No, no, no. You can't change rules mid-game. If the U.S. doesn't get neutron bombs, then the Chinese don't get guns.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

Besides, you can't destroy china.. they make your happy meal toys!

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Sine: China's size and practically unlimited numbers. I have no doubt the US could drive straight to the capital and capture it without any terminal problems, but what then? Three and a half million square miles, more than 50 million men in their twenties, and a hostile population with access to reliable Russian arms, that's what.

And yes, I am Korin.

Reliable russian arms... ha!

------------------
Happy "Diseased" dud: You said I'd be like this guy. Boycotting everything..
Happy "Diseased" dud: ted kazcnisky. That's who it was.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wait, That's the unibomer.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wrong guy.

Plus, have you ever tried to ship the things through mail? 1/4 of it breaks!

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

What if china strikes first?! You'd be overrun by those happy meal toys and all hell would break loose!



------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hydrogen and "neutron" bombs are nuclear weapons.

[This message has been edited by Hebedee (edited January 18, 2004).]

That's right, isn't it? I was confusing the classification. Whenever I think of "nuke," I think of the atomic bomb, and the atomic bomb only.

Curse you and your ruining of my fun, heeb.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

I don't know why you would think that Wolfy. The explosions are all take place at the nuclear level.

Conventional explosives of course have reactions that take place at the molecular level.

------------------
Have Lightsaber Will Travel JK Editing tips, troubleshooting information, resources and more.
www.swgalaxies.net For all your Star Wars Galaxies needs
The Massassi A SW Galaxies Player Association

Forget nukes, just line up the B52s and carpet-bomb their [butts] back to the stone age.

Ehehehe, woops.
------------------
The future is here, and all bets are off.

[This message has been edited by GBK (edited January 18, 2004).]

This may be difficult to calculate, but I say this: The SA goons did perform these calculations, and they determined - overwhelmingly, might I add - that the US would totally annihilate China.

What I think some of you don't realize is the sheer, impossible firepower the US military has at its disposal, even before Iraq. Iraq wasn't that poorly armed, and even it was a turkey shoot - Bush pretty much chose it because it would have been a pretty cheap and quick war, and had a recognizable dictator.
We really only got a glimpse at the American war machine over the past couple of years, and not even any instance where their navy was heavily involved.

Ultimately it comes down to this: There's no ship they could build that could even get past a carrier group to land on American soil. China would be leveled, because the US is the only country in history with such a mobile military force.

Russian? well, at least not their AK-47's. Chinese AK-47's suck.

------------------
I am the god of dating! You will respect my authoritah!

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

I imagine we would air-strike their main military locations, then mop up those locations with armored cav and Spec-Ops troops. It is my impression that the general Chinese populace would not offer much of any resistance, especially to save the ChiCom government. Because of this, we wouldn't need to occupy the entire country; merely concentrate on the urban areas.

------------------
Young men make wars, and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of old men are the vices of peace: mistrust and caution. It must be so.
-Laurence of Arabia

China > US = pwnage
Hey, I am all for the US, but...

...Or rather, the industrial areas.

------------------
Young men make wars, and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of old men are the vices of peace: mistrust and caution. It must be so.
-Laurence of Arabia

Wtf...this sounds like some childish "which superhero would beat which superhero" thread.

Yeah... your point?

------------------
Happy "Diseased" dud: You said I'd be like this guy. Boycotting everything..
Happy "Diseased" dud: ted kazcnisky. That's who it was.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wait, That's the unibomer.
Happy "Diseased" dud: Wrong guy.

I think it all depends on whether the US fights 'morally' or not. We could do what we did with Japan in WW2 and carpet bomb everything with Napalm(which killed more people then the nukes did, it just took a few more bombs). After a few years of that, they probably wouldn't have the orginization to resist a land invasion. I'm sure they could still hold pockets of the country(its a large country after all), but they would pretty much be forced to surrender or fight to the death.

