 buyer, and their other Western buyers which are allies of the United States (though the Europeans do retain a large part of self-sufficiency). Their economy would collapse. Would ours? Yes. We'd both be fucked. Precisely why I pointed out earlier that such an event would never happen. This system of trade and investments between the two nations is a veritable economic peace agreement. [/quote] Yes, we'd both be fucked, but the US would be at a much greater disadvantage. China would be left with a surplus of goods because they'd have lost their importers, whereas the US and Europe would be left with a great shortage of goods because they lost their main exporter. I'd rather have a surplus than deficiency. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;27559586]Though technical capabilities certainly are going to give you a definitive edge. Thank God the United States has both behind it. [/quote] Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day yeah! :patriot: /sarcasm
I can only imagine what will go on during the talks. NK: YOU ARE WORST KOREA YOU MUST GIVE UP ALL LAND MONEY AND FOOD NOW! OTHERWISE YOU ARE PROVOKING WAR!
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;27559586]Perhaps you missed the part where he worked as a professor for the United States Naval War College? Specifically, and I probably should have elaborated on this earlier but whatever, he specialized in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department as the Senior Strategic Researcher. He's done lots of work for lots of different areas of both the government and military, but those were his main credentials. You should probably watch his presentation before you are so quick to dismiss him as well lol.[/quote] Alvin Toffler once lectured at a lot of US military institutions and was a Pentagor advisor as well. He said a lot of shit about "tech is all powerful" in the "Third Wave" of warfare in one of his books, and I remember a few articles in the Military Review where a few officers ripped his ideas apart. I can take Thomas Barnett with a whole carton of salt. [quote]As Wikipedia says, [CITATION NEEDED].[/quote] Perhaps, "bullshit" is too strongly a word. You like paper sources? [quote]How exactly does this meandering on speculative matters have anything to do with the issue of military technological and tactical capabilities the United States and China currently possess?[/quote] What I'm saying is that the people (laymen specifically) too often say that because that America has "all the cool and destructive shit", nothing will last five seconds against them. [quote]Though technical capabilities certainly are going to give you a definitive edge. Thank God the United States has both behind it.[/quote] Yeah, that's why they totally wrecked the Serb Army in Operation Allied Force, right? Are the four-stars still living in the good 1990s, basking in the glory of Desert Storm? [quote]Funny how that works both ways. Just like us. Again, funny how it works both ways, isn't it?[/quote] And there's nothing that's going to make it specifically swing towards the US military. When the OPFOR went against US BLUFOR units with all their fancy technology, the tide often went to the OPFOR in open, barren desert unlike the deserts of southern Iraq. [quote]Mind if I get some links so I can do some research on this unnamed doctrine you speak of? It sounds interesting, albeit this is something that, for the third time, works both ways.[/quote] I recommend that you use your FOIA rights to get papers written by some Fort Leavenworth officers (can't remember their names right now), and maybe check a local college or university for issues of Military Review written in the late 1980s-mid 1990s. I can also give provide you with a contact link to a former officer who has actually been part of the OPFOR training unit and knows his way in and out of it. [quote]Thankfully, though, our technology is more advanced and complex than theirs, which, funnily enough, is largely based off what the Soviet Union possessed towards the end of its life (particularly with their tanks; the Type-99 uses the chassis frame of the T-80 FFS- something which the military destroyed numerous quantities of, along with the T-72, during the First Gulf War).[/quote] Nope. The Iraqis never had any T-80s. They were never exported at all back during the Cold War. All the T-72s they had were downgraded export versions made in Poland rather than true Soviet models like the T-72B. In fact, Soviet model T-72s would've been a credible threat to NATO tanks if the 1980s turned into World War III. Don't simply claim that Soviet hardware is shit because their export models have been used by some of the worst soldiers in modern history (Arabs). Also, why would you say that all our (as in US/Canada) tech is "better" than theirs? Is it because that we've been rolling over third-rate conventional armies for the past 20 years? Also, complex doesn't necessarily mean better. The US Army once had the M60A2 MBT with an overly complex 152mm gun-missile system that wouldn't work properly, and then they finally got smart and removed them in the 1980s.
[QUOTE=booster;27559562]Nothing will ever happen.[/QUOTE] Not this time, but these small events that don't immediately bring countries to the brink of war or conflict do have the possibility of causing tensions in relations. The US-China relationship is never particularly friendly and little squabbles like this will eventually cause it to get nasty.
