Round 3 by kpo

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
>_> You... Want a big enough military to go to war against China? And this is also Romney's intention?

That's silly. I want a big enough military for if China goes to war with us.

We can't match Chins on land, they have 100 million men. You start with Navy and Air Force to contain Chins at their coastlines and strike their interior lines of communication. On land the fighting will be in confined locations like Korea or Siberia which limit China's ability to deploy because of isolated or confined geography.

You need heavy divisors to hold that ground, light divisions to interdict enemy supply lines, then once China has reached the end of its logistical chain you use those heavy divisions to push into Manchuria. Eventually China collapses like a house of cards.

Or.

Korea and Taiwan overrun, then Japan. If China takes out the transSiberian railroad then everything east of Lake Baykal will be overrun and the war is suddenly in Central Asia and we've got very long supply lines while China runs supplies up from Ulan Bator. Meanwhile liberation of Japan? From Hawaii and Alaska.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:08 PM

If China goes to war with us, something has very seriously gone wrong and we're screwed no matter how big our military is. It's not like in WW2 when we had the manufacturing power to counter numerically greater forces - China HAS our manufacturing power by the BALLS. They are closer to sharing global superpowerdom with us than Russia ever was. They have nukes. Their leaders have no regard for human life and are human rights violations and atrocities waiting to happen. They have a billion more people than we do. And they hold a big share of the world global economy.

War with China would be catastrophic for EVERYONE, in part because the US also has nukes, also has sociopath leaders, and also has a chunk of the global economy. Planning for such an event is unthinkable - sanity begs that both sides stop before it ever goes that far. Even if it's just out of self-interest or survival.

This is like a step beyond Mutually Assured Destruction, this is suicidal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 2:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
If China goes to war with us, something has very seriously gone wrong and we're screwed no matter how big our military is. It's not like in WW2 when we had the manufacturing power to counter numerically greater forces - China HAS our manufacturing power by the BALLS. They are closer to sharing global superpowerdom with us than Russia ever was. They have nukes. Their leaders have no regard for human life and are human rights violations and atrocities waiting to happen. They have a billion more people than we do. And they hold a big share of the world global economy.

This is like a step beyond Mutually Assured Destruction, this is suicidal.

I think you are being unrealistic about China and downplaying the threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

You also do not understand Mutual Assurred Destruction. You incorrectly assume that any conflict would be nuclear, therefore all conflict should and would be avoided. All it really means is that all conflict should and would be non-nuclear. This is why we spent decades preparing for the conventional defense of Europe...because we could not risk all out nuclear war to achieve that objective. It's why China has spent more effort building cruise missiles that threaten American carriers then ICBMs to threaten American cities.

Look at China's ICBMs. They have only a few, a couple dozen at most based on Soviet designs from the '70s. Enough to deter, nothing more. Virtually no long range bombers. Even their tactical weapons are limited in number. Lets say they attack Taiwan. Now they're at war with us and by law we're pledged to defend Taiwan. Your understanding has us jumping o an all out nuclear war. Actually it will be a fast paced conventional conflict. If we win China wont risk a nuclear attack because they can't win. If the win the conventional war we won't risk our west coast to save Taiwan. Even in the midst of an all out regional conflict, the risk of an exchange is too high.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:51 PM

Quote:
You also do not understand Mutual Assurred Destruction.

What you are suggesting is you want to build the military up so we can defend ourselves if China attacks. That sounds like an arms race. We also have nukes. Arms race + nukes = the definition of a mutually assured destruction policy.

Only instead of that being a deterrent, you think we can fight them. I'm saying whether or not we win it would be devastation on an human, environment, and economic level.

This kind of thing makes me want to deliberately limit the military because if they're even considering they can fight China, then our military is too reckless to be trusted with our defense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:41 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Right now the US military is larger and more powerful by a vast amount. So much so it is riddiculus. There is no need for us to be able to take on the rest of the world x3. Being able to beat it twice is enough.

China has a much, much larger military. Russia is also bigger and in terms of heavy divisions we are very far behind as a result of Clinton's 50% reductions in the 1990s.

And as always, I have to ask...

Cites?

Quote:

Rather the fielding a 100 million man army or dozens of heavy divisions we use force multipliers based on combined arms tactics and use of advanced technologies. For example, outnumbered five to one our Air Force uses advanced fighters, standoff weapons, airborn controllers, and training to even the playing field. That costs money.

