# Chinese naval vessel tries to force U.S. warship to stop in international waters



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Dec 13, 2013)

> Chinese naval vessel tried to force a U.S. guided missile warship to stop in international waters recently, causing a tense military standoff in the latest case of Chinese maritime harassment, according to defense officials.
> 
> The guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens, which recently took part in disaster relief operations in the Philippines, was confronted by Chinese warships in the South China Sea near Beijing’s new aircraft carrier Liaoning, according to officials familiar with the incident.
> 
> ...




Lets go to WWIII!


----------



## Suzumebachi (Dec 13, 2013)

> Lets go to WWIII!



I gotta tell you, man...that sounds awful.


----------



## Zaru (Dec 13, 2013)

Emphasis on "tries"


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2013)

>Trying to bully the US Navy with the same bullshit you use on Philippine fishermen

LOOOOOOOOOOOL


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Dec 13, 2013)

Suzumebachi said:


> I gotta tell you, man...that sounds awful.



Absolute sarcasm my man. haha


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

Hahaha silly Chinese.  Know your role you pieces of shit.


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2013)

"You are ordered to stop that vessel and detain its crew!"

"I am sorry command... what?"

"Stop that vessel!"

"Command, it's a United States Navy aegis cruiser."

"You have your orders!"

"Well fuck."


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 13, 2013)

Rise!
People not content to be slaves!

Let our flesh
Form the second Great Wall!

When the peoples of China find themselves
In their most periolous moment
Every person must utter
Utter with all their might

Rise!
Rise!
Rise!

Though a billion
All of one mind
We brave the enemy fire!

Onwards!
Onwards!
Onwards!

-March of the Volonteers
National anthem of China


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> Let our flesh
> Form the second Great Wall!



America finds this proposal acceptable and wishes the Chinese people good fortune in being a wall.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 13, 2013)

These are the actual lyrics of the anthem, although they do sound weird in English.


----------



## Patchouli (Dec 13, 2013)

Can't see a Great Wall of flesh attracting many tourists.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 13, 2013)

Is this post WW2?


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Can't see a Great Wall of flesh attracting many tourists.



Silly Chineses want to be uppity fucks?  Stack 'em like a wall.

God I'll be happy when China acknowledges its #2 fate.


----------



## navy (Dec 13, 2013)

WWIII Do it Obama.


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 13, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> Rise!
> People not content to be slaves!
> 
> Let our flesh
> ...



I enjoy the national anthem of China. It's great.

Ha, surveying the Chinese carrier? Oh United States ...



> Near Beijing’s new aircraft carrier Liaoning



I can see why China is tense.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 13, 2013)

Against a Ticonderoga-class cruiser with the Liaoning in range?

Are they smoking dope?


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Against a Ticonderoga-class cruiser with the Liaoning in range?
> 
> Are they smoking dope?



No the Chinese are just high off of deluded pride and historical butthurt. 

Fuck 'em.  I hope they get their asses handed to them by the US/SK/Japanese alliance.


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 13, 2013)

The whole international police thing that America has been doing for the past 50 years has also lead it to experience lots of butthurt. But we'll talk about the later on. 

But on this situation, I really don't care too much. China is acting aggro, instead of keeping a cool head. China needs to just sit there and troll.

Troll like what they're doing on League of Legends.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 13, 2013)

There are various degrees of hostility.

Some are on the same side with ultimately the same interests but like to take pots shot and go their own way sometimes, if only out of pride (France, Saudi Arabia, what Egypt used to be like).

Some hate you with good reason for past slights but are willing to do little more than snarl and try to ignore you (The parts of the Americas that aren't Venezuela and Cuba, Vietnam, everywhere else America fuck in the Cold War)

Some are trying to being their own regional or world power and cross America more directly (China, Russia, Iran, India in the past)

And some just really hate you (Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Gaza under Hamas).

China's hate isn't personal, it's positional i.e. you're in the way of them asserting hegemony over East an South East Asia, particularly the waterways.


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

The Pink Ninja said:


> There are various degrees of hostility.
> 
> Some are on the same side with ultimately the same interests but like to take pots shot and go their own way sometimes, if only out of pride (France, Saudi Arabia, what Egypt used to be like).
> 
> ...



The problem is China is doing two things:

1. Shifting its past international butthurt on the US; and
2. Trying to become the bully of East Asia.

With #1, they really have no right since it was really just the British that occupied them for the longest time and pwned their navies so heartily.  Now the big roundeye US shows up after Japan's defeat and China has a cross to bear over that...which is bullshit.

With #2, everybody learned what the hell happened the last time an Asian nation became the regional bully.  China being the dominant Asian power would be like Iran becoming the dominant Middle Eastern power, nothing but disorder and tension.


----------



## The Rain (Dec 13, 2013)

Mael said:
			
		

> China being the dominant Asian power



But... they are. Their military is second to America only in terms of 'projection power' (the ability to move a huge number of troops and deploy them quickly; America is extremely strong in this respect) and they have the second highest GDP in the world.

They've already bullied Japan out of dropping their claim to large oil deposits and they made North Korea - with its nuclear shenanigans - shut up pretty quickly.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 13, 2013)

The Rain said:


> But... *they are. Their military is second to America only in terms of 'projection power' *(the ability to move a huge number of troops and deploy them quickly; America is extremely strong in this respect) and they have the second highest GDP in the world.
> 
> They've already bullied Japan out of dropping their claim to large oil deposits and they made North Korea - with its nuclear shenanigans - shut up pretty quickly.


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2013)

Being second to America is kind of like being the second brightest object in the solar system. You might as well not even be there.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 13, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Can't see a Great Wall of flesh attracting many tourists.



add generic porn music to this idea, and you'll be getting tourists from all over.


----------



## Zaru (Dec 13, 2013)

Blue said:


> Being second to America is kind of like being the second brightest object in the solar system. You might as well not even be there.



Enjoy it while you can. Bigger powers have fallen


----------



## The Rain (Dec 13, 2013)

Wait, wait, you were saying?

Edit: and for all of you throwing your disrespect towards China, America would get absolutely fucked in a naval war.


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 13, 2013)

The Roman empire was nice while it lasted. 

Well ... maybe not for Hannibal.


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Enjoy it while you can. Bigger powers have fallen



Welll... no, there's never been a bigger power, first of all; unlike the Romans we're unconquerable, and unlike the British we have no empire except the commercial empire we paid for.

Barring Yellowstone exploding, there isn't anything in history to suggest what could possibly happen to the Land of the Free. Some new historical calamity could pop up, but I don't see it.

Of course world politics and economics won't always be so laughably one-sided, but fall? 

nope.avi


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2013)

The Rain said:


> Wait, wait, you were saying?
> 
> Edit: and for all of you throwing your disrespect towards China, America would get absolutely fucked in a naval war.


 Lol, this guy is serious.

Bro, Japan would win a naval war with China. Never mind America.


----------



## The Rain (Dec 13, 2013)

> Bro, Japan would win a naval war with China. Never mind America.



You must be joking


----------



## Zaru (Dec 13, 2013)

Blue said:


> Welll... no, there's never been a bigger power, first of all; unlike the Romans we're unconquerable, and unlike the British we have no empire except the commercial empire we paid for.
> 
> Barring Yellowstone exploding, there isn't anything in history to suggest what could possibly happen to the Land of the Free. Some new historical calamity could pop up, but I don't see it.
> 
> ...


>Implying it won't be something internal that causes the downfall of the USA


----------



## Patchouli (Dec 13, 2013)

I like the US and China. They shouldn't go to war.


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 13, 2013)

That rebellion is building up. 



> I like the US and China. They shouldn't go to war.



I like this better.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 13, 2013)

Sort of reminds me of this


> This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.
> 
> Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a Collision.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

The Rain said:


> Wait, wait, you were saying?
> 
> Edit: and for all of you throwing your disrespect towards China, America would get absolutely fucked in a naval war.



FffffffHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh somebody's either a smarmy liberal or a Chinese. 

You're cute, newbie.

And Blue, don't mind the Euro.  He's just mad his fucking country produced the causes of both world wars.


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2013)

The Rain said:


> You must be joking



I'm 100% not. Japan has a vastly technologically superior, similarly-sized fleet of warships, specifically geared to put the kibosh on China.

And China's... what, 600? "coastal craft" and "amphibious warfare" ships? The US and Japan have those too, they're called "coast guards".



Zaru said:


> >Implying it won't be something internal that causes the downfall of the USA



Like, what? Lead poisoning? From all the bullets in our water?


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 13, 2013)

afgpride said:


> Sort of reminds me of this



   



Mael said:


> FffffffHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh somebody's either a smarmy liberal or a Chinese.



Hey, I may or may not be both of those. 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ_nIy-PXxc[/youtube]


----------



## Savior (Dec 13, 2013)

Like your crazy high debt.
Like social unrest
Like income inequality
etc etc

No king rules forever


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 13, 2013)

The Rain said:


> Wait, wait, you were saying?
> 
> Edit: and for all of you throwing your disrespect towards China, America would get absolutely fucked in a naval war.



Any picture that says 'Murica' I'm not taking that serious. Sorry but their naval power is stronger than ours? Is that diet meth you're doing?


----------



## Zaru (Dec 13, 2013)

Mael said:


> And Blue, don't mind the Euro.  He's just mad his fucking country produced the causes of both world wars.


Gr8 b8 m8 I'd r8 it a str8 8 out of 8


Blue said:


> Like, what? Lead poisoning? From all the bullets in our water?


Complacency.


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2013)

Savior said:


> Like your crazy high debt.


It's pretty average compared to other countries.


> Like social unrest



*Spoiler*: __ 









> Like income inequality


The rich getting richer doesn't matter if the poor get richer, too. 


> etc etc


et al ad nauseam


> No king rules forever


Good thing Lady Liberty is a Queen.


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

Savior said:


> Like your crazy high debt.
> Like social unrest
> Like income inequality
> etc etc
> ...



Lol smarmy Canuck:


Even your own intelligent Canadians see behind your smugness.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 13, 2013)

And this thread is now terrible wank.

Close it.


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2013)

The Pink Ninja said:


> And this thread is now terrible wank.
> 
> Close it.



I make my nests and lay my eggs in wank. Go away.


----------



## Savior (Dec 13, 2013)

Mael said:


> Lol smarmy Canuck:
> 
> 
> Even your own intelligent Canadians see behind your smugness.




It's ok. We have our oil sands expansions to cover it.


----------



## The Rain (Dec 13, 2013)

> FffffffHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh somebody's either a smarmy liberal or a Chinese.
> 
> You're cute, newbie.
> 
> And Blue, don't mind the Euro. He's just mad his fucking country produced the causes of both world wars.



You _do_ realize that America is 14 _trillion_ in debt? You do realize that America's military budget is six times that of China? You do realize that in terms of reserve and foreign exchange, America is very ill-equipped to be heading into any large-scale wars? That's right: even with all of its reserves, America is short of 14 trillion, 300 billion to repay its debts; that puts it in a relatively weak bartering position on the global market.
China, on the other hand, is 3.4 trillion ahead of its debt.

Another vital factor you're forgetting is that China is currently fully industrialized. Who is it that makes America's goods? Oh, that's right, Asia; namely China. China has the coal and oil reserves to be self-sustained for the next 80 years, and all of the correct equipment in place. America, in theory, has enough for 60 years - but they'd have to setup and re-industrialize first. China's position on the global market is better than America's, so they wouldn't have Asia's support in the slightest.


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

Savior said:


> It's ok. We have our oil sands expansions to cover it.





> *Potentially damaging Jackpine oilsands*



Try harder.


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

The Rain said:


> You _do_ realize that America is 14 _trillion_ in debt? You do realize that America's military budget is six times that of China? You do realize that in terms of reserve and foreign exchange, America is very ill-equipped to be heading into any large-scale wars? That's right: even with all of its reserves, America is short of 14 trillion, 300 billion to repay its debts; that puts it in a relatively weak bartering position on the global market.
> China, on the other hand, is 3.4 trillion ahead of its debt.
> 
> Another vital factor you're forgetting is that China is currently fully industrialized. Who is it that makes America's goods? Oh, that's right, Asia; namely China. China has the coal and oil reserves to be self-sustained for the next 80 years, and all of the correct equipment in place. America, in theory, has enough for 60 years - but they'd have to setup and re-industrialize first. China's position on the global market is better than America's, so they wouldn't have Asia's support in the slightest.



Sounds like a guy who doesn't know the first thing about economics and geopolitics.


----------



## The Rain (Dec 13, 2013)

Mael said:


> Sounds like a guy who doesn't know the first thing about economics and geopolitics.



Care to explain why?

Nothing you say changes the facts, either: China can pump out millions of military vehicles, aircraft and warships within a very short timespan - and there is no shortage of well-trained soldiers to man them.


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

The Rain said:


> Care to explain why?
> 
> Nothing you say changes the facts, either: China can pump out millions of military vehicles, aircraft and warships within a very short timespan - and there is no shortage of well-trained soldiers to man them.



For starters the debt is symbiotic.  The US cannot simply default while China cannot simply say "lolno" and then toss everything aside to fight the US.  The fact that China has emerged economically means that it has also placed itself in a fragile position within economies.  It is surrounded by nations that are less than privy to allow Chinese dominance, most notably the sizable navies of Japan and South Korea.  All North Korea is for China is a convenient meat shield.  China has destroyed its soft power abilities with Vietnam, the Philippines, etc., and is still incredibly dependent on resources and exporting cheap goods.  Nothing of the military that is vital is made in China and the only other nation that shares its tech deeply with the US is Israel.

How long would it take for China to pump all this out in such cramped compartments?  It's not as long and expansive as Russia is, for example.  Most of its land is unusable for factories and sparsely populated, instead crammed all together along the coast.  China is not Russia in the sense that it became a superpower by sheer military might.  China made itself a subject of the market and lemme tell you that the market would fuck China over in a heartbeat if China wanted to no longer turn a profit.  Also you mistake long ground wars for naval engagements, something the US is very fucking good at since the days of Midway.

You're just a pro-China wanker that wants to spout empty rhetoric instead of looking at the realities of things.  Now I suggest you crawl into your little hole, suck on some lo mein noodles, and masturbate to Sun Tzu before you make a further ass out of yourself.


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 13, 2013)

> You're just a pro-China wanker that wants to spout empty rhetoric instead of looking at the realities of things. Now I suggest you crawl into your little hole, suck on some lo mein noodles, and masturbate to Sun Tzu before you make a further ass out of yourself.



I donno if you had to go that far Mael. :S


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

Linkofone said:


> I donno if you had to go that far Mael. :S



I've seen these assholes before.  They're essentially either bitchy white liberal Westerners or AZN PRYD Americans who just try to look edgy with the same song and dance of "different thought" bullshit while utterly ignorant of time, space, and fucking logistics.  So if they want to act a fool, I'll act three times more on them.


----------



## Blue (Dec 13, 2013)

The Rain said:


> You _do_ realize that America is 14 _trillion_ in debt? You do realize that America's military budget is six times that of China? You do realize that in terms of reserve and foreign exchange, America is very ill-equipped to be heading into any large-scale wars? That's right: even with all of its reserves, America is short of 14 trillion, 300 billion to repay its debts; that puts it in a relatively weak bartering position on the global market.
> China, on the other hand, is 3.4 trillion ahead of its debt.


Debt is generally measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, as in how many years it would take a country to pay the debt using every single dollar everyone in that country makes. Traditionally the measure of excessive debt load has been 100%, i.e 1 year worth of GDP.
Levels less than that arbitrary amount are not particularly harmful, because as a result of inflation and economic growth, the debt load as a % of gdp will ultimately fall on its own. Take America's debt in 1950, something like 100 billion dollars. 100 billion 1950 dollars was a lot of money, but today, it's next to nothing. And so that debt - which America still holds - bought us the world 60 years ago and could be paid in an instant now.
For this reason, it's not economically unhealthy to accumulate a certain amount of debt, as long as it doesn't outpace inflation and growth. The US has a debt of about 100% now, thanks to Obama, but it's going down and is still comparable to most EU countries. There's no real crisis there.

America's military budget being six times the size of China's really ought to speak for itself. Also keep in mind that well over half of the Chinese military budget goes to police forces to kill its own people should the need arise. Worth noting also is that the secret, classified budget of the US military is bigger than the PLA's entire budget. 
That is to say, we have plasma cannons and space bombers worth more than the Chinese military.

America is not short of money. America is fucking rolling in it. Somehow we're managing to spend it faster than we're getting it, but not so fast that we can't get more than enough to fight a war or five.




> Another vital factor you're forgetting is that China is currently fully industrialized. Who is it that makes America's goods? Oh, that's right, Asia; namely China. China has the coal and oil reserves to be self-sustained for the next 80 years, and all of the correct equipment in place. America, in theory, has enough for 60 years - but they'd have to setup and re-industrialize first. China's position on the global market is better than America's, so they wouldn't have Asia's support in the slightest.


America was fully industrialized 100 years ago. 
China makes America's sneakers, its polo shirts, its pocket calculators, its plastic drinking cups.
They do not make our military equipment. 

It's true that America and China depend on each other to a large extend in foreign trade, but trade with the US accounts for a far, far larger portion of the Chinese economy than vice-versa. In the event of a war, the two countries would likely go right on trading, but if it was cut off, Americans would be spending more on ice cube trays in Wal-Mart while China enjoys 10% of its entire economy evaporating.

Which, by the way, is happening anyway, with US factories moving to Vietnam and Mexico now that Chinese workers actually want to be paid. Good luck with that.


----------



## The Rain (Dec 13, 2013)

> For starters the debt is symbiotic. The US cannot simply default while China cannot simply say "lolno" and then toss everything aside to fight the US. The fact that China has emerged economically means that it has also placed itself in a fragile position within economies. It is surrounded by nations that are less than privy to allow Chinese dominance, most notably the sizable navies of Japan and South Korea. All North Korea is for China is a convenient meat shield. China has destroyed its soft power abilities with Vietnam, the Philippines, etc., and is still incredibly dependent on resources and exporting cheap goods. Nothing of the military that is vital is made in China and the only other nation that shares its tech deeply with the US is Israel.


Yes, and China is Japan's leading export market and import source. The same goes for South Korea. When the shit hits the fan, it's China that Asia is going to cling to, not Murica.
Yes, most countries are involved in a symbiotic debt. The difference between America and China's debt is that America is trillions short of being able to ever repay it should it need to, while China is 3 trillion ahead of its own. The implications of this are quite broad, but basically: China is in a better marketing position (on the world market).



> How long would it take for China to pump all this out in such cramped compartments? It's not as long and expansive as Russia is, for example. Most of its land is unusable for factories and sparsely populated, instead crammed all together along the coast. China is not Russia in the sense that it became a superpower by sheer military might. China made itself a subject of the market and lemme tell you that the market would fuck China over in a heartbeat if China wanted to no longer turn a profit. Also you mistake long ground wars for naval engagements, something the US is very fucking good at since the days of Midway.



What in the fuck are you on about? 

Russia didn't become a superpower through 'sheer military might', it underwent heavy industrialization based using rich reserves located to the north of the country (i.e. Siberia). China's own resources are almost treble those of Russia's prior to 1930. Also, in Russia, most of the industry was based in the East and on the North East coast. The fact that China's industry is 'crammed' (even though it isn't; it's tens of thousands of miles of coast that it stretches) doesn't change a thing: right now, it is the most heavily industrialized country in the world and it has the capacity to produce military equipment tens of times faster than America.

America is also hugely dependent on external energy, like gas from the Middle East, while China is a fully-functioning self-energy-sustainable country.

Right now, you're taking out of your ass and expecting me to buy it.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Dec 13, 2013)

Close this fucking thread.


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

The Rain said:


> America is also hugely dependent on external energy, like gas from the Middle East, while China is a fully-functioning self-energy-sustainable country.
> 
> Right now, you're taking out of your ass and expecting me to buy it.



You'd be amazed how the Asian nations wouldn't run to China.  Why?  China doesn't want their labor.  The US does.  They'll happily accept US demand over Chinese control, especially seeing how fucking awful the CCP is.



So where does the US get most of its oil?



Where does China get most of its oil?  From itself?


So this is just a bunch of bull?



And coal is unequivocably disastrous for the environment and for China's cities, so bad that even Seoul feels the Desolation of Shanghai Smog.

God you are so fucking stupid it's hilarious.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Dec 13, 2013)

Blue said:


> >Trying to bully the US Navy with the same bullshit you use on Philippine fishermen
> 
> LOOOOOOOOOOOL



US navy laughs in their faces as they casually aim cannons in their general direction.


----------



## Zaru (Dec 13, 2013)

Blue said:


> China makes America's sneakers, its polo shirts, its pocket calculators, its plastic drinking cups.



China is responsible for 97% of the worldwide rare earth trade.

You know, the stuff that is used in anything from batteries to cellphones and a shitload of electronic components and which we're using up at an alarming, unsustainable rate anyway?



Blue said:


> They do not make our military equipment.


, then you're wrong. They don't build your jets, drones and tanks, but they build a lot of the stuff that the US military uses.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 13, 2013)

Chinese trying to use their only aircraft carrier as a battering ram against a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser. Brilliant China. That's totally how you use an aircraft carrier.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Dec 13, 2013)

Regardless, the US has more than enough military hardware stockpiled that they could easily turn all of China into a parking lot before they would need to fire up the manufacturing base and resupply.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 13, 2013)

Close the threeeeeeeeeeeead


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Regardless, the US has more than enough military hardware stockpiled that they could easily turn all of China into a parking lot before they would need to fire up the manufacturing base and resupply.



Herpaderp but teh debt!!.1/11?!1


----------



## Mecha-Kisame (Dec 13, 2013)

Sticky this thread.


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 13, 2013)

While we are putting in request my member needs immediate attention.


----------



## sadated_peon (Dec 13, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> Chinese trying to use their only aircraft carrier as a battering ram against a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser. Brilliant China. That's totally how you use an aircraft carrier.



is it all that useful for anything else?


----------



## ExoSkel (Dec 13, 2013)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Close the threeeeeeeeeeeead


Shut the fuck up and gtfo if you have a problem with this thread, chump.

Oh and china knows 'Murica would absolutely smash them in terms of naval warfare. This is just china flexing their muscle at 'Murica by showing their absolute piece of shit of an aircraft carrier at US.


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

ExoSkel said:


> Shut the fuck up and gtfo if you have a problem with this thread, chump.
> 
> Oh and china knows 'Murica would absolutely smash them in terms of naval warfare. This is just china flexing their muscle at 'Murica by showing their absolute piece of shit of an aircraft carrier at US.


----------



## horsdhaleine (Dec 13, 2013)

I heard they're also making noise in the newly (unilaterally) created ADIZ?

DON'T STOP OUR RIGHTFUL EXPANSION! lel


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 13, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> Chinese trying to use their only aircraft carrier as a battering ram against a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser. Brilliant China. That's totally how you use an aircraft carrier.



All those years of illegal chinese boats being rammed by greenpeace must have taken its toll.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 13, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Emphasis on "tries"



Then again, you do you threaten a cruiser with an aircraft carrier?



Mael said:


> Hahaha silly Chinese.  Know your role you pieces of shit.



May you tell us what is their roles?



mr_shadow said:


> Rise!
> People not content to be slaves!
> 
> Let our flesh
> ...



inb4 the anthem is China's "To Do" list 



Mael said:


> Silly Chineses want to be uppity fucks?  Stack 'em like a wall.
> 
> God I'll be happy when China acknowledges its #2 fate.



I don't think they are being more uppity than the US during their Latam Red Scare.



Linkofone said:


> I enjoy the national anthem of China. It's great.
> 
> Ha, surveying the Chinese carrier? Oh United States ...
> 
> ...



Considering how industrious the Chinese are, why don't they just make new ones to confuse the US?



Mael said:


> No the Chinese are just high off of deluded pride and historical butthurt.
> 
> Fuck 'em.  I hope they get their asses handed to them by the US/SK/Japanese alliance.



Unless you forgot how sheer numbers won the Bloodiest theater of WW2, I wouldn't act so high and mighty either.

And South Korea is a wannabee and the Japs already backed off from the PRC... don't include then here.



The Pink Ninja said:


> There are various degrees of hostility.
> 
> Some are on the same side with ultimately the same interests but like to take pots shot and go their own way sometimes, if only out of pride (France, Saudi Arabia, what Egypt used to be like).
> 
> ...



