Poll: China vs USA

College Confidential Community
21

<p>
[quote]
China has the largest and most advanced military in Asia. Russia is falling behind. China has 2350 nuclear weapons that is capable of hitting anywhere in the world. The Chinese spend about 50~70 billion dollar a year on military...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a lie, china has no more than 400 nukes. Sources? Links? Also, have you checked the J fighters? Crap! They look like the should have been released in the 80's...when the u.s. already had the nighthawk aka stealth...20+ years ago! If China is developing new aircraft, they will still be incomparable to the F-22; which is the strongest fighter in the WORLD. I also assume that the U.S. is developing secret aircraft...aka Area 51. The best thing that China has at the moment are Su-30's, that can be easily shot down with even F-15's. </p>

<p>I will make you a 1 million dollar bet if the Chinese can actually take South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan in 48 hours....but I can however say that the U.S can definately destroy China in 10 minutes.</p>

<p>Also if a War broke out, I doubt Russia will join China...most likely they'll go their own way.</p>

22

<p>This is a wacky question! LOL Obviously, it will never happen. But if I were to venture a guess, I would say that the answer to the first question is no. There are 4 countries that the US cannot invade. They are China, England, France and Russia. Conventionally, China is the only one that can hold its own, but England, France and Russia can nuke every inch of US soil. In other words, none of those countries will ever be attacked. </p>

<p>Do not confuse Iraq with China. Iraq is a puny country (the size of Montana)with a population of 20,000,000. Of those 20,000,000, 17,000,000 (85%) are Kurds and Shiites...opposed to Saddam. Its army was drained from 25 continuous years of war. China is a country larger than the US with a population 70 times larger than Iraq's, and its population is highly homogeneous. Its technological capabilities are far superior to Iraq's and their soldiers far more prepared. Even conventionally, the US would not be able to invade China. Clearly China would suffer huge losses, but in the end, they would drain the US.</p>

<p>England and France have hundreds of nuclear warheads, each one significantly more destructive and potent than the bombs dropped on Japan and they have the missile technology to deliver those warheads with a great deal of accuracy anywhere within a 7,000 mile radius. And since England, France and even Russia have islands in the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, they can strike from several locations. </p>

<p>In short, a nation does not have to be as militarily powerful as the US to defend itself.</p>

23

<p>"but I can however say that the U.S can definately destroy China in 10 minutes."</p>

<p>I'm laughing at you ignorant and stupid remark...10 minutes? not funny.</p>

24

<p>mexican't, you appear to hate the Chinese, much like someone I debated (not senselessly argue, bash, and engage in a "my side is better than yours" conversation), might I ask why you seem to want to believe that the U.S. is that much superior over such a powerful nation?</p>

<p>USA>China? On what grounds?</p>

<p>For those of you who obviously seem to think that USA>China, don't get arrogant. USA>N.Vietnam seemed obvious, and they creamed us despite all the bombs that were dropped.</p>

<p>One thing that will shape America's position on war will definitely be public opinion. An interesting trend I've noticed in U.S. history is that if the American people fully support a war, the U.S. will go in. Once the casualties start mounting, people start changing their minds.</p>

<p>It happened in the Civil War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq invasion. In the Civil War, people held picnics on the battlefield, and everyone was so eager to enlist and beat the crap out of the opposition in a matter of months. As the war dragged on and more people died, soldiers deserted, and people simply wanted the war to end.</p>

<p>Vietnam: At the beginning people were eager to "save democracy," and "crush communism." Then you had the protests and people fleeing across national borders to escape the draft.</p>

<p>Iraq: As the war continues in Iraq, Bush's approval rating is slowly dwindling. I still remember when the war began that his ratings on Iraq were fairly high. His ratings slowly dipped, shot up again when he declared "mission accomplished" and as more bodies came home, the ratings began another slow decline.</p>

<p>Personally, I don't think a war will ever occur. I also think it's pointless that two of the world's strongest nations would fight over a tiny island.</p>

