>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> America's plan to invade Canada
Bookmark topic
Quote:
On 2006-01-14 04:36:22, JN wrote:
I think Japan can OUTBEST China too !
Now even i know that aint true,whats Japan gona do,throw a million Ps2's at them?
--
Posted: 2006-01-14 05:09:32
Edit :
Quote
@scots, quote "The thing is max that China has no practical means to invade America. " Ah, I was actually agreeing with you there!! I agree they have no practical means, that was my point in mentioning that weight of numbers would not be enough.
However I have to disagree that China would be on their own and have no adequate support in a war where they were defending themselves against the US. Even the European community would have to seriously consider whether they supported the US in an attack against China. There is already considerable economic amnosity between the US and Europe due to the US steadfast ability to promote free trade while protecting their own markets.
The US has pushed China, Iran and Russia closer together. This is not a far fetched proposition. In the "old days" you could rely on China, and Iran being at odds, but it can be argued that this is no longer the case. This article pretty much sums up the view I've started to develop in the last couple of years of international politics:
http://www.zmag.org/content/s[....]e.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=8015
--
Posted: 2006-01-14 05:19:50
Edit :
Quote
@boyi quote "Now even i know that aint true,whats Japan gona do,throw a million Ps2's at them? "
--
Posted: 2006-01-14 05:25:34
Edit :
Quote
On 2006-01-14 05:19:50, max_wedge wrote:
However I have to disagree that China would be on their own and have no adequate support in a war where they were defending themselves against the US.
Quote:
Even the European community would have to seriously consider whether they supported the US in an attack against China. There is already considerable economic amnosity between the US and Europe due to the US steadfast ability to promote free trade while protecting their own markets.
There are disputes between the EU and the US, but the two are heavily dependent upon one another economicaly. The EU may not directly contribute troops to a US war with China, but I doubt very much whether they would actively stand against America. They would know that China couldn't win, the best China could likely do would be to obtain a negotiated surrender. Where the EU may get involved is if Russia or Middle Eastern states entered such a war against the US. In Russia's case this is unlikely due to the reasons I posted earlier. In the case of the Middle East the EU's role would likely be to support Israel against an attack or to oppose Iran should it invade countries friendly to the US and the West in general.
Quote:
The US has pushed China, Iran and Russia closer together. This is not a far fetched proposition. In the "old days" you could rely on China, and Iran being at odds, but it can be argued that this is no longer the case. This article pretty much sums up the view I've started to develop in the last couple of years of international politics:
http://www.zmag.org/content/s[....]e.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=8015
Only this week we have seen Russia show signs of frustration with Iran. The reason China and Russia and arguably Iran might band together on some issues is because they know that together they can more effectively oppose American influence. However, it is a big leap from that to a full blown military alliance.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-09-26 06:06 ]
--
Posted: 2006-01-14 05:41:16
Edit :
Quote
This will be a very nice Q if ever Japan will be at war with China. Where do you think Taiwan will take side? We will have a thorough test of the saying: "Blood is thicker than water!" here . . .
This message was posted from a K700i
--
Posted: 2006-01-14 06:19:23
Edit :
Quote
scots, good points, but I still think there is enough doubt either way.
I myself am weary about over-estimating the US ability to fight a war on many fronts. On one single front I'd almost agree that the US could "own" any country they like. However an attack against China that wasn't provoked by a nuclear strike or land invasion of the US or US allies by China, would garnish little sympathy from the EU or Russia.
An economic reason for attacking China (such as was the case in Iraq) just would not cut it with the EU or Russia. Many US allies would desert them if they attempted such a thing.
Even if China were to stand alone (extremely unlikely in my view) in an attack from the US, on their own soil, and using captured satelitte countries and their resources, they could mount a considerable defence. And while Iran is an enemy of Iraq, there is no love lost between the US and Iran, so I myself would be very surprised if Iran didn't take the side of China (in a situation where China was on the defensive). After all, after the US goes home after a negotiated surrender, Iran still has to live next door to China
Iran ranks 2nd to Israel in military power in the Middle East. They have 500 000 men in the armed forces (combat and support - in contrast Iraq had 200,000 unwilling combatants), equivelent to Israel but not as well trained. China ranks 1st in East Asia, and North Korea third. Between them they have 3.1 million men in their armed forces, with 4000 combat and support aircraft.
