You mean like we bombed the mujahideen before they got to our forces?

Gold, If China invades the US, they lose. They can't get enough troops over in time.

If the US went over there they would also lose because of the bloody massive Chinese army. It would be like Iraq with a billion people.

I think you mean "Stalinist Socialism" here or even "Authoritarianism". As Communism by definition is a stateless classless society. And it isn't hard to see how the USSR and China don't meet that definition, nor did they ever claim to meet this definition. Many people make the mistake of saying "well they claimed they were communist!" which is false, they claim that they are Socialist states, which is accurate.

And another mistake people make is assuming that there is only one kind of Socialism: Authoritarian "Stalinist" type Socialism. This again is false.



It depends on what type of socialist system there is. If it's like socialism is supposed to be, and the means of production are actually placed in the hands of the workers, thus creating a democratic economic system, it by nature won't be as authoritarian as in places like the USSR or China, as the workers would actually be in control of the means of production.

Why even invade China at all if your going to try to fight them? Eliminate their navy and air force, which would be ridiculously easy for our military to do, and then bomb their military infrastructure (munitions and equipment factories, refineries, etc.) into ashes, and what exactly is China going to do about it? Unless they use nukes, they've got no chance of winning.

Yeah that would work. Except we seems to have a problem as of late blowing up munitions factories that are next to hospitals. The Chinese have no qualms about putting them near eachother or even together.

For some reason, when people envision a war with china, they think that all of the modern problems, laws, and practices go out the window and suddenly we are campaiging across Asia like we did in World War II. It does not work like that anymore.

I'm not trying to imply that I have a masterful grasp of military strategy, logistics, the subtleties of war and the exact, true facts regarding each nation's military, but it's pretty clear to me that there is a very high number of people in this thread talking and talking about things they truly do not understand enough to make the claims and assertions they are.

Byeahh.

Except with precision munitions, you can easily cripple something huge like a factory without destroying buildings next to it. You say we seem to have a problem with it, but when was the last time we waged a war where it was even necessary? Maybe we haven't done it because there hasn't been a need to, not because we don't have the stomach for it.

Plus, lets be honest. This is more of a theoretical war then anything. Its not very likely that we're going to war with China anytime soon.

There is no comparison between a small army that sends some yahoo to commit suicide with a bomb here and there, and an army that would be honorable enough to fight battles instead of using coward tactics.

Your assuming there is fair play in war. There isn't. Fair means the other guy dies and your men go home alive. Why else do you think the US developed stealth aircraft?

I don´t know where I read this but, communism makes people starve. I don´t think communists are bad people, they want a very honorable and idealistic thing, but its impossible. Instead, we can only seek to benefit others if we can through capitalism. A happy majority is better than an unhappy majority.



No, I am assuming that the Chinese have enough confidence and trust in their military force that they would try their own strength at first. Its not easy to hide an army of their magnitude, so they might as well see if they can directly repel the invaders.

Ah so silly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal

I assume you mean "socialism" when you talk about communism here of course. And there are a variety of different socialist economic theories, so to put an entire type of alternative to capitalism in one generalized category is quite silly. Even the most criticized of the socialist economic policies (Stalin's) industrialized the nation quite a bit and was economically very viable, granted in that particular case it came with authoritarianism, but it is false to assume that authoritarianism necessarily comes with a socialist government.

There are many examples of worker owned companies (or Participatory firms in some cases even, which is the same thing) performing just as well and even better than capital owned companies. There's an article on JSTOR comparing participatory companies with capitalist ones showing that they both perform about the same (And this is just an example of a socialistic economic system)

As for "the capital you produce" part of your argument, I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this. Every worker produces capital and has no control over most of the profit they make, as the owner is in full control of that. They are paid a wage for their work, but don't control all of their work (or not even most of it). The aim of socialism (and naturally communism) is to allow the worker to actually have a say in what they produce.



This doesn't even make sense.



Care to back up these claims?

This is what I'm talking about. People always make these normative claims without any actual argument to back it up. Again, please back this up with an actual argument.

Yeah, this is exactly my point, is China is not going to give us targets that we can use our big Navy and Air Farce on.

That is how you win against a superior opponent is remove their advantage. I mean damn people do any of you have ANY education on this subject? No not history classes, strategy and campaigning. Both of which are coincidentally inadequate in the modern world. Haha.

No. They made our winning possible. With out the eastern front we'd have probably had to nuke Germany.

They sent massive numbers of men against Germany and pretty much over whelmed them. That, and the Russians were used to crazy cold weather, and the Germans were ill-equipped for winter warfare.