Then again, why is China threatening the US outside their territory or their allies?



Mael said:


> The problem is China is doing two things:
> 
> 1. Shifting its past international butthurt on the US; and
> 2. Trying to become the bully of East Asia.
> ...



1. How the fuck are they butthurt against someone that did nothing to them?

2. The US didn't learn what happened when they tried to play "American Police" on Latam...



The Rain said:


> But... they are. Their military is second to America only in terms of 'projection power' (the ability to move a huge number of troops and deploy them quickly; America is extremely strong in this respect) and they have the second highest GDP in the world.
> 
> They've already bullied Japan out of dropping their claim to large oil deposits and they made North Korea - with its nuclear shenanigans - shut up pretty quickly.



Don't go around flaunting China's wallet. Russia is far worse a threat and they have no more money than Spain. As with projection power... Britain is stronger and so France. This pretty much means that going by that, they are pretty weak.

Then again, Russia did show us why "power projection" is bullshit. Numbers matter more than anything in the end.



Zaru said:


> Enjoy it while you can. Bigger powers have fallen



Russia fell... for a little while 



Blue said:


> Lol, this guy is serious.
> 
> Bro, Japan would win a naval war with China. Never mind America.



This is where I draw the line.

Area 11 stands no bloody chance in hell. They are in the same league, and China still has the numbers and lack of restraint by their side, so you'd better shut up before you piss of the scarlet zerg.



Mael said:


> FffffffHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh somebody's either a smarmy liberal or a Chinese.
> 
> You're cute, newbie.
> 
> And Blue, don't mind the Euro.  He's just mad his fucking country produced the causes of both world wars.



And I feel you're riding an unrealistic horse here. Do you understand that a war between China and the US winds up with a deserted China and America gets 50 new countries?



Blue said:


> I'm 100% not. Japan has a vastly technologically superior, similarly-sized fleet of warships, specifically geared to put the kibosh on China.
> 
> And China's... what, 600? "coastal craft" and "amphibious warfare" ships? The US and Japan have those too, they're called "coast guards".
> 
> ...



Yeah... don't forget that when Nihon is leveled.



Savior said:


> Like your crazy high debt.
> Like social unrest
> Like income inequality
> etc etc
> ...



Agreed. The United States has unusual endurance, but there have been longer lasting empires...

Ironically, China is one of those.



Mael said:


> Even your own intelligent Canadians see behind your smugness.



Neither can Americans...



Mael said:


> For starters the debt is symbiotic.  The US cannot simply default while China cannot simply say "lolno" and then toss everything aside to fight the US.  The fact that China has emerged economically means that it has also placed itself in a fragile position within economies.  It is surrounded by nations that are less than privy to allow Chinese dominance, most notably the sizable navies of Japan and South Korea.  All North Korea is for China is a convenient meat shield.  China has destroyed its soft power abilities with Vietnam, the Philippines, etc., and is still incredibly dependent on resources and exporting cheap goods.  Nothing of the military that is vital is made in China and the only other nation that shares its tech deeply with the US is Israel.
> 
> How long would it take for China to pump all this out in such cramped compartments?  It's not as long and expansive as Russia is, for example.  Most of its land is unusable for factories and sparsely populated, instead crammed all together along the coast.  China is not Russia in the sense that it became a superpower by sheer military might.  China made itself a subject of the market and lemme tell you that the market would fuck China over in a heartbeat if China wanted to no longer turn a profit.  Also you mistake long ground wars for naval engagements, something the US is very fucking good at since the days of Midway.
> 
> You're just a pro-China wanker that wants to spout empty rhetoric instead of looking at the realities of things.  Now I suggest you crawl into your little hole, suck on some lo mein noodles, and masturbate to Sun Tzu before you make a further ass out of yourself.



Are you forgetting the arms industry makes profit?

The only difference between "now" and "then" would be how impractical it'd be for China to keep running that industry after it finishes a war.

It's why the COMECON fell, while the US simply used everything they had stockpiled together for WW2. With such huge population, turning from ESI to ISI wouldn't be a "lethal" problem.



Megaharrison said:


> Chinese trying to use their only aircraft carrier as a battering ram against a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser. Brilliant China. That's totally how you use an aircraft carrier.



Apparently, mentioning they have it loaded and ready for deployment didn't occurred to them...



horsdhaleine said:


> I heard they're also making noise in the newly (unilaterally) created ADIZ?
> 
> DON'T STOP OUR RIGHTFUL EXPANSION! lel



The Americans where singing the same song from the 20's to the late 80's


----------



## Mael (Dec 13, 2013)

No they weren't.


----------



## Ceria (Dec 13, 2013)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Against a Ticonderoga-class cruiser with the Liaoning in range?
> 
> Are they smoking dope?



That's what i'm saying, one of the most heavily armed ships in our fleet and they want to tell it to stop?


----------



## Alwaysmind (Dec 13, 2013)

GO CHINA!!!!!!!!!!!!! = ) = ) !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ExoSkel (Dec 13, 2013)

Ceria said:


> That's what i'm saying, one of the most heavily armed ships in our fleet and they want to tell it to stop?


Because in chinese in logic, anything that is small is considered weak. 

Their logic was: our aircraft carrier is bigger than their cruiser, so we gonna tell them to stop right in front of their face

It's their mentality for centuries. That's how they got their shit kicked around so many times by smaller nations throughout the history because of that kind of logic.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 13, 2013)

Mael said:


> No they weren't.



Tell Pinochet about that. Also, the Contras say hi.

Let China get shelled just this once so they replan, they apparently don't know that small and weak are not necessarily related.


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 14, 2013)

Rise up.


----------



## The Rain (Dec 14, 2013)

> You'd be amazed how the Asian nations wouldn't run to China. Why? China doesn't want their labor. The US does. They'll happily accept US demand over Chinese control, especially seeing how fucking awful the CCP is.


Did you just choose to completely ignore the point I made?

China is Japan and South Korea's leading *export market* and *import source*. You're also forgetting that China is pumping out more graduates yearly than any other country in the world; soon enough they will have the entire East doing their labor. It's only a matter of 20-30 years before China becomes a HIC (by GDP/capita, they're already the second largest HIC in terms of flat GDP) like the US.

Also, in the case of a war, most of China's factories would immediately be turned to producing military equipment. Then guess who needs labor? That's right: China. Seeing that China is already the leading import or export source of over twenty countries (America plays the same role for about thirty countries), imagine the kind of market dominance it could enforce should a war ensue. It already makes its own consumables.

Another one of my points you're forgetting is that China is 3 trillion ahead of its symbiotic debt, while America is short of around 14 trillion - in terms of reserves of foreign exchange and gold - which means that China is capable of making a huge move like throwing away half of its production line (which goes to America anyway) to produce military equipment, while still remaining economically stable.

America can't make the same kind of move, because they lack the infrastructure. They'd also be very quickly swept out of Asia (in terms of the global market) if China chose to begin importing from the Asian countries. America by itself would have no chance, but of course America's EU allies come into effect.

I'm not under the illusion that America would lose in the case of a war, but you're making China out to be one massive bitch, when they have the power to rise above the US.



> And coal is unequivocably disastrous for the environment and for China's cities, so bad that even Seoul feels the Desolation of Shanghai Smog.


Yes, when I said that China was self-sustainable I was referring to coal. China can easily manufacture the required amount of gas masks to last wartime. Sure, it doesn't change the fact that China would be completely fucked by the time it was over, but both countries would most likely resort to nukes by the end of it anyway.

Also, the fact that imports a lot of oil doesn't really change anything. Those countries would carry on supplying it, so the coal wouldn't have to be used to its full extent.

Zaru has covered a few of the other points I was going to make.


----------



## The Rain (Dec 14, 2013)

> Because in chinese in logic, anything that is small is considered weak.
> 
> Their logic was: our aircraft carrier is bigger than their cruiser, so we gonna tell them to stop right in front of their face
> 
> It's their mentality for centuries. That's how they got their shit kicked around so many times by smaller nations throughout the history because of that kind of logic.




What bullshit are you spewing out now? The reason China was dominated was because it stopped advancing. It assumed that it was at the top of the power ladder, so it chose to shell up and stop getting bigger. It's more of a cultural thing, as well the fault of the Emperors. After the British colonized China, there wasn't really much room to get stronger until Mao came and changed things.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 14, 2013)

afgpride said:


> Sort of reminds me of this



You blew the whistle on the Canadians super fleet of lighthouses .


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 14, 2013)

horsdhaleine said:


> I heard they're also making noise in the newly (unilaterally) created ADIZ?
> 
> DON'T STOP OUR RIGHTFUL EXPANSION! lel



Expansion?


You do realize yall are just claiming things that can't be claimed and the whole world is laughing.



Yall will be fucked in about 5 years when your market collapses and your neighbors are fed up with your bullshit and decide to cut the head off the snake.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 14, 2013)

Is someone Herr seriously suggesting Asian countries would cling to China before America?


----------



## Platinum (Dec 14, 2013)

It's absolutely hilarious how the rain thinks that china can just convert foxconn into an advanced war factory like it's the world war 2 days . The best thing China has going for it in a war is the fact that no foreign army could invade Beijing without keeling over and suffocating on the death clouds that make up the air.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 14, 2013)

IchLiebe said:


> Expansion?
> 
> 
> You do realize yall are just claiming things that can't be claimed and the whole world is laughing.
> ...



It worked for Murica, it'll work for China.



Mider T said:


> Is someone Herr seriously suggesting Asian countries would cling to China before America?



Some would... that I'm sure off. Nope, not all of them would.



Platinum said:


> It's absolutely hilarious how the rain thinks that china can just convert foxconn into an advanced war factory like it's the world war 2 days . The best thing China has going for it in a war is the fact that no foreign army could invade Beijing without keeling over and suffocating on the death clouds that make up the air.



Get a room already! Foxconn is Taiwanese.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 14, 2013)

North Korea, possibly Mongolia and maybe just maybe Laos.  Other ones...nope.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Dec 14, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]qhrmdQEdlM0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Mael (Dec 14, 2013)

Sleip is big on that Tiny Chiny Chubby...


----------



## dummy plug (Dec 15, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> Rise!
> People not content to be slaves!
> 
> Let our flesh
> Form the second Great Wall!



i bet the elite Chinese rich people would beg to differ


----------



## izanagi x izanami (Dec 15, 2013)

Mider T said:


> North Korea, possibly *Mongolia *and maybe just maybe *Laos*.  Other ones...nope.



 are you kidding?

fuck china


----------



## Mider T (Dec 15, 2013)

No?  Educate me


----------



## ExoSkel (Dec 16, 2013)

Mider T said:


> North Korea, possibly Mongolia and maybe just maybe Laos.  Other ones...nope.


Myanmar aka Burma is the closest ally china got in SE Asia. Every other SE nations absolutely fucking hate china's guts.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2013)

Burma's got a good thing going with the West right now, I hardly think they'd compromise that.

Also Mongolia isn't SE Asia.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 16, 2013)

Mider T said:


> North Korea,



Has a very passive-aggressive relationship to China. China really doesn't know what to do with them, doesn't arm them, and North Korea basically gives them nothing while demanding constant help. If you're seen as pro-Chinese in the DPRK they'll execute you while if you're seen as Pro-North Korean in the PRC they'll see you as outdated. They're really allies in name only and neither would come to the others aid in the event of conflict.



> possibly Mongolia



Really doesn't like China at all.



> and maybe just maybe Laos.



Pretty hostile to China right now, still dominated by the leadership that sided against China with the USSR during the Cold War. Laos is also very heavily dependent on Vietnam and acts as a quasi-Vietnamese satellite.

China doesn't really have any exclusive important "allies" anymore. Pakistan is probably their closest ally, but Pakistan really isn't that valuable anymore as India has since greatly surpassed it in military/economic/diplomatic power. 

Burma is slowly shifting out of the Indian camp to the Chinese one, but again would be unlikely to support Chinese efforts against India.

Otherwise China has "strong" ties with Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Angola, and Cambodia. Fairly strong ties with Egypt, Turkey, Thailand, Nepal, Syria, and Iran. But none of these countries really can offer then anything and are of little value beyond arms sales, and in the case of Turkey/Egypt Western allegiance is much more valuable in the end over Chinese. Most of them also are allies with Russia as well, who can offer them better weapons. This duel-allegiance weakens overall Chinese geo-political influence. China is trying to gain influence by building up ties with states like Uganda, Namibia, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and so on but again these countries really are poor, weak, corrupt, and really aren't of much importance.


----------



## ExoSkel (Dec 16, 2013)

Mider T said:


> Burma's got a good thing going with the West right now, I hardly think they'd compromise that.


They also got a very good thing between them and china. Sino-Burma pipelines proven to be very good thing for china in the long run.



> Also *Mongolia* isn't SE Asia.


No shit sherlock?

Also, regarding North Korea? That's a wild card. Jang Sung Taek who was the liaison between steady china/NK relationship just bit the bullet (or mortal shell) recently.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2013)

Wait NK doesn't like Pro-Chinese?  So what foreign countries can you like?



ExoSkel said:


> Myanmar aka Burma is the closest ally china got in *SE Asia*. Every other *SE* nations absolutely fucking hate china's guts.





ExoSkel said:


> No shit sherlock?



         ?


----------



## ExoSkel (Dec 16, 2013)

Mider T said:


> ?


Ever learned how  to read between the lines? Or do I have to dumb down each Asian countries you mentioned by specific Sub-region of Asia?


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2013)

U goofed, just admit it.


----------



## ExoSkel (Dec 16, 2013)

Mider T said:


> U goofed, just admit it.


You aren't too bright are you? I thought I didn't have to specify Mongolia as central Asian country when talking to you. I guess I was wrong.

I can admit that I'm more intelligent than you ever will when it comes to this kind of subject. 

problem?


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 16, 2013)

Mider T said:


> Wait NK doesn't like Pro-Chinese?



Violates the principles of Juche (Kim Il-Sung's philosophy of "self-sufficiency" that has become a quasi-religion in North Korea) and is seen as being  loyal to someone other than Kim Jong-un.



> So what foreign countries can you like?



None. 

North Korea is the last of far-far-left rabidly xenophobic stalinist regimes. To express positive opinions towards anything but the party puts you at suspicion, and usually certain ethnic groups within said country are targeted for persecution. They used to be common in the 1950-70's between places like Albania (Enver Hoxha), Poland (Bierut), Hungary (Rakosi), Czechoslovakia (Clement Gottwald), and so on. Cambodia was also a similar example under Pol Pot but derived its ideology from Maoism over Stalinism.


----------



## Tyrannos (Dec 16, 2013)

afgpride said:


> Sort of reminds me of this



Not real.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Dec 16, 2013)

when are the nukes going to be dropped?


----------



## DonutKid (Dec 16, 2013)

Only Japan and the Philippines is clearly pro-US here.  

The other Asian nations (include SK) are either pro-China or neutral, to maximize their economic benefits.


----------



## Mael (Dec 16, 2013)

DonutKid said:


> Only Japan and the Philippines is clearly pro-US here.
> 
> The other Asian nations (include SK) are either pro-China or neutral, to maximize their economic benefits.



You might wanna rethink that whole bit with South Korea.  I was there last summer and noted how increasingly pro-US it has become especially in the wake of China's bullshit tolerating NK, allowing them to have nukes, and now with their stepping on Korean territory with Ieo-Do.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

SK neutral ?


----------



## Mael (Dec 16, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> SK neutral ?



Ikr?  It's like someone didn't even acknowledge Saenuri or Park Geun-Hye.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

Mael said:


> Ikr?  It's like someone didn't even acknowledge Saenuri or Park Geun-Hye.



Probably forgot that Korea is split between a hostile border.


----------



## Mael (Dec 16, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> Probably forgot that Korea is split between a hostile border.



Well he did say S. Korea, so he acknowledges that.  But I also give DK some credit because IIRC he's Filipino so he understands some of the inner workings of East Asia.

But remember, they ALL don't like each other and South Korea's continuously emerging economy is trying to make itself distinct from China and Japan.  They're all in a race.  Everyone's just hoping China's bubble bursts sooner than later...because it eventually will.


----------



## DonutKid (Dec 16, 2013)

Mael said:


> You might wanna rethink that whole bit with South Korea.  I was there last summer and noted how increasingly pro-US it has become especially in the wake of China's bullshit tolerating NK, allowing them to have nukes, and now with their stepping on Korean territory with Ieo-Do.



China has been tolerating NK a very long time ago already. They just elected a female president that is pretty pro-China.

Yes, it's neutral and cannot afford not to be. US provides the military security for SK, and China for the economy. Her total trade volume with China is more than_ twice_ than that with the US, and is still showing double digit growth iirc. Money means alot in East Asia. SK is also trying to win China over since the reason why NK hasn't collapse yet is cuz of China's support. They know that if they want NK to collapse, the key is China.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

Mael said:


> Well he did say S. Korea, so he acknowledges that.  But I also give DK some credit because IIRC he's Filipino so he understands some of the inner workings of East Asia.
> 
> But remember, they ALL don't like each other and South Korea's continuously emerging economy is trying to make itself distinct from China and Japan.  They're all in a race.  Everyone's just hoping China's bubble bursts sooner than later...because it eventually will.



Innovation will burst that bubble as industries become less reliant on Manuel labor and the cost of fully automated machinery and it's maintenance becomes cheaper.


----------



## DonutKid (Dec 16, 2013)

Mael said:


> Well he did say S. Korea, so he acknowledges that.  But I also give DK some credit because IIRC he's Filipino so he understands some of the inner workings of East Asia.
> 
> But remember, they ALL don't like each other and South Korea's continuously emerging economy is trying to make itself distinct from China and Japan.  They're all in a race.  Everyone's just hoping China's bubble bursts sooner than later...because it eventually will.



eh no, I'm Singaporean.  

but yeah, being in the same Confucian society I kinda understand the mentality. those 3 east asian nations pretty much hate and bicker with each other. It's all about face, nationalism and insecurity in those 3 countries. You can just look at their netizens. 
As i have seen in other asian forums, the koreans are trying very hard to surpass Japan in almost every aspect, be it GDP per capita, the entertainment industry, the car/electronic devices industry or others. And they take alot of pride in it.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Dec 16, 2013)

The Rain said:


> Wait, wait, you were saying?
> 
> Edit: and for all of you throwing your disrespect towards China, America would get absolutely fucked in a naval war.


Accordng to your own stats the US has more submarines and more destroyers.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 16, 2013)

^ I love how he doesn't know what are coastal  and amphibious  assault crafts.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 16, 2013)

People still act like this 1797 and you win wars by zerg rushing and singing patriotic songs.

Have none of you seen 300? Quality over quantity.


----------



## Mael (Dec 16, 2013)

DonutKid said:


> China has been tolerating NK a very long time ago already. They just elected a female president that is pretty pro-China.
> 
> Yes, it's neutral and cannot afford not to be. US provides the military security for SK, and China for the economy. Her total trade volume with China is more than_ twice_ than that with the US, and is still showing double digit growth iirc. Money means alot in East Asia. SK is also trying to win China over since the reason why NK hasn't collapse yet is cuz of China's support. They know that if they want NK to collapse, the key is China.





DonutKid said:


> eh no, I'm Singaporean.
> 
> but yeah, being in the same Confucian society I kinda understand the mentality. those 3 east asian nations pretty much hate and bicker with each other. It's all about face, nationalism and insecurity in those 3 countries. You can just look at their netizens.
> As i have seen in other asian forums, the koreans are trying very hard to surpass Japan in almost every aspect, be it GDP per capita, the entertainment industry, the car/electronic devices industry or others. And they take alot of pride in it.



Ah Singaporean, which is pretty pro-China through and through.

Also, Park Geun-Hye is only pro-China because she just wants a stronger economy.  When it comes to national security though, that's the farthest thing and that's why they're not essentially neutral nor are the people.  If they were neutral, they'd be taking down the MacArthur statues and desiring the US be as minimal as possible.  Also given 1950-53, your claim of them being neutral while secretly supporting North Korean operations including the one that had Park's mother assassinated by accident instead of her father, Park Chung-Hee, you're greatly mistaken.



The Pink Ninja said:


> People still act like this 1797 and you win wars by zerg rushing and singing patriotic songs.
> 
> Have none of you seen 300? Quality over quantity.



Thermopylae was actually won more by what's known as strategic terrain in bottlenecking.  The Spartan hoplites were well-trained, no lies there, but it was simply the stubbornness of the Persian commanders and poor reconnaissance that allowed the Spartans to hold out for those three days.  By forcing the numbers of even the Persian Immortals into those narrow passageways did the Spartans manage to have a better one on one advantage whereas in open terrain, like the ocean, Zerg rush could be more effective unless that better quality navy (like the US) has more capable missile battery systems...which it does.


----------



## DonutKid (Dec 16, 2013)

Mael said:


> Ah Singaporean, which is pretty pro-China through and through.
> 
> Also, Park Geun-Hye is only pro-China because she just wants a stronger economy.  When it comes to national security though, that's the farthest thing and that's why they're not essentially neutral nor are the people. If they were neutral, they'd be taking down the MacArthur statues and desiring the US be as minimal as possible. Also given 1950-53, your claim of them being neutral while secretly supporting North Korean operations including the one that had Park's mother assassinated by accident instead of her father, Park Chung-Hee, you're greatly mistaken.



Nope, our foreign policy is to always stay neutral, like the Swiss. If we are that pro-china, we wouldn't ask the US to park their aircraft carrier here to 'balance' China's influence, causing a backlash from PRC netizens. Our netizens are kind of anti-china though, but not due to any of China's aggressive foreign policy, rather because of their behavior here. 

I agree, and that's what I meant. SK needs the US for security against NK, and China for maximum economic benefits. Closer ties with China also helps them against NK too anyway, and it worked, China has recently distanced itself from NK.
Neutral doesn't necessarily mean lesser US influence by the way. It just means it needs China as much as the US, and doesn't want to stand clearly on either side when there's conflict.


----------



## Mael (Dec 16, 2013)

True, but China has distanced itself from NK less because of relations with Park Geun-Hye (because the same happened under Lee Myung-Bak and before that Roh Moo-Hyun) and more with how NK continues to be an embarrassment for China and that North Korea continuously thumbs its nose at China.  China also has a fetish for status quo but with North Korea continuously making China look like a goof in terms of trying to look like it has international influence, China's losing patience.  Killing off Jang Song-Thaek was also a bad move.


----------



## DonutKid (Dec 16, 2013)

Mael said:


> True, but China has distanced itself from NK less because of relations with Park Geun-Hye (because the same happened under Lee Myung-Bak and before that Roh Moo-Hyun) and more with how NK continues to be an embarrassment for China and that North Korea continuously thumbs its nose at China.  China also has a fetish for status quo but with North Korea continuously making China look like a goof in terms of trying to look like it has international influence, China's losing patience.  Killing off Jang Song-Thaek was also a bad move.



Yeah, the main reason still is that NK is a douche.

Analyst, from China iirc, said that they don't mind a reunified Korea provided that if they remained neutral. The reason is that NK is more of a burden. NK are pursuing nukes, which 'threatens' China's position. They would not need to send them resouces and supples. American troops would also leave SK if there is no NK, reducing US influence.


----------



## Muk (Dec 16, 2013)

china kept nk cause they wanted a buffer against the us military influence.
if they us military is out of sk they'd drop nk in a blink of an eye.

but the us military probably wouldn't risk it in an all or nothing and lose its influence into the asian mainland


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 16, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> ^ I love how he doesn't know what are coastal  and amphibious  assault crafts.



Pretty much. China still operates large numbers of WWII-style landing craft. Their "coastal craft" arsenal include ~80 Houbei, 5 Houjian, and 24 Houxin Missile Boats. Large numbers but hardly 320. My guess is whoever made this picture included stuff like coastal patrol boats and Chinese coast guard craft, which really could not harm any US warship.

The Chinese missile boats themselves could be an issue if the US ships got too close to the coastline, the Houbei class in particularly are nasty little buggers. However with a large fleet of aircraft carriers, US aircraft would be able to take them out in short order before US ships moved in to the coastline. Of course this means there'd already have been a large aerial campaign to take out China's air defenses and air force but that's a separate issue. 

Not to mention most of the West Coast would have been nuked already in this scenario but who cares Disney World >>>> Disney Land.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 16, 2013)

Tyrannos said:


> Not real.





You can never let us have anything, can you.