These arguments about NATO having some sort of magical super military technology are ridiculous. China has most of what we have, or equivalent weapons to what we have. What they don't have, they are developing. Besides, tactics is everything. Sure, let's say our fighters are faster and more precise. But what if they hit us with a surprise attack on our carriers with some tactical blunder by whoever ends up running this hypothetical show? Without a capable navy, the US would surely be unable to attack China directly, short of using ICBMs. Now that we are off the retarded argument track, these developments in Asia are rather troubling.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;27559609]End of Vietnam War = some 40 years ago. Present day = Present day.[/quote] Which, funnily enough, their military has been reliant off numbers for that 40 years. It's only been since then, however, that their technological situation has begun to improve- which is precisely what I was commenting on. Tactical improvements have been even less significant improvement wise, which I something I also elaborated on. [quote=Gmod_Fan77]1. He's a political scientist, not military specialist.[/quote] Wrong. He's worked for the United States Naval War College, specializing in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department as the Senior Strategic Researcher and regularly advises the Pentagon on both military and political matters- precisely what his presentation on the video I posted was about. If you had watched it, you would know that. [quote=Gmod_Fan77]2. He's one guy, and you're asserting his OPINION of China to be right.[/quote] His "opinion" is based off the research findings [i]of[/i] the United States Naval War College since late 2004. You can't seriously tell me you thought he was just pulling his statistical and logistical assessments out of his ass... you didn't think that, right? [quote=Gmod_Fan77]3. He's American, therefore he'd inherently say "Their army is shit, ours is da bomb."[/quote] That's a big assumption to be making, particularly when examining his credentials. It's funny, though, how quick you are in attempting to dismiss his and the Naval War College's assessments. I guess, following this logic, you're Chinese since you're basically saying "The United States military is very weak compared to China's". [quote=Gmod_Fan77]They also have several anti-nuclear satellites which could more than easily blast away anything flung at it by the US or EU.[/quote] What makes you think that the United States would resort to nuclear war lol? Nuclear weapons have only ever been used twice in the history of warfare, with terrifying results. Nobody is intent on using them. Even assuming the Chinese did, the United States has an anti-nuclear defense system in place as well you know. [quote=Gmod_Fan77]China may be dependent somewhat on the US, but the US is unfathomably more-so dependent on China. China makes up an extremely large portion, over 75%, of US imports. Don't forget, the US also has a several-trillion-and-rising debt to China.[/quote] "Somewhat" is a GROSS understatement. China relies almost solely on the United States' market which is its top export destination; concurrently, United States investments in India are what allow it to remain free from being "unfathomably moreso dependent on China". The thing that keeps them alive is the growth of demand in the market. It must keep this market alive and functioning and exponentially expand exports to pay for its rising debts for imports of energy, minerals, food, semifinished goods, capital goods (like machinery and other pieces of industrial equipment), etc. from... guess who... the United States. [url]http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10173[/url] [i]* Foreign capital controls the majority of assets of 21 of China’s 28 leading industrial sectors. * By the early 2000s, transnational corporations, including General Electric, accounted for over one-third of China’s industrial output. * Enterprises in which foreign capital is invested account for almost 60 percent of China’s imports and exports. * A high proportion of those exports involve assembly in foreign-owned plants in China or operations contracted to local Chinese capitalists of high-tech components manufactured outside of China. This is an example of China’s distorted development.[/i] [quote=Gmod_Fan77]You just sort of dissed the US, whom you were helping in the entire argument.[/quote] Not really, because I just demonstrated and proved my point earlier that China is more dependent on the United States than the United States is on China- albeit they are still dependent on each other (it's just that, if war to break out, their economic situation would be much more dire than the United States'; but it will never happen because nobody in this wants to endure such financial woes). [quote=Gmod_Fan77]Their only strength isn't numbers: what are, George I. Joe from Koh-Reea?? This ain't the 50s, my friend. China's army has rapidly advanced in technology and training, and today fields one of the world's most advanced, well-trained armies.[/quote] Which explains perfectly why they're still using chassis for the T-99, one of their main battle tanks, that are based off the Russian T-80 models (again, something the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, among other members of NATO, had no trouble destroying during the First Gulf War; it's dated technology, but they use it because its cheap; their philosophy is overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers and functional- albeit, far from top-notch-- equipment). China's navy is in even worse a state. They have no aircraft carriers, cruisers, they don't even have a blue water naval doctrine in place yet. And as far as the air force goes, the bulk is made up of fighters, escorts, interceptors, bombers (tactical, mostly), and transports that are as old as the 1960s (including the Nanchang Q-5 and Chengdu J-7, this particular craft making up the bulk of their air fleet; some are even from the 1950s! see the Xian H-6). [quote=Gmod_Fan77][b]Large Numbers does not equal Shitty Quality[/b][/quote] [b]I never said that large numbers = shitty quality.