Then quit whining about debt and deficits. Raise taxes, or cut military. If you want to get serious about paying down our debt, do both.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

This kind of thing makes me want to deliberately limit the military because if they're even considering they can fight China, then our military is too reckless to be trusted with our defense.

Now you're getting there.

The problem you run into with thinking like "Hero" here is this: You've spent all this money on toys for your boys, so now you need to go find a way to justify spending that much money.

And that's how you end up picking a fight with the world's fourth-largest army, because if you don't, then you might lose some of your toys.

We have to keep picking fights with people, because if we don't, we can't justify our military spending. "Hero" has made this case himself - if we don't spend money fighting a non-war with China, we might not be able to start a war with China! And if we don't spend the money, they might start a war with us, so we have to spend that money!

Even if it means spending it in Afghanistan in order to secure the country to give China better access to the natural resources Afghanistan happens to be sitting on.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:19 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I think you are being unrealistic about China and downplaying the threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

You also do not understand Mutual Assurred Destruction. You incorrectly assume that any conflict would be nuclear, therefore all conflict should and would be avoided. All it really means is that all conflict should and would be non-nuclear. This is why we spent decades preparing for the conventional defense of Europe...because we could not risk all out nuclear war to achieve that objective. It's why China has spent more effort building cruise missiles that threaten American carriers then ICBMs to threaten American cities.

Look at China's ICBMs. They have only a few, a couple dozen at most based on Soviet designs from the '70s. Enough to deter, nothing more. Virtually no long range bombers. Even their tactical weapons are limited in number. Lets say they attack Taiwan. Now they're at war with us and by law we're pledged to defend Taiwan. Your understanding has us jumping o an all out nuclear war. Actually it will be a fast paced conventional conflict. If we win China wont risk a nuclear attack because they can't win. If the win the conventional war we won't risk our west coast to save Taiwan. Even in the midst of an all out regional conflict, the risk of an exchange is too high.

Hero you simply do not understand war. You are right in the fact that China could never hope the win against the US in a conventional war. Even if they teamed up with Russia I doubt the two of them could beat NATO minus the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army

You are wrong about the number of military personal China has. It is just over two million active members.

Yes they have a huge amount of people they could use, that does not mean those people would be effective.

This is why China would never risk any type of conventional war with the US, even if we cut our military back by some. They would look to hurt us economicly. That is there power.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:16 AM

Nick: It's highly unlikely that China will attack us. Agreed. I am hopeful that the people commanding our military are smart enough - and cynical enough - that they would be able to see what a phenomenally bad idea this would be, win or lose.

But sometimes our military is pretty gung ho. That actually scares me more than China does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:09 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
It costs money now so it does not cost lives later.

Its all well and good to go to war with the Army you have...but it's far better to go to war with the Army you need. The best example is the Persian Gulf War in 1993. In a mere 30 days (and 100 hours) we destroyed the world's fourth largest Army, an Army composed of large numbers of combat veterans and using a large amount of the best Soviet and Warsaw Pact equipment that was available at the time. American planes flying at will over enemy territory, precision munitions, tanks that could run at 50mph and still bullseye the enemy, attack helicopters, precision artillery with pinpoint counter-battery radar etc.

When the other side has more men and equipment then you then the last thing you want is a fair fight. If they have ten tanks and you have one tank then if your tank can't kill eleven bad guys then your going to lose. In war...losing is bad.

I'm glad you got that off your chest. Would you like to address my point now?

Apparently, not.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
What you are suggesting is you want to build the military up so we can defend ourselves if China attacks. That sounds like an arms race. We also have nukes. Arms race + nukes = the definition of a mutually assured destruction policy.

Do we have enough nukes to destroy them? Yes. Heck it would not take more then a few to disrupt their infrastructure and economy so that the burden of feeding a billion people drags their whole system down. They would retaliate and destroy Japan, Hawaii, Alaska, the West Coast and selected major cities...but we would probably survive as a nation (it would be a horrible existence, one possibly avoided had we the means to oppose them with conventional weapons, but you only wanted one option, granted all they did was try to invade Formosa and we could have stopped them with a fairly well equiped Navy and Air Force...but no, that would have cost money).

So we don't need an Army or Navy because if they invade us we destroy them.

I hate to break it to you but China is not out to invade the US. They want Taiwan...its a grudge that goes back to the Chinease Civil War long before WW2 (and there is a law that says if they attack we defend). They need Siberia. China has lots of people and limited resources...Siberia has lots of resources but no people. They want the oil and resources of the South China Sea currently claimed by Vietnam and the Philipines.

