<p>Nuke China!!!!</p>
<p>No other solution to solve this problem. Only invasion to China.</p>
<p>stardragon, china may have threatend nuclear attack, but much like the USSR, they do NOT want a regional conflict to be turned into a nuclear war. they know as soon as they launch we and everyone else launches. nuclear war will NOT be the first step of any potential conflict over taiwan.</p>
<p>I love how people like Blackdream always employ the "I'm Asian...therefore only i know what is going on in Asia" argument. </p>
<p>Tlaktan, you hit the nail on the head. But if there's one point I disagree with, its your certainty that the US will wipe China off the face of the earth in a war. I highly disagree. China is a very strong country. Its got a huge standing army as well as nukes and an industry capable of manufacturing tons of weapons. We would probably be victorious in the end, but the cost would be great. </p>
<p>War should be avoided, but the way to do that is to NOT back down. This is another Cuban missile crisis.</p>
<p>And on that note, i just have to tell Blackdream that it is HE who should read up on the history of the last century after saying that STUPID comment that the war in Afghanistan destroyed the USSR. I'm too lazy to comment on that. See Tlaktan rip this apart on the previous page.</p>
<p>You make some decent points, except;</p>
<p>1) China's standing army is essentially useless in air strikes. China may have a large standing army, but does not have the mobile ability to transport all its soldiers; or even the brunt of the soldiers in the Red Army. The industry is not immediately capable of manufacturing tons of industrial-grade weapons, it will require plenty of time for factory conversions and such -- China may be in a ready state of war against Taiwan, but it is definitely not in a ready state of war against the United States or any other military superpower. </p>
<p>2) China is ready to defend against major conventional attacks; however, those tactics are obsolete. China's only tactical advantage is its mass, and even that is pointless -- as mass cannot help when the opposing force is striking from above.</p>
<p>3) China's nuclear arsenal is nowhere near the size of the United States' -- and is dilapidating at a similar rate as the United States' arsenal. </p>
<p>4) It is doubtful that China will man vessels and set sail to America for the purpose of invading the American mainland. Even though our anti-missile systems are something left to desire, the Chinese anti-ballistic systems aren't that great either. Chances are, we have a better shot at blocking a nuke than China.</p>
<p>5) The one disadvantage that the Red Army has (on top of everything else) is the fact that the propaganda ministry is always hard at work -- trying to glamourize the "glory" of China's military -- its best and most effective weapons are ** always ** showcased for some odd reason (as we saw with the Mr. Asian-American earlier and his statements about the anti-aircraft technologies that China has). We do not know what sort of weapons the United States armed forces has; although we do know the basic land-assault weapons such as the M-16, the Carbines, and other land-weapons, we don't know what sort of heavy firepower the Navy and the Air Force have packing.</p>
<p>The United States is not stupid enough to waste all its weapons in one large show of force -- what you saw in "shock and awe" was only a fraction of America's air prowess.</p>
<p>China may have a huge standing army, but we control the air. </p>
<p>Also:</p>
<p>China cannot wage war with the West without its economy collapsing. For hundreds of years, the Euro-American powers have survived and prospered commercially without the presence of China in the Market. Although globalization will make the Europeans and Asians pay a heavy price for cutting off its connection with China, the same (and an even heavier price) will be for China.</p>
<p>You're right about China's dependence on US and Europe. However, seeing the path that Europe seems to be headed on today, I doubt that, in a war between the US and China, Europe would take a side, much less the US's. Not trading with the United States would be a blow, yes, but there will always be a trade partner in Europe because those countries are sell-outs.</p>
<p>yeah id have to agree that, at this point at least, any war with china would be a win for the US as long as it was fought on our terms. heavy on the airstrikes and naval-based cruise missiles, followed by our powerful (and much more advanced) armor and heavy infantry to take care of the survivors, assuming china doesnt bow out after the initial attack. and obviously any war with china would be fought in china, theres no way a chinese invasion (if they could actually build enough troopships to carry an invading army) would ever make it to the US. basically, our air force is by FAR the best, our navy is again by FAR the best, and our army is the best pound-for-pound. it would be an ugly war that would be better avoided and could possibly lead to nuclear warfare, but assuming it was fought and nukes didnt get involved, it would be a win for the US.</p>
<p>blackdream i have to disagree, i am asian as well, and unlikely as it is, i'll agree with others on this issue, the us SHOULD intervene, personally, i think of this as an internal problem, the taiwanese seek independence and recognition from china, even tho they are already recognized by the greater part of the world. this is taiwan's fault... china is also at fault here as they cannot logically justify the reunification of taiwan simply out of historical context, it is neither an economical addition nor an advantegous one... so as i said before, this is the fault of both countries, but should china do anything, which i hope they don't, the US and many other pacific rim countries should intervene</p>
<p>I agree with you here, northrams. I think the armu of China is not as strong as American yet.