----------



## Mael (Dec 16, 2013)

afgpride said:


> You can never let us have anything, can you.



Fucking skeletons.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 16, 2013)

> Chinese naval vessel tries to force U.S. warship to stop in international waters



They prob just wanted us to stop so they could sell us fortune cookies & pirated dvd's.

:WOW


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 16, 2013)

Mael said:


> Sleip is big on that Tiny Chiny Chubby...



You're just jelly of red 



Megaharrison said:


> Has a very passive-aggressive relationship to China. China really doesn't know what to do with them, doesn't arm them, and North Korea basically gives them nothing while demanding constant help. If you're seen as pro-Chinese in the DPRK they'll execute you while if you're seen as Pro-North Korean in the PRC they'll see you as outdated. They're really allies in name only and neither would come to the others aid in the event of conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm saying what I'm saying not because of China going solo on the US, but because many of said countries hate the US to no end, and with China keeping them busy, all of them would probably bandwagon China and attempt to tear the US down.

Specially Russia. Putin has already made it clear that he wants the US to get off their high horse, and Russia as a whole is still pretty competitive with Murica. As soon as a lummox like China distracts them, you can bet yar ass the Ruskies are going to move in for the kill, probably making some sort of bullshit reason to wage war on the US (China's close to Russia, the US taking China over would "threaten" Russian security) and then it'd be pretty much game over.

There are two major anti-US powers, but only two "semi-major" US-aligned powers (UK and France).



DonutKid said:


> Only Japan and the Philippines is clearly pro-US here.
> 
> The other Asian nations (include SK) are either pro-China or neutral, to maximize their economic benefits.



People forgot that Nihon surrendered their right to declare war long ago... As with Philippines... do you really think they can go to war now they've got their hands full?



Danger Doom said:


> SK neutral ?



Syncretic, actually. They support both powers, rather than refusing both.



Danger Doom said:


> Innovation will burst that bubble as industries become less reliant on Manuel labor and the cost of fully automated machinery and it's maintenance becomes cheaper.



That's much WORSE than just relying on their manual labor.



DonutKid said:


> eh no, I'm Singaporean.
> 
> but yeah, being in the same Confucian society I kinda understand the mentality. those 3 east asian nations pretty much hate and bicker with each other. It's all about face, nationalism and insecurity in those 3 countries. You can just look at their netizens.
> As i have seen in other asian forums, the koreans are trying very hard to surpass Japan in almost every aspect, be it GDP per capita, the entertainment industry, the car/electronic devices industry or others. And they take alot of pride in it.



Most of their manufactures and entertainment are still lagging behind though.



The Pink Ninja said:


> People still act like this 1797 and you win wars by zerg rushing and singing patriotic songs.
> 
> Have none of you seen 300? Quality over quantity.



You can still win by Zerg-rushing your opponent, but you need huge numbers. If America deploys on Chinese territory, it's Operation Barbarossa all over again.



Mael said:


> Ah Singaporean, which is pretty pro-China through and through.
> 
> Also, Park Geun-Hye is only pro-China because she just wants a stronger economy.  When it comes to national security though, that's the farthest thing and that's why they're not essentially neutral nor are the people.  If they were neutral, they'd be taking down the MacArthur statues and desiring the US be as minimal as possible.  Also given 1950-53, your claim of them being neutral while secretly supporting North Korean operations including the one that had Park's mother assassinated by accident instead of her father, Park Chung-Hee, you're greatly mistaken.
> 
> ...



China has a sea bottleneck AND the Zerg rush.



DonutKid said:


> Nope, our foreign policy is to always stay neutral, like the Swiss. If we are that pro-china, we wouldn't ask the US to park their aircraft carrier here to 'balance' China's influence, causing a backlash from PRC netizens. Our netizens are kind of anti-china though, but not due to any of China's aggressive foreign policy, rather because of their behavior here.
> 
> I agree, and that's what I meant. SK needs the US for security against NK, and China for maximum economic benefits. Closer ties with China also helps them against NK too anyway, and it worked, China has recently distanced itself from NK.
> Neutral doesn't necessarily mean lesser US influence by the way. It just means it needs China as much as the US, and doesn't want to stand clearly on either side when there's conflict.



The only nation SK hates is NK. Fine and dandy otherwise...



Megaharrison said:


> Pretty much. China still operates large numbers of WWII-style landing craft. Their "coastal craft" arsenal include ~80 Houbei, 5 Houjian, and 24 Houxin Missile Boats. Large numbers but hardly 320. My guess is whoever made this picture included stuff like coastal patrol boats and Chinese coast guard craft, which really could not harm any US warship.
> 
> The Chinese missile boats themselves could be an issue if the US ships got too close to the coastline, the Houbei class in particularly are nasty little buggers. However with a large fleet of aircraft carriers, US aircraft would be able to take them out in short order before US ships moved in to the coastline. Of course this means there'd already have been a large aerial campaign to take out China's air defenses and air force but that's a separate issue.
> 
> Not to mention most of the West Coast would have been nuked already in this scenario but who cares Disney World >>>> Disney Land.



Nuking wouldn't be necessary if the US struck first. America attacking China by land would lead to most of the US military being drawn to the conflict. It'd all lead to America collapsing as soon as other anti-American nations decide they call dibs on them.

China wouldn't outright defeat the US nor the other way around, but it'd be a war of endurance, and America is enduring... but not enduring enough to take on TWO lummoxes.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2013)

I think you're underestimating the US' power, don't let manhunt for terrorists fool you it can take any country in the world on.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 16, 2013)

It was having problems with one, who by the way is even stronger now... how about two.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 16, 2013)

Dunno what you're talking about, America never has a problem with a country, just insurgents.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 16, 2013)

The Cold War disagrees...


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

The USSR lost that.

Damn you've got a hard-on for Commies.  That's kinda sad.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 17, 2013)

china strengths: manpower and population , discipline, large territory, economy

US strengths: technology, abundant natural  resources,financial and economic power, coalition buildling. 
 I say they  pretty much will kill each other.

But whoever starts the war and make the first move will be at disadvantage

Also the US got into hornet's nest invading the iraqis, and what luck do they have over china then?  US still have alot of advantage at this moment, but its power is eroding. 

More peaceful competiion and technology launches etc. like the cold war.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 17, 2013)

*Lifespan of select global empires*

Spain 1492-1644 (152 years)
France 1644-1814 (170 years)
Great Britain 1814-1945 (131 years)
United States 1945- (68 years and counting...)

If history is any indication the U.S will remain the leading power for some time more. If we look at some of the Chinese targets though...

*2021* (76th year of America) - Become world's largest economy, coincides with 100th anniversary of Party founding.

*2049* (104th year of America) - Become a "medium-developed" country, coincides with 100th anniversary of the People's Republic.

*2077* (132d year of America) - Become a first-world country, concides with 100th anniversary of the Refom Era.

So when China ignites the last stage of this three-stage rocket, the U.S will have been the big cheese for as long as Great Britain was. Then it might be time to move out of the seat.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> *Lifespan of select global empires*
> 
> Spain 1492-1644 (152 years)
> France 1644-1814 (170 years)
> ...



I don't quite understand why people think that there should be a time to move over, especially for a nation already proven to view its own people like cockroaches...expendable.

I'll take a combined empire before I'll take a solely Asian one let me tell you that right now.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 17, 2013)

Mael said:


> I don't quite understand why people think that there should be a time to move over, especially for a nation already proven to view its own people like cockroaches...expendable.
> 
> I'll take a combined empire before I'll take a solely Asian one let me tell you that right now.



You assume that China's values and political system will be the same in 2077 as in 2013.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2013)

I don't think what we now know as China will be one country in 2077.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 17, 2013)

Mider T said:


> I don't think what we now know as China will be one country in 2077.



Han China is pretty solid though.

Even if cutting off Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia would get rid of about half the surface of the country, those areas are actually sparesly populated and underdeveloped.

Most of the population lives in the east and south-east, which is the most industrialized and modern. This part of China is overwhealmingly Han, with no separatist movements other than Taiwan.

So I don't think territorialy maiming China in that way is gonna hurt the economy that much since everything that matters is in Han land. The loss of oil in Xinjiang might be a bit of a pain, but probably can be overcome. It'd be like the U.S losing Alaska.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> You assume that China's values and political system will be the same in 2077 as in 2013.



They're Asians, shadow.  That's like asking Judaism to suddenly start accepting pork into their diet.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> You're just jelly of red



Two things:

1. How and why would I be jealous of such a morally callous nation with an ethnic homogeneity and xenophobia that'd make Heinlein cringe?
2. Why are you so assured that Russia will pull out all the stops for the sake of China?  The Russian military isn't the bastion you say it is...plus you're overestimating both nations' capabilities.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 17, 2013)

Mael said:


> The USSR lost that.
> 
> Damn you've got a hard-on for Commies.  That's kinda sad.



America didn't defeat them. They began fighting among themselves. Your call, Teabagger.



Mael said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. How and why would I be jealous of such a morally callous nation with an ethnic homogeneity and xenophobia that'd make Heinlein cringe?
> 2. Why are you so assured that Russia will pull out all the stops for the sake of China?  The Russian military isn't the bastion you say it is...plus you're overestimating both nations' capabilities.



1. Because they have a more united sense of nation than the Americans who make pop songs to their national anthem?

2. They've got someone who wants to restore Russia to world power status and so many good reasons to down America that I could probably take a page with them. Also, while both are behind the US in terms of technology, Russia is just on par with other first world armed forces. Their numbers would be large enough to render any technological advantage moot. They've also got experience at dealing with raids.

This is all supposing America strikes first though. As said before, the loser is whoever is alone and strikes first.

No empire or even nation lives forever... very long? yes, but not forever. Even the land of a free has an expiry date.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> America didn't defeat them. They began fighting among themselves. Your call, Teabagger.



Actually if you ask most Russians, it's because they couldn't afford to be the USSR anymore.  And you obviously don't know Russian history if you said they BEGAN fighting among themselves.  They did that since 1919.



> 1. Because they have a more united sense of nation than the Americans who make pop songs to their national anthem?



That is a fucking retarded reason.  Kill yourself.



> 2. They've got someone who wants to restore Russia to world power status and so many good reasons to down America that I could probably take a page with them. Also, while both are behind the US in terms of technology, Russia is just on par with other first world armed forces. Their numbers would be large enough to render any technological advantage moot. They've also got experience at dealing with raids.



What good reasons?  I want you to list them.  If they're as awful as the national anthem, I just might put in a petition to politely request you off yourself.



> This is all supposing America strikes first though. As said before, the loser is whoever is alone and strikes first.
> 
> No empire or even nation lives forever... very long? yes, but not forever. Even the land of a free has an expiry date.



What's hilarious is that you single-handedly dismiss the entirety of Europe and the Asian nations who have formed themselves a pretty convenient alliance with the US, not to mention India who would be more than happy to push China down the slopes so it can climb higher.

But the way you're acting is like you WANT these two to win and you WANT the US to be destroyed.  If you're American, I'd like to have your head examined.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 17, 2013)

Mael said:


> Actually if you ask most Russians, it's because they couldn't afford to be the USSR anymore.  And you obviously don't know Russian history if you said they BEGAN fighting among themselves.  They did that since 1919.



I do know that, but it started getting worse afterwards. Look carefully, Perestroika was actually beginning to recover the nation back, but the repression and infighting led them to begin separatist movements.



> That is a fucking retarded reason.  Kill yourself.



Not more retarded than the nation who plays hemispheric police just because they can, invading countries as they see fit and mining a harbor to keep ships off in foreign territory, funding Afghani terrorists and then going on to wage war on said terrorists...



> What good reasons?  I want you to list them.  If they're as awful as the national anthem, I just might put in a petition to politely request you off yourself.



Mostly, the guy in charge has expressed his desire to compete with America in virtually anything. Unless Putin suddenly seeks friendly relations with America, the fact that he's in charge is good enough reason. This is the same guy who opposed Kosovo's NATO backed independence, has been ambiguously supportive of Iran and Syria, has backed Venezuela in arms sales as much as it can and freed told the US that they'd be hit back by their own doings.

If you want a docile Russia, removing Putin is priority number 1.



> What's hilarious is that you single-handedly dismiss the entirety of Europe and the Asian nations who have formed themselves a pretty convenient alliance with the US, not to mention India who would be more than happy to push China down the slopes so it can climb higher.



Except that only one country can declare war like that. Europe is not threatened as a whole, so if the US goes on to declare war on China, the NATO just shrugs and say "Ah, well, that's like, your problem y'know?"

Supposing America strikes first of course. As with India and most of Asia, the vast majority is not strong enough to go on and back up the US just like that or have you forgotten China's got the largest Air Force in Asia and the largest Army in the bloody world?!

The only place where they are weak is [sic] their Navy, and the US striking first means they'd either push China away from the ADIZ (which is not a bad thing in and on itself) or invading them, in which case, the US Military faces a huge bottleneck and a Zerg rush. All other countries in Asia can only do their thing by air or land, and we both know how those would end.



> But the way you're acting is like you WANT these two to win and you WANT the US to be destroyed.  If you're American, I'd like to have your head examined.



I'm an Spaniard, you should go talk to a wall if you believe I'm American. And it's less America being destroyed and more America losing Superpower status so the world truly does become Multipolar. That or at least another power being able to fling them off their face so that the world returns to Bipolar status.

A Unipolar world is something I can tolerate for long. I simply desire for the US to lose projection power and influence so they can no longer invade countries unless they have backup.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

> I'm an Spaniard



And that pretty much dismisses the rest of your argument.  Your own nation can't even run itself so how do I expect you to know what's best?

Essentially you actually believe that multi-polar is going to work (lol) when you completely ignore the fact that the world was multi-polar right about before the outbreak of World War 1.  Wow now that is doing some research on the topic. 

What boggles my mind even more is that you'll really want even more morally bankrupt nations like Russia and China to take the helms just so your own personal feels gets satisfied?

Dude, you're a joke.  I'm now ashamed I even bothered to counter your points.  You claim that Russia will actually change for the better and you really think removing Putin will be that easy.  Plus you really didn't give me GOOD and MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE reasons why Russia wants to take the US down.  You're essentially just mad the USSR went down and Spain represents next to nothing in terms of geopolitics.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 17, 2013)

Mael said:


> And that pretty much dismisses the rest of your argument.  Your own nation can't even run itself so how do I expect you to know what's best?
> 
> Easy, I'm from Catalonia, and we've been getting fed up about our own central government for some time now.
> 
> ...



I never said such a thing. I said that if you want a pro-America Russia, you'd have to remove Putin. Never that such a thing would happen.

There are no morally justified reasons. Russia as a whole, just like many nations, has an unfinished business with US after they won the Cold War and became the world's sole superpower. Also, every time Russia plans something America doesn't like they get in the way. Just like China, Russia believes that taking out America or the West as a whole will be one big removed obstacle that won't get in the way of their interests anymore. Their reasons are selfish yes, but the US foreign policy isn't any better.



> You're essentially just mad the USSR went down and Spain represents next to nothing in terms of geopolitics.



And this is the part where I laugh last at your incompetence. Why would I desire Spain to be important when I want it to split up and become even smaller? Also, why would I be butthurt about the USSR going down when they were responsible for their own demise? What pisses me off is that now there's no one who can tell the NATO and America to fuck off and go on with their day unscathed. If the world has no alternatives, then that's some world we live on and you defend so much.

I'm off the belief that the world needs a leadership change every so often, otherwise, it'd be one state playing _de facto_ dictatorship on the whole world.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2013)

You seem like you're arguing change for change's sake instead of for the better, really confused as to why you're supporting China over the US especially as a citizen of a Western state.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

Mider T said:


> You seem like you're arguing change for change's sake instead of for the better, really confused as to why you're supporting China over the US especially as a citizen of a Western state.



See this is typical especially from Europeans who don't remember what the world was like when it WAS multi-polar...y'know with the world wars and all that? 

Change just for the sake of it is absolutely retarded.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 17, 2013)

Mider T said:


> You seem like you're arguing change for change's sake instead of for the better, really confused as to why you're supporting China over the US especially as a citizen of a Western state.



It's less being pro-China and more being supportive of no country holding more power than the other. If I do support China is because I know that neither China nor the US will leave unscathed from a war with each other... in the end, both nations will have to resign from being superpowers and no nation will hold that throne anymore. I don't think we'd have a good reason to start another World War again afterwards. No Superpowers, no problem.



Mael said:


> See this is typical especially from Europeans who don't remember what the world was like when it WAS multi-polar...y'know with the world wars and all that?
> 
> Change just for the sake of it is absolutely retarded.



Don't tell me America is keeping those in check. It's the UN, OAS and International Organizations that keep that stuff in check. A Superpower is only an icon to be removed. I'm all for removing the permanent UN Security Council and making all seats temporary as well. It's equal opportunity over veto power.

In a world of weaklings, only those who move together can make a difference. That's how the world should be.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

> It's the UN, OAS and International Organizations that keep that stuff in check.



:galacticryoma


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> It's less being pro-China and more being supportive of no country holding more power than the other. If I do support China is because I know that neither China nor the US will leave unscathed from a war with each other... in the end, both nations will have to resign from being superpowers and no nation will hold that throne anymore. I don't think we'd have a good reason to start another World War again afterwards. No Superpowers, no problem.



Superpowers are what prevents World Wars.  World Wars only start between multiple powers of similar strength.  We live in a relatively peaceful period in history and you choose to give that up just because you don't like the fact that a country is powerful, America has been shown to be responsible with it's great influence.  China...it isn't looking good in the comeup.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 17, 2013)

Mael said:


> :galacticryoma



So you do believe the US is the reason everything is the same? Good, you've confirmed that America is playing world police, a position given to them by absolutely NO ONE!

I'm not on the side of who's the best ruler, I'm on the side of the most egalitarian solution. If there's no second power, then there should be no power. A single Superpower must not exist alone.

Psst, you can't even form a serious answer 



Mider T said:


> Superpowers are what prevents World Wars.  World Wars only start between multiple powers of similar strength.  We live in a relatively peaceful period in history and you choose to give that up just because you don't like the fact that a country is powerful, America has been shown to be responsible with it's great influence.  China...it isn't looking good in the comeup.



The idea is that there are at least two. Also, there have only been two World Wars, yet Superpowers are relatively new.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2013)

There isn't any need for there to be two, and arguably the world is more dangerous with two.  Consider 1990s when America was the sole undisputed Superpower, most peaceful decade since the 1950s.  For the entirety of the Cold War, people worldwide lived under the threat of MAD and now China's rise in their own neck of the woods have been wooing other Asian countries towards the US, while African countries may (if things go China's way) lure towards China because of its development in the continent.

As far as World Wars go, we can put this on a smaller scale in Europe.  Large wars only happened on the continent when there were at least 2 or more powers involved (series of alliances).  In the 1850s and 1860s, when Germany was still small states and France's power was waning, Britain ruled Europe.  Only large scale war you have from that time is the Crimean, which isn't even in Europe-proper.

So you just want change for change's sake, disregard the past.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

What did I just say, Sleip?  I said you're not worth a serious answer anymore after looking so utterly ignorant of the consequences of multipolarity.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 17, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Nuking wouldn't be necessary if the US struck first. America attacking China by land would lead to most of the US military being drawn to the conflict. It'd all lead to America collapsing as soon as other anti-American nations decide they call dibs on them.
> 
> China wouldn't outright defeat the US nor the other way around, but it'd be a war of endurance, and America is enduring... but not enduring enough to take on TWO lummoxes.


Have you been paying attention the last 20 years or so?

Why on God's green Earth would the US start the invasion by land?

The US would do exactly what it has done in the last few dozen engagements.  Utterly goat-@#$@ the infrastructure of China.  Cruise missiles and bombing runs and in one night China is a third world country.

A third world country with a billion starving people and no way to get food to them (check a population density map of China sometime).

At that point whatever's left of China's "government" will have a whole hell of a problem on their hands.

Granted I don't expect that the US would attack China but there's no outcome of that that ends well for the Chinese.

So expect them to postulate as much as they can and hope to squeeze out some advantage diplomatically.  But not with shots fired.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

You're talking to a very misinformed kid, Moogle.

He's just wanking to whatever fanfic he's got that the US is somehow completely weak.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 17, 2013)

Mider T said:


> There isn't any need for there to be two, and arguably the world is more dangerous with two.  Consider 1990s when America was the sole undisputed Superpower, most peaceful decade since the 1950s.  For the entirety of the Cold War, people worldwide lived under the threat of MAD and now China's rise in their own neck of the woods have been wooing other Asian countries towards the US, while African countries may (if things go China's way) lure towards China because of its development in the continent.
> 
> As far as World Wars go, we can put this on a smaller scale in Europe.  Large wars only happened on the continent when there were at least 2 or more powers involved (series of alliances).  In the 1850s and 1860s, when Germany was still small states and France's power was waning, Britain ruled Europe.  Only large scale war you have from that time is the Crimean, which isn't even in Europe-proper.
> 
> So you just want change for change's sake, disregard the past.



No, I want change because the world should be fair. It's no fair that if people decide they don't like the US they get fucked.

The only reason for that was that the US always goes out of their bloody way to challenge what they don't like. Someone expands through their own power? They stop them. There would've been no Cold War if the United States didn't start the Red Scares, the dictatorships in Latin America and Asia and the like.

If there was one Superpower that only acted according to world opinion and not their own, then it'd be fine by me.



Mael said:


> What did I just say, Sleip?  I said you're not worth a serious answer anymore after looking so utterly ignorant of the consequences of multipolarity.



And you're utterly ignorant of any serious thought because the 1910's are long gone and the world is more stable now. It can do fine without the US.



EvilMoogle said:


> Have you been paying attention the last 20 years or so?
> 
> Why on God's green Earth would the US start the invasion by land?
> 
> ...



So they'd go aerial?

Then it's the largest Air Force in Asia and... 



It still doesn't look pretty for them.



Mael said:


> You're talking to a very misinformed kid, Moogle.
> 
> He's just wanking to whatever fanfic he's got that the US is somehow completely weak.



I never said they are weak.

But not even the king lummox can withstand two junior lummoxes.

The US is just another country in the end and it's bound to end one way or another, either from defeat, or social unrest. One of those is already starting, so don't hold your breath.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

> No, I want change because the world should be fair. It's no fair that if people decide they don't like the US they get fucked.



Waaaaaaaaaah!  Waaaaaaaah!  I want the impossible and I'm crying because I won't accept life was never about fairness!  Waaaaaaaaah!

Seriously that's how you sound...you're not even thinking straight.  You really think fairness will come from Russia and China?  Are you THAT stupid?


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 17, 2013)

Mael said:


> Waaaaaaaaaah!  Waaaaaaaah!  I want the impossible and I'm crying because I won't accept life was never about fairness!  Waaaaaaaaah!
> 
> Seriously that's how you sound...you're not even thinking straight.  You really think fairness will come from Russia and China?  Are you THAT stupid?



Nothing is impossible Mael. A terrorist group kept the US busy for 10 years, how do you think a huge country will fare better? 

Right now, you sound like one of those retard ultraconservatives who believe that money is all that matters and that as long the world won't change during your lifespan.

Gee look! I'm rich and a bastard and don't give a darn about geopolitics because the US wil pwnz anyone in der way! AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

That's how you sound to me. As with Russia and China. Consider that neither Russia nor China have the projection power to be in X place as soon as the US can. Also, if the US is soo powerful, then they'll also get wrecked immensely.

Long story short, the three lummoxes fall and there's no powerful nation left in this world. Problem solved. Let's see who decides what happens next then...

As for fairness, read the bloody sig. I'm not as idiotic as you are for thinking otherwise.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 17, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> So they'd go aerial?
> 
> Then it's the largest Air Force in Asia and...
> 
> ...



Google "cruise missile" and get back to me 

Then Google "Stealth bomber."  And then "The Chinese Air Force is _almost_ as outdated as the fishing boats they call a Navy."

China loses in the ocean and loses in the air by insurmountable levels.  Sure they're awesome on the ground but it's stupid to even suggest that the US would put boots on the ground (beyond perhaps very minimal special forces engagements).

Nuclear would be a different story, but everyone loses if it goes Nuclear.  The powers-that-be in China want to remain the powers-that-be.  Going Nuclear precludes that.

For that matter shooting first precludes that, as does anything that puts the US in a position where the US has to shoot first.