Quote:

Only instead of that being a deterrent, you think we can fight them. I'm saying whether or not we win it would be devastation on an human, environment, and economic level.

You are intent on relying solely on nuclear weapons as if two nuclear powers can't engage in non-nuclear military conflict. Sure, I could point out all the times Pakistan and India have gone at it...but perhaps you might want to read up on Soviet-Chinese border skirmishes or maybe the time we actually fought the Chinese in a war that's still technically going on.

Quote:

This kind of thing makes me want to deliberately limit the military because if they're even considering they can fight China, then our military is too reckless to be trusted with our defense.

It would be reckless for a military to not plan to fight China (or Russia or Canada...). Read up on the US military's rainbow war plans. We had one for everybody, even countries like Japan that posed no strategic threat.

Your saying we need to get rid of the military because they might have to fight...that's crazytalk.

Hey everybody...lets get rid of firemen because if they think they can fight fires we can't trust them to fight fires. No more doctors...because the last thing you want when your sick is someone prepared to make you healthy (they can't even cure cancer...why on earth waste all that money trying to do something they can't already do).

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:56 AM

No, I said if a government group insists on chasing a reckless action and coming up with plans to attack China and destroy the global economy, then I really kind of would like to see the means of that entity to do things that I think would have widespread destructive ramifications limited.

But, if you would like to read that as me saying we should get rid of the military entirely, or that you think that attacking China is somehow comparable to having doctors or firemen, then that is indicative of your worldview.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Hero you simply do not understand war. You are right in the fact that China could never hope the win against the US in a conventional war. Even if they teamed up with Russia I doubt the two of them could beat NATO minus the US.

That is crazy. First of all NATO minus the US is paper thin.

Remember France is not a member of NATO. The only NATO power with a large modern Army is Germany and they'd be a tough nut to crack. Spain can field a division or two at most, same for Italy, and they are poorly equiped. Portugal contributes very little. Greece has a decent sized force, but mostly infantry and poorly equiped. Turkey has a very nice Army that is better then the average Arab nation but it's more in line with Greece's level of technoogy with a few more tanks and modern planes. Norway has a very well trained and equiped Army that is tiny. Iceland...moving on, Canada. Ok, Canada has a couple very nice mechanized brigades. Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria...good, ok, poor. Poland has a large modern force using mostly outdated Soviet era equipment. Romania has a large 1970s force, but are well trained. Bulgaria, has a small army, poorly supported. All three have some amounts of modern US equipment and pound for pound aside from Britain and Germany they would be NATO best troops. Britain no longer has the Army or Navy it did in the 1980s.

NATO has no ability to project for in sufficient numbers to oppose Chinese aggression without signifigant logistical support from the United States. Read up on the Faulkland Island War. Without US logistical support those folks would all be extras when Madonna shoots the sequel to Evita.

Quote:

This is why China would never risk any type of conventional war with the US, even if we cut our military back by some. They would look to hurt us economicly. That is there power.

Actually they would wage conventional war on their neighbors. They would use economic power to keep us out of the fight, but their recent military build up is all based on countering US force projection capability. They are both planning for the best and preparing for the worst.

There is also a cultural distinction. China believes that conflict with the United States is necessary as our power diminishes and their's grows. We American's have a very similar philosophy that can be summed up with "to be the Man you gotta beat the Man."

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:01 AM

...*stunned silence*

Hokay, I'm outta here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:02 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Nick: It's highly unlikely that China will attack us. Agreed. I am hopeful that the people commanding our military are smart enough - and cynical enough - that they would be able to see what a phenomenally bad idea this would be, win or lose.

But sometimes our military is pretty gung ho. That actually scares me more than China does.

I take a bit of a different view. I want our military to be gung ho. It's our Commander and Chief and his administration that needs to be the one's with a leash on them. That is until there is no other options, than you let go of the leash.

Marine General James Mattis summed this up very well when he said to Iraqi tribal leaders, "I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
No, I said if a government group insists on chasing a reckless action and coming up with plans to attack China and destroy the global economy, then I really kind of would like to see the means of that entity to do things that I think would have widespread destructive ramifications limited.

The purpose of the State Department is to engage in diplomatic relations with other nations and seek peaceful resolution of our conflicts.