Why if you're Asians, you know everything about Asia? We never create the egg, but know its taste, unlike a hen.</p>
<p>China is very self-confident, and is ready to attack USA first, so the USA must be prepared to respond. </p>
<p>Safeguard. Do you remember this system. America says it's against N.Korea and etc., but really it's against China an' Russia.</p>
<p>I also don't think that EU will be neutral, it likely will be for US.</p>
<p>Taiwan is not an internal problem! If so, then Phillipines, S. Korea, Indochina and so on. And they'll be internal problems?? China wants to be empire, USA also does. So the war is inevitable. Now or then.</p>
<p>"China wants to be empire, USA also does. So the war is inevitable. Now or then."</p>
<p>thats what many people said about the USA and USSR. though there were some hot flashes, there was only a cold war to resolve that conflict.</p>
<p>USA did not have more than 5 mainstream fighter in service at the same time.</p>
<p>F16
F15
F22
F5 (surviving saint rival "imaginary enemy" squardon)</p>
<p>Yes I have heard about the F22. Unfortunately, it doesn't go to carrier and the second one just crashed due to FBW problems.</p>
<p>I learned majority of my history lesson here in the states. More specifically taught by a white person from the south.</p>
<p>tlakan, let's say you go to China</p>
<p>"Hello I came from the United States."
then you get beat up and arrested for causing disorders.</p>
<p>This is pretty much how Chinese are treated in Taiwain.</p>
<p>"Two parties must agree on succession."
I am glad you brought that up. Because the nationalist party DOES NOT agree on succession.</p>
<p>BTW, the taiwainese president arranged a shooting of himself the night before election then feigned death, in order to get some sympathy vote. I doubt if you can trust such a political clown.</p>
<p>"Chinese won't dare to use its missiles."</p>
<p>we'll see about that.</p>
<p>AWAC is not a big gun, it's defenseless airborne command and radar plane. (Airborne early warning and command)</p>
<p>About the point of Tu22, you try to use social secruity money to buy 3000 tons of gold and sell it to france for free, and see how your economy go.</p>
<p>mexico or canada didn't use Naplam, Dara Cannon, nor did they kill every living thing wherever they go didn't they?</p>
<p>and last of all, get some UNBIASED info on how did CCCP die. your bland recital of the phrase "they collapsed because their centralized economy sucks" sounds something from a brainwashed person.</p>
<p>and last of all, military, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DEAL WITH CHINA WITHOUT USING NUKES OR CAUSING WWIII</p>
<p>precision bombing? Last time I checked S300 was cheaper than F18E/F and a carrier full of bombers go under anti-aircraft fire is just plain silly.</p>
<p>EB6 provides EW support? EB6 can't go in too deep. </p>
<p>Fighter support? F22 doesn't go up to carrier. F15 doesn't even go there, and F14 just retired.</p>
<p>Tomahawk strike? what about AAAs? what if you lose a carrier due to the C801/802 or just down right DF series?</p>
<p>this discussion is stupid. I have many friends who hold the exactly opposite viewpoint on taiwain and stuff like that, and we have learned not to bring this stupid topic up.</p>
<p>EDIT</p>
<p>CHINA READY TO ATTACK USA?</p>
<p>That's plain B grade feces.</p>
<p>HOW?</p>
<p>They DO NOT HAVE nothing that can reach the states beside nukes. And don't tell me they are going to start a nuclear war because that's just plain dumb.</p>
<p>Which defends my point all the stronger -- if China does not have weapons that can reach the United States, then I'd say China's at a fair disadvantage if it attacks that carrier, eh?</p>
<p>You are answering and hitting none of my ideological questions, partially because there is no answer to them. You merely inundate this thread with redundancies in military technologies that I have knowledge of but rather not exercise, and well, quite simply, it's a tad depressing to see you go to this depth to defend your position.</p>
<p>Blackdream...does this look like the U.S. Naval Academy?</p>
<p>While China does not have CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS that is capable of reaching US, the US carrier fleet is certainly under threat of its anti-ship missiles.</p>
<p>We have no logical common ground. You are not a Chinese, and you DO NOT know how a Chinese think.</p>
<p>To you we are a bunch of numbers. I can give you facts, but you won't listen. I can give you truth, but you won't hear them.</p>
<p>Just like during the vietnam war, only because the south vietnam was pro-US, the US public was able to accept it.</p>
<p>Little did they know, the south vietnamese government was much corrputed (quoting from American journalists here) and could not fight without the US.</p>
<p>China is a much larger version of vietnam, as most of its citizens are readily mobilzed and its military technology is much more advanced than the iraqis. </p>
<p>The US will not spend a big fraction of its power to please some small island and screw over its business operation to China.</p>