25

<p>Well, about half the posts on this thread are so ill-informed I'm not even going to bother. In fact, the topic of this thread is just as stupid. However, I'm going to lay out some knowledge, and no, I do not pretend to know everything. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Whoever believes that the US and China will not go to war which each other because they are linked economically has never bothered to look at history. Read up on the Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact, see how that turned out.</p></li>
<li><p>Russia would not enter into a war as an ally of China. China is the biggest strategic threat to the Russians and they know it. The Russians will not even let the Chinese buy their oil companies, why would they support them in war? Furthermore, a Chinese invasion of Russia is entirely possible, and one other scenario in which the United States could become involved.</p></li>
<li><p>The US would never invade China because it would be the biggest occupation in world history. Do you realize how many troops it would require to control even the smallest portion of China? Chinese nationalism is running strong these days, as evidenced by the recent heating of Chinese-Japanese relations, any attempt at occupation would be met with a N. Viet. style resistance.</p></li>
<li><p>Whoever said the N. Viet. "crushed" the US is an idiot. Yes, America lost the war, but it won all the freaking battles. The supposed "success" of the Tet Offensive? Biggest loss of the war for the Viet. Public pressure lost the war, not the military.</p></li>
<li><p>This might come out sounding wrong, but will the people who claim to know China so well just shut-up? Yes, we know you have a better idea of what conditions are like in China, but lets not try to paint the whole thing as sunshine and butterflies. For a fact there is still curtailment of freedoms and personal choice in China. Do not try to deny that. Hell, I'm not even going to say that's wrong, I really don't care what goes on, it's an entirely different culture with an entirely different value structure. But let's not try to paint such a rosy picture.</p></li>
<li><p>Someone claimed "everything has been privatized." Really, want to tell that to CNOOC? You know, the company owned by the Chinese government that's trying to buy UNOCAL?</p></li>
<li><p>Basically this entire thread is idiotic. Unless you happen to have some sort of actual military or analytic training, any post you make here is un-informed and simple.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Read something and maybe learn from it. <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/d20050719china.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/d20050719china.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

26

<p>
[quote]
Basically this entire thread is idiotic. Unless you happen to have some sort of actual military or analytic training, any post you make here is un-informed and simple.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you implying that you do, in fact have military or analytical training? It's a huge stretch to jump to the conclusion that this thread and its posts are "idiotic"</p>

<p>
[quote]
Whoever said the N. Viet. "crushed" the US is an idiot. Yes, America lost the war, but it won all the freaking battles. The supposed "success" of the Tet Offensive? Biggest loss of the war for the Viet. Public pressure lost the war, not the military.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Manipulating public opinion can be used as a strategy against enemies. N.Vietnam did in fact massively turn the public against the war. The end result however, was the same, even if the U.S. "won all the battles": American forces withdrew, and ultimately yielded to an inferior force with little technology and limited numbers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Well, about half the posts on this thread are so ill-informed I'm not even going to bother. In fact, the topic of this thread is just as stupid. However, I'm going to lay out some knowledge, and no, I do not pretend to know everything.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you don't pretend to know everything, then don't lecture everyone else in such an assertive <--(euphenism btw) fashion.</p>

<p>By the way, the link you pointed out is an extremely credible source, but a very biased one. The DoD is a large part of an American government that right now, see the foreign policy of China as questionable at best. At the same time, the DoD knows that China finds America's foreign policy questionable at best as well. The report contains subtle hints that the DoD sees China in a negative light. Also, the DoD seems to be borderline paranoid about war against China.</p>

<p>All in all Tomadog, you're way too assertive with your arguments, debate with a cool head and then we'll listen to you.</p>

<p>If what you just wrote is a cool head for you, then I truly feel sorry for you.</p>

27

<p>However, I do agree with tomadog on at least one thing:</p>

<p>This topic should be discontinued, as there have been numerous previous threads with topics identical to this one.</p>

<p>I really don't feel like politically debating, but since I am Chinese, I always feel an urge to involve myself in such a topic.</p>

<p>Let this thread rest in peace...</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
I'm laughing at you ignorant and stupid remark...10 minutes? not funny.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>actually dude, it's theoratically possible..but it won't happen, since it'll send shockwaves trice around the globe with magnitudes of 8.0+...</p>

<p>and it's also stupid how china can take all those countries in 48 hrs...</p>

<p>if the us could beat japan in wwii with a nuclear warhead that was unknown at the moment, who knows what they have now....h-bombs that possibly don't require a nuclear detonator. or w/e...</p>

<p>
[quote]
4. Whoever said the N. Viet. "crushed" the US is an idiot. Yes, America lost the war, but it won all the freaking battles. The supposed "success" of the Tet Offensive? Biggest loss of the war for the Viet. Public pressure lost the war, not the military.