In contrast, the US have 1.4 million in the armed forces, and 7600 combat and ground support aircraft. Russia has 850 000 men, and 2100 aircraft.
So basically however you factor these figures, the US doesn't have an overwhelming force.
In the scenario I am suggesting - an alliance between Iran, Russia and China (only likely if china is attacked by the US, not the other way around) then you'd have a force of almost 4.5 million men and 6000 aircraft against the Us/Israel with 2 million men and 8000 aircraft. After mobilisation the situation could be very different. Both China, Russia and the US all have phenomenal ability to mobilise men and machines (and israel can call on almost it's entire population) so it's really hard to predict an outcome.
Now, what hasn't been considered here is the use of nuclear weapons. If they get involved in nuclear exchange, well it's not likely that any one will win that scenario, regardless of who the "victor" is!
source:
http://www.strategypage.com/f[....]makewar/databases/armies/m.asp
--
Posted: 2006-01-14 07:41:16
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-01-14 07:41:16, max_wedge wrote:
I myself am weary about over-estimating the US ability to fight a war on many fronts. On one single front I'd almost agree that the US could "own" any country they like. However an attack against China that wasn't provoked by a nuclear strike or land invasion of the US or US allies by China, would garnish little sympathy from the EU or Russia.
The US would be unlikely to go to war with China unless there was suitable provocation i.e. Taiwan. In that case there isn't really very much the EU or Russia could do about it and I don't see either wanting to involve themselves in such a conflict.
Quote:
An economic reason for attacking China (such as was the case in Iraq) just would not cut it with the EU or Russia. Many US allies would desert them if they attempted such a thing.
As I said above I don't think America would go to war with China without a very powerful reason for doing so.
Quote:
Even if China were to stand alone (extremely unlikely in my view) in an attack from the US, on their own soil, and using captured satelitte countries and their resources, they could mount a considerable defence. And while Iran is an enemy of Iraq, there is no love lost between the US and Iran, so I myself would be very surprised if Iran didn't take the side of China (in a situation where China was on the defensive). After all, after the US goes home after a negotiated surrender, Iran still has to live next door to China
What you have to ask here is what sort of war would it be? Would it be a case of seeking to safeguard Taiwan or would it be a case of completely defeating China? If it were the latter then I agree that China could probably put up a decent fight, but it would be unlikely to win. They just don't have the capacity to do enough damage to the US without using nuclear weapons to do more than bog America down in a protracted war. If they did that then they would be incurring some disadvnatges themselves, not the least of which would be the inability of their economy to support such a war.
Iran doesn't have the capacity to effectively aid China directly. The best they could do is to open a front in the Middle East, but they would almost certainly be dooming themselves to defeat. They don't have the strength to fight America in a major war, their armed forces may be able to do some damage, but ultimately they wouldn't be able to defend Iran from a full scale American invasion.
Quote:
Iran ranks 2nd to Israel in military power in the Middle East. They have 500 000 men in the armed forces (combat and support - in contrast Iraq had 200,000 unwilling combatants), equivelent to Israel but not as well trained. China ranks 1st in East Asia, and North Korea third. Between them they have 3.1 million men in their armed forces, with 4000 combat and support aircraft.
In contrast, the US have 1.4 million in the armed forces, and 7600 combat and ground support aircraft. Russia has 850 000 men, and 2100 aircraft.
So basically however you factor these figures, the US doesn't have an overwhelming force.
Those numbers don't tell the full story though. The average American soldier is better trained and better eqipped than the average soldier from those countries you mentioned. American soldiers are volunteers, they are in the armed forces because they choose to be, not because they were conscripted. A better trained, better equipped and better organised force can beat a larger force.
Similarly China may very well have a large number of aircraft, but are they all at the same standard as those the USAF uses and are China's pilots trained to the same standard? One also has to look at such things as logistics and how able China would be to replace lost aircraft. A war in China itself would mean that aircraft could be destroyed on the ground and factories bombed, whilst American planes could sit safely back at base and American factories could churn out more planes.