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. In the event of war with China...I'd prefer those things belong to China. As Will Rogers once noted (besides being a cowboy he was a noted humorist and widely regarded for his public commentary) 'America is the only country in the world that waits till we're in a war to start gettin ready for it.' He was speaking just prior to World War 2.

Peace is something everyone ever wants, but it is not the primary goal of any rational foriegn policy...even Hitler would have happily accepted a peaceful outcome to his conquest of Europe and had people simply surrendered to him then there would never have been a war.

China is planning a war, it probably will not come tomorrow but it will come. Since 1990 their entire focus has been on diminishing US power. They steal our technology, subvert our industry, weaken our banks, are building up their military, they support countries like Iran and Syria that tie down and drain our resources. Even now...would we oppose them? Would we risk a 50,000 casualty war to save Taiwan? Japan maybe, but Taiwan? Maybe not. When that answer is 'no' they will attack. They've been preparing to cross Formosa since 1950.

50,000 casualties. We can barely stomach 3,000.

Sometimes there is a peace that can only come on the other side of a war.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:23 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
That is crazy. First of all NATO minus the US is paper thin.

Remember France is not a member of NATO. The only NATO power with a large modern Army is Germany and they'd be a tough nut to crack. Spain can field a division or two at most, same for Italy, and they are poorly equiped. Portugal contributes very little. Greece has a decent sized force, but mostly infantry and poorly equiped. Turkey has a very nice Army that is better then the average Arab nation but it's more in line with Greece's level of technoogy with a few more tanks and modern planes. Norway has a very well trained and equiped Army that is tiny. Iceland...moving on, Canada. Ok, Canada has a couple very nice mechanized brigades. Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria...good, ok, poor. Poland has a large modern force using mostly outdated Soviet era equipment. Romania has a large 1970s force, but are well trained. Bulgaria, has a small army, poorly supported. All three have some amounts of modern US equipment and pound for pound aside from Britain and Germany they would be NATO best troops. Britain no longer has the Army or Navy it did in the 1980s.

NATO has no ability to project for in sufficient numbers to oppose Chinese aggression without signifigant logistical support from the United States. Read up on the Faulkland Island War. Without US logistical support those folks would all be extras when Madonna shoots the sequel to Evita.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-3CA7691F-00A0F1B5/natolive/nato_countri
es.htm

The memebers of NATO, including France, has slightly over deployable 2 million troops without the US. Which is only slightly lower than China's active military.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Actually they would wage conventional war on their neighbors. They would use economic power to keep us out of the fight, but their recent military build up is all based on countering US force projection capability. They are both planning for the best and preparing for the worst.

They might try and keep us out of the fight, but it would not work. How many air craft carriers do they have again?

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
There is also a cultural distinction. China believes that conflict with the United States is necessary as our power diminishes and their's grows. We American's have a very similar philosophy that can be summed up with "to be the Man you gotta beat the Man."

That maybe, but right now they are dealing with a massive slow down of their economy and a much higher debt than the US has. It is becoming more and more iffy if they will even over take the US as the largest economy.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:24 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. In the event of war with China...I'd prefer those things belong to China. As Will Rogers once noted (besides being a cowboy he was a noted humorist and widely regarded for his public commentary) 'America is the only country in the world that waits till we're in a war to start gettin ready for it.' He was speaking just prior to World War 2.

Peace is something everyone ever wants, but it is not the primary goal of any rational foriegn policy...even Hitler would have happily accepted a peaceful outcome to his conquest of Europe and had people simply surrendered to him then there would never have been a war.

China is planning a war, it probably will not come tomorrow but it will come. Since 1990 their entire focus has been on diminishing US power. They steal our technology, subvert our industry, weaken our banks, are building up their military, they support countries like Iran and Syria that tie down and drain our resources. Even now...would we oppose them? Would we risk a 50,000 casualty war to save Taiwan? Japan maybe, but Taiwan? Maybe not. When that answer is 'no' they will attack. They've been preparing to cross Formosa since 1950.

50,000 casualties. We can barely stomach 3,000.

Sometimes there is a peace that can only come on the other side of a war.

A lot has changed since WWII. The US is basicly ready for a war with anyone and everyone, twice over.

50,000 casualties to save Taiwan? Were do you come up with that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:39 AM

I'm tossing this up here, just as food for thought.

http://www.esquire.com/features/china-political-future-0111

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
No, I said if a government group insists on chasing a reckless action and coming up with plans to attack China and destroy the global economy, then I really kind of would like to see the means of that entity to do things that I think would have widespread destructive ramifications limited.