[/quote]

that actually made my day, the kill ratio was like 1:20, confirmed. Same for the Korean war..</p>

<p>
[quote]

England and France have hundreds of nuclear warheads, each one significantly more destructive and potent than the bombs dropped on Japan

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not stupid, the bomb dropped on Japan 60+ years ago was a mere 18 kiloton, incomparable to the 50+Megatons of the 1950's...surely England and France have nuclear warheads, but would they really attack the USA? Pff...given France: No. UK: Hell no. USA: Probably as a conspiracy...</p>

<p>how much would a suitcase nuclear bomb cost me, if I bought it from the Russians? </p>

<p>Whoever said that China could beat russia is completely idiotic. Russia has far better technology than CHina, probably better than the usa...if it hasn't been stolen.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In short, a nation does not have to be as militarily powerful as the US to defend itself.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right, so what do you think of the liberation of France?</p>

29

<p>Of course France and England would not use the A Bomb on the US...because the US would not dare attack them. That's the point. A nuclear weapon with the prpoer missile technology is a deterrent. </p>

<p>Before asking me about French liberation, ask me about American independence. Without France, your country would not even exist.</p>

30

<p>another question:</p>

<p>Is an invasion of continental usa by another foreign power possible?</p>

<p>also; no offense at the chinese.</p>

31

<p>Now that's more like it. Yes, if the Cubans and the Canadians decide to invade continental USA, I think it can be done!!! LOL</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
A nuclear weapon with the proper missile technology is a deterrent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you aware that the u.s. is currently funding satellite technology that will allow to send missiles from space, rather than using icbms..this new satellite defense technology will be capable of destroying enemy satellites, as well as destroying ground targets from space. Remember, ICBM's are nothing new; hence, the so-called icbm's are old technology used in the 1970's to launch apollo missions..</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
Canadians decide to invade continental USA, I think it can be done!!! LOL

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hm...maybe the Cubans..but certaintly not canada...that's like wales invading England...or something of the nature.....I always thought of a cold war scenario; where the Soviet Union invaded through alaska..finally taking Canada, then the US...but pff...</p>

34

<p>since we're on a nuclear topic...i'd like you to see this..</p>

<p><a href="http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=Movie_00017734%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=Movie_00017734&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>i sure want to see video footage of the French testing nukes.</p>

35

<p>mexican't, seriously, it is very childish to make statement such as "but I can however say that the U.S can definately destroy China in 10 minutes"...it's something that would never happen...</p>

36

<p>huh? who said anything about china? you cookin'?</p>

<p>It could happen.</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
Are you aware that the u.s. is currently funding satellite technology that will allow to send missiles from space, rather than using icbms..this new satellite defense technology will be capable of destroying enemy satellites, as well as destroying ground targets from space. Remember, ICBM's are nothing new; hence, the so-called icbm's are old technology used in the 1970's to launch apollo missions..

[/quote]
IMO the United States shouldn't spend so much time trying to develop new ways to intimidate the world with its weaponry. We're in the 21st century. When dealing with huge multinational conflicts between powerful nuclear-capable nations, diplomacy (and not an arms race) is the way to go. Any other method could be disastrous.</p>

<p>[For the policy debaters out there:] Underview: Soft power should take precedence over hard power. All hard power does is create more strain on governmental biopower, which Foucault says is bad. Khalilzad was wrong, Nye was right.</p>

38

<p>I think that was a plan for homeland security...right? Everyone deserves freedom.</p>

39

<p>"will allow to send missiles from space"
"this new satellite defense technology will be capable of destroying enemy satellites"
"destroying ground targets from space"</p>

<p>Homeland security? What?</p>

<p>As far as everyone "deserving freedom"...</p>

<p>1) Are you implying that the Chinese are not free? Just because their government doesn't operate like America's doesn't mean they're oppressed.</p>

<p>2) How exactly does having a supernuclear outer-space satellite missile launcher thingie give people freedom?</p>

40

<p>"will allow to send missiles from space"
Potential in destroying silos</p>

<p>"this new satellite defense technology will be capable of destroying enemy satellites"
potential for spy satellites
"destroying ground targets from space"
potential for destroying nukes..before they're launched..or are being launched..</p>

<p>2) How exactly does having a supernuclear outer-space satellite missile launcher thingie give people freedom?</p>

<p>Dude, I didn't say it was nuclear..where did I say that? It protects people. Or would you rather have Cuba, or some other terrorist country operating this "supernuclear outer-space satellite missile launcher thingie"? Who can you trust? leave it to the u.s.</p>