Thus China will beat their chest and try and negotiate a mild move of borders or more favorable trade terms in some manner.  But there's no military outcome where they win.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Nothing is impossible Mael. A terrorist group kept the US busy for 10 years, how do you think a huge country will fare better?
> 
> Right now, you sound like one of those retard ultraconservatives who believe that money is all that matters and that as long the world won't change during your lifespan.
> 
> ...



No you're pretty much a deluded kid and your weeaboo sig does nothing to change the fact you're like a kid crying about losing and how the natural order of things doesn't reward you just for trying.

The world isn't fair and you've so far made very uneducated speculations and assumptions.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 17, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Nothing is impossible Mael. A terrorist group kept the US busy for 10 years, how do you think a huge country will fare better?



It's a largely decentralized force that has no qualms using the citizens of their areas of operation as shields.

So no, it's not really the _terrorist group_ that's keeping the U.S. busy, it's more the U.S. taking major steps to respect the lives of those civilians by not marching into those areas with full force, guns blazing in all directions. 

If the U.S. _did_ do that, or leveled the entire fucking area(s) through mass carpet bombing, we'd be having an entirely different discussion right now.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 17, 2013)

Could the US successfully occupy China?  Not very likely, not without a large number of things falling in place for them first.

Could the US reduce China from "emerging world power" to "land of starving people with minimal technology forced to beg the international community for each day of their continued existence?"  Abso-friggin-lutely.

(Would there be international consequences for the US doing so?  Maybe, depends on the specific circumstances.)


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 17, 2013)

Want to know how the US does in a actual conventional invasion of a country?



to summarize.  US forces suffered 190 combat deaths.  The Iraqi Military numbered at 650,000 troops. and they suffered around 20,000-35,000 combat deaths.  

Now Obviously China would end quite differently do to chinas supeior airforce and army when compared to prewar Iraq.  But lets look at those numbers then.  When you count all of Chinas military including active duty, reserve, and paramilitary, it numbers around 4,500,000.  or around seven times as much as Iraqi military prewar.  Soooo  Using those numbers.  The US military would conventionally defeat chinas military while suffering about 1330 combat deaths,  (chinise military would suffer around 250,000 combat deaths)   (chinese civilians would suffer 86,000 immediate fatalities from the air and cruise missle strikes and around 39,000,000 fatalities from the wars other effects "damn.  39 million?!?!  

(this does not include occupation,  this is a desert storm scenario of fucking up their military and getting out.)


I pulled all of these numbers out of my ass.  But if you compare the casualties coalition forces took in defeating Iraq in the 1st Gulf War.  and extrapolate them to match Chinese military and population. Those are the numbers you get.  

A little American wank food for thought.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Dec 17, 2013)

read this if your interested in how A nuclear war would unfold between the US and China.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 17, 2013)

Destroyer of Kittens said:


> read this if your interested in how A nuclear war would unfold between the US and China.



In all fairness, I do not think one would need to read a book/article on how a U.S.-Chinese nuclear war would pan out.


----------



## ExoSkel (Dec 17, 2013)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> In all fairness, I do not think one would need to read a book/article on how a U.S.-Chinese nuclear war would pan out.


Nuclear war would end badly for china more than US. Most of US's west coast would be hit, but then again, the entire regions of china would be wasteland by the time dust clears.

The only good thing that came out of Cold War was that it improved US's defense against ICBMs ever since compared to any other countries in this world.

Plus the chinese still don't have  the technology to launch the payload all the way to mid west, let alone east coast.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 17, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> America didn't defeat them. They began fighting among themselves. Your call, Teabagger.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow.

This is fucking stupid.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> No, I want change because the world should be fair. It's no fair that if people decide they don't like the US they get fucked.
> 
> The only reason for that was that the US always goes out of their bloody way to challenge what they don't like. Someone expands through their own power? They stop them. There would've been no Cold War if the United States didn't start the Red Scares, the dictatorships in Latin America and Asia and the like.
> 
> If there was one Superpower that only acted according to world opinion and not their own, then it'd be fine by me.



There is no fair in the world, at least not as far as international relations go.  There never has been.  People work for the betterment of themselves and others they consider apart of their tribe, country, religion, or any other kind of group.  It just so happens that we've learned to get along to accomplish this.  You learn to like who's in charge or pretend to like them.

The US doesn't go out of it's way to eliminate countries, it used to do it for governments but not whole countries.  And your Cold War statement is completely false, it's like you're completely ignoring world history.

The US is probably the best example you're going to get on "acting according to world opinion", countries are worried about themselves first as they should be.  Otherwise they wouldn't last very long.


----------



## Muk (Dec 17, 2013)

U guys honestly believe that china is behind in tech by like 10 to 15 years? it is closer to 5. and that is only the publicly known stuff. with their successful moon landing they prooved they have rockets that are icbm.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 17, 2013)

Muk said:


> U guys honestly believe that china is behind in tech by like 10 to 15 years? it is closer to 5. and that is only the publicly known stuff. with their successful moon landing they prooved they have rockets that are icbm.



Not gonna trust someone who uses "U" and "prooved".


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 17, 2013)

> There would've been no Cold War if the United States didn't start the Red Scares, the dictatorships in Latin America and Asia and the like.



Seriously though, who is retarded enough to believe this shit? Sleipnyr strikes me as the type of European that constantly belittles the U.S. and Americans but is completely oblivious to his own stupidity. No, tensions were already rising in the closing act of WWII, the Cold War or something like it was an inevitable outcome.

Furthermore, U.S. interests and European interests are very strongly tied, especially regarding powers like China, Russia, and Iran. You have to have no idea how international politics work to think that problems that affect the U.S. would stop at the U.S.


----------



## Platinum (Dec 17, 2013)

You are really using a moon landing as an example of being on the cutting edge of technology?

Moon landings are things that have been around for a while bro. It's not proof of much.


----------



## Mael (Dec 17, 2013)

Muk said:


> U guys honestly believe that china is behind in tech by like 10 to 15 years? it is closer to 5. and that is only the publicly known stuff. with their successful moon landing they prooved they have rockets that are icbm.



So can you prove this with fact or just with retarded?


----------



## Minato Namikaze. (Dec 17, 2013)

lol silly china


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> Google "cruise missile" and get back to me
> 
> Then Google "Stealth bomber."  And then "The Chinese Air Force is _almost_ as outdated as the fishing boats they call a Navy."
> 
> ...



yea well, the US was much more technologically superior than china in the korean war and this didn't happen...

So much for the pro american chauvinism in this thread.

The US can launch all the nuclear missles in its arsenal and destroy the world if it doesn't care about world opinion, come on....


we admit we are far behind the americans in terms of technology and it will probably take some 100-150 years to catch up given our shitty education system, and we make shitty cheap products , but some of the points raised here is just plain bull.


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 18, 2013)

Wow ... this is still going on ... Jesus guys give it a rest. If y'all think someone is saying something dumb, just ignore them and move on (like what some people are going to do to this post ). Its getting to the point where y'all are insulting innocent Chinese people for no reason.

All this is going to bring is butthurt and pointless arguments ...


----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 18, 2013)

Chinese people are only good for cheap labor.


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 18, 2013)

Got so used to posts like that.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

your country is no longer a democracy, its a plutocracy run by rich people, and it also explains why we came to own your ever increasing debt. 

problems your country has:

increasing sex drugs and violence at the bottom of society (tbh alot of societies have this problem but you can judge how good a country is by run the shit going on at the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid)

mountain deficit and overspending, ever increasing debt

gun nuts who refuse give up their ammendment rights

1% owning 40% of your wealth, and reducing the rest of you to slavery, and fat bankers

a government paralyzed by bipartianship and unable to solve its problems

NSA spying and surveillence state in a country's whose ideals is putting individual freedom first.

prison rape and many atriocious crimes by psychopaths in a country that stresses protection of the weak and human rights, overpopulation in prison and  unable to control violent psychopaths and crimes

bullying in an outdated education system and training people to be mediocre, leading to school shooting etc. 

excessive consumerism 

we have our own shitload of problems but looking at you as a role model is not exactly a wise choice.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

The Rain said:


> You _do_ realize that America is 14 _trillion_ in debt? You do realize that America's military budget is six times that of China? You do realize that in terms of reserve and foreign exchange, America is very ill-equipped to be heading into any large-scale wars? That's right: even with all of its reserves, America is short of 14 trillion, 300 billion to repay its debts; that puts it in a relatively weak bartering position on the global market.
> China, on the other hand, is 3.4 trillion ahead of its debt.
> 
> Another vital factor you're forgetting is that China is currently fully industrialized. Who is it that makes America's goods? Oh, that's right, Asia; namely China. China has the coal and oil reserves to be self-sustained for the next 80 years, and all of the correct equipment in place. America, in theory, has enough for 60 years - but they'd have to setup and re-industrialize first. China's position on the global market is better than America's, so they wouldn't have Asia's support in the slightest.



don't worry. when we go to war, they cans stop importing our cheap goods and shopping at walmart.  quality of lifestyle will instantly plummet and discontent will rise(basing on the analysis on who is more depenend on whom). 

or they can move their sweatshop factories to africa and continue to produce such goods. (good luck with such an operation). If we turn into a starving nation due to sanctions (which you tried in the era of maoism), we can still hold on our own. The worst case scenario is we turn into another india. 

we do have more to lose in a confrontation, but you won't emerge unscathed.


----------



## ExoSkel (Dec 18, 2013)

Muk said:


> U guys honestly believe that china is behind in tech by like 10 to 15 years? it is closer to 5. and that is only the publicly known stuff.


They can't even build an aircraft carrier and had to buy Soviet-era 30 years old abandoned Ukranian carrier that was on garage sale that no other nations wanted.



> with their successful moon landing they prooved they have rockets that are icbm


Every other developed nations has technology to fire rocket to moon and have rover that can land on moon long before china decided to do the same thing that the US did 40 years ago. They just don't want to because it costs billions of dollars and it absolutely does nothing to their nation except boosting their ego, and no other nations has absolutely zero interest in space dick contest against 'Murica.

No other nations give a shit about moon as of today except china. It's all about establishing a colony on Mars.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> your country is no longer a democracy, its a plutocracy run by rich people, and it also explains why we came to own your ever increasing debt.
> 
> problems your country has:
> 
> ...



Posts like these are retarded as fuck. 

Your, assuming that you are Chinese, country has problems make ours looks absolutely miniscule in comparison. Your government is practically rendering the few habitable parts of the mainland unsustainable for human life. Not to mention they are a brutal, authoritarian regime that would definitely slaughter you people en masse, ala Tienanmen Square if you ever tried to protest. Thankfully here we don't have to worry about Obama sending tank rounds into a protesting crowd.

A nation that claims to be communist yet has capitalist doctrines so out of control they'd make a libertarian blush. Color me unsurprised when a factory or two each year hits the airwaves about how loads of its underpaid workers died in a fire because of poor regulations, or when some cheap knockoff of a product is reported and one that oftentimes, can cause death to consumer. Not to mention those lax environmental regulations, which is why your primary river is such a polluted mess and many of the villages are absolutely and literally, cancerous festering grounds because of it.

No, America is not perfect by any means but as you stated, you can judge a society by its lowest rung and your country has more of a case of crushing, absolute poverty and lack of workers' rights a and HUMAN rights than any western nation.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> *Posts like these are retarded as fuck. *
> 
> Your, assuming that you are Chinese, country has problems make ours looks absolutely miniscule in comparison. Your government is practically rendering the few habitable parts of the mainland unsustainable for human life. Not to mention they are a brutal, authoritarian regime that would definitely slaughter you people en masse, ala Tienanmen Square if you ever tried to protest. Thankfully here we don't have to worry about Obama sending tank rounds into a protesting crowd.
> 
> ...





yawn more bullshit chauvinism and fingerpointing, lacking clear objective analysis. 

you are saying your country has none of the problems I pointed out? 

also ad hominem. learn to argue first and study logic.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

People like you just don't know how to deal with educated Americans because you spend so much time bashing it based on stereotypes of stupidity, which for many cases, just makes you intellectually lazy in turn. No different from Sleipnyr. You avoid it because you can't refute it. China is an authoritarian regime with an atrocious human rights record, so as imperfect as America may be, it is far more preferable to the CCP.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

your economy now depends on exports and capital inflows, and what do we depend on you for?
your money and being our loyal customer? (you won't even export your technology) what do we want or need from you? 

technology: US > china
military strength: US> china for now
economy: contested 
financial power: contested
science and innovation: US> china
population and manpower: china>US
manpower in terms of military: china> US
international support: US > china
natural resources: US> china
getting things done: china> US
fiscal and budgeting status: china> US
geogrpahic and geopolitics: US> china (as we are surrounded by enemies)

i say you still have a 60 to 40 percent lead over us, but things will change, even if we don't supplant you some other emerging economy like brazil or india will.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> your economy now depends on exports and capital inflows, and what do we depend on you for?
> your money and being our loyal customer? (you won't even export your technology) what do we want or need from you?



Your country buys over $100 billion worth of goods from the U.S., but like I stated, guys like you become lazy on the intellectual front.



Get educated. 



> technology: US > china
> military strength: US> china for now
> economy: contested



Economy is better, and will outpace China's in the long term. You guys are more going after economic growth than standard of living and that is what will hurt you. 



> financial power: contested



China's national GDP is around half of the U.S. nominally:

U.S.: $16.724 trillion
China: $8.939 trillion




> science and innovation: US> china
> population and manpower: china>US
> 
> manpower in terms of military: china> US



Hate to break it to you, but your population is being an absolute burden on the government, especially if you guys plan on becoming a more modernized society. Numbers mean little in today's military on top of that. Its technology, which the U.S. military far outpaces China's. 



> international support: US > china
> natural resources: US> china





> getting things done: china> US
> fiscal and budgeting status: china> US



Getting things done...like how the nation successfully patrolled the waters in the article right? We get things done plenty fine, and as much as people like to bash the nation we are one of the longest lasting democracies in the world. Unlike your nation's plagued history of civil wars, dynastic shifts, fall of nationalism, and eventually Communism which too is giving way and will collapse.

China is quite scandalous with its spending too.



> geogrpahic and geopolitics: US> china (as we are surrounded by enemies)
> 
> i say you still have a 60 to 40 percent lead over us, but things will change, even if we don't supplant you some other emerging economy like brazil or india will.



This is just showing not even the most basic grasp on economic concepts. Those nations are budding developing nations that will join us on the modern stage, but they are nowhere close to being an economic superpower, and we're talking a good century before they even catch up so to speak. As things stand the U.S. has a substantial advantage over China, not only economically but in military capability as well, not as close as you seem to want to think it.


----------



## DonutKid (Dec 18, 2013)

So basically USA>China in basically every aspects huh?


----------



## Risyth (Dec 18, 2013)

DonutKid said:


> So basically USA>China in basically every aspects huh?



Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Risyth said:


> Yeah, pretty much.



Yea no, we still owned you in population manpower and economics, and military in a raw fight

Of course disregarding technology, and we have much more growth potential if it is not for our corrupted governement.
your country has already reached the peak of your strength, and your military is vastly overstretched putting an enorrnous strain on the budget that could be better be spent elsewhere.

population and manpower is the most important ( I am sure you played civilization games before and look at the stats) and control of resources and economic development. 

the only hope your country can survive us is for a civil war to break out or global warming (which pwns everyone on the globe), there is no way you can compete with us in long term.


----------



## Muk (Dec 18, 2013)

Mider T said:


> Not gonna trust someone who uses "U" and "prooved".



Hey touch pads are for the suck. 

They have a decent sized standing air force. and as far as defending the coastline the air force will do a decent job until their aircraft carrier is fully operational. 



plus their 'stealth' aircraft(s) project isn't as far behind as you may think.







> "We have become accustomed to a world where our air power is dominant, but that dominance is now in question."


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> Yea no, we still owned you in population manpower and economics, and military in a raw fight
> 
> Of course disregarding technology, and we have much more growth potential if it is not for our corrupted governement.
> your country has already reached the peak of your strength, and your military is vastly overstretched putting an enorrnous strain on the budget that could be better be spent elsewhere.



Again, your population is simply a burden in modern society. There is not a need of quantity of individuals, but quality of individuals. In a "raw fight", all those people would serve to be is a higher demand of resources and food, of which a war would only exacerbate.

You talk of us reaching our peak, but again, your growth comes at a cost that does not address raising a standards of living. The CCP will not last, because as people begin to enjoy the concepts of a free-market society they are going to want more freedoms and the party has shown many times they are not above deadly violence to silence such demands. That is what will hold you back.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> yea well, the US was much more technologically superior than china in the korean war and this didn't happen...


You don't understand.  It's a question of infrastructure and logistics.

China has a massive population but it's all concentrated in a fairly small part of their country.  As a result of this there are certain factors that cannot be changed.

Highways, the power grid, the transportation network all is based around these high population densities.  And they're all targets that will be crippled in the first hour of the attacks.

The military of China will find itself blind and cut off from resupply.  They will literally have no way of fighting back.

This will also have the side effect of 400,000,000 people being in danger of starving.  Something China _will_ need to address unless they want the mother of all food riots to happen.

So again, the US couldn't feasibly occupy China, it's too big and too populous to do that with any significant amount of resistance present.  But China has no way to "win."


----------



## Muk (Dec 18, 2013)

Why do you think China elected to declare the identification zone in front of its coastline? So cruise missiles don't just get shot into their important coastal metropolis.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> You don't understand.  It's a question of infrastructure and logistics.
> 
> China has a massive population but it's all concentrated in a fairly small part of their country.  As a result of this there are certain factors that cannot be changed.
> 
> ...



you are just saying things in a technology war perspective. If it were so easy and costless as you say, you would have launch an attack already, fear of looking like a bad guy did not stop you from attacking other countries, I dare the pentagon warhawks to launch an attack, they are itching for a fight whenever there is an opportunity anyway, which means if an opportunity is avalible, they would have done it already. You can't even shit on north korea now like you done on the Iraqis.

 But i have to admit you have a very strong valid point, unlike seto hitler. you are very  spot on the weakness, but once again you vastly overestimate your country's military capabiliites and our ability to recover from setbacks, as the sino japanese war has showned.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> you are just saying things in a technology war perspective. If it were so easy and costless, you would have launch an attack already, fear of looking like a bad guy did not stop you from attacking other countries,



Are you being dumb on purpose?


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 18, 2013)

I'm pro-China not for the sake of being anti-America, but because of:

-Emotional attachment due to being a Sinophile.

-A belief that countries should have a share of global power proportional to how big a share of humanity they represent. This based on the belief that all human beings have an equal value regardless of nationality and deserve the same oppurtunities.

Now I don't think the U.N or anyone like that should give actively give population-based rewards in a way where it becomes an incentive to grow your population beyond what is economically feasable. The world is best off with less people, and the citizens of overpopulated countries know this better than anyone (try taking the subway in Shanghai). Population reduction measures should be applauded.

However, when a populous country *by itself* starts experiencing a rapid spurt of economic growth and increase in living standard, I don't see it as abnormal: it is the long-repressed latent potential finally coming out. This should be applauded as it creates more prosperity and dignity for humanity as a whole.

Countries that are already developed, but sparesly populated, do not have a right to prevent a populous country from developing just because of egoism.

*So in summary...*

-There is not a positive right to recieve any help in developing.

-But there is a negative right to not be repressed when one is developing naturally.

-Populous countries having large economies and other things that follow from a large economy is JUSTICE.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

> -A belief that countries should have a share of global power proportional to how big a share of humanity they represent. This based on the belief that all human beings have an equal value regardless of nationality and deserve the same oppurtunities.



What unrealistic thinking. If we had that model, this world including the west would be in absolute shit.


----------



## Zaru (Dec 18, 2013)

Deep down europeans and americans know that they're living way beyond sustainability and fear that the catch-up of a country with even more people living in it will burst the unsustainable bubble even faster


----------



## Muk (Dec 18, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Deep down europeans and americans know that they're living way beyond sustainability and fear that the catch-up of a country with even more people living in it will burst the unsustainable bubble even faster


doh ... and they are actually financially sound to boot. Oh the dangers of the emerging markets ... 

The Us just doesn't want to give up its super power and world police job.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What unrealistic thinking. If we had that model, this world including the west would be in absolute shit.



Why?

When you make claims like that you need to explain.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> Why?
> 
> When you make claims like that you need to explain.



Most of the world is in terrible conditions. Now, I'm sure you know the answer to the following:

Which nations have the most children? 

Which nations have the highest population according to current trends? 

Which nations have the worst education, period?

Which nations have the most instability?

What state of living is most of the world in? 

Those alone are why your idea would bring everyone down. Economics, and global influence is a competition, and rightfully so is not evenly distributed. We are all human beings that deserve recognition of such, but that is as far as I'll go in agreeing with you. Economy, military, and overall global power and influence is a competition, as it should be, to where the rewards go to the most outstanding.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Most of the world is in terrible conditions. Now, I'm sure you know the answer to the following:
> 
> Which nations have the most children?
> 
> ...



they should consider appointing you the next hitler in america, with your master race philosophy etc etc etc.

fuck i just godwin this thread.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> they should consider appointing you the next hitler in america.



Well you've certainly conceded on this discussion.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Most of the world is in terrible conditions. Now, I'm sure you know the answer to the following:
> 
> Which nations have the most children?
> 
> ...



All of which I attribute to historical factors, not some inheirent backwardness in those people.

I wrote very specificly that I don't want people to recieve undue "help" in developing, since that will hinder them from making the neccessary reforms to really develop a first-world culture. "Growing up" as a country and learning to take responsibility is a process, and not something that can or should happen overnight.

But when a country is making progress we should not hinder them out of egoism.

Btw in a per-capita-justice model the European Union should be the third largest economy and the United States the fourth largest, so it's not like I'm proposing the complete ejection of Western countries from the global arena.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> All of which I attribute to historical factors, not some inheirent backwardness in those people.



I haven't implied otherwise. 



> I wrote very specificly that I don't want people to recieve undue "help" in developing, since that will hinder them from making the neccessary reforms to really develop a first-world culture. "Growing up" as a country and learning to take responsibility is a process, and not something that can or should happen overnight.
> 
> But when a country is making progress we should not hinder them out of egoism.



I think it really depends on what 'progress' they are pursuing. If a nation is moving towards a society that is more likely to recognize human rights, and civil rights for its citizens then yeah you want to see them succeed. However, if the aim of their progress is so they can acquire means of greater hostility then it is more than a little questionable. I'm all right with China's growth because I see it as the eventual and inevitable end of communist rule in China.



> Btw in a per-capita-justice model the European Union should be the third largest economy and the United States the fourth largest, so it's not like I'm proposing the complete ejection of Western countries from the global arena.



But the idea is so flawed that you have a good portion of Asia and Africa with massive populations that suddenly have all this global power. Such matters are and should remain, competitive.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

If the US is the aggressor, there is no way it could win. If we are the aggressor, things might be different. 

the cost of occupying a country and fighting a long term protracted war in asia is only at american disadvantage, unless the whole world and all the china's neighbors are playing along and teamed up with the US, as in the case of world wars. the biggest threat to china is not you americans, but our opportunistic neighbors, but you always like to play one nation against another to maintain dominance, as in the case of any superpower would do,.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

It's like you completely ignore how China is starting shit with its neighbors. The U.S. didn't do that. Regardless of who attacks first, there would be enormous damages, but China as you know it would be gone.


----------



## Mael (Dec 18, 2013)

Wow the pro-China side derped up fast. Even Muk can't think of anything good.

And shadow, the League of Nations is why your idea doesn't work.  Only an existential threat like aliens would unite peoples.  Aside from that it is a competition and fairness has no say in the matter.  This isn't little league.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Mael said:


> Wow the pro-China side derped up fast. Even Muk can't think of anything good.
> 
> And shadow, the League of Nations is why your idea doesn't work.  Only an existential threat like aliens would unite peoples.  Aside from that it is a competition and fairness has no say in the matter.  This isn't little league.



no man, its just your side making derp comments like you can own everyone with your bigass shiny sword and technology superweapons, which continues to get bigger and shinnier despite the amount of debt your country has, and how deeply fucked up your government at handling its internal problems, as demonstrated by the recent gov shutdown. its no longer in the 50s, where the military superpower can go start wars and bomb anyone as they please.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> no man, its just your side making derp comments like you can own everyone with your bigass shiny sword and technology superweapons, which continues to get bigger and shinnier despite the amount of debt your country has. its no longer in the 50s, where america can go start wars and bomb anyone as they please.