[/b] Did you not just notice me approving of the Russian military's quality? Their equipment, though dated, is still much more modern than China's (not to mention their tactics). [quote=Gmod_Fan77]Yes, we'd both be fucked, but the US would be at a much greater disadvantage. China would be left with a surplus of goods because they'd have lost their importers, whereas the US and Europe would be left with a great shortage of goods because they lost their main exporter. I'd rather have a surplus than deficiency.[/quote] Evidently, you don't understand how it's bad to have a large surplus of goods with nobody buying them and how it affects the supply and demand equilibrium- nevermind the more important issue of the value of your nation's currency. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand[/url] [QUOTE=Tac Error;27559838]Alvin Toffler once lectured at a lot of US military institutions and was a Pentagor advisor as well. He said a lot of shit about "tech is all powerful" in the "Third Wave" of warfare in one of his books, and I remember a few articles in the Military Review where a few officers ripped his ideas apart. I can take Thomas Barnett with a whole carton of salt.[/quote] Or perhaps you take him with a carton of salt because his assertions and the assertions of the Naval War College's research findings don't support your own warped opinion/view of the Chinese military's tactics and technological prowess? Whatever the case may be, he has sources to back his stance. And I'd consider the United States Naval War College to be a pretty credible source with accurate information. Evidently a lot of others, within the government and military, I mean, do as well. But I digress. [quote=Tac Error]Perhaps, "bullshit" is too strongly a word. You like paper sources?[/quote] Certainly. [quote=Tac Error]What I'm saying is that the people (laymen specifically) too often say that because that America has "all the cool and destructive shit", nothing will last five seconds against them.[/quote] Which, backing up and taking a glance around this thread, nobody has been saying that. All I've been saying, in lieu of Dr. Barnett's points delivered in his presentation, is that the United States would have the upper hand if it were to enter a state of war with China because of its technological capabilities and tactical capabilities, along with its economic situation (which would, for the latter, fare only marginally better than the Chinese one, but still better) but that no such state will EVER be declared because of the complex economic and trade entanglements the two nations have with each other, which have forged a veritable economic peace agreement. [quote=Tac Force]Yeah, that's why they totally wrecked the Serb Army in Operation Allied Force, right? Are the four-stars still living in the good 1990s, basking in the glory of Desert Storm?[/quote] Ok... not that this really has anything to do with a scenario where the United States and China face off head-to-head in a war against each other... but moving along. [quote=Tac Force]And there's nothing that's going to make it specifically swing towards the US military.[/quote] If it were just a battle between "brainpower", as you put it, then no. But, again, it's also a question of technical capabilities, which the United States does have a clear-cut advantage in- hence why it makes logical sense that it would swing specifically towards the United States military and not the Chinese military. [quote=Tac Force]I recommend that you use your FOIA rights to get papers written by some Fort Leavenworth officers (can't remember their names right now), and maybe check a local college or university for issues of Military Review written in the late 1980s-mid 1990s. I can also give provide you with a contact link to a former officer who has actually been part of the OPFOR training unit and knows his way in and out of it.[/quote] Please do, as far as his contact information is concerned. Surely to God though such a significant part of military history could be viewed by anyone and everyone here on the web, though. [quote=Tac Force]Nope. The Iraqis never had any T-80s. They were never exported at all back during the Cold War.[/quote] The Soviet Union exported T-80Bs to Iraq in January 1991, a month before hostilities in the First Gulf War finally ceased. They had an initial inventory in 1990 of 4,000, and by the beginning of 1995, Russia had sold approximately 856. Indeed, the United Arab Emirates in January 1991 also bought five T-80Bs. The reason why they began exporting them, albeit in the last year of their government's life (the Soviet Union, I mean) was because they wanted to attract potential export contracts for the tanks, though they did not beginning exporting them en masse until after the Cold War.. The Russian Defense Ministry in 1992, however, eventually had to order a stop to their production because they were gradually becoming outclassed, along with the T-72 (which, the latter was seen as more of a quantity-based vehicle). [url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-equipment.htm[/url] [img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/t-72_rd15_2.jpg[/img] [quote=Tac Force]All the T-72s they had were downgraded export versions made in Poland rather than true Soviet models like the T-72B.