China does not have the logistical capability of attacking the United States. Their most likely military enemy is India. The may threaten Korea and Japan, and maybe Siberian Russia, although I think they're smarter than that. At the moment they don't need to attack the US, they're buying us.
USA/Australian alliance could not defeat China in World War 3...agree?
by Witness 007 23 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
WTWizard
I think the United Tyranny of Stupidity would get its axx whooped in a fair war. First, they have too many enemies in the Middle east, of their own making--Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan among them. If the United Tyranny of Stupidity attacks Iran (and I presume it will sooner or later), Iran would simply impose an oil embargo that would send gas prices to 200 toilet papers a gallon.
And, even if the United Tyranny of Stupidity were to attack someone like India and no one else lent a bullet, India could counter-attack without firing a single shot. All any country would need do is write a worm that would attack the United Tyranny of Stupidity's computers and crash the whole system. Or, they would write a worm that would create a stock market crash or digitally create a few sesagillion US Toilet Papers in computers, and this country would be toast. Another weapon China could deploy would be to dump all the US Treasuries on the market all at once, using the funds to buy gold and silver, and the US Toilet Paper would become worthless and there would be that much less gold and silver left to start another one.
Even a single person on a deserted island, provided there is an adequate Internet connection, could theoretically counter-attack the United Tyranny of Stupidity. There would be nothing like a worm on the Pentagon's computers, written and installed by an enemy that the UTS (formerly the USA) made, to confuse the military and bring everything to a screeching halt. Or one placed on the NYSE and NASDAQ computers by said enemy to bring financing to a total halt.
I think it would be dumb to attack China, for this reason alone--especially since they could dump all their US Treasury holdings and create hyperinflation in a second.
-
botchtowersociety
USA/Australian alliance could not defeat China in World War 3...agree?
In a conventional war, I disagree, in a nuclear one, there wouldn't be much of anything left on either side. Besides, if it were a a world war, there would be far more than 3 belligerents.
-
cptkirk
here's to hoping the nukes land close. i want to be evaporated on contact.
-
Teary Oberon
The U.S., in a war situation with China, would probably resort to the EMP blast fairly quickly (nuclear explosion several miles overhead of the Chinese mainland). It would be a minimal loss of life (so its use would be excusable) and it would essentially wipe out all of China's electronic infrastruction immediately.
A similar tactic against the U.S., with current technology, could probably be shot down and prevented.
So, advantage U.S.
-
straightshooter
I think the U.S. would be the loser. The U.S. helped China progress technologically, saving them many years. China has the rare resources the world needs in this age. China has the cash and is rapidly building their military. China does not have freedom of speech as the U.S. has, so their people are way harder to be influenced by the news media against their government.
-
Mad Sweeney
Um, the US and China are HUGE trade partners. War talk is idiotic. They need each other.
-
botchtowersociety
I think the U.S. would be the loser. The U.S. helped China progress technologically, saving them many years. China has the rare resources the world needs in this age. China has the cash and is rapidly building their military. China does not have freedom of speech as the U.S. has, so their people are way harder to be influenced by the news media against their government.
OK, I'll try to game this, (although it will not happen) and here is why I think you are wrong if there were an all out conventional conflict (not a proxy war or nuclear war) at this time:
Other than missiles, China does not have the ability to credibly strike and disrupt the U.S. lower 48 at this time. It does not have a blue water navy. It does not have the military infrastructure and assets in place to fly bombers across the Pacific and over U.S. airspace in the lower 48 either. China, on the other hand, could cause all kinds of mischief in Asia--but a conventional war would be fought on China's doorstep, not the U.S'.
The US, on the other hand, can hit the Chinese mainland if it chooses to. It has a fleet of nuclear aircraft carriers, and bases all around the region. Japan, the Phillippines, Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan, and other nations in the region would almost certainly side with the U.S., not China.
China has the rare resources the world needs in this age.
The only natural resource that China dominates that I am aware of is the extraction of rare earth metals. The U.S., however, has large deposits that it can tap in a short amount of time if it chooses to. Moreover, unlike the US, China is dependent on a network of far off oil production brought in via the seaways. It does not have the navy to defend those seaways from the U.S.. China produces very little of its own consumption. It would run out of oil in a hurry. The U.S. produces far more of its own oil, and what it imports is mostly from next-door neighbors. Furthermore, China cannot feed itself. It has to import enough food to feed its people. The U.S. produces a surplus that it sells around the world. A blockade would break China without a single shot.
-
-
designs
China has been reluctant to send troops into conflicts since Korea but the loss of life seems to effect their Leader's mindset differently than the West, 400,000 Chinese/Korean troops killed vs 33,800 American troops. Any confrontation with the current weapons would be tragic in that region.