Uh...napalm wasn't used until Vietnam, I thought.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

http://prague.tv/pill/article.php?name=bombing

About half way down the page...



I guess the use of napalm in WWII was largely overshawodowed by the use of the atomic bomb. But napalm was definatly used in WWII, they just happened to use more of it it Vietnam.

Hmm. I thought napalm was gasoline and polystyrene.

I don't think the exact formula of napalm is known, and I don't think it ever will for precisely the reason that it's banned by the UN. (The US, however, still uses napalm-like incendiary weapons. It's not precisely napalm, of course - the only difference is that it uses a different fuel)

No nukes? Fine, we'll use our MOABs. I mean, hell, it seems a waste to have made them if we're not gonna use 'em.

And no, there's no possible way for the US to hold any sizable amount of land. We *are* however, easily capable of completely decimating the chinese military itself in short order. Aside from the fact that they've got some really nifty long-range, high-speed torpedos on their subs, their navy just wouldn't do a thing.

Our deep water navy is terrifyingly large. It grossly dwarfs every other nation's navy. I forgot the exact numbers, but it was something along the lines of, the US navy is larger than the next 10 nation's navies by size put together.

We have 7 Nimitz class carriers, the largest warships ever created at about 320m in length. For comparison, the British navy, the second most powerful in the world, currently fields 3 Invincible class carriers, each coming in at about 170m in length. The Nimitz carries, if I'm not mistaken, about 70 aircraft. A Nimitz carrier group is also effectively invincible against conventional weaponry. Many, many ships, all protected by the beatiful AEGIS system.

The Chinese have.... No carriers. Well, they've got an old Russian one, but they aren't really using it as a carrier. Their entire naval strength seems to consist of destroyers and a handful of subs.

Their airforce isn't much more impressive. They've got some SU-27s, which are damn nice planes, but not enoughh to make a difference.

And Ictus - You're not giving the Chinese enough credit. They've got more than 50 million able-bodied men. There's something like 300 million that meet the requirements for their army.

Basically, China's just a bigger Iraq. The war, in any traditional form, wouldn't be horribly costly for the US. But we'd have an ugly, ugly, ugly, and ultimately impossible policing ahead of us.

[This message has been edited by Slug (edited January 19, 2004).]

whole text

------------------
Call me Gully

It is polystyrene, amongst other things, these days. Gasoline has always been the base ingredient, originally they added latex to it. Latex was in short supply during WW2 though, so they created a substitute.

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

I wouldn't start a war with japan... my mate reckons one of these days the entire country will start flying off into outer space on rocket boosters and we'll all be stuck here thinking "you cheeky *******s..."

Look into a WWII, allied atrocity in a German city called Dresdon. A city with zero military value, that was best known for its art and its cathedrals.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

[This message has been edited by Bounty Hunter 4 hire (edited January 19, 2004).]

Excellent idea!

------------------
Mystic0 Editing Resources
Mystic0 Forum
The Massassi Post Count Summary(link works now)

Ummm... no... Russian arms are anything but reliable...



------------------
Member of the Minneassian Council

Would we have to occupy China afterwords? The topic simply asks who would win, excluding nukes.

------------------
Young men make wars, and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of old men are the vices of peace: mistrust and caution. It must be so.
-Laurence of Arabia

I read somewhere that the three biggest air forces in the world are (in order)

1. USAF
2. US Navy
3. US Army

Yes, your three branches of military are all bigger than the next biggest air force.

I may be misinformed though...

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards.

...which is why many soldiers in Iraq prefer the durability of the AK-47 over the M16.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

You mean russian cars?