A heck of a lot of german soldiers died in russia thanks to the baltic winters that werent expecting.

[Also you're thinking of britain would probably would have eventually copped it if it wasn't for the US. And the Russians count as part of the allies.]

Let's change this thread to this...

Gold, why are you not trying out for menudo? you gotta represent Massassi.

In an all out land battle, China could certainly win by sheer numbers, but thats not how the US fights any more. We wouldn't be occupying them, just beating the hell out of them. These days we can send an ICBM without ever leaving the comfort of our bunker/submarine.

Can someone please tell me why China wins a land battle by default? They only have ~3-4 times the amount of people as the U.S., and the U.S. tends to have a history of inflicting far more than 1:1 K/D ratios...

Well, the US has a history of having a [sometimes massive] tech and training advantage over their enemies, this would not quite be the case here.

They would have one hell of an air advantage though.

Ever heard of SAMs? I'm not sure, but I do have faith in the great and powerful China having some concept of decent air defense beyond hand-me-down Stingers and pre-Vietnam Soviet AA guns.

Commander...are you telling me the Chinese conscription forces have on-par training and technology as the U.S. forces? You realize the Chinese get most of their technology from 10-20 year old Russian platforms? And you seem to think Iraq had nothing by stingers and AAA, you might want to do your homework on Baghdad air defense just prior to '03.

I bet if the US really had too they could pull some futuristic prototype plane out of their *** and own some with it.

...we don't need "some futuristic prototype plane." 7-10 years, 5th gen will be in full service. 5th gen. Individual EW capabilities. Faster computing times than AWACS. That's just aircraft. The FFF concept spreads to ground units as well.

I just really find it amazing what the sort of tech you guys have.

Why hasn't anyone brought up that other countries would join in on such a large conflict?

I mean, Japan. They hate the Chinese, I'm sure they have plenty of futuristic robots who will join together and save the world from the repulsive moon creatures!

I mean, Chinese military.

I'll see your outdated Russian SAMs, and raise you this, this, and this.

just focusing on this sentence alone

yes if the US were to go to war with China we would likely lose if the war was fought in China we may have a surperior air force but when the inevitable land war begins we are SCREWED

if China were to invade the US they would fail... they couldn't send the full force of their numbers and even if they had the ability they couldn't do it unnoticed and they risk whatever ships they would likely use to move troops running into our navy and air force... any troops making it to america will not only have military but every armed citizen ready to make them regret having the bad idea

a land war in either country would not go well for the invading force

Keep in mind that half of China is rice pattie farmers, not exactly well trained, intelligent people. No offense :/

And where does it state anywhere that majority of Chinese people living in Chine are rice pattie farmers?

fyi, this would not be consindered a "religion" but a world view.

blah blah blah acronym, blah blah acronym blah, acronym blah blah... acronym.

(look guys, I've developed a new ingenious way of winning arguments!)

Nearly half of the Chinese working force are farmers.

Sorry, Sarn, let me put it in words you will understand. Dude, like, our jets are going to be stealth, and will, like, totally fry enemy computers! Oh, and like, they can exchange data faster than current planes that have massive radar dishes on them that were like, made to track things and, like, tell the other planes in the area what they're tracking. That's just the planes, man! The entire military is, like, making ground forces cooler too!

[If you don't know what AWACS is, I don't care what your opinion is on a conflict with China.]

note that I did not provide my opinion on a conflict with China. :p

I was merely making fun of you.

I'm sorry, acronyms save a lot of time, especially when talking about military ideas. Spook will know exactly what I'm talking about, and so will anyone who has an opinion worth anything on military topics.

No responses or arguments against Socialism yet...

it's cool, Roach. I'm just trying to be funny. just ignore me.

What an excellent point, handsome sir. What about Allie support? If a war like this happened it wouldn't be 1 on 1.

And why is everyone saying the same exact thing that someone just said a few posts ago?

Yes. US has an airforce and a navy.
Yes. China has a large army.
We know!

Alcohol has ruined my sense of humor.

Also, it raped my dog.

If it makes you feel any better Roach, I understood you. Which, considering I'm not in the military or anything like that, says something about me.

Good, but what we all need to know is that LARGE ARMY DOES NOT = DEFEAT to SMALLER ARMY. There are way too many factors that influence the results of battles and wars, numbers are among them, but strategy and other factors make up for them.

This has been a great thread, we´ve stayed mostly on topic and I have been getting satisfactory answers.