[/quote] They were sold T-72BMs and BKs as well, which had the similar Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor which would later be used in the T-90s (in the case of the BMs) and were exported directly from the Soviet Union, not from Poland (the same for the BKs, the "commander's" variant). The Polish variants you're thinking of were the the M1s and M2s, which the Czechs also produced. [quote=Tac Force]In fact, Soviet model T-72s would've been a credible threat to NATO tanks if the 1980s turned into World War III. Don't simply claim that Soviet hardware is shit because their export models have been used by some of the worst soldiers in modern history (Arabs).[/quote] Ha. That's ironic and funny at the same time. Arabs are some of the worst soldiers in modern history, but Soviet hardware cannot simply be equated as being entirely shitty in quality. I don't suppose you see the contradiction with those two statements, but anyway the T-72s, even during the 1980s, were weak. Hundreds were destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War. Case in point: [media]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=adf_1278022496[/media] [quote=Tac Force]Also, why would you say that all our (as in US/Canada) tech is "better" than theirs? Is it because that we've been rolling over third-rate conventional armies for the past 20 years?[/quote] Well our tanks are certainly better at destroying theirs based off the historical instances in which we've encountered similar and indeed the exact same models models (ours are also more up to date in terms of the technology they utilize for their firing and targeting systems, as well as communications and radio equipment; China also uses the T-80, BTW), we have aircraft carriers and cruisers while they... well, they have no carriers or cruisers, and our air fleet is made up of newer variants of interceptors, fighters, escorts, bombers (tactical and strategic), etc. which basically follow through with our tanks (in that they use newer and more modern systems and equipment on board). That's a rather basic and simplistic way to look at it, but it does serve to illustrate the point at hand. [quote=Tac Force]Also, complex doesn't necessarily mean better. The US Army once had the M60A2 MBT with an overly complex 152mm gun-missile system that wouldn't work properly, and then they finally got smart and removed them in the 1980s.[/QUOTE] That's in regards to technology. I was focusing more on complexity in terms of tactical prowess. The strength in numbers concept is what the Chinese follow; quantity over quality. That would have worked 65 or 70 years ago (and indeed it did; the Soviet Union fighting against the Germans), but today, we, again, have developed weaponry and technology and tactics which have made it more efficient than ever before within the last 100 years of modern warfare at killing people. It's kind of scary when you think about it. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DarkendSky;27560212]Now that we are off the retarded argument track, these developments in Asia are rather troubling.[/QUOTE] This same kind of big hype was stirred up over Best Korea and South Korea back in November that made it sound like war was imminent, yet nothing happened. Again, now, nothing will happen.
Gmod Fan your posts have become invalid as everyone knows your agenda is to insult the U.S. in any way possible. Nothing you say can be credible.
[QUOTE=Angus725;27558094]USA wouldn't dare goto war with China, Walmart would go bankrupt.[/QUOTE] Every store here would go bankrupt. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/t-72_rd15_2.jpg[/img] And here we have China's newest tank, inspired by Minecraft.
[QUOTE=Identity;27560347]Every store here would go bankrupt. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [img_thumb]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/t-72_rd15_2.jpg[/img_thumb] And here we have China's newest tank, inspired by Minecraft.[/QUOTE] Actually, this is their newest main battle tank that's over 50 tonnes: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_%28tank%29[/url] But the T-80 is still old as fuck.
The T-80 is like the leopard though, it's had constant running upgrades and update programmes, and isn't the Abrams from like 89 or something like most of the modern tanks?
[QUOTE=Identity;27560347]Every store here would go bankrupt. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [img_thumb]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/t-72_rd15_2.jpg[/img_thumb] And here we have China's newest tank, inspired by Minecraft.[/QUOTE] Looks like it's made of legos and megabloks. [sp]Which are made in China[/sp]
[quote]Ok... not that this really has anything to do with a scenario where the United States and China face off head-to-head in a war against each other... but moving along.[/quote] If those Serbians, which NATO labels as human scum can find ways to nullify effects of technical superiority and airpower, then so can anyone that is competent. That's the point I'm trying to make. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;27560288]The Soviet Union exported T-80Bs to Iraq in January 1991, a month before hostilities in the First Gulf War finally ceased. They had an initial inventory in 1990 of 4,000, and by the beginning of 1995, Russia had sold approximately 856. Indeed, the United Arab Emirates in January 1991 also bought five T-80Bs. The reason why they began exporting them, albeit in the last year of their government's life (the Soviet Union, I mean) was because they wanted to attract potential export contracts for the tanks, though they did not beginning exporting them en masse until after the Cold War.. The Russian Defense Ministry in 1992, however, eventually had to order a stop to their production because they were gradually becoming outclassed, along with the T-72 (which, the latter was seen as more of a quantity-based vehicle). [url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-equipment.htm[/url][/quote] You just gave me a list of the Russian Federation's military inventory. Where in the hell did you make up something like the USSR exporting Iraq a T-80 in the middle of Desert Storm? Also, the reason why T-80 production was stopped [i]was not[/i] because they were being outclassed, but because with the fall of the USSR, the new Russia's military budget was only a fraction of the "old USSR glory days", so they had to make cuts somewhere. There was also a big fight between the T-80 and T-72 factories for the Russian tank contracts, so the guys who made the T-72 at Nizhny Tagil took the advanced features of the T-80 into the T-72 and the Russian Army adopted this new and improved T-72 as the T-90. The reason why they began exporting after the Cold War is because simply put, Russia needed hard cash. [quote]They were sold T-72BMs and BKs as well, which had the similar Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor which would later be used in the T-90s (in the case of the BMs) and were exported directly from the Soviet Union, not from Poland (the same for the BKs, the "commander's" variant). The Polish variants you're thinking of were the the M1s and M2s, which the Czechs also produced.[/quote] No they weren't. All Iraq had were indeed export variants which are not representative of the original model's capabilities. [quote]Ha. That's ironic and funny at the same time. Arabs are some of the worst soldiers in modern history, but Soviet hardware cannot simply be equated as being entirely shitty in quality. I don't suppose you see the contradiction with those two statements, but anyway the T-72s, even during the 1980s, were weak. Hundreds were destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War. Case in point:[/quote] Well, Flash player crashed for me, but the video description says Iranian infantry attacking a T-72. Any tank would fall for that. It's also funny to note that Iraq never had lots of export T-72s back then (less than 100-150 in the mid 1980s), so your credibility just got shot there. And that's in the Iran-Iraq War, I'm talking about a Central European War, NATO vs Warsaw Pact. Also, it looks like Iranian tank crews have praised the T-72. [url]http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/war-iraqiran-news2.htm[/url] Also, I say this again, export models are [i]downgraded[/i] variants. If the US took an M1A1, stripped off the Chobham and DU armor, replaced the FCS with a older version and supplied anyone who bought it with older ammunition, you'd basically have something like what the Iraqis received from the Warsaw Pact. [quote]Well our tanks are certainly better at destroying theirs based off the historical instances in which we've encountered similar and indeed the exact same models models (ours are also more up to date in terms of the technology they utilize for their firing and targeting systems, as well as communications and radio equipment; China also uses the T-80, BTW)[/quote] No, see what I said above. The PLA may have gotten some T-80s from Russia, but only for testing and evaluation back in the 1990s. [quote]we have aircraft carriers and cruisers while they... well, they have no carriers or cruisers, and our air fleet is made up of newer variants of interceptors, fighters, escorts, bombers (tactical and strategic), etc. which basically follow through with our tanks (in that they use newer and more modern systems and equipment on board). That's a rather basic and simplistic way to look at it, but it does serve to illustrate the point at hand.[/quote] Well, it serves to illustrate an idealized vision, but the PRC is not Iraq and is not going to be sit on their ass while an American-style enemy beats them up. [quote]That's in regards to technology. I was focusing more on complexity in terms of tactical prowess. The strength in numbers concept is what the Chinese follow; quantity over quality. That would have worked 65 or 70 years ago (and indeed it did; the Soviet Union fighting against the Germans), but today, we, again, have developed weaponry and technology and tactics which have made it more efficient than ever before within the last 100 years of modern warfare at killing people. It's kind of scary when you think about it.[/QUOTE] Wow, still relying on stereotypes? Like the Soviet military is large, inflexibile, rigid and predictable kind? The PLA may be large, but that doesn't mean that they will follow your stereotypes of them conducting unintelligent meatgrinder actions. Of course, that may be what the PRC wants potential adversaries to believe, so they end up complaining to their commanders that "the enemy is not following the doctrine!" With every new technology, there's a counter. Why is it that the Serbs in 1999 hid their forces instead of operating out in the open? They found a counter to precision weapons. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=bravehat;27560467]The T-80 is like the leopard though, it's had constant running upgrades and update programmes, and isn't the Abrams from like 89 or something like most of the modern tanks?[/QUOTE] With the fall of the Soviet Union, the T-80 fleet has mainly been lacking in upgrade funds. The latest T-80 variant of the time, the T-80U would have been a direct counterpart to the M1A1 without DU armor. The Ukrainian T-84 and its successors though are another beast. Can they stand up to Western armor? That's a big question mark. That's all I'm going to reply to you, but please; do not use stereotypes and don't fall into myths.