<p>I see several arguments above that claim that since the current Taiwanese government came from the mainland after the defeat of the Kuomintang, Taiwan is therefore a part of China and the ROC a insurgent government. But I don't think anyone mentioned the interesting bit of history following the arrival of the KMT in Taiwan.</p>
<p>Like someone else said, Chiang Kai-shek (excuse the spelling error) set up something much like a fascist government. This was actually meant to oppress the Taiwanese natives, who are naturally against the KMT. When Chiang's son took over, however, democratic reforms took place and martial law was removed. What's even more interesting is, the younger Chiang chose a native Taiwanese, not someone who came over with the KMT, as successor. This expressed his desire to turn the control back to the natives from the KMT. And indeed this became realized, since the successor to the younger Chiang purposely sullied the image of the KMT and ensured the Democratic Progressive party, the party of natives, victory in the recent election.</p>
<p>So it seems logical to view Taiwan not as a unified island, but an island at war with itself. Depending on which side one view as the formal government of Taiwan, the KMT or the natives' parties, one can either say that Taiwan is a rogue state of China or an independent state the whole time. It's a tough call...</p>
<p>The so called taiwainese native is actually a minority within the island, and they came from the mainland hundreds of years ago.</p>
<p>The real native, which is called the "high mountain race" (direct translation), however, is being stereotyped as inferior people with darker skin.</p>
<p>Since so called democratic party of Taiwain gained power, all it did was to make taiwain a worse place by crapping up its economy and buy high priced weapons from the states.</p>
<p>Hey, If I am from lockeed martin, i love those taiwainese.</p>
<p>also address to the invasion to china reply.</p>
<p>I seen this kind of replies a lot actually, in the chinese 2nd artillery (or nuke division) discussion forum in sina.com.cn, they usually goes like "Nuke Japan" or "Nuke USA" or something like that.</p>
<p>and everytime they got scolded at for their childishness.</p>
<p>Ok, let's invade China. Take my hometown for example, it was a small town (roughly as big as SF alone), very mountainous, and has heavy military presence.</p>
<p>First, How to you get tank in? This isn't vietnam, there are sector-air-defenses and a lot of mobile airdefenses. Look at the russians, what happened to their helos during the afghan comflict, that's what's gonna happen. Blackhawks down.</p>
<p>Second, How can you maintain air superiority through maybe several hundreds of F15 from Japan and crappier fighters from Taiwain, hundreds of fighters from naval fleets?</p>
<p>Mind you there are anti-air web and arrays of defense fighters. To give you a sense, there are over 2000 mig17s in China. Tell me those are obscure, fine, but there are a large number of Su30mkk, Su27K, and such.</p>
<p>Third, infantry invasion, ok, that's easy. Every chinese take an AK. There are 1.2 billions of them.</p>
<p>Not try to be biased here, but in every war US fought against China, US either lose or did not win.</p>
<p>Black...can we please stop with the "I'm Chinese...you dont know how WE think" stuff.</p>
<p>"The so called taiwainese native is actually a minority within the island, and they came from the mainland hundreds of years ago."</p>
<p>Dude...your justification for things has got to be one of the worst arguments i've ever seen.</p>
<p>Hey, i'm sure Korean people migrated from present-day China hundreds of yours ago. I KNOW! Let China take back Korea. All those "so called" Koreans did was make the country a worse place anyway.</p>
<p>"But in every war US fought against China, US either lose or did not win"</p>
<p>I must have fallen asleep in history class while we were going over US-Chinese wars...i don't seem to recall any.</p>
<p>You must have did.</p>
<p>US fought against Chinese "volunteers" in the 1950's, during the war between North Korea and South Korea.</p>
<p>If it wasn't the Chinese, North Korea would have been finished (In fact Chinese regret it now. North Korea is very much a rogue state holding China hostage. North Korean nuke can hurt nowhere but China)</p>
<p>China aided Vietnam militarily during the Vietnam war.</p>
<p>By your logic, US never fought against vietnam because it was only aiding.</p>
<p>These are not US-Chinese wars. These are Cold War conflicts in which the US and China participated. Any confrontation between US and Chinese forces was indirect. </p>
<p>The only time China truly set back US forces was when it entered North Korea and pushed back MacArthur's army. And it did that by simply massing hundreds of thousands of troops and manually overpowering and surprising US troops. The US chose not to respond to that. </p>
<p>Plus, at this time in history, the US' main enemy was still the Soviet Union. Let's not forget that. China was not a superpower at this time. US could have easily defeated it in a direct, all-out war.</p>