The fuck are you even talking about?


----------



## Mael (Dec 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The fuck are you even talking about?



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udNHsk57f24[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> But the idea is so flawed that you have a good portion of Asia and Africa with massive populations that *suddenly* have all this global power. Such matters are and should remain, competitive.



It wouldn't be "suddenly" if they have to get there naturaly.

Again, I am not arguing that we help them, just that they not be prevented from developing.

I am social liberal in that I think diffences between individuals are acceptable if they had the same starting conditions. You work hard, you succeed - that's justice. But when inequality is due to circumstances that the individual can not control, then inequality is unjust.

Nationality is such a "circumstance outside your control". You cannot choose before birth which country to be born in. Therefore the ideal to strive for (but which might never be reached) should be that all countries have the same standard of living so that no matter where you're born, the _individual_ has the same chance of success or failiure.

To accomplish this more populous countries will need bigger economies since they have more mouths to feed, and with bigger economies come also more global economic and political power.

But didn't I just contradict myself? I said differences are fine if they come from hard work, no? Then why can't hard-working countries be successful? Well, the problem is that the wealth of prosperous countries and corresponding poverty of poor ones didn't all happen in one generation. This amounts to collective punishment: the current generation is punished for something that their ancestors did or did not do.

Should China and India be condemned to eternal poverty because the Qing dynasty and Moghul Empire weren't as good as the British at making cannons and rifles in the 19th century? Doesn't seem very fair to me...


----------



## Mael (Dec 18, 2013)

> Should China and India be condemned to eternal poverty because the Qing dynasty and Moghul Empire weren't as good as the British at making cannons and rifles in the 19th century?



Nobody cares about that.  We care about the now and right now the CCP is an ethical and ecological disaster.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Mael said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udNHsk57f24[/YOUTUBE]



I think dumbass like you should go run the pentagon and decide national security policy. Spetacular breakthroughs and results have yet to be seen in US military and foreign policy.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

There is no fairness in competition. That's why it's "competition". There are winners and there are losers.


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 18, 2013)

And then there's spectators, and I cheer for the team I think deserves to win.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Mael said:


> Nobody cares about that.  We care about the now and right now the CCP is an ethical and ecological disaster.


 just like your country is a plutocratic basketcase that can't lift ittself out of debt. we can go on...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> And then there's spectators, and I cheer for the team I think deserves to win.



All nations are competitors on the global stage, and some excel more than others. Some do not at all.


----------



## Mael (Dec 18, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> And then there's spectators, and I cheer for the team I think deserves to win.



Deserves to win?  Sorry but that's like saying England has 4 World Cups and because of that Sweden deserves its first even if it's just mediocre.  In sports and in geopolitics, that's now how the game goes.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> just like your country is a plutocratic basketcase that can't lift ittself out of debt. we can go on...



No you really can't. Tienanmen Square. Architectural bubble.

Our public debt is an issue, but not such a pertinent issue as the ones your country is facing. Most developed nations have high debt in ration to their GDP, because they have more to spend but also more to offer as well.


----------



## Mael (Dec 18, 2013)

When you think about it though, Seto, he has a point on how important he treats money.  He's perfect in representation of the CCP...where money means more than the freedom of assembly and people for that matter.  That's why he'll be okay with his military using tank rounds on protesters.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Mael said:


> When you think about it though, Seto, he has a point on how important he treats money.  He's perfect in representation of the CCP...where money means more than the freedom of assembly and people for that matter.  That's why he'll be okay with his military using tank rounds on protesters.


the country that  preach capitalism lecturing us when we owned them at their game, come on man?

Seto , how is you and the troll Mael's philosophy different from Nazi germany and european imperialism, as survivalism goes to the fittest and the master race?


----------



## Muk (Dec 18, 2013)

better than what happened to syria and lybia. look how the 'revolution' there aided their financial situation. yeah they don't have one herp derp.

or look at how iraq has ended up. before sadam got dethroned they had a 'stable' economy, now its one terrorist bombing after another every day of the week.

nice work mr global police force. You did good with your freedom of speech. iraq now is a freedom to bomb your neighbour.


----------



## Zaru (Dec 18, 2013)

Some of the americans here...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

Muk said:


> better than what happened to syria and lybia. look how the 'revolution' there aided their financial situation. yeah they don't have one herp derp.
> 
> or look at how iraq has ended up. before sadam got dethroned they had a 'stable' economy, now its one terrorist bombing after another every day of the week.
> 
> nice work mr global police force. You did good with your freedom of speech. iraq now is a freedom to bomb your neighbour.



What's up with so many bashers of the U.S. exhibiting the traits they stereotype the nation for?

Iraq was a mistake, and was an unpopular war that we had no business going in. Most Americans were against it, or came to be very quickly. Regardless, you intentionally ignore the atrocious rights records of these nations. Economic growth does not always equate to an increased standard of living, and these nations had a terrible or subpar standard of living because the regimes in place took a lion's share of the money that came into the country. The financial and economic situation meant little as far as the populace were concerned. Aside from that, helping them in their revolutions as well is questionable in that part of the world exactly because they can turn out to be another Iran. 

What's more is that the 'global police force' is one by its role in international politics regardless of will. When shit hits the fan it is the U.S. that nations start pleading to, you can't complain about the U.S. acting like global police when the international community pretty much demands that.


----------



## Mael (Dec 18, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Some of the americans here...



Way to miss the point on the point.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

Mael said:


> Way to miss the point on the point.



Another mindless image macro.


----------



## Mael (Dec 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Another mindless image macro.



It's why I also used the World Cup analogy, the game that EVERYONE can play but certain teams have a habit of winning.  If I were to apply shadow's logic, I could claim that since I'm an American that the US DESERVES a World Cup win regardless of talent or specialty.  Fuck that.  If Germany pwns the US in the final 4-0, it'll burn a bit but I'll still acknowledge the better team won.  The same goes for when the West is ahead in the race.  Why slow down when your ethically-challenged competitors are still behind even if they cheat?


----------



## The Rain (Dec 18, 2013)

Mael said:


> It's why I also used the World Cup analogy, the game that EVERYONE can play but certain teams have a habit of winning.  If I were to apply shadow's logic, I could claim that since I'm an American that the US DESERVES a World Cup win regardless of talent or specialty.  Fuck that.  If Germany pwns the US in the final 4-0, it'll burn a bit but I'll still acknowledge the better team won.  The same goes for when the West is ahead in the race.  Why slow down when your ethically-challenged competitors are still behind even if they cheat?



You're right. America has China hot at its heels right now and it's all they can do to stay ahead. If they slowed down for even a year, they'd have to settle for place #2.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

The Rain said:


> You're right. America has China *hot at its heels right now* and it's all they can do to stay ahead. If they slowed down for even a year, they'd have to settle for place #2.



You must have an odd definition of that term. There are quite a few aspects they'd need to catch up on, which will take a long time. Again as I stated, China is focusing more on economic growth than standard of living. Even though its GDP is 2nd highest in the world, that doesn't account to the standard conditions of the average citizen compared to places like Japan which is #3 and the nations of the EU.


----------



## Zaru (Dec 18, 2013)

Mael said:


> It's why I also used the World Cup analogy, the game that EVERYONE can play but certain teams have a habit of winning.



No, the correct analogy would be a car race where the europeans/european descendants slashed everyone else's tires and stole their fuel
And then the latter had to do shitty low-paid manual labor for the former to afford new tires and fuel to even get back into the race again

Hey, I'm blissfully enjoying the results of that, but don't act like this is some fair, level playing field


----------



## The Rain (Dec 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You must have an odd definition of that term. There are quite a few aspects they'd need to catch up on, which will take a long time. Again as I stated, China is focusing more on economic growth than standard of living. Even though its GDP is 2nd highest in the world, that doesn't account to the standard conditions of the average citizen compared to places like Japan which is #3 and the nations of the EU.



An increase in the peoples' standard of living is part of the natural process of gaining wealth. China will soon be (in terms of GDP/capita) a HIC. We're seeing it happen as we speak: China is pumping out more graduates and training more highly skilled workers (programmers, bankers, etc.) than any other country in the world. Workers are demanding pay rises; almost nobody in China goes hungry today. Soon enough, America's going to be hard-pressed to find good labor as China sweeps up the little countries like Vietnam to do its chores and make its petty goods.

Moreover, China is actually the strongest country on the global market right now. Its reserves of foreign exchange and gold exceed its debt by 3 trillion, while America is nowhere near being able to pay back theirs. While the debt is symbiotic in nature, and by no means a gauge for a country's wealth, it's definitely one of China's strong points and it is something that America needs to catch up on.


----------



## The Rain (Dec 18, 2013)

Zaru said:


> No, the correct analogy would be a car race where the europeans/european descendants slashed everyone else's tires and stole their fuel
> And then the latter had to do shitty low-paid manual labor for the former to afford new tires and fuel to even get back into the race again
> 
> Hey, I'm blissfully enjoying the results of that, but don't act like this is some fair, level playing field



Yet the cars themselves are a product of countless years of fighting with sticks and stones; an industrial, physical and intellectual race to the top (which the European countries just so happened to win).


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

The Rain said:


> An increase in the peoples' standard of living is part of the natural process of gaining wealth.



Not always, and not to a degree that one would see in one nation when compared to another, such as with China, when the focus is economic growth over living conditions. 



> China will soon be (in terms of GDP/capita) a HIC. We're seeing it happen as we speak: China is pumping out more graduates and training more highly skilled workers (programmers, bankers, etc.) than any other country in the world.



It's silencing a lot of them too, as with education comes curiosity and with that often comes a greater desire for freedoms which the government seems to be cracking down on quite a bit lately. The CCP probably realizes that a society that allows more free-market enterprise and a better educated population can't hope to sustain the regime that it's still currently trying to hold on to. As long as the CCP is in power, it will always be a detriment to the nations potential and that of its people one way or another.

There's also ignoring the fact that a lot of these people are going abroad, and staying there rather than return to their birth nation in China. Also, China is sitting on a huge architecture bubble that is long overdue to burst.



> Workers are demanding pay rises; almost nobody in China goes hungry today. Soon enough, America's going to be hard-pressed to find good labor as China sweeps up the little countries like Vietnam to do its chores and make its petty goods.



It depends on how loud that voice gets, because history seems to show that the government has no issue with a form of population control if it comes to that. Like I stated, the CCP is going to have to lose a lot of power before it becomes the nation you want it to be.


----------



## Mael (Dec 18, 2013)

Zaru said:


> No, the correct analogy would be a car race where the europeans/european descendants slashed everyone else's tires and stole their fuel
> And then the latter had to do shitty low-paid manual labor for the former to afford new tires and fuel to even get back into the race again
> 
> Hey, I'm blissfully enjoying the results of that, but don't act like this is some fair, level playing field



That was shadow who was talking about the fair, level playing field, not me.



The Rain said:


> Yet the cars themselves are a product of countless years of fighting with sticks and stones; an industrial, physical and intellectual race to the top (which the European countries just so happened to win).



They happened to win it up until 1945, to which it then became a two-way between Americans and Russians, and now it's essentially a couple Asians, a couple Europeans, and Americans.


----------



## Zaru (Dec 18, 2013)

The Rain said:


> Yet the cars themselves are a product of countless years of fighting with sticks and stones; an industrial, physical and intellectual race to the top (which the European countries just so happened to win).



But that implies that you consider using momentary military superiority to impose destitute living conditions and impeding development of others to be "fair".

I guess slavery, genocide and brutal colonialism were okay then! They just happened to lose the race to the top. They had their fair chance to do the same to us, after all.


----------



## Mael (Dec 18, 2013)

Zaru said:


> But that implies that you consider using momentary military superiority to impose destitute living conditions and impeding development of others to be "fair".
> 
> I guess slavery, genocide and brutal colonialism were okay then! They just happened to lose the race to the top. *They had their fair chance to do the same to us, after all*.



And for all intents and purposes, some of them just might have done so.  Human nature is more common than people want to think.  Europe just had the blessing of the Roman Empire to advance itself and the Asian empires of China, Korea, and Japan were too xenophobic to even dare travel anywhere outside the continent.


----------



## Zaru (Dec 18, 2013)

Mael said:


> And for all intents and purposes, some of them just might have done so.  Human nature is more common than people want to think.  Europe just had the blessing of the Roman Empire to advance itself and the Asian empires of China, Korea, and Japan were too xenophobic to even dare travel anywhere outside the continent.


Note that this race will never be over until humanity itself ends, so we'll be the ones crying all butthurt when the great empire of Uruguay uses advanced genetic-biological weapons to wipe out our continents for colonization


----------



## Mael (Dec 18, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Note that this race will never be over until humanity itself ends, so we'll be the ones crying all butthurt when the great empire of Uruguay uses advanced genetic-biological weapons to wipe out our continents for colonization



I have a better idea:


----------



## Island (Dec 18, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> Should China and India be condemned to eternal poverty because the Qing dynasty and Moghul Empire weren't as good as the British at making cannons and rifles in the 19th century? Doesn't seem very fair to me...


People should know by now that I can _smell_ history discussions.

You can't even blame the United Kingdom for China's problems. The collapse of the Qing Empire was inevitable after the White Lotus Rebellion at the turn of the 19th-century. It showed how ineffective and weak the Qing Empire really was, and the Opium Wars only accelerated the process. Unless some great reformer took the throne, the Qing Empire was doomed for failure.

Plus, Japan would have invaded China regardless of whether or not the Qing Empire was still standing.

Likewise the Mughal Empire was doomed from conception. It was a Persian and Islamic state attempting to control India. At best, it would have fought a costly war of attrition against the Maratha Empire or an equivalent rival and ultimately collapsed. At worst, it would have been responsible for some of the worst human rights violations in history.

While the British asserted its domination over India, one can't really accredit the country's poverty to the UK. The British unified the subcontinent, and the reason an Indian state even exists is because the British came along and brought everyone together under their banner. You'd be pressed to argue that the Mughal Empire or any other Indian state could have achieved this on their own _and_ modernized India into a fully-developed nation-state.

China and India's problems aren't the west's fault. Their problems predate western intervention. Even African poverty is hardly Europe's fault. These places would still have been backwards holes in the ground regardless of whether or not Europe colonized them. The only difference is that now they're backwards holes in the ground with arbitrarily defined borders that are exploited by international corporations. Neither China nor India suffer from the latter two problems, so those points are somewhat irrelevant.

Among the states that remained independent from colonization, only one of them (Japan) successfully modernized, and that's entirely because it specifically sought to emulate Europe and the United States.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Island said:


> People should know by now that I can _smell_ history discussions.
> 
> You can't even blame the United Kingdom for China's problems. The collapse of the Qing Empire was inevitable after the White Lotus Rebellion at the turn of the 19th-century. It showed how ineffective and weak the Qing Empire really was, and the Opium Wars only accelerated the process. Unless some great reformer took the throne, the Qing Empire was doomed for failure.
> 
> ...



you can use the same logic the say that western decline now is not China's fault. yet, people keeping pointing fingers at us. 

*bolded part*, yea but they fail their ass off in the hideyoshi invasion, and i don't see how they would get any better without western technology.


----------



## Muk (Dec 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What's up with so many bashers of the U.S. exhibiting the traits they stereotype the nation for?
> 
> Iraq was a mistake, and was an unpopular war that we had no business going in. Most Americans were against it, or came to be very quickly. Regardless, you intentionally ignore the atrocious rights records of these nations. Economic growth does not always equate to an increased standard of living, and these nations had a terrible or subpar standard of living because the regimes in place took a lion's share of the money that came into the country. The financial and economic situation meant little as far as the populace were concerned. Aside from that, helping them in their revolutions as well is questionable in that part of the world exactly because they can turn out to be another Iran.
> 
> What's more is that the 'global police force' is one by its role in international politics regardless of will. When shit hits the fan it is the U.S. that nations start pleading to, you can't complain about the U.S. acting like global police when the international community pretty much demands that.



Tell that again to the people of Lybia. Your Nato Air Strike did wonders to the Nation of Lybia. The opposition did well, right? Right?! Not that there is still an on going internal war going on ... herp derp.

Oh and guess what... now not only does the goverment of Lybia bomb its own people, terrorists from the outside also bomb their own people. Great way to do some Global Policing. Good Job, well done!

Did the people of Lybia benefit at all from the 'encouragement' to freedom and democracy? Yeah, now they get bombed every day from government and terrorist. Really well done Sir Police.

Yeah their 'standard' of living compared to the US citizen's income may be shit, but at least they lived in a peaceful environment. Now look at the lybian people. Every day they life in fear of another bomb exploding or another shoot out. Great way to 'improve' they standard of living.

Look at the Arabic spring revolution, not a single one of them has managed to come out with some sort of stable government and economic growth. Instead they all have instable government plagued by protests and terrorist.

And all these revolution were 'supported' by the west. Good job supporting their transition over to democracy. Not that it aided them in anyway for their economy or safety.


----------



## Island (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> you can use the same logic the say that western decline now is not China's fault. yet, people keeping pointing fingers at us.
> 
> *bolded part*, yea but they fail their ass off in the hideyoshi invasion, and i don't see how they would get any better without western technology.



Who is actually blaming western decline on China? The fact that we're letting China manufacture our goods seems like our problem more than theirs, though isn't really even a decline. That's more of a shift from manufacturing to service and technology. Any actual decline could probably be traced back to government corruption, inefficiency, and mismanagement before China.

>Hideyoshi Invasion
>1590

This invasion predates both the Qing Empire _and_ Imperial Japan, so I don't even know what you're talking about. Last I checked, Imperial Japan was wildly successful in its wars with China and Korea in the 19th- and 20th-century.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Mael said:


> It's why I also used the World Cup analogy, the game that EVERYONE can play but certain teams have a habit of winning.  If I were to apply shadow's logic, I could claim that since I'm an American that the US DESERVES a World Cup win regardless of talent or specialty.  Fuck that.  If Germany pwns the US in the final 4-0, it'll burn a bit but I'll still acknowledge the better team won.  The same goes for when the West is ahead in the race.  Why slow down when your ethically-challenged competitors are still behind even if they cheat?



better team in sense of what, white skin or blue eyes?

you are clearly shitting and being a hyprocrite, In the competition and race of meritocracy, there are no rules,so why are you then accusing us of cheating and not playing fairly? Meritocracy is clear disregard of the rules and cuthroat competition, there is no fairness as according to your logic in the struggle for social darwinist survival. we are just applying  your standards so how can you accuse us of cheating?


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Island said:


> Who is actually blaming western decline on China? The fact that we're letting China manufacture our goods seems like our problem more than theirs, though isn't really even a decline. That's more of a shift from manufacturing to service and technology. Any actual decline could probably be traced back to government corruption, inefficiency, and mismanagement before China.
> 
> >Hideyoshi Invasion
> >1590
> ...


 No, you are saying Japan would have the power to  trash qing china even if the westerners had not come. I don't see how they can invade the qing if the west did not appear and they did not borrow western technology. 

without the west, we are both stuck in a technological limbo, and the japanese only got ahead because they are more acutely aware of western superiority


----------



## Island (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> No, you are saying Japan would have the power to  trash qing china even if the westerners had not come. I don't see how they can invade the qing if the west did not appear and they did not borrow western technology.
> 
> without the west, we are both stuck in a technological limbo, and the japanese only got ahead because they are more acutely aware of western superiority


No I'm not. Show me exactly where I said this. I said that the Qing Empire would have collapsed regardless of whether the west intervened in its affairs and that the Japanese invasion of China (specifically the Second Sino-Japanese War) was likewise inevitable, regardless of whether the Qing Empire still stood.

I never mentioned anything about Japan not modernizing. You misread.


----------



## Muk (Dec 18, 2013)

Qing Empire was corrupt and mismanaged by the time the European arrived. It would have died off naturally, just like the Ming Dynasty did before it. It just happened to be the Europeans to deliver the strike instead of some other nation/minority/people.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 18, 2013)

Muk said:


> Why do you think China elected to declare the identification zone in front of its coastline? So cruise missiles don't just get shot into their important coastal metropolis.


Cruise missiles have an effective range of 1000 miles.  How far do you think their "identification zone" is?

For that matter China doesn't have the naval firepower to force us out of their "identification zone" if we park a carrier group there.




epyoncloud said:


> You vastly  overestimate your country's military capabiliites and our ability to  recover from setbacks, as the sino japanese war has showned.



Dude, 25% of China's fruits and vegitables rot before they can be consumed now .  How do you suppose that will change when the road system is shattered and power plants are destroyed?

The Chinese people would starve.

Starving people tend to get harder to control.  They want to not starve.  Threats of force mean less to them because "starve to death or I kill you" isn't a particularly compelling argument.  Mass civil uprisings would happen.

It ends with millions or hundreds of millions dead before the powers that be in China either are killed or escape into exile (maybe Taiwan will take back over?).

Sure it would still end badly for the US if they tried to step foot in the country.  But you can't possibly call it a "win" for China.

(Though there's the possibility that some sort of "we'll give you food in exchange for your total unconditional surrender" would happen but that depends a lot on how other countries act which in turn depends on how the "war" starts and is carried out which is beyond the scope of this discussion)


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Dec 18, 2013)

This is probably the worst thread ever posted in the Cafe.

...

This year anyway.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Dec 18, 2013)




----------



## Hand Banana (Dec 18, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> Cruise missiles have an effective range of 1000 miles.  How far do you think their "identification zone" is?
> 
> For that matter China doesn't have the naval firepower to force us out of their "identification zone" if we park a carrier group there.
> 
> ...



Exactly why china wants to keep N.Korea from going into any wars. All the starving refugees will flood their country. As you pointed out we can easily hit China's supply lines, without troops. Doesn't matter how large China's standing army is when a few hellfire missiles can deter that stat.

Don't worry china, we won't go for supply lines or attack garrisons like we did Japan. We'll fuck up your industry district first. Blow up all those manual labor factories you call jobs.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 18, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's like you completely ignore how China is starting shit with its neighbors. The U.S. didn't do that. Regardless of who attacks first, there would be enormous damages, but China as you know it would be gone.



They were totally asked by Nicaragua for intervention... Afghanistan totally wanted America to back their terrorists up... They were totally asked by Guatemala to keep their workers in labor camps... They were totally asked by the world to embargo Cuba... well you know what?

"They" can go to hell. America's been doing stuff the world hates and they keep doing it because they know nobody can stop them.

Also, it's not whether China disappears from the map or not, it's whether the US is still undeterred or if they are now to resign their right to go to War or become a developing country... because you know, I remember something about some "developing countries" having higher standards of living than Murica.



Mael said:


> Nobody cares about that.  We care about the now and right now the CCP is an ethical and ecological disaster.



The CIA, FBI and Republicans totally don't belong there, am I right?



epyoncloud said:


> just like your country is a plutocratic basketcase that can't lift ittself out of debt. we can go on...



News flash: The Hunger Games to become real 20 years from now! Oh, wait! We knew it would end this way!



Mael said:


> Deserves to win?  Sorry but that's like saying England has 4 World Cups and because of that Sweden deserves its first even if it's just mediocre.  In sports and in geopolitics, that's now how the game goes.



Geopolitics are not an sport.



Muk said:


> better than what happened to syria and lybia. look how the 'revolution' there aided their financial situation. yeah they don't have one herp derp.
> 
> or look at how iraq has ended up. before sadam got dethroned they had a 'stable' economy, now its one terrorist bombing after another every day of the week.
> 
> nice work mr global police force. You did good with your freedom of speech. iraq now is a freedom to bomb your neighbour.



Tell that to those who fell to Pinochet in Chile.



Mael said:


> It's why I also used the World Cup analogy, the game that EVERYONE can play but certain teams have a habit of winning.  If I were to apply shadow's logic, I could claim that since I'm an American that the US DESERVES a World Cup win regardless of talent or specialty.  Fuck that.  If Germany pwns the US in the final 4-0, it'll burn a bit but I'll still acknowledge the better team won.  The same goes for when the West is ahead in the race.  Why slow down when your ethically-challenged competitors are still behind even if they cheat?



Because you sabotage them before the game starts? By stealing their sneakers, putting itchy powder in their clothing and changing their soap with acid?



Seto Kaiba said:


> Not always, and not to a degree that one would see in one nation when compared to another, such as with China, when the focus is economic growth over living conditions.