[QUOTE=Identity;27560347]Every store here would go bankrupt. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [img_thumb]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/t-72_rd15_2.jpg[/img_thumb] And here we have China's newest tank, inspired by Minecraft.[/QUOTE] That's cute. They think Heat Tiles from our retired Space Shuttles are going to protect their tank! (Yes yes I know they aren't actually heat tiles, god damn) China and the US are probably THE strongest economic allies on the globe, (Maybe not Strongest, but largest for sure. Two Extremely large countries hold themselves up with it) To think that either of them would even consider war with each other over a piece of shit slab of land with practically zero infrastructure and a crazy bully of a regime is absurd
[QUOTE=Tac Error;27558725]This isn't the Korean War anymore. I wouldn't rely on stereotypes for use as analysis.[/QUOTE] Chinas troops are well trained and equipped, There is no more use of the type 56 (Except for police and paramilitary units) Almost all tank units are armored and about half of there air force uses modern airplanes. Once they gain more allies or create a better or bigger navy they could be on equal or better footing as a super power. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [quote] Mind if I get some links so I can do some research on this unnamed doctrine you speak of? It sounds interesting, albeit this is something that, for the third time, works both ways. Thankfully, though, our technology is more advanced and complex than theirs, which, funnily enough, is largely based off what the Soviet Union possessed towards the end of its life (particularly with their tanks; the Type-99 uses the chassis frame of the T-80 FFS- something which the military destroyed numerous quantities of, along with the T-72, during the First Gulf War). Yep.[/QUOTE] Sorry to tell you bro, but the T-80 is not a shitty tank, the T-90 is not that good compared to it. The T-90 was based on the T-72 and the T-80 was based on the T-64 which is a much better tank. If saddam was using T-64s instead of t-72s he would have done a lot better.
Except China is also a nation of grinding poverty so I'd quite doubt that the millions of Chinese troops are all crack quality. At the end of the day, troop numbers aren't even so important. It's about how many of them you can kill at a time. At this stage, the mass numbers of troops China would possess would, unlike Arab insurgents and Serbians(?), not be able to be easily hidden - thus, they'd be far more susceptible to conventional warfare. I still have faith that in an all-out war, the US would win (as much as anyone's winning). Why? Because their trump-card is devastating nuclear weaponry, and I simply don't believe claims that the Chinese could just shoot down any ICBM the US throws at it without fail. That seems to be one of the key anti-US arguments - that the Chinese could acquire counter-technology to render the US's technological superiority useless. I agree that there has been technology developed specifically for the purpose of defeating US/NATO war pieces - however, to thus suppose that all US technology is thus obsolete is false. Either way, no-one will fight, because neither side is willing to face the consequences. In a war between two such powers, there would be no real victory, even for the winner - in the end, both sides would be devastated for decades in a number of economic and political ways.
[QUOTE=Cuntsman;27558369]China could easily decimate the USA with their superior technology and troops though[/QUOTE] We aren't in the middle ages anymore, huge numbers of horribly equipped troops are just problematic. If you can't give them air coverage you might as well just shoot them already because mass of 50 million ground soldiers without air support would be bombed to hell before they got anywhere. At the moment, the US is more than capable of decimating China, unless nuclear weaponry is used in which case they'd decimate eachother.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;27561610]Except China is also a nation of grinding poverty so I'd quite doubt that the millions of Chinese troops are all crack quality. At the end of the day, troop numbers aren't even so important. It's about how many of them you can kill at a time. At this stage, the mass numbers of troops China would possess would, unlike Arab insurgents and Serbians(?), not be able to be easily hidden - thus, they'd be far more susceptible to conventional warfare.[/quote] And I doubt that thousands of American troops are all crack veterans either. Even in the face of mass precision weaponry a large force like the PLA can certainly still operate. Just don't picture the PLA deploying everything they have all at once. Would the US Army in a conventional theater war deploy all 549,015 of its active personnel at once? Mainland China is large and it's not flat desert. There's a lot of ground to disperse in. The Serbs also didn't just hide their guys; they also employed deception targets to counter precision weapons. In the 1960s, when nuclear weapons were all the rage, the Soviets developed something termed "anti-nuclear maneuver". This concept was "the organized shifting of subunits with the aim of withdrawing them out from under the possible blows of enemy nuclear means, to protect their survival and subsequent freedom of action to strike a blow on the enemy." And then in the early 1980s this came up in one of their taktika books: "the continuous conduct of battle at a high tempo creates unfavorable conditions for enemy use of weapons of mass destruction high-precision weapons now included. He cannot determine targets for nuclear strikes precisely and, will be forced to shift his nuclear delivery means often." The same principles can certainly be applied to a modern battlefield where you replace nukes with your favorite precision munition. [quote]I still have faith that in an all-out war, the US would win (as much as anyone's winning). Why? Because their trump-card is devastating nuclear weaponry, and I simply don't believe claims that the Chinese could just shoot down any ICBM the US throws at it without fail. That seems to be one of the key anti-US arguments - that the Chinese could acquire counter-technology to render the US's technological superiority useless. I agree that there has been technology developed specifically for the purpose of defeating US/NATO war pieces - however, to thus suppose that all US technology is thus obsolete is false. [/QUOTE] Win? More like the end of the world. Counter-technology does not make the affected technology obsolete. (Did ceramic armor make ATGMs obsolete? Hell no.) It does disadvantage the one whose doctrine is constructed around exploiting technology over everything.