The purpose of the State Department is to engage in diplomatic relations with other nations and seek peaceful resolution of our conflicts.

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. In the event of war with China...I'd prefer those things belong to China. As Will Rogers once noted (besides being a cowboy he was a noted humorist and widely regarded for his public commentary) 'America is the only country in the world that waits till we're in a war to start gettin ready for it.' He was speaking just prior to World War 2.

Peace is something everyone ever wants, but it is not the primary goal of any rational foriegn policy...even Hitler would have happily accepted a peaceful outcome to his conquest of Europe and had people simply surrendered to him then there would never have been a war.

China is planning a war, it probably will not come tomorrow but it will come. Since 1990 their entire focus has been on diminishing US power. They steal our technology, subvert our industry, weaken our banks, are building up their military, they support countries like Iran and Syria that tie down and drain our resources. Even now...would we oppose them? Would we risk a 50,000 casualty war to save Taiwan? Japan maybe, but Taiwan? Maybe not. When that answer is 'no' they will attack. They've been preparing to cross Formosa since 1950.

50,000 casualties. We can barely stomach 3,000.

Sometimes there is a peace that can only come on the other side of a war.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

The funny thing, and what you don't realize or care about, is that your boy Mittens is a happy collaborator in helping them to do this.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
They might try and keep us out of the fight, but it would not work. How many air craft carriers do they have again?

One. How many do they need to cross Formosa? None. Its a short hop.

The South China Sea and the Formosa straight is a shallow water region. China has diesel electric subs that are most effective in those waters. Extemely quiet, close to their port so fuel is not a restriction. Our subs have diminished capacity in those waters. The waters are restrictive and to fight our carrier (we'd never get a 2nd one into the region in time to stop them) would have to fight within range of shore based aviation and anti-ship cruise missiles. We're talking thousands of fighters and missiles.

China recently unveiled a hypersonic cruise missile similar to Russia's that is designed for a one-shot kill on a carrier. The missile is specifically designed to penetrate an integrated group wide Aegis air defense system by combining supersonic speed with extreme low level flying.

That's all assuming China is stupid enough to plan a war while our carrier is in the area. If it was me I'd plan to hit our carrier in port in Japan or maybe while its transiting into the region from the Indian Ocean. There's a nice giant region of island rich shallow water that traffic flows through on that route. Great for pirates...and diesel subs. You don't even have to sink a carrier, just put it out of action. They only need a couple of days.

Even better, stage an attack on an American carrier in the Persian Gulf region...or gin up some other crisis to draw the carrier out of position. They saw how we drew on naval, air, and ground troops from the Pacific to support operations in the Gulf and Afganistan.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. In the event of war with China...I'd prefer those things belong to China. As Will Rogers once noted (besides being a cowboy he was a noted humorist and widely regarded for his public commentary) 'America is the only country in the world that waits till we're in a war to start gettin ready for it.' He was speaking just prior to World War 2.

Peace is something everyone ever wants, but it is not the primary goal of any rational foriegn policy...even Hitler would have happily accepted a peaceful outcome to his conquest of Europe and had people simply surrendered to him then there would never have been a war.

China is planning a war, it probably will not come tomorrow but it will come. Since 1990 their entire focus has been on diminishing US power. They steal our technology, subvert our industry, weaken our banks, are building up their military, they support countries like Iran and Syria that tie down and drain our resources. Even now...would we oppose them? Would we risk a 50,000 casualty war to save Taiwan? Japan maybe, but Taiwan? Maybe not. When that answer is 'no' they will attack. They've been preparing to cross Formosa since 1950.

50,000 casualties. We can barely stomach 3,000.

Sometimes there is a peace that can only come on the other side of a war.

A lot has changed since WWII. The US is basicly ready for a war with anyone and everyone, twice over.

50,000 casualties to save Taiwan? Were do you come up with that?

Same place he comes up with all those claims about Russia and China having such enormous militaries: he pulls 'em out of his arse!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 3:54 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
One. How many do they need to cross Formosa? None. Its a short hop.

Okay, I guess they're going to use their aircraft carrier as a troop transport than?