That'd describe... every capitalist US backed third world country out there since 1960.

And the Reagan administration... oh, and Hitler! 



Zaru said:


> Note that this race will never be over until humanity itself ends, so we'll be the ones crying all butthurt when the great empire of Uruguay uses advanced genetic-biological weapons to wipe out our continents for colonization



You mean Britannia?

...well, it could be worse...





EvilMoogle said:


> Cruise missiles have an effective range of 1000 miles.  How far do you think their "identification zone" is?
> 
> For that matter China doesn't have the naval firepower to force us out of their "identification zone" if we park a carrier group there.
> 
> ...



That's what good about it... it's a war where either China wins, or both lose. Losing China will hit the US too hard... and the rest of the world is going to get pissed. Plus, China has enough range to hit the parts that matter... if we go by that aerial deterrent. Add in Cuba and an opportunistic Russia and it's bye bye breadbasket.



The Pink Ninja said:


> This is probably the worst thread ever posted in the Cafe.
> 
> ...
> 
> This year anyway.



I created a monster!


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Losing China will hit the US too hard... and the rest of the world is going to get pissed.



Not really, you act as if China has the same amount or possibly more back in the world than the US, that's not true at all.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 18, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> They were totally asked by Nicaragua for intervention... Afghanistan totally wanted America to back their terrorists up... They were totally asked by Guatemala to keep their workers in labor camps... They were totally asked by the world to embargo Cuba... well you know what?




Did you really just cite an occupation from 1912? Regardless, no one is arguing infallibility, but as I stated regardless of will, the United States is expected to act as an international authority figure or mediator on a number of matters.

The U.N. is based in New York, which is in the United States if you didn't know, pretty central hub for international relations.

Every natural disaster that has struck parts of Asia, Africa, and the Latin Americas in the past decade. It was expected that America foot the largest bill when it came to contributions as it often did. 

When Libya was protesting for democratic reform, Syria's current situation, as well as Egypt there was international demand for U.S. action and intervention on behalf of those demanding democratic reform. 



> "They" can go to hell. America's been doing stuff the world hates and they keep doing it because they know nobody can stop them.



That goes for every nation in the history of mankind to one degree or another. Nonetheless, it's natural that the U.S. draws more ire simply when taking into consideration its size, influence, and standing in international politics, depending on the perspective of fellow nations of course. 



> Also, it's not whether China disappears from the map or not, it's whether the US is still undeterred or if they are now to resign their right to go to War or become a developing country... because you know, I remember something about some "developing countries" having higher standards of living than Murica.



Considering what is clearly an atrocious education on your part, I would not rely much on your memory. You seem to be apart of a growing demographic of generally speaking, stupid individuals, outside the country that seem to ironically bash America and its citizens for its often stereotyped ignorance and belligerence; completely unaware that you exhibit these same traits. 



> That'd describe... every capitalist US backed third world country out there since 1960.
> 
> And the Reagan administration... oh, and Hitler!



What the hell does that have to do with my response? It's clear you didn't follow the discussion at all.

Why don't you get the Pepto-Bismol that is an actual education on these matters for your mental diarrhea?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 18, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> That's what good about it... it's a war where either China wins, or both lose. Losing China will hit the US too hard... and the rest of the world is going to get pissed. Plus, China has enough range to hit the parts that matter... if we go by that aerial deterrent. Add in Cuba and an opportunistic Russia and it's bye bye breadbasket.



No.  China loses no matter what.  There's no situation where the people in charge of China now walk away still in power.  Which is why it would never come to a shooting war.

If the war goes "hot," no matter who starts it, by the next morning China is back in the bronze age.  The people in the population dense areas have no power, no clean running water, and no food (or rather no food beyond whatever they have stored).

The military likely would be spared a lot of that however they'll be blind and cut off from any resupply.  There's no opportunity for them to strike back at the US in any substantial way.

The _only_ card China has to play is to try to bait the US into a ground war which would suck for the US.  However it would suck for the US in the form of loss of international prestige and protests at home over the horrors being wrought on the streets of China as their citizens starve and US soldiers are caught up fighting in the middle of it (likely being forced to fight starving citizens who have been conscripted to fight with sticks and stones in the hope of getting food).

So in summery (if it goes to a hot war, non nuclear):

_Best possible case for China_:
Millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, die in the streets as food riots rip through the country forcing the leaders into exile and the country politically falling to serve as a puppet for some other power (as I mentioned before Taiwan could make a play here and have some legitimacy on the world stage but it's a complex question as to who would fill the void, it won't be the US).  The new China's economy is set back decades due to the upheaval.

_Worst possible case for the US:
_Thousands, maybe tens of thousands of soldiers die.  Billions to trillions of dollars of military equipment are destroyed.  Politically embarrassed on the world stage.  Economy sent back into depression possibly causing long-lasting effects (loss of dollar as world currency though I don't know what would replace it in this scenario given China will be tanked and the Euro has a lot of uncertainty around it as well).  Majority party in the US forced to throw many of its prominent members under the bus, minority party uses this as leverage to increase their position in politics.

Is the latter position bad for the US?  Certainly.  The long term ramifications of it could be enough to shatter their position as world power in some cases.

But China would still be in ruins.


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 18, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Also, it's not whether China disappears from the map or not, it's whether the US is still undeterred or if they are now to resign their right to go to War or become a developing country... because you know, I remember something about some "developing countries" having higher standards of living than Murica.


 And we would shitstomp the hell out of any countries 5v1. Our Navy or Airforce alone could solo almost every country alone. Yes China has high standards of living, but even like the difference between Beverly Hills and Memphis, it changes over a certain distance. And you do realize half of China is still stuck in the 40's if not further than that. You are destroying your land and polluting your air and water. China alone can not sustain, how is supposed to fare in a fight with the biggest dog in the pound[/quote]


Geopolitics are not an sport.
[/quote]But important in military operations. Like in sports, in the military you must have strategies, practice, and perform.





> Because you sabotage them before the game starts? By stealing their sneakers, putting itchy powder in their clothing and changing their soap with acid?


 And they blow up your clubhouse in retaliation...Was it wise to get a preemptive strike on them?



> That'd describe... every capitalist US backed third world country out there since 1960.
> 
> And the Reagan administration... oh, and Hitler!


Hitler was a genius. Germany after WWI was in a disaster, he brought them to the level of power equal if not greater than the US was at that time. But we was also in a depression of which we came out of during the war.





> it could be worse...


HAHAHAHA funny. They will integrate into America. You seriously think all the Mexicans will just claim American land to be Mexico, that would defeat the purpose of them leaving Mexico.





> That's what good about it... it's a war where either China wins, or both lose. Losing China will hit the US too hard... and the rest of the world is going to get pissed. Plus, China has enough range to hit the parts that matter... if we go by that aerial deterrent. Add in Cuba and an opportunistic Russia and it's bye bye breadbasket.


Are you a Comedian? You are fucking hilarious. We can hit China at any given time within 5 minutes...5 minutes...5minutes. And that isn't by nuclear weapons. We got so much surveillance over China and the Pacific we will see any kind of long range ballistic missile and take defensive measures...I mean we got laser that shoot planes out of the sky, and a missile defense system in Europe, on the West Coast, Alaska, and a sorts of one in Hawaii.

Cuba won't do anything because we will just send my homeland of Mississippi, mabye Alabama will join us, will just go to Cuba and take over it...Our national guards should suffice with Coast guard for transport.

Russia won't risk anything because of its upset neighbors and they are more interested in sitting back quietly and gaining influence throughout the world and around itself...such as the Ukraine and former Soviet States. The worst thing they have is submarines of which can be deadly but Russia understands Mutually Assured Destruction to the fine print, and knows they can't win in a conventional war.

As for China, China is regionally locked. Its population, harbors, and manufacturing sectors are all integrated along the coastline and thus makes China vunerable to a strike in its harbors as it will hurt trading thus reducing revenue sharply, hurt the civilians by cutting supplies such as but not limited to food, destroy factories, bridges, and other supply lines. West China would collapse in 20 minutes, once East China starts feeling the pain of war which would happen within the day. Your Navy is dismal at best, and you do have an alright airforce...but we have 3 of the baddest fucking planes to ever fly. 1 of them is the space plane, which we send hurtling into a target going mach 18...in testing right now but with a war breaking out they would be able to produce one very quickly if needed. 2 of them are the B-2 Spirit Bombers, They fly so high and are so stealth that even if someone picks them up on radar or what ever...they think its a creature(bird, insect). Remember when N.Korea was talking shit...and we flew them from Kansas?' to N. Korea and back.





> I created a monster!



Yes, Yes you did.


China better learn its place before its put in it.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Island said:


> No I'm not. Show me exactly where I said this. I said that the Qing Empire would have collapsed regardless of whether the west intervened in its affairs and that the Japanese invasion of China (specifically the Second Sino-Japanese War) was likewise inevitable, regardless of whether the Qing Empire still stood.
> 
> I never mentioned anything about Japan not modernizing. You misread.



no you said, if the west did not come, japanese still have the potential  and power to rape china, which is why i call BS.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2013)

It was actually from Missouri to South Korea, but I get your point.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> No.  China loses no matter what.  There's no situation where the people in charge of China now walk away still in power.  Which is why it would never come to a shooting war.
> 
> If the war goes "hot," no matter who starts it, by the next morning China is back in the bronze age.  The people in the population dense areas have no power, no clean running water, and no food (or rather no food beyond whatever they have stored).
> 
> ...



go fucking get a job in the pentagon, and tell them to do this. I am not going to answer this crap anymore,

People in charge may not be in power, but we'll still fight to the death over your invasion. Hitler overran the soviet heartland and economic center and control the core cities, yet he still got owned in the end. your analogy is just the same.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2013)

Japan cannot "rape" China, they can't even beat them alone.  They can give them a run for their money though.

SK + Japan vs. China with no NK interference....debatable.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> go fucking get a job in the pentagon, and tell them to do this. I am not going to answer this crap anymore,


To what gain?

Despite what you seem to think the US isn't some warmongering power that goes around randomly invading countries.  We _could_ level any given country in the world back to the stone age (not without ramifications but we could).

But what does that get us?  Wasting a bunch of expensive missiles for no reason?  Pissing off allies and other countries?

This isn't a game of Civilization.  The US can't simply capture Beijing and add it's production facilities to our country.

In a modern context pretty much any war is lose/lose.



epyoncloud said:


> People in charge may not be in power, but we'll still fight to the death over your invasion. Hitler overran the soviet heartland and economic center and control the core cities, yet he still got owned in the end. your analogy is just the same.


Um.  You still seem to be missing the point.  There would be no boots on the ground, I fully agree that sending soldiers in on the ground in China would be a pointless waste of lives.

Unless you're suggesting there's meaning to your starving citizens throwing rocks at boats barely visible on the horizon?


----------



## Ceria (Dec 18, 2013)

Mider T said:


> Japan cannot "rape" China, they can't even beat them alone.  They can give them a run for their money though.
> 
> SK + Japan vs. China with no NK interference....debatable.



Japan does have destroyers and frigates equipped with Aegis systems, though most of what i've been reading seems to indicate that china has the second largest navy below US, though some say Japan is number two, but they lack major refueling and resupply vessels.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> To what gain?
> 
> Despite what you seem to think the US isn't some warmongering power that goes around randomly invading countries.  We _could_ level any given country in the world back to the stone age (not without ramifications but we could).
> 
> ...



no you are saying you pwn us completely, with relatively low economic and money costs, low blood count and sacrifice costs, low resource costs, and no social unrest on your side, I honestly doubt it, but seriously do try, I highly encourage it. (first you really have a point, but afterwards you just keep repeating your dumb shit over and over again).

People like you think wars can easily be won with first strikes, with pure military technology ownage and rape. seriously, consider a career in the pentagon.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> no you are saying you pwn us completely, with relatively low economic and money costs, low blood count and sacrifice costs, low resource costs, and no social unrest on your side, I honestly doubt it, but seriously do try, I highly encourage it. (first you really have a point, but afterwards you just keep repeating your dumb shit over and over again).



A) No I didn't.  Learn to read.

B) Even if that were true, um, again to what gain?  We'd totally own the Bahamas in a war too and yet despite them being just a little off our coast we leave them alone.  War doesn't work like you think it does.  And the US isn't as hell-bent on war as you seem to think it does.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> A) No I didn't.  Learn to read.
> 
> B) Even if that were true, um, again to what gain?  We'd totally own the Bahamas in a war too and yet despite them being just a little off our coast we leave them alone.  War doesn't work like you think it does.  And the US isn't as hell-bent on war as you seem to think it does.



BS again.

You say you can totally pwn everyone if you want to , but you c_hoose not to because you are benevolent._

wars may not work out exactly the way i said, but its still better than" I pwn everyone with pure military technology at first strikes and they have no chance to fight back against us", kind of thinking that you are several other posters keep trying to tell everyone.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2013)

No, that'd be stupid.  There's nothing good to gain about that.  What about this do you not understand?

I know it's hard to accept being outclassed but try to think rationally.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

Mider T said:


> No, that'd be stupid.  There's nothing good to gain about that.  What about this do you not understand?
> 
> I know it's hard to accept being outclassed but try to think rationally.



They have nothing to gain attacking vietnam, they have nothing to gain attacking the iraqis, they have nothing to gain attackng afghanistan, or attacking cuba didn't stop them from doing it. 

I am not even going to bother answer the second phrase. we will lose,i have no problem admitting that,  but you won't exactly be in good shape after the war.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> BS again.
> 
> You say you can totally pwn everyone if you want to , but you c_hoose not to because you are benevolent._
> 
> wars may not work out exactly the way i said, but its still better than" I pwn everyone with pure military technology at first strikes and they have no chance to fight back against us", kind of thinking that you are several other posters keep trying to tell everyone.



Are you suggesting the only thing keeping the US from invading the Bahamas is fear of the mighty Bahamian army?

Or is there some other reason that keeps the bloodthirsty barbarian Americans from invading any other country on the planet?

The US could win a war against any other country on the planet.  This is not bravado or conjecture this is simple statement of fact.

But there is no such thing as a war without cost.  This cost is paid in lives, in money, and in diplomatic position with the rest of the world.  While I don't agree with every decision the US has made in this regard suggesting that we go to war simply because we _can_ is laughable.

It's not because we're "benevolent" but rather because the costs of war do not justify what is gained from it the vast majority of times.  War with China, even under the best of circumstances, would cost the US economically.  _This is nothing compared to what it would cost China_ but it would cost the US.  And it would gain the US nothing unless China forces the issue and becomes a rabid dog that needs to be put down.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> They have nothing to gain attacking vietnam, they have nothing to gain attacking the iraqis, they have nothing to gain attackng afghanistan, or attacking cuba didn't stop them from doing it.
> 
> I am not even going to bother answer the second phrase. we will lose,i have no problem admitting that,  but you won't exactly be in good shape after the war.



Are you an idiot?  The Cold War policy was to control communism so Vietnam you can have, but Iraq and Afghanistan?  Also what are you talking about attacking Cuba?  I'm starting to think you're just ignorant of US history.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 18, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> The US could win a war against any other country on the planet.  This is not bravado or conjecture this is simple statement of fact.
> .




I don't agree with this nonsense. sorry i have nothing further to say. 

This statement already made you look like an idiot to the rest of the world. Try invading russia.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 18, 2013)

It isn't nonsense, the scenarios have been played over and over on this site and others.

US is the most powerful country militarily in the world, deal with it.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 18, 2013)

Mider T said:


> It isn't nonsense, the scenarios have been played over and over on this site and others.
> 
> US is the most powerful country militarily in the world, deal with it.


Yup.  By almost an order of magnitude.

And we need essentially 0% of it at home for peacekeeping efforts unlike *coughChinacough* some countries.


----------



## Platinum (Dec 19, 2013)

epyoncloud said:


> I don't agree with this nonsense. sorry i have nothing further to say.
> 
> This statement already made you look like an idiot to the rest of the world. Try invading russia.



Assuming no nuclear war the US would crush Russia. Not everyone is an idiot like Napoleon or Hitler who attacked Russia during the winter.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

IchLiebe said:


> And we would shitstomp the hell out of any countries 5v1. Our Navy or Airforce alone could solo almost every country alone. (snip) how is supposed to fare in a fight with the biggest dog in the pound.



Am I supposed to take any of this crap seriously?



> But important in military operations. Like in sports, in the military you must have strategies, practice, and perform.



And the US is the only country in the bloody planet that does that! Obviously!



> And they blow up your clubhouse in retaliation...Was it wise to get a preemptive strike on them?



Nicaragua blows anything in US Territory? Please illustrate us! 



> *Hitler was a genius.* (snip) that would defeat the purpose of them leaving Mexico.



And here is where I stop taking you pro-Americans seriously. I swear you have a bigger stick up your asses than Pol Pot himself!



> Are you a Comedian? (snip) Europe, on the West Coast, Alaska, and a sorts of one in Hawaii.



And this totally doesn't resemble what China is doing! Unless you mean satellites, which I assume you're doing.

Look at the tables. I doubt the Chinese would've issued a bloody statement like that just because. At any rate. Even by striking from home, this will always end in the United States resigning as world police. It's inevitable, if they strike China, they doom their power no matter what they do. China will either rise and take them down, or collapse and drag America with them. The only way for them to win is if China collapses like the USSR from within, with no American intervention, and if they attempt an embargo, it's the US who gets hit.

China can only be destroyed harmlessly from the inside. Otherwise, it's a time-bomb that will take the US with them.



> Cuba (snip) Coast guard for transport.



You already tried that once and failed miserably. Ready for round two bitches?



> Russia won't risk (snip) and knows *they can't win in a conventional war.*



Since when does war have rules to begin with? The country who is known for it's nukes is totally not going to pummel the US into submission with their best weapons, and they were already getting ready for that 30 years before and they weren't even serious back then!



> As for China, China is regionally locked. *Its population, harbors, and manufacturing sectors are all integrated along the coastline and thus makes China vunerable to a strike in its harbors as it will hurt trading thus reducing revenue sharply, (snip) they think its a creature(bird, insect). Remember when N.Korea was talking shit...and we flew them from Kansas?' to N. Korea and back.*


*

Oh, crap, now I just shat my pants laughing.

This totally won't cause people in the US to complain when they don't have clothing, appliances, and other commodities by which to live. This totally seems to ignore that China has the 4th most powerful Navy in the bloody world. That ignores that even the US Military and Government get a lot of their stuff from China. That you've got the second most powerful Air Force in the whole planet and the strongest in the continent, soon to be the largest, ready to rain destruction from above... and that Russia will totally take the US deploying missiles close to them... in a country which is friendly with them.

Also, the most badass plane is Russian buddy. Sorry to burst your bubble. Also, do you know what happens when you piss of the bear? You get world's largest stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction shoved on your face. Add China's own... and well, it doesn't look pretty... also, you get a lot of fuel from Russia... threaten to cut them off and half of Europe will be telling the US to surrender or they'll ally themselves with the bear... and that can never be a good thing for America.




			Yes, Yes you did.
		
Click to expand...


I just realized it. Hello monster, how are you doing? I am your creator, I hope we can get alone.

China better learn its place before its put in it.[/QUOTE]

And this is why I never take the US seriously. They believe everything is set in stone and if something were to be different, then it's wrong! Why!? Because we say so... wonderful, you've just confirmed the US as the world's number one bully and first nation to be nuked ad nauseum as soon as the world gets fed up with them acting as if they were the UN's Military Arm, when they actually are just cowards who have so many weapons because they are afraid of anything beyond their borders.



EvilMoogle said:



			No.  China loses no matter what.  There's no situation where the people in charge of China now walk away still in power.  Which is why it would never come to a shooting war.

Best possible case for China:
Millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, die in the streets as food riots rip through the country forcing the leaders into exile and the country politically falling to serve as a puppet for some other power (as I mentioned before Taiwan could make a play here and have some legitimacy on the world stage but it's a complex question as to who would fill the void, it won't be the US).  The new China's economy is set back decades due to the upheaval.

Worst possible case for the US:
Thousands, maybe tens of thousands of soldiers die.  Billions to trillions of dollars of military equipment are destroyed.  Politically embarrassed on the world stage.  Economy sent back into depression possibly causing long-lasting effects (loss of dollar as world currency though I don't know what would replace it in this scenario given China will be tanked and the Euro has a lot of uncertainty around it as well).  Majority party in the US forced to throw many of its prominent members under the bus, minority party uses this as leverage to increase their position in politics.

Is the latter position bad for the US?  Certainly.  The long term ramifications of it could be enough to shatter their position as world power in some cases.

But China would still be in ruins.
		
Click to expand...


China would still be in ruins? Yes.

But what happens to the US? Easy, what you just said, and this is what I've been harping about since the beginning of this thread. No matter what happens, the US loses Superpower status even if they win. They still retain their great power status, but no longer have the "World Police" hat they have now. Now any strong enough country can subdue them and send them away if the feel like rigging or invading. A match with them is no longer unfair.

I'm not hoping China defeats the US. I'm hoping they'll weaken them just enough for the world to realize they have been fearing nothing all this time. Also, that isn't the worst scenario. That's the "very likely to happen" scenario for both China and America.



Mider T said:



			Japan cannot "rape" China, they can't even beat them alone.  They can give them a run for their money though.

SK + Japan vs. China with no NK interference....debatable.
		
Click to expand...


Japan resigned their right to declare war. What part of that statement are you not getting?



Ceria said:



			Japan does have destroyers and frigates equipped with Aegis systems, though most of what i've been reading seems to indicate that china has the second largest navy below US, though some say Japan is number two, but they lack major refueling and resupply vessels.
		
Click to expand...


Japan isn't number two. By power, it's the US, France and then the UK. China and Japan debate each other on who gets to be Fourth, but Japan's naval growth has been slowing down, while China's starting to pick up... so I'll say it's China.



EvilMoogle said:



The US could win a war against any other country on the planet.  This is not bravado or conjecture this is simple statement of fact.

But there is no such thing as a war without cost.  This cost is paid in lives, in money, and in diplomatic position with the rest of the world.  While I don't agree with every decision the US has made in this regard suggesting that we go to war simply because we can is laughable.

It's not because we're "benevolent" but rather because the costs of war do not justify what is gained from it the vast majority of times.  War with China, even under the best of circumstances, would cost the US economically.  This is nothing compared to what it would cost China but it would cost the US.  And it would gain the US nothing unless China forces the issue and becomes a rabid dog that needs to be put down.
		
Click to expand...


That is a lie and will remain so for as long as the US keeps on existing. There is no such thing. Ever heard of successful last stands? About inferior technology actually being an advantage? About zerg rushing enemies with superior technology winning important wars? (I'm still going to insist you all look up "Operation Barbarossa" until the thread is closed) Because if you haven't I suggest you prepare some tea and load up Wikipedia's European Theater.



Mider T said:



			Are you an idiot?  The Cold War policy was to control communism so Vietnam you can have, but Iraq and Afghanistan?  Also what are you talking about attacking Cuba?  I'm starting to think you're just ignorant of US history.
		
Click to expand...


The US didn't back up the Mujadijeen! The US didn't train the traitor for the Bay of Pigs Invasion! The US never backed Latin American dictatorships that sunk said region in darkness for nearly a century!

St. Blood! I swear I've been hearing this song ever since the day William Walker was born!



Mider T said:



			It isn't nonsense, the scenarios have been played over and over on this site and others.

US is the most powerful country militarily in the world, deal with it.

Click to expand...


And this means it's invincible, right? Because you never bothered taking over Russia and deposing the Reds when they were in power! 

That in the end is only an advantage, and in war, it may help. However, for skilled enough people or large enough numbers, even that, means jackshit.*


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 19, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]vlIm-riMN6Q[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> China would still be in ruins? Yes.
> 
> But what happens to the US? Easy, what you just said, and this is what I've been harping about since the beginning of this thread. No matter what happens, the US loses Superpower status even if they win. They still retain their great power status, but no longer have the "World Police" hat they have now. Now any strong enough country can subdue them and send them away if the feel like rigging or invading. A match with them is no longer unfair.
> 
> I'm not hoping China defeats the US. I'm hoping they'll _weaken_ them just enough for the world to realize they have been fearing nothing all this time. Also, that isn't the worst scenario. That's the "very likely to happen" scenario for both China and America.



No, that is the worst scenario.  If China shoots at a US ship (the likely starting cruicble given the context of this thread) there's a high chance that the International community will support or at least ignore the US reacting to this _act of war_.