Compare the Serb Army to the ground-based Chinese Army. You really think the PLA will be able to move their troops around fast enough to dodge nuclear strikes? Or that the US would only EVER use nuclear force against a mobile military target? I understand there are anti-nuclear techniques, but I don't think they'll just work like that. While nuclear weapons obviously can't be used around friendly forces (danger close just won't cut it this time), I believe the US would still be able to identify and strike Chinese targets, particularly due to the sheer size of the PLA. Bear in mind, it's also not like the USA would have to nuke every Chinese target in order to "win", so to speak. I'm no wartime expert, but I think the Chinese administration would be forced to capitulate, whether it's under duress from their own fearful civilian population or whatever, in the face of even /one/ successful, devastating strike. Counter-technology would disadvantage the US, yes. However, the way it has been portrayed so far is that it really nullifies the commonly-accepted technological edge the US has, thus making it susceptible to the simple brute force of the Chinese. I disagree - while it may hinder the US, I think that American technology would still triumph. Also bear in mind how the Chinese would aquire enough tech to alter the course of the war. They'd already have some, of course. However, they'd need to gain other elements from different nations, e.g. Russia. Would these nations supply it? Even if they do, would it be comprehensive enough to combat enough American battlefield tech to make a difference on a practical level?
you guys are arguing like it matters
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;27562295]Compare the Serb Army to the ground-based Chinese Army. You really think the PLA will be able to move their troops around fast enough to dodge nuclear strikes? Or that the US would only EVER use nuclear force against a mobile military target? I understand there are anti-nuclear techniques, but I don't think they'll just work like that. While nuclear weapons obviously can't be used around friendly forces (danger close just won't cut it this time), I believe the US would still be able to identify and strike Chinese targets, particularly due to the sheer size of the PLA. Bear in mind, it's also not like the USA would have to nuke every Chinese target in order to "win", so to speak. I'm no wartime expert, but I think the Chinese administration would be forced to capitulate, whether it's under duress from their own fearful civilian population or whatever, in the face of even /one/ successful, devastating strike. Counter-technology would disadvantage the US, yes. However, the way it has been portrayed so far is that it really nullifies the commonly-accepted technological edge the US has, thus making it susceptible to the simple brute force of the Chinese. I disagree - while it may hinder the US, I think that American technology would still triumph. Also bear in mind how the Chinese would aquire enough tech to alter the course of the war. They'd already have some, of course. However, they'd need to gain other elements from different nations, e.g. Russia. Would these nations supply it? Even if they do, would it be comprehensive enough to combat enough American battlefield tech to make a difference on a practical level?[/QUOTE] Would you mind diving into text? I've got a good link for you here that will try to challenge your convictions: [url]http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fog/fog.htm[/url] That's all. This has been a total waste of time.
[QUOTE=gerbile5;27562518]you guys are arguing like it matters[/QUOTE] This guy's claiming that China's still an army of masses of untrained farmers with Stone Age equipment. If we don't set him straight, he'll troll other China threads like this too. [editline]21st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;27560288]Which, funnily enough, their military has been reliant off numbers for that 40 years. It's only been since then, however, that their technological situation has begun to improve- which is precisely what I was commenting on. Tactical improvements have been even less significant improvement wise, which I something I also elaborated on.[/quote] Their last combat actions, major ones, were from the 50s and 60s. [b]You can't base modern performance on decades-old info.[/b] [quote]His "opinion" is based off the research findings [i]of[/i] the United States Naval War College since late 2004. You can't seriously tell me you thought he was just pulling his statistical and logistical assessments out of his ass... you didn't think that, right?[/quote] His "assessments" are biased. Get me a Chinese military professor, and let's see what he says about his army. [quote]That's a big assumption to be making, particularly when examining his credentials. It's funny, though, how quick you are in attempting to dismiss his and the Naval War College's assessments. I guess, following this logic, you're Chinese since you're basically saying "The United States military is very weak compared to China's".[/quote] I never said the US Military is very weak compared to them, I said China's extremely strong, and its army, minus power projection capabilities, is on the same level as the US in terms of training and tactics. [quote]What makes you think that the United States would resort to nuclear war lol?.