------------------
Mystic0 Editing Resources
Mystic0 Forum
The Massassi Post Count Summary(link works now)

Let's see... If we were to compare any nation to the United States in a conventional war, the variable nation would be vastly overpowered, as even Russia, believed to be the second-largest military spender, comes only to slightly over one-tenth the spending of the US (550B to 60B). I shall reference a textbook of mine here, International Relations, 5th edition, by Joshua S. Goldstein of the University of Washington, published by Longman Publishing, Copyright 2003. A few modifications are included to bring some of the information more up-to-date... $ Stands for annual spending, in billions of dollars.
Trp stands for soldiers, in millions.
Tnk stands for tanks.
Car stands for aircraft carriers.
War stands for conventional warships (cruisers, destroyers).
Sub stands for submarines (ballistic or conventional).
Air stands for number of COMBAT planes, excluding cargo, fuel, and other types of planes.
Nuke stands for, well, I don't think I need to explain...

Other countries not listed here have even less military capability than those listed here, with the exception of India, Pakistan, and North Korea, which, not being in general agreement with the US, haven't really provided good statistics as of the publishing of the book.


------------------
Nes digs around in the trash can.
Nes finds a hamburger!
Nes puts the hamburger in his backpack.

Slug, I'm assuming you're talking about the Shkval when you say the Chinese has very fast torpedos. The Chinese have perhaps a handful, as it's still in prototype stages. Not to say they wouldn't be used, there are just not enough to make a difference.

-Monoxide-, Russian weapons are well-known for their reliability and extremely durable construction.

Wolfy, I don't think they had a choice between the AK-47 and the M16. But if you're trying to say that the AK is far superior to the M16, the Israeli Special Forces disagree. They're someone you might want to listen to, as they put the best of the U.S. and U.K. to shame.

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

[This message has been edited by Roach (edited January 19, 2004).]

OK here are the rules for war: now thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one

------------------
nil nip nada zip zero naught lip zil

.. Why's that an oxymoron? Several rules for war exist and are abided by most nations. .

Roach - Yeah, like I said, not really an issue.

nottheking - Er, there must be some extenuating circumstances to those statistics you posted. I can't really comment on any of the others, but the carrier listings at least, are incorrect. The UK has 3, and has at all times since the inception of carriers, had at least one in service. The French have the Charles De Gaul.

Wolfy - A pretty common misconception - The US soldiers in Iraq who are opting for the AK-47s are doing so because ammunition for it is abundant, whereas ammo for their own weapons is sometimes hard to come by. When the news first reported on it, one soldier said something like "I've got 60 rounds for my m4, and 400 rounds for the AK-47".

Rules of war is an oxymoron because war is breaking so many rules think about it...

If I took a 44 and shot your ****en head off outside of a war I'd be put away for 25 to life for manslaughter because there are rules in humanity as shown here the rule to not take another humans life. But if I'm a soilder and your on the opposing side I can blow your brain out and nobody would care. There would be no punishment for doing it. Infact I kill 5 times in jet fighter I'm congradulated and become an ace. Were did that rule go? Why should it be alright to break basic rules of humanity just because your the "enemy". Therefore there is not such thing as the rules of war because war itself is breaking rules... I dunno if that makes any sense and I don't exspect you to jump on the bandwagon with me but thats how I view things... rip me apart if you want but just think about that for a few seconds, it might make sense.

------------------

What you're claiming is that there's some sort of universal law that says no killing. That's not true. You're getting semantic, when we're actually referring to legality.

I'd be more worried about North Korea than about China. One of the few countries in the world that really has the USA by the balls as far as strategy is concerned. Sure, at this point they couldn't do any real damage to the USA, but they could flatten Seoul killing millions in a matter of minutes (with their current capabilities).

Also, the last I heard, North Korea had one of the largest submarine fleets in the world, and one of the largest standing armies as well. I know this is a USA vs. thread, but harming the USA's allies harms the USA (not to mention the fact that there are US citizens in South Korea and Japan). We can thank the Japanese, the Russians, and the Americans for this potential disaster.

------------------
http://www.napalmdeathsquad.com

But not McArthur. He wanted to flatten N. Korea and China

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.