In that case the political ramifications are close to zero.  Economically there will still be a cost but not necessarily as dramatic as you might think.  Businesses in the US are already shying away from doing work with China because of China's stance on IP law and the fact that the Chinese workers are becoming too expensive to exploit.  It's quite possible that the only significant economic outcome is the US saying "well China doesn't exist anymore, guess we don't have to repay the money they lent us."

Granted I think the reality would be somewhere in between those two but don't kid yourself.

At home depending on the spin and how the war is viewed there's a fair chance that the country would support vengeance against an unprovoked attack on a US ship (not all of the country certainly but enough of a majority that the internal politics wouldn't have any major waves).

The best case position (which I'll admit isn't likely to happen, but neither is the worst case) would be fairly good.




Sleipnyr said:


> That is a lie and will remain so for as long as the US keeps on existing. There is no such thing. Ever heard of successful last stands? About inferior technology actually being an advantage? About zerg rushing enemies with superior technology winning important wars? (I'm still going to insist you all look up "Operation Barbarossa" until the thread is closed) Because if you haven't I suggest you prepare some tea and load up Wikipedia's European Theater.



Successful "last stands" exists in a conventional war where troops on the ground can hold out against other troops on the ground.  Modern wars don't work that way.  Troops trying to make a last stand get napalmed and incinerated.

Wars are (and always have been) based on infrastructure and logistics.  Who can get their forces where they need to be, get those forces the right supplies, and keep them equipped and ready to fight.  And the US excels in this.

If the US went to war, just with what we have now, we could shut down any country on the planet.  Nothing significant in or out (significant from a military supply point of view).  A modern siege if you will.

Using China (the second largest military in the world) as an example.  We already have one carrier group just off their shore.  We could park two more there in a few hours.  That shuts down their shipping lines.

One night of bombing and the vast majority of China is without power and the infrastructure connecting the cities are shattered.  Factories and potential military production centers are destroyed.  What China has is what they get.

Even assuming China is united by the war effort and their people don't riot against their government (not bloodly likely as they starve to death) there's no "last stand" because there would be no troops on the ground to attack until an area is crushed.

I've granted that it would be impossible for the US to capture and hold China (in a modern context it's pretty impossible for any country to capture and hold any other country).  But if it came to war China would collapse in upon itself.  Some "well meaning" neighbor would help clean up (likely several given the size of China but how that plays out goes into speculation that's beyond my field of expertise).


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> No, that is the worst scenario.  If China shoots at a US ship (the likely starting cruicble given the context of this thread) there's a high chance that the International community will support or at least ignore the US reacting to this _act of war_.
> 
> In that case the political ramifications are close to zero.  Economically there will still be a cost but not necessarily as dramatic as you might think.  Businesses in the US are already shying away from doing work with China because of China's stance on IP law and the fact that the Chinese workers are becoming too expensive to exploit.  It's quite possible that the only significant economic outcome is the US saying "well China doesn't exist anymore, guess we don't have to repay the money they lent us."
> 
> ...




First, I'd like to agree that whoever strikes first is at disadvantage, and that China won't emerge unscathed.

Saying that the US will emerge without much problem is also a bad thing. What part of "China makes almost everything we use daily" are you not understanding?

Also, you might want to check on naval last stands like the Battle of Myeongyang:



And then talk to me about cutting supply lines... if China does start first, it's them getting fucked. However if the US strikes first, then it'd be their call. Also, as I've been saying since my first post in this thread, someone very close, in both ways, to China, is *not* going to be happy.

There's never and will never be a military that has 100% chance of victory against any country. Not Napoleon, not Iskandar, not the US, NOBODY. Period. Stop deluding yourself. The US and defeated CAN go in the same sentence. Believe otherwise and you'd be confirming you and those who believe such drivel as awfully ignorant of the existence of possibility and unexpected advantages. Also, wars don't just wait till the best moment possible in the long term. Shall the Americans strike, they'll do as soon as they can. Why do you think Hitler invaded Russia in Winter? Because he was suicidal? Nay... don't give me that crap.

At any rate, any War against China ends in loss for the USA. It's a loss/loss situation in which they'll have to go on without their State (dissolution) or resign their power (loss of Superpowers in the UN). Also, attacking a UNSC Permanent Member when YOU are another Permanent Member is liable to bring HUMONGOUS geopolitical changes to the world that will affect the NATO, East and the world at large.

The US waging war against terrorists tired them. Waging a War against a country that can actually HURT America, even if they just brave the enemy fire, is suicidal no matter how you look at it. The Military also gets a lot of their stuff from China.

I'll just put it like this... if you start it, don't hope to make it out of this alive.


----------



## Mael (Dec 19, 2013)

That's fine and dandy but I think what we all wanted was for you to shut the fuck up about this whining about not having a multipolar world.


----------



## Saishin (Dec 19, 2013)

The dragon vs the eagle,bets are opened guys


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Saying that the US will emerge without much problem is also a bad thing. What part of "China makes almost everything we use daily" are you not understanding?


The fact that this is utterly and completely wrong?

If China decided tomorrow that they were going to close their borders back up and stop trading with the outside world completely it would shake up corporations that have manufacturing based in China for a few months.

That's "shake up" not destroy.  Nike will survive just fine having children in a different country make their shoes (actually they left China years ago).


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 19, 2013)

Citing battles over 4 centuries ago in regard to modern warfare...

Sleipnyr, as I stated before you really have zero clue on either matter of military or politics so what are you even doing trying to debate Moogle or anyone else?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 19, 2013)

Dude, but 300 was an awesome movie and I bet if the Spartans were still around they could take out advanced fighter planes too using only their spears and stubborn refusal to lose!

The "pro China" side doesn't seem to understand that modern battles, non insurgency battles, are fought beyond the range of sight.  I've conceded that there's no feasible way for US troops to hold anything important in China, but that doesn't stop China from getting totally @#$@ed when their infrastructure's destroyed.  Something China can't effectively do to the US.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mael said:


> That's fine and dandy but I think what we all wanted was for you to shut the fuck up about this whining about not having a multipolar world.



Fine! A depolarized world then!



EvilMoogle said:


> The fact that this is utterly and completely wrong?
> 
> If China decided tomorrow that they were going to close their borders back up and stop trading with the outside world completely it would shake up corporations that have manufacturing based in China for a few months.
> 
> That's "shake up" not destroy.  Nike will survive just fine having children in a different country make their shoes (actually they left China years ago).



Umm, rare earth trade, electronics... normal, run of the mill clothing... appliances... I think that's a lot of stuff MADE there. I'm not talking about the companies feeling it, but about them not having a place to manufacture stuff.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Citing battles over 4 centuries ago in regard to modern warfare...
> 
> Sleipnyr, as I stated before you really have zero clue on either matter of military or politics so what are you even doing trying to debate Moogle or anyone else?



I do, my point wasn't to refer to the strategy nowadays, just that last stands are possible under all circumstances unless there are no forces left.



EvilMoogle said:


> Dude, but 300 was an awesome movie and I bet if the Spartans were still around they could take out advanced fighter planes too using only their spears and stubborn refusal to lose!
> 
> The "pro China" side doesn't seem to understand that modern battles, non insurgency battles, are fought beyond the range of sight.  I've conceded that there's no feasible way for US troops to hold anything important in China, but that doesn't stop China from getting totally @#$@ed when their infrastructure's destroyed.  Something China can't effectively do to the US.



If you're going to once more bring up the missile stuff, go look up the "China gets Nuclear deterrent" thread that's buried somewhere. While by no means nearly as good as America, they've got enough to halve the American GDP overnight. Most of the West Coast and some parts of Texas are gone, leaving only the East Coast intact. That's half the country it used to be.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

^No, none of this is correct at all.  Stop.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:
			
		

> I do, my point wasn't to refer to the strategy nowadays, just that last stands are possible under all circumstances unless there are no forces left.



Last stands, including the one you cited were often only possible because of technological limitations that prevented societies from overcoming natural phenomena. Something like that is unlikely to replicate itself, and I wouldn't bet on something like that replicating itself regarding U.S. naval capabilities.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Umm, rare earth trade, electronics... normal, run of the mill clothing... appliances... I think that's a lot of stuff MADE there. I'm not talking about the companies feeling it, but about them not having a place to manufacture stuff.



Rare earth metals are about the only item worth mentioning.  China isn't even close to the mecca for manufacturing you think it is.  This changed back in the early 2000's when it shifted to other parts of Asia and South America.





Sleipnyr said:


> I do, my point wasn't to refer to the strategy nowadays, just that last stands are possible under all circumstances unless there are no forces left.


Sure, you can "last stand" with your baseball bat against the sniper half a mile away too, "last stand" until he pulls the trigger at which point you're brains will be "last standing" sprayed across the wall behind you.

Think of this less in the context of a battle of Thermopylae and more of a medieval siege.  Trapped inside the "safe" walls of your keep while the attackers watch you slowly run out of food while occasionally lobbing great big bloody rocks at you to make sure you don't get any ideas about running for it.

It's not some sort of noble glorious battle.  Wars _rarely_ work that way throughout history. 






Sleipnyr said:


> If you're going to once more bring up the missile stuff, go look up the "China gets Nuclear deterrent" thread that's buried somewhere. While by no means nearly as good as America, they've got enough to halve the American GDP overnight. Most of the West Coast and some parts of Texas are gone, leaving only the East Coast intact. That's half the country it used to be.


I've freely admitted that if it goes nuclear everybody looses.  Granted China will be reduced to a smoldering crater as opposed to simply "half the country it used to be."  But it is lose lose.

However when I talk about missiles I'm talking about conventional missiles.  You know the things the US used crap-tons of in Iraq and Afghanistan and every other major military operation they've done in the last 10-20 years?


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> ^No, none of this is correct at all.  Stop.



No, you stop commenting. I'm trying to close the thread, you keep fanning the flames.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Last stands, including the one you cited were often only possible because of technological limitations that prevented societies from overcoming natural phenomena. Something like that is unlikely to replicate itself, and I wouldn't bet on something like that replicating itself regarding U.S. naval capabilities.



It's not just natural phenomena. Unless they've mapped the landscape through hell and back, it's not going to be as easy as it sounds.



EvilMoogle said:


> Rare earth metals are about the only item worth mentioning.  China isn't even close to the mecca for manufacturing you think it is.  This changed back in the early 2000's when it shifted to other parts of Asia and South America.



Really? Do tell! I seldom see a "Made in El Salvador" or "Made in Vietnam" label. Most of the time, everything I use that isn't high end designer's clothing or shoes has "Made in China" on it.



> Sure, you can "last stand" with your baseball bat against the sniper half a mile away too, "last stand" until he pulls the trigger at which point you're brains will be "last standing" sprayed across the wall behind you.
> 
> Think of this less in the context of a battle of Thermopylae and more of a medieval siege.  Trapped inside the "safe" walls of your keep while the attackers watch you slowly run out of food while occasionally lobbing great big bloody rocks at you to make sure you don't get any ideas about running for it.
> 
> It's not some sort of noble glorious battle.  Wars _rarely_ work that way throughout history.



They can still trade through air and land you know? 

In the case that they'd shell the Airports and (unlikely) roads, I'm keen China would either weight their options on local production (we do know they're self-sufficient in industry) if possible... or...



> I've freely admitted that if it goes nuclear everybody looses.  Granted China will be reduced to a smoldering crater as opposed to simply "half the country it used to be."  But it is lose lose.
> 
> However when I talk about missiles I'm talking about conventional missiles.  You know the things the US used crap-tons of in Iraq and Afghanistan and every other major military operation they've done in the last 10-20 years?



This happens. If China gets besieged and they gradually begin to slip, it's more likely they'll say "Fuck this, I'm going to shit, but so are they" and deploy their nukes in a last ditch effort at least scar the US before they disappear from this world. War is not a display of chivalry, and if you do know you're at a disadvantage and can't form a coherent strategy around it, then you simply pull out the stops and hope they hit home. At that point, it's a battle of chance or a loss-loss situation.

I know what you're talking about. But who's not to say that when you pull a gun in a swordfight, that the swordsman won't wind up pulling out a machine gun, even if it's overkill and suicidal?

Better to remind your enemy that they're not invincible before dying than going off and leaving no testament of your power.

Then it's Russia's call... again


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Then it's Russia's call... again


Actually if it goes full-scale nuclear there's a good chance most of the world will be gone.

I'm actually guessing Australia would rise up as the power after that just because they're isolated enough nobody would bother.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Even better 

Unless Canada's fleet of lighthouses comes to the rescue


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> No, you stop commenting. I'm trying to close the thread, you keep fanning the flames.



The thread isn't closing and it isn't your responsibility to worry about that.  You've already proven here that you're slow of learning so just stop talking.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> The thread isn't closing and it isn't your responsibility to worry about that.  You've already proven here that you're slow of learning so just stop talking.




No, this post alone proves how much of a close minded freak you are. The possibility of a nation being invincible in a War is only a fairy tale. If you can't live knowing this, the go drown yourself in your delusions.

I've spoken.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

You don't know/acknowledge modern military strengths/facts so you think it's arrogance when someone says the US is by far the most powerful military in the world, it's not.  It isn't invincible but there isn't a military on Earth right now that can take it down alone.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> You don't know/acknowledge modern military strengths/facts so you think it's arrogance when someone says the US is by far the most powerful military in the world, it's not.  It isn't invincible but there isn't a military on Earth right now that can take it down alone.



It's the most technologically advanced military in the world. Power is subjective. That said, you're right. Right now, no nation can decimate it. Some like China could match them WITHIN their borders, and others can overwhelm with rampant WMD usage (Russia). However, this isn't to say that there is not a military force capable of weakening their power and that of the US to the point that a second large enough country could actually overwhelm them.

China can't hope to win unless luck says so, but they can make sure the US losses, even if they don't finish them off.

Also, it's strategically the strongest. That doesn't means that if they attempted to invade by land they couldn't be overwhelmed. Bay of Pigs talks for itself.

They depend on strategy to win. If their strategy turns out to not be as solid as they thought, they'll get pushed back (of course, this is if they decide to invade) since an Invasion and a siege are different.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> It's the most technologically advanced military in the world. Power is subjective. That said, you're right. Right now, no nation can decimate it. Some like China could match them WITHIN their borders, and others can overwhelm with rampant WMD usage (Russia). However, this isn't to say that there is not a military force capable of weakening their power and that of the US to the point that a second large enough country could actually overwhelm them.
> 
> China can't hope to win unless luck says so, but they can make sure the US losses, even if they don't finish them off.
> 
> ...




Military power is not subjective!  We've already been over that the US wouldn't try a land invasion because there's no need, YOU DON'T LEARN.

There is no "strategically the strongest" that doesn't even make sense.  From a strategic standpoint, the US has so much high ground the oxygen is getting thin.  China lacks an expeditionary military, has one old shitty carrier, and is not seperated by an ocean on both sides like the US.  Furthermore, three other powerful countries in the area are US allies and home to bases of support.  The Bay of Pigs was so stupid of an attempt at a comparison I'm just gonna ignore it.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> Military power is not subjective!  We've already been over that the US wouldn't try a land invasion because there's no need, YOU DON'T LEARN.
> 
> There is no "strategically the strongest" that doesn't even make sense.  From a strategic standpoint, the US has so much high ground the oxygen is getting thin.  China lacks an expeditionary military, has one old shitty carrier, and is not seperated by an ocean on both sides like the US.  Furthermore, three other powerful countries in the area are US allies and home to bases of support.  The Bay of Pigs was so stupid of an attempt at a comparison I'm just gonna ignore it.



It is. Period.

Also, the Bay of Pigs did happen and it was repealed, don't deny it! 

Now, you're the one saying the US wouldn't try invading by land because they don't need... they don't need, or, perhaps, they can't?

You see, even you have to admit that if it were restricted to a land invasion, the United States wouldn't be able to overwhelm the zerg rush awaiting them in China. That alone proves my point. If there is one situation in which they can get overwhelmed, then that means they aren't the strongest. The most powerful military would need to have clear cut superiority in all three bloody areas of combat. That an American victory turns out to be "uncertain" if they decide to combat in land alone points out that America is not the strongest because if they went with that strategy, they'd probably win, or lose.

Strategically most powerful, as in "when we combine all possible strengths, they are unrivaled". But if they, for some reason, decided to send in just the Army, then the uncertainty of victory points out that they aren't the strongest (or that it is debatable).

Unless the US can overwhelm any military with any strategy and tactic known in the book, they aren't absolutely the strongest.

Also:


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Dec 19, 2013)

> It's not just natural phenomena. Unless they've mapped the landscape through hell and back, it's not going to be as easy as it sounds.



_Google Earth_ has that landscape mapped, what the hell do you think the U.S. military has?


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Am I supposed to take any of this crap seriously?


Am I supposed to take your comparisons seriously?





> And the US is the only country in the bloody planet that does that! Obviously!


 No but we are actively using our special forces in a broad range of operations, the CIA has gained momentum lately, aswell as the NSA gaining influence. We have the most battle tested army of the past 50 years(of a large scale) and we can mobilize rapidly. China can't hope to do what the US does now a days until atleast 10years from now, thats if they don't hit an economic hiccup which is almost a guaranteed with all of China's corruption and useless spending.





> Nicaragua blows anything in US Territory? Please illustrate us!


Again what is with these comparisons.





> And here is where I stop taking you pro-Americans seriously. I swear you have a bigger stick up your asses than Pol Pot himself!


 You are the ones who think you are high and mighty just because your country just came out of the stone age.





> And this totally doesn't resemble what China is doing! Unless you mean satellites, which I assume you're doing.


No not at all, I mean radar systems and other detection methods that do include satellites that send information to a missile to intercept as we can immediately know the trajectory and destination of the missile once we are aware of it. An ICBM can't counter anti-missile defense systems as well as cruise missiles. We have 14 missile interceptors based just in Guam...In your backyard per say.


> Look at the tables. I doubt the Chinese would've issued a bloody statement like that just because. At any rate. Even by striking from home, this will always end in the United States resigning as world police.


I wouldn't say we are the police we are just the stability of Earth, we keep it a stable environment and sometimes that means you have to fuck someone over so a technically superior ally is happy.



> It's inevitable, if they strike China, they doom their power no matter what they do. China will either rise and take them down, or collapse and drag America with them. The only way for them to win is if China collapses like the USSR from within, with no American intervention, and if they attempt an embargo, it's the US who gets hit.


If we were to stop trading with China right now, within morning China would be collapsing and quickly. We can go without our little gadgets to put someone in their place. No way in fucking hell would a war with China. How would the US be devastated? 





> China can only be destroyed harmlessly from the inside. Otherwise, it's a time-bomb that will take the US with them.


And I must say China is doing a damn good job at it. All of the corruption, civil unrest, oppressive authoritative figures, and blatantly wasting money(building ghost cities, I think the number is now up to 6 cities).





> You already tried that once and failed miserably. Ready for round two bitches?


LOL LOL LOL LOL. That was some rag tag army of 1500 mercs from Guatemala and funded by the CIA. Yes the CIA intended to invade Cuba, did to a point, but not the United States of America's Armed Forces. That was in the 60's the CIA has gotten a lot better at them type of missions in the past 40years.





> Since when does war have rules to begin with? The country who is known for it's nukes is totally not going to pummel the US into submission with their best weapons, and they were already getting ready for that 30 years before and they weren't even serious back then!


Yes they was serious, even back then. First of all do you not understand the concept of 'conventional warfare'. Also I believe I cover the Mutually Assured Destruction, but as I also pointed out the Chinese tend to not grasp that concept so I don't fault you. 





> This totally won't cause people in the US to complain when they don't have clothing, appliances, and other commodities by which to live.


3rd parties. YOu think China is the only ones that make clothing...news flash my clothing says "Pakistan, Afghan, Taiwan, Philippines and plenty of other 3rd world countries, I see China nowhere. So there will be a shortage on new electronics and other commodities, which in and of itself means its not a necessity such as food, electricity, and clean water.



> This totally seems to ignore that China has the 4th most powerful Navy in the bloody world. That ignores that even the US Military and Government get a lot of their stuff from China. That you've got the second most powerful Air Force in the whole planet and the strongest in the continent, soon to be the largest, ready to rain destruction from above... and that Russia will totally take the US deploying missiles close to them... in a country which is friendly with them.


How much more things are going to come straight out of your ass? Show me where you see anyone clearly not biased saying that China's airforce is superior. In Jun of 2012, The US's fleet of fourth generation aircraft greatly outnumbered China's fleet of 4th generation, while the US is 'producing' fifth generation aircraft and China just has fifth generation prototypes. The 2 B2 spirit bombers are greater than your entire airforce. Their range, payload, and stealth are just astronomical in comparison to any other type of bomber, or plane on the planet. Also our air capabilities are further increased by our mobility, we have roaming military bases on water, 11 aircraft carrier...battlegroups...battlegroups, while you have 1, just 1 aircraft carrier that can be considered a prototype.





> Also, the most badass plane is Russian buddy. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Russia does have nice fighter jets, but those are only a piece to a puzzle. You need something better than a fighter jet when we have beams of light that can cut that plane in half, a jet can't outrun a missile...fighter jets are becoming obsolete or atleast ones that don't have fairly good stealth capabilities. The B2 spirit bomber can essentially fly to anywhere in the world from anywhere in the world and strike undetected. They say we have 2, but I don't think we would chance sending both of them somewhere at the same time and being shown off to the world although it was funny to see, due to someone might might a preemptive strike on them and leave us without that capability that it offers which no other plane does. I would say we have about 4-5 of them, but who really knows we may only have 2 its just illogical to do what we did when we only have 2 and the secrecy surrounding the planes up to that point. That is why I say the B2 is the best plane, it offers a capability that no other plane does. Hey and guess what, we are coming out with a stealth fighter that on paper looks pretty tough.





> Also, do you know what happens when you piss of the bear? You get world's largest stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction shoved on your face. Add China's own... and well, it doesn't look pretty... also, you get a lot of fuel from Russia... threaten to cut them off and half of Europe will be telling the US to surrender or they'll ally themselves with the bear... and that can never be a good thing for America.



According to 2011 data from the New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms facts sheet, the United States has the largest number of deployed nuclear weapons in the world, 300 more than Russia. As of October 2011, Russia has destroyed 57% of its stockpile. Russia also destroyed all of its declared Category 2 (10,616 MTs) and Category 3 chemicals. China has 50-75 ICBMs.... Good thing we have the Saudi's, liberated Afghanistan, Canada, Texas, the Dakotas, the Gulf of Mexico, S. American and Central American suppliers. We got ways of getting fuel, and we the US has stockpiles of fuel, if Europe can't get fuel then how can they do anything, or China for that fact?



> And this is why I never take the US seriously. They believe everything is set in stone and if something were to be different, then it's wrong! Why!? Because we say so... wonderful, you've just confirmed the US as the world's number one bully and first nation to be nuked _ad nauseum_ as soon as the world gets fed up with them acting as if they were the UN's Military Arm, when they actually are just cowards who have so many weapons because they are afraid of anything beyond their borders.


Im using statistics and military capabilities in this discussion. I have never stat that something can't be different, thats illogical. You are the one assuming that I am. You mean first nation to nuke another? Yea we did, and our president said it was a mistake and it was a different time. We had no idea the destructive capabilities when set off in a populated area or city and we was the first to achieve so we needed o show it off and cement our position as the World power.


----------



## IchLiebe (Dec 19, 2013)

> China would still be in ruins? Yes.
> 
> But what happens to the US? Easy, what you just said, and this is what I've been harping about since the beginning of this thread. No matter what happens, the US loses Superpower status even if they win. They still retain their great power status, but no longer have the "World Police" hat they have now. Now any strong enough country can subdue them and send them away if the feel like rigging or invading. A match with them is no longer unfair.