[/quote] ...Because your argument was "The US and Europe could easily nuke China to dust." Stop contradicting yourself. [quote]Not really, because I just demonstrated and proved my point earlier that China is more dependent on the United States than the United States is on China- albeit they are still dependent on each other (it's just that, if war to break out, their economic situation would be much more dire than the United States'; but it will never happen because nobody in this wants to endure such financial woes). [/quote] If the US relies on the majority of its exports to come from China, and China relies on the majority of imports to be sent to the US, if each stopped, the US would be left with a SHORTAGE and China with a SURPLUS. Don't you know what logic is? [quote]Which explains perfectly why they're still using chassis for the T-99, one of their main battle tanks, that are based off the Russian T-80 models (again, something the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, among other members of NATO, had no trouble destroying during the First Gulf War; it's dated technology, but they use it because its cheap; their philosophy is overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers and functional- albeit, far from top-notch-- equipment). China's navy is in even worse a state. They have no aircraft carriers, cruisers, they don't even have a blue water naval doctrine in place yet. And as far as the air force goes, the bulk is made up of fighters, escorts, interceptors, bombers (tactical, mostly), and transports that are as old as the 1960s (including the Nanchang Q-5 and Chengdu J-7, this particular craft making up the bulk of their air fleet; some are even from the 1950s! see the Xian H-6).[/quote] I've already acknowledged their fleet is shit. However, their tanks are certainly not built off the outdated Russian T-80 models. [quote][b]I never said that large numbers = shitty quality.[/b] Did you not just notice me approving of the Russian military's quality? Their equipment, though dated, is still much more modern than China's (not to mention their tactics).[/quote] Russia has one of the greatest militaries in the world. And stop assuming everyone else is a puny worm compared to the US. You're basically being a pompous arrogant, "The US is sooooo highly updated and trained...look at all those poo little farm armies! MUHUHAHAHAHAH, so weak!!" [quote]Evidently, you don't understand how it's bad to have a large surplus of goods with nobody buying them and how it affects the supply and demand equilibrium- nevermind the more important issue of the value of your nation's currency.[/quote] Surplus = more goods to USE. Shortage = no goods to USE. [quote]Or perhaps you take him with a carton of salt because his assertions and the assertions of the Naval War College's research findings don't support your own warped opinion/view of the Chinese military's tactics and technological prowess? Whatever the case may be, he has sources to back his stance. And I'd consider the United States Naval War College to be a pretty credible source with accurate information. Evidently a lot of others, within the government and military, I mean, do as well. But I digress.[/quote] It seems you're only relying on US sources. Give us some Chinese sources, then. [quote]If it were just a battle between "brainpower", as you put it, then no. But, again, it's also a question of technical capabilities, which the United States does have a clear-cut advantage in- hence why it makes logical sense that it would swing specifically towards the United States military and not the Chinese military.[/quote] Technology doesn't always mean you'll win. Look at Afghanistan. Your little God army of Americans is getting their asses handed to them by hill-dwelling farmers. Look at the Boer War. The British just barely beat such an inferior army of farmers. Look at the Eastern Front, Germany, even with all its advanced tech, couldn't beat the "third-rate" Soviet army.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;27560520]Looks like it's made of legos and megabloks. [sp]Which are made in China[/sp][/QUOTE] Lego isn't made anywhere near china, it's mostly made in Billund, Denmark. But it has a few factories elsewhere, such as the US.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;27567030]Lego isn't made anywhere near china, it's mostly made in Billund, Denmark. But it has a few factories elsewhere, such as the US.[/QUOTE] That's why Legos tend to be expensive, more-so than other Made-In-China toys. They're made mainly in Eastern and Central Europe, with a few factories in Canada and the US.
China is like the asshole big brother who caught you doing something and is blackmailing you to be their slave or they will tell your parents.
Watch out, America! [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/zoig_resh.png[/img]
They are all wearing suits. Proof that China's population are cool
[QUOTE=acds;27561773]We aren't in the middle ages anymore, huge numbers of horribly equipped troops are just problematic. If you can't give them air coverage you might as well just shoot them already because mass of 50 million ground soldiers without air support would be bombed to hell before they got anywhere. At the moment, the US is more than capable of decimating China, unless nuclear weaponry is used in which case they'd decimate eachother.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. China and Russia are the world leaders in medicine and technology.
[QUOTE=Cuntsman;27568570]Uh, no. China and Russia are the world leaders in medicine and technology.[/QUOTE] [quote=LunchBoxofDoom]but NOOOOOOO this dood frum teh naval plaeces sai china iz BAAD lololol he rite us kik yo a$$ roflmao[/quote] :hurr: Lunchbox seems to think the only tactics Russia and China have today is human waving.
Okay, okay, okay...So how would North Korea invade America ? With one of these ? [img]http://www.coolest-homemade-costumes.com/images/coolest-airplane-costume-5-21302575.jpg[/img] Pictured - The North Korean Air Force.
ITT: Armchair generals
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.