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:The South China Sea and the Formosa straight is a shallow water region. China has diesel electric subs that are most effective in those waters. Extemely quiet, close to their port so fuel is not a restriction. Our subs have diminished capacity in those waters. The waters are restrictive and to fight our carrier (we'd never get a 2nd one into the region in time to stop them) would have to fight within range of shore based aviation and anti-ship cruise missiles. We're talking thousands of fighters and missiles.

Why would we have to fight in that range until the subs were dealt with by air?

China has around 2,000 combat aircraft, air forces and naval. The US Navy's current 500 or so Super Hornets with help from the Hornets could most likely neutralize those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Air_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_air
craft

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:China recently unveiled a hypersonic cruise missile similar to Russia's that is designed for a one-shot kill on a carrier. The missile is specifically designed to penetrate an integrated group wide Aegis air defense system by combining supersonic speed with extreme low level flying.

There is a few different designs. The so called Chinese Air Craft Killers are not cruise missiles at all, but hypersonic ballistic missiles. They also are developing scram jet supersonic missiles. So is the US, and getting these things to work as promised is not yet here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:That's all assuming China is stupid enough to plan a war while our carrier is in the area. If it was me I'd plan to hit our carrier in port in Japan or maybe while its transiting into the region from the Indian Ocean. There's a nice giant region of island rich shallow water that traffic flows through on that route. Great for pirates...and diesel subs. You don't even have to sink a carrier, just put it out of action. They only need a couple of days.

Even better, stage an attack on an American carrier in the Persian Gulf region...or gin up some other crisis to draw the carrier out of position. They saw how we drew on naval, air, and ground troops from the Pacific to support operations in the Gulf and Afganistan.

All quite possible, but that is assuming the US would not know about any buildup for an invasion, or that China could hold Taiwan after the fact.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:33 PM

And of course, there's no indication that China is planning any kind of war or attack. They've no need to, since they're already bleeding us white economically.

It's far more likely that we would start a war with China in the hopes of using such a tactic to "wipe out" our debt with them, than that they would start a war with us while they hold so much of our debt obligations.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:02 PM

110 miles separate Taiwan from China. Goes like this, Taiwan gets hit with hundreds of short range missiles, massive air strikes, air assault by helicopters and airborne troops, then delivery of follow on forces by ships, boats, hovercraft...then we start hour number 2...ok, to be fair the military estimates it could be two hours from embarkation to landing.

Would we detect the build up? Yes. Because they already did it, they've been built up for invasion for years.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 26, 2012 1:15 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Ahem.

What's the point of a "Nuclear Deterrent" if it doesn't, yanno - DETER anything.
LOGIC FAILURE, INSUFFICIENT KOOLAID.
I want my fekkin money back.

Also, seriously, the Chinese wouldn't have a hope in hell even if they DID invade us - they would suffer decimating psychological casualties almost immediately from culture shock alone.
Not to mention a society already gone prettymuch rabid and just itching for someone to take it out on and damn the casualties.

Nope, the way to destroy us is much, much simpler than that - simply troll us and wind us up and watch us DO IT TO OURSELVES out of intolerance, hate, and paranoia.
Workin real good so far, and just like some nimrod forwarding chain-emails and virus laden spam, the GOP is helping it along at every turn and corner while ever sane person in the world cusses their prideful, willfully and deliberately ignorant stupidity.

Ergo, I think your defense concept sucks.
Oh, and you're insane, but that's a given.
Have you considered lobotomization ? trepanning maybe ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 26, 2012 1:59 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
110 miles separate Taiwan from China. Goes like this, Taiwan gets hit with hundreds of short range missiles, massive air strikes, air assault by helicopters and airborne troops, then delivery of follow on forces by ships, boats, hovercraft...then we start hour number 2...ok, to be fair the military estimates it could be two hours from embarkation to landing.

Would we detect the build up? Yes. Because they already did it, they've been built up for invasion for years.

Your right, I should have said troop movement.

That being said you have to realize that nothing happens in a vacuum. If China did try and take Taiwan a number of other thinks would come into play. North and South Korea for example. The South would not sit idealy by and watch this. I also doubt the North would not take the oportunity to join China in the stupidity. The Aussies would most likley come to Taiwans aid and they are no slotches.

Than you have the NATO responce. Russia may come in with China or maybe smart enough to sit this one out knowing that many of the NATO states are just waiting to take a crack the Reds. China's only hope would be the Russians not sitting out.

Starts to sound like another World War really quick. I hope for the worlds sake there are smart people in China that realize they could never win something like this.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 26, 2012 10:06 AM