 But understand what Im saying, the US's capabilities extend further than a lot of people think, we have powerful allies. If you fight the US its a guarantee that France, Canada, and the UK will be involved, with a possible/limited German role. ANd thats just the few. And who will rival us when you get done kicking the can? Is that when Russia gets a try?, I thought they was supposed to be with you from the get-go in the 2vs1 throwdown we are discussing as a way to even give China an attempt not to embarrass itself. Our B2's will survive no matter what, you aren't impacting much of our homeland, our Navy will still be formidable, and then we have our well rested Marines, Infantry, Seals, Airborne, Ranger, Green Berets, and other ground troops that didn't even need to get involved in the first breakout, and whom will still number in a large number once they mobilize from bases around the world and join up. We might be the world police but look at whom we have helped; France, twice we saved them from the Germans in the past 100years. Britain, been with us since day one, started off rocky but we are two peas in different pots of carrots. Germany, helped them get rid of a ruthless dictator that was deceiving a majority of the country and proceeded to rebuild their country and protect them. Japan, we rebuilt their country and protected them for a while when they didn't have a military. Russia, be as butt hurt as they have been lately we did help them defeat the Germans and they understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, The US and Russia will not get into a war with each other within the next 10 years, and then we will be having a different discussion. China, we liberated them from Japan, help them stabilize their country. We might have to bash a couple of turds skulls in every now and again, but sometimes you must eradicate the bad seed.





> I'm not hoping China defeats the US. I'm hoping they'll _weaken_ them just enough for the world to realize they have been fearing nothing all this time. Also, that isn't the worst scenario. That's the "very likely to happen" scenario for both China and America.


No that IS the worst possible scenario that the US would face after a conflict with China.

The very likely thing to happen is that the world will see an economic giant fall, and thus will lead to a downfall for about 2-3 years of which the world economy will rebound the US will lead the rebound. China will be sent back in the past 20+years, and will take 10years to recover. If China falls the US is further powered.





> Japan resigned their right to declare war. What part of that statement are you not getting?


They will defend themselves. They can't declare war offensively, only defensively to defend themselves or an ally.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> _Google Earth_ has that landscape mapped, what the hell do you think the U.S. military has?



Some are outdated...

That aside I'll just tell you this, because I've been through this; Being there is not the same as watching it. Plus, it was a supposition, not an actual possibility.

Those are completely different.

@IchLiebe TL;DR America FUCK YEAH!

America filled a Nicaraguan harbor with mines for no good reason and the UN called them out against it. What did Nicaragua do in return? Nothing. Nothing at all.

They also supported Afghan terrorists.

And China is totally going to invade Japan! And they'll join America and throw away lives and money just because they are scared of having a huge neighbor and not being the big guys themselves.

I always knew the Japanese can be hypocritical, but this?

And I'm Spanish IchLiebe, you can ask Shadow about China.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> It is. Period.
> 
> Also, the Bay of Pigs did happen and it was repealed, don't deny it!
> 
> ...





Wtf are you talking about? To be the strongest military power you must simply be stronger than all of the other military powers. 

Also, if this is a total war where civilian casualties do not come in play; the United States would win decisively even when it comes to a land invasion. 

Its rare that people factor in experience when talking about theoretical military engagements. Experience is very important. With that being said, when was the last time China has been in a "limited" war let alone a "total" war? You have a bunch of inexperienced soldiers and generals with outdated weaponry (many of the Chinese generals would be new given the various shifts in power in the last century) vs a military superpower with the latest tech and battle-hardened generals.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Wtf are you talking about? To be the strongest military power you must simply be stronger than all of the other military powers.
> 
> Also, if this is a total war where civilian casualties do not come in play; the United States would win decisively even when it comes to a land invasion.
> 
> Its rare that people factor in experience when talking about theoretical military engagements. Experience is very important. With that being said, when was the last time China has been in a "limited" war let alone a "total" war? You have a bunch of inexperienced soldiers and generals with outdated weaponry (many of the Chinese generals would be new given the various shifts in power in the last century) vs a military superpower with the latest tech and battle-hardened generals.




If you can be overwhelmed in a land vs land, you aren't the strongest. Having an strategy that has next to no blind spots is one thing. Winning in everything is another, learn the difference.

The largest army in the world would lose in their own country? 

Technology can actually be a disadvantage (The Night Witches), but you're right about experience, that could indeed turn things around.

Also, IchLiebe, why would the other powers jump to help the US when they started the bloody thing?

There's also a dirty way of defeating them.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> If you can be overwhelmed in a land vs land, you aren't the strongest. Having an strategy that has next to no blind spots is one thing. Winning in everything is another, learn the difference.


The US wins land-vs-land with the simplest strategy.  Don't send any troops on to their land, sink any boats carrying their soldiers to our land.

Blow up their infrastructure and supply lines and destroy any building that looks like it might have soldiers in it from afar.

Wait.

Wait more.

Wait more.

Wait more.

Offer to allow whatever's left of China's army to surrender and be saved from the civilians that are tearing them apart.

The end!


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> The US wins land-vs-land with the simplest strategy.  Don't send any troops on to their land, sink any boats carrying their soldiers to our land.
> 
> Blow up their infrastructure and supply lines and destroy any building that looks like it might have soldiers in it from afar.
> 
> ...




What if they're invading?

Also, land vs land, as in "China's Army on the left" and the "US Army on the right" with no support from air or afar.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

Land assault would be in conjuction with air recon, still an American victory.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

No Air support means no bloody Earth. Something happened to the American Air Force and Navy and anything not the land units. Same for China. What goes then?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Is someone here seriously thinking that the US can't reduce China's military to an all infantry army within a matter of hours?  And I am not talking about using nuclear weapons either.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

Land invasions won't happen without air support, because air superiority has been proven to win.  This isn't the 1800s.  That doesn't make it not a land invasion if there are US rolling around plowing through cheaply made-Chinese ones.


----------



## Island (Dec 19, 2013)

The Bay of Pigs invasion consisted of 1,500 Cuban guerillas, rebels, and some random agents. It wasn't a formal military invasion in any sense but instead an attempted coup where the CIA sought to remove Castro from power by arming exiles who fled to the United States.

In the modern era, an invasion would first encompass air and naval superiority, both of which would result in the decimation of infrastructure, manufacturing centers, most above-ground military complexes, and other places of economic and political importance. If you think that the US, or any developed country, has engaged in anything except limited expeditions, peacekeeping operations, and skirmishes, I'm afraid that you don't know how modern warfare works.

Aerial and naval superiority is key, and once that's established, it becomes a matter of bombarding the enemy until they either surrender or they are worn-down enough to invade.

In a China versus US scenario with no nuclear weapons, the US would gain both aerial and naval superiority relatively quick. Unlike other previous wars such as Vietnam and both Gulf Wars, the US would also be using the totality of its air force and navy.

The US achieving aerial and naval superiority holds true in war with any other nation in the world. There is no nation which has an air force or navy as advanced as the US, nor does any other nation have the power projection for such. A war with any single country would result in the United States destroying both and bombarding that country until it's time for a proper invasion.

In an invasion scenario, China wouldn't be invading the US because that would require China destroy the US Navy, which is such a feat that it isn't even worth discussing.

Though a US invasion of China wouldn't be easy, it wouldn't be the same as if US Marines landed in Shanghai tomorrow. Again, the US would have already destroyed a significant amount of China's economic, industrial, and military centers, as well as a lot of its infrastructure and many political centers. At best, China is unified against the threat of US invasion but can only hope for winning a decisive early victory that allows it to repel a US invasion and make the US reconsider the war. However, this would need to be before any major city is captured, especially one which the US can use to bring in troops and supplies. At worst, and realistically, China fractures now that the Communist Party is no longer in control, and the US aligns with rebel forces to overthrow the Community Party.

I doubt anyone is saying that the US can do this easily or that the US will come out the same afterwards, but the US _can_ defeat any single country in war, China included.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> Is someone here seriously thinking that the US can't reduce China's military to an all infantry army within a matter of hours?  And I am not talking about using nuclear weapons either.



The possibility always exists for the opposite to happen.



Mider T said:


> Land invasions won't happen without air support, because air superiority has been proven to win.  This isn't the 1800s.  That doesn't make it not a land invasion if there are US rolling around plowing through cheaply made-Chinese ones.



Exactly. They need the combination of strategy, recognizance and the support of another of their wings to win. That they can't win if they were even and in land proves my point.

You're the strongest if you can win by just charging in. Otherwise, you need an strategy to be the strongest.

All I'm claiming now is that the US isn't invincible, and it isn't. No country is invincible. The right strategy always wins. This isn't an sport. This is like Chess.

If the mastermind fucks up, then the military does and it's game over.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> The possibility always exists for the opposite to happen.



No it does not, especially with China's military state.  _no_ country can match the US militarily.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

No, you're the strongest if you're stronger than everybody else.  I think you're oversimplifying this because you're trying to stretch for a scenario in which the US would lose, but that wouldn't happen.  This isn't chess, we don't live in the Middle Ages.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Island said:


> The Bay of Pigs invasion consisted of 1,500 Cuban guerillas, rebels, and some random agents. It wasn't a formal military invasion in any sense but instead an attempted coup where the CIA sought to remove Castro from power by arming exiles who fled to the United States.
> 
> In the modern era, an invasion would first encompass air and naval superiority, both of which would result in the decimation of infrastructure, manufacturing centers, most above-ground military complexes, and other places of economic and political importance. If you think that the US, or any developed country, has engaged in anything except limited expeditions, peacekeeping operations, and skirmishes, I'm afraid that you don't know how modern warfare works.
> 
> ...



I think you do understand it's a matter of strategy. However, there are also other things to consider.

For one, you exclude nuclear weapons, and cruel tactics, such as threatening to nuke China's neighbors if they attempt anything... if China loses, they may well be done with it and pull the US down with them.

There's also a problem with Air-Naval superiority. While you've got technology, you've got less numbers and are further away, while the Chinese force is already stationed in. They have the numerical advantage, as craft would either need to take off from Aircraft Carriers and that limits their numbers in the Air, or travel from the Homeland, which carries a significant time window for China to fortify.

Supposing they do lay siege to China from the Sea, then you remember that China shares borders with other countries and one of them is not keen on supporting the US. If the US begins gathering forces close to their allies, it still offers a significant time window to prepare anti-Air defenses, or worse, remove the countries via nuclear weapons/threaten to do it if the US keeps going.

Almost all scenarios end with the US emerging victorious. But their state is no longer even a shadow of what it used to be. Then consider that something like what happened during Operation Barbarossa happens and weather isn't on the American side. That may work to the Chinese advantage. Shelling the airports and blockading the coasts will only slow down the military buildup on land, but not halt it completely.

The possibilities are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States, but that doesn't means they've got all of them to their name. However small it may be, there's always the chance that America loses.

But it's way too unlikely anyways.

At any rate, my hopes aren't on China winning, but on China _weakening_ them so that they lose much of their projection power and can no longer call themselves Superpower. Any fight afterwards would be waged like any other country, with strategy and strategy alone.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Are you silly? The only way China will weaken the US's projection power will be if the US military just sits there without firing a shot to defend themselves or attack.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> No it does not, especially with China's military state.  _no_ country can match the US militarily.



Combined strength, experience and strategy... very unlikely. There's no such thing as impossible because there simply isn't such a thing as the invincible army. Even we Spanish still lost when facing Buccaneers.



Mider T said:


> No, you're the strongest if you're stronger than everybody else.  I think you're oversimplifying this because you're trying to stretch for a scenario in which the US would lose, but that wouldn't happen.  This isn't chess, we don't live in the Middle Ages.



If you split the Armed Forces and send each to fight a different war... I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that. The US wins because they have well rounded forces. Throw them off balance by sending too much of one wing and too little of the other to a war, and the possibility of victory plummets.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Stop concocting bizarre scenarios that have no chance at happening in the real world to feed your fantasy that China could actually defeat a western power.

Accept China's weakness and be grateful that a fairly responsible nation like America is the dominant power.


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> I think you do understand it's a matter of strategy. However, there are also other things to consider.
> 
> For one, you exclude nuclear weapons, and cruel tactics, such as threatening to nuke China's neighbors if they attempt anything... if China loses, they may well be done with it and pull the US down with them.
> 
> ...



There is no point arguing with these wankers. In their minds, the US military is invincible. Thats why I gave up and watch them make a fool of themselves to the rest of the world, or any non-americans that is reading this thread. 

even if the US is as powerful as the mongol horde in genghis khan's era, the hype in this thread is beyond BS. Even the British empire at its zenith or napoleon does not have this kind of power. 

Its funny how 4.45% of the world's population believe they can control and dominate the rest of the world with pure military might, and forever, and believe they can steamroll any nation into submission. (they probably already forgot their disaster in dealing with the iraqis and vietnam).


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> Are you silly? The only way China will weaken the US's projection power will be if the US military just sits there without firing a shot to defend themselves or attack.




The Iraq War was straining the US a little bit... and they were _terrorists_!

I also love how you aren't considering power-playing and nuclear weapons. It'd make a possible War with Russia end in 5 seconds.

The USSR used to be a Superpower, and Afghan terrorists pushed them back. The country who matched the US in power got pushed back by terrorists! What doesn't say the US can't fall into the same batch?


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

^The actual war of the Iraq War was light work, it was the nation building that followed that was difficult.  Once again, your lack of historical knowledge rears it's ugly head.

It wouldn't take more than a single fleet and the troops in the Pacific right now to take China down.  Remember when we said the US was by far the most powerful?  What other wars are you even talking about, your hypothetics are getting ridiculous.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> The Iraq War was straining the US a little bit... and they were _terrorists_!
> 
> I also love how you aren't considering power-playing and nuclear weapons. It'd make a possible War with Russia end in 5 seconds.
> 
> The USSR used to be a Superpower, and Afghan terrorists pushed them back. The country who matched the US in power got pushed back by terrorists! What doesn't say the US can't fall into the same batch?




SO your saying China is gonna beat the US through an insurgency? Having an insurgency means your military has already been destroyed. And the reason it "strained" the US is due to the fact we were trying to reduce collateral damage to the population, and win supprot from the populace.

The Iraqi military was destroyed within hours.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> Stop concocting bizarre scenarios that have no chance at happening in the real world to feed your fantasy that China could actually defeat a western power.
> 
> Accept China's weakness and be grateful that a fairly responsible nation like America is the dominant power.



The largest army and Air Force in the world salute you! Also, comrade, are you aware that Russia has the largest stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction and they're verrry trrrigerrr happy?

If you can't consider an scenario where you lose, then you're being unrealistic. You can always lose, even if the possibility is minuscule.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> The largest army and Air Force in the world salute you! Also, comrade, are you aware that Russia has the largest stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction and they're verrry trrrigerrr happy?
> 
> If you can't consider an scenario where you lose, then you're being unrealistic. You can always lose, even if the possibility is minuscule.



LOL a ton of shit planes/tanks/infantry will be destroyed by a smaller higher quality force, the forces we used to topple Saddam's invasion of Kuwait were smaller than Iraq's large military, and within 48 hours Iraqi ground forces were destroyed.

In the second day of the gulf war II Iraq's military was destroyed as well. Again with a much smaller highly trained force.(And then we had our insurgency)

Give it up, and look at recent history. Its all within the US's favor.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

TL;DR You can play insurgency with your whole military. It's just not an smart thing to do in most cases.

Avoid collateral damage? Starve the population and it'll be Vietnam War x100 and the US gets ripped apart from the inside out! Remember the US has a population to appease morally. China is ethically and morally unrestrained and can pull of cruel stuff.

Also, when it's quality vs numbers, it could go either way. The American strategists where better than the Iraqi. So?

Indeed, it's experience, training and strategies that win war. Not tactics.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

If it's an insurgency, China's already lost the war.  America wins.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> What if they're invading?



Then our navy sinks all the ships filled with soldiers before they ever get to us?


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> TL;DR You can play insurgency with your whole military. It's just not an smart thing to do in most cases.
> 
> Avoid collateral damage? Starve the population and it'll be Vietnam War x100 and the US gets ripped apart from the inside out! Remember the US has a population to appease morally. China is ethically and morally unrestrained and can pull of cruel stuff.
> 
> ...



No you can't. Tanks need fuel, planes and ships need ports. Satellites and drones that the US has see all. China loses. There is no point in arguing with a sinophile who has no grasp on military history.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> *If you can be overwhelmed in a land vs land, you aren't the strongest.* Having an strategy that has next to no blind spots is one thing. Winning in everything is another, learn the difference.
> 
> The largest army in the world would lose in their own country?
> 
> ...



You are making no logical sense at all. If you are able to decisively defeat your enemy; you are the STRONGER FORCE. It doesn't matter if China could be hypothetically superior in one department. If all you are trying to say is that China has superiority in numbers then just say it like it is. Like others have reiterated; this isn't the middle ages anymore and superiority in numbers is usually obsolete in the face of greater tech. 

If the United States land invasion was supported by air and navy then yes the Chinese would lose in their own country. You are taking away their major strengths (air,navy) to make the war seem more fair with China and then you're saying; "look see, they aren't the strongest!". 

Though, I will agree with you on the notion that war is unpredictable and you cannot give 100 percent certainty to any party.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 19, 2013)

Oh and Island's well written post covers most of your concerns. Instead of jumping around his points; read what he said carefully.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> If it's an insurgency, China's already lost the war.  America wins.



That's a type of strategy, not an actual insurgency.



EvilMoogle said:


> Then our navy sinks all the ships filled with soldiers before they ever get to us?



No, YOU invade them!



Chelydra said:


> No you can't. Tanks need fuel, planes and ships need ports. Satellites that the US has see all. China loses. There is no point in arguing with a sinophile who has no grasp on military history.



Oh boy, how stupid can you get?

The US can see as far as recognizance and satellites can. Satellites don't see underground, they don't see well into top secret facilities and satellites don't predict the outcome of a war... also, didn't China launch a satellite once as well?

If terrorists defeated a Superpower with less technology and numbers, how is it that it is impossible for it to happen again?

I'm no Sinophile (that's Shadow's job) but if someone says "X THING cannot be defeated" I'll be the first person to put a dent in their head. 

NOTHING IS BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE. You can't decide who wins just because.


----------



## Island (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> I think you do understand it's a matter of strategy. However, there are also other things to consider.


I have you strategy. Focus on aerial-naval superiority _is_ strategy. Outside of that, it depends on strategy within specific battles, fronts, or theaters, which is too specific to worth discussing.



Sleipnyr said:


> For one, you exclude nuclear weapons, and cruel tactics, such as threatening to nuke China's neighbors if they attempt anything... if China loses, they may well be done with it and pull the US down with them.


The parameters of this discussion have thus far been no-nuclear weapons, so discussing a nuclear war between the two is outside the scope of this discussion, also outside the scope of my post.



Sleipnyr said:


> There's also a problem with Air-Naval superiority. While you've got technology, you've got less numbers and are further away, while the Chinese force is already stationed in. They have the numerical advantage, as craft would either need to take off from Aircraft Carriers and that limits their numbers in the Air, or travel from the Homeland, which carries a significant time window for China to fortify.


Current technology allows US planes and ships to arrive in _hours_ never mind the significant build-up of ships in the Pacific that is already occurring.



Sleipnyr said:


> Supposing they do lay siege to China from the Sea, then you remember that China shares borders with other countries and one of them is not keen on supporting the US. If the US begins gathering forces close to their allies, it still offers a significant time window to prepare anti-Air defenses, or worse, remove the countries via nuclear weapons/threaten to do it if the US keeps going.


Again, the scope of this discussion was on US versus any single country, specifically China. I could just as easily argue that both the EU and India would support China, but that would drag this topic further off-course.



Sleipnyr said:


> Almost all scenarios end with the US emerging victorious. But their state is no longer even a shadow of what it used to be.


I didn't argue this. Don't try to paint my argument as something it's not.



Sleipnyr said:


> Then consider that something like what happened during Operation Barbarossa happens and weather isn't on the American side. That may work to the Chinese advantage. Shelling the airports and blockading the coasts will only slow down the military buildup on land, but not halt it completely.


You could argue the inverse too and say "What if a freak earthquake occurs in China?" That's why we control for these conditions when we're discussing hypothetical scenarios like this and assume that unless something is likely to happen, it probably won't.



Sleipnyr said:


> The possibilities are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States, but that doesn't means they've got all of them to their name. However small it may be, there's always the chance that America loses.


Nobody is contesting that the US will win absolutely every possible scenario; that's just retarded because one could devise a scenario where Yellowstone erupts midway through the war and decimates the Midwest.



Sleipnyr said:


> At any rate, my hopes aren't on China winning, but on China _weakening_ them so that they lose much of their projection power and can no longer call themselves Superpower. Any fight afterwards would be waged like any other country, with strategy and strategy alone.


This is irrelevant to my post.

The point here is that when discussing hypothetical scenarios like this, we try to stay within the given parameters, in this case, a war without nuclear weapons, and discount the possibility of unlikely or "freak accident" events occurring such as a natural disaster or a major military blunder by an otherwise competent military commander. Your response has almost entirely been "Well, what if X happens...?" Those hypothetical situations are so specific that they are irrelevant.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Oh and Island's well written post covers most of your concerns. Instead of jumping around his points; read what he said carefully.



I did. My point stands and it shall stand until the thread closes or the War happens and we get a definitive result.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> That's a type of strategy, not an actual insurgency.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Aright, this guy has no idea what he is talking about.


----------



## Island (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> I think you do understand it's a matter of strategy. However, there are also other things to consider.


I have given you strategy. Focus on aerial-naval superiority _is_ strategy. Outside of that, it depends on strategy within specific battles, fronts, or theaters, which is too specific to worth discussing.



Sleipnyr said:


> For one, you exclude nuclear weapons, and cruel tactics, such as threatening to nuke China's neighbors if they attempt anything... if China loses, they may well be done with it and pull the US down with them.


The parameters of this discussion have thus far been no-nuclear weapons, so discussing a nuclear war between the two is outside the scope of this discussion, also outside the scope of my post.



Sleipnyr said:


> There's also a problem with Air-Naval superiority. While you've got technology, you've got less numbers and are further away, while the Chinese force is already stationed in. They have the numerical advantage, as craft would either need to take off from Aircraft Carriers and that limits their numbers in the Air, or travel from the Homeland, which carries a significant time window for China to fortify.


Current technology allows US planes and ships to arrive in _hours_ never mind the significant build-up of ships in the Pacific that is already occurring.



Sleipnyr said:


> Supposing they do lay siege to China from the Sea, then you remember that China shares borders with other countries and one of them is not keen on supporting the US. If the US begins gathering forces close to their allies, it still offers a significant time window to prepare anti-Air defenses, or worse, remove the countries via nuclear weapons/threaten to do it if the US keeps going.


Again, the scope of this discussion was on US versus any single country, specifically China. I could just as easily argue that both the EU and India would support China, but that would drag this topic further off-course.



Sleipnyr said:


> Almost all scenarios end with the US emerging victorious. *But their state is no longer even a shadow of what it used to be.*


I didn't argue against this. Don't try to paint my argument as something it's not.



Sleipnyr said:


> Then consider that something like what happened during Operation Barbarossa happens and weather isn't on the American side. That may work to the Chinese advantage. Shelling the airports and blockading the coasts will only slow down the military buildup on land, but not halt it completely.


You could argue the inverse too and say "What if a freak earthquake occurs in China?" That's why we control for these conditions when we're discussing hypothetical scenarios like this and assume that unless something is likely to happen, it probably won't.



Sleipnyr said:


> The possibilities are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States, but that doesn't means they've got all of them to their name. However small it may be, there's always the chance that America loses.


Nobody is contesting that the US will win absolutely every possible scenario; that's just retarded because one could devise a scenario where Yellowstone erupts midway through the war and decimates the Midwest.



Sleipnyr said:


> At any rate, my hopes aren't on China winning, but on China _weakening_ them so that they lose much of their projection power and can no longer call themselves Superpower. Any fight afterwards would be waged like any other country, with strategy and strategy alone.


This is irrelevant to my post.

The point here is that when discussing hypothetical scenarios like this, we try to stay within the given parameters, in this case, a war without nuclear weapons, and discount the possibility of unlikely or "freak accident" events occurring such as a natural disaster or a major military blunder by an otherwise competent military commander. Your response has almost entirely been "Well, what if X happens...?" Those hypothetical situations are so specific that they are irrelevant.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> That's a type of strategy, not an actual insurgency.[/COLOR]



That isn't a strategy, that's suicidal.  People won't do that unless there's no longer a guarantee their military could protect them, at that point our work is done.

Your pandering to try and come up with more and more unfeasible situations in which China wins is pathetic, they know they can't, we know they can't, yet some uneducated Spaniard thinks they can?  Stick to your own country and how far it's fallen.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Are US military capabilities not talked about in European history documentaries or school programs? No History Channel there that covers war and other things? Do news stations not follow the US in its military