Quantity is not always enough to win a war by itself, quality can sometimes be the more potent force. In this case the American military is of a very high combat quality and it is relatively large. As soon as the USAF had gained air superiority China would have lost the war, a ground war would leave China at a major disadvantage as American aircraft would be able to swing the tide of battle for their ground forces.
Quote:
In the scenario I am suggesting - an alliance between Iran, Russia and China (only likely if china is attacked by the US, not the other way around) then you'd have a force of almost 4.5 million men and 6000 aircraft against the Us/Israel with 2 million men and 8000 aircraft. After mobilisation the situation could be very different. Both China, Russia and the US all have phenomenal ability to mobilise men and machines (and israel can call on almost it's entire population) so it's really hard to predict an outcome.
There are some difficulties with your scenario although I can see where you are coming from. All those men need to actually get to the fighting, neither Russia or China, to say nothing of Iran, has the logistical capability to fight a global war far beyond its own immediate vicinity. Russia could sit with all those men amassed on its borders for an attack that may never come. It has no capability to take the fight to America and neither has China.
Both Russia and China rely on foriegn energy supplies and foriegn markets, disruption of those markets would have a serious impact on their economies, reducing their ability to maintain such large forces. America, by comparison has a bigger economy and can sustain large forces for longer.
American forces wouldn't necessarily have to engage those large forces, they could target them from a distance if they have air superiority and a naval blockade could further damage the ability to maintain and operate such large military forces.
Quote:
Now, what hasn't been considered here is the use of nuclear weapons. If they get involved in nuclear exchange, well it's not likely that any one will win that scenario, regardless of who the "victor" is!
source:
http://www.strategypage.com/f[....]makewar/databases/armies/m.asp
Agreed.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-09-26 06:12 ]
--
Posted: 2006-01-14 08:23:36
Edit :
Quote
Well, as the US was thrashed in Vietnam and is losing in Iraq, I don't rate their chances of success anywhere else.
--
Posted: 2006-01-14 08:28:18
Edit :
Quote
@absin
I think that's a bit of an over simplification of events there. The US lost in Vietnam due to various reasons, not the least of which was the fact that they did not fight a 'full on' war for much of the conflict. They also underestimated their opponents who were recieving aid from China and Russia. Furthermore it can be argued that significant opposition to the war at home led to the eventual withdrawal from Vietnam as much as the military situation on the ground did. One should also not overlook the fact that the US did not adopt tactics to effectively counter the jungle warfare strategies of the North Vietnamese quickly enough.
In a one to to one fight in the conventional sense the North Vietnamese had little defence. The North won because they were able to employ unorthodox tactics and prevent the Americans from using their strengths effectively coupled with the fact that America did not fight a full scale war at times and that the North was recieving aid from other communist countries, which the US did not effectively cut off.
As for Iraq the US was very succesful in the war itself. Maintaining the peace afterwards is a different matter altogether. Defeating your opponent is one thing, keeping control of captured territory and people is another.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-14 07:49 ]
--
Posted: 2006-01-14 08:47:09
Edit :
Quote
scots, quote: "All those men need to actually get to the figting, neither Russia or China"
I'm not proposing that they would take the fight to the US, but to that the fight would be in Asia. Russia could easily mobilise troops through kazakhstan etc. If Iran, Russia North Korea and China combined their might they become almost one big geographic entity. Troops would have free and co-ordinated movement over all that land, including all those material resources to draw upon.
I don't see how the US could possibly extend their forces over such a united front and win.
Regarding the facts and figures I mentioned, I agree that the actual figures don't tell the whole story (aka my mention of the russian steamroller of ww1) however I still feel that logistically there is not such a critical divide in capacity, even if the differences may be more marked than they appear. When a country is on the defensive their ability to protact a fight is awesome. Look at the battle of britain in world war two. Or the ferocity of the Vietnamese against US forces.
To mount an attack against a well defended country requires overwhelming forces, not just superior forces.
--
Posted: 2006-01-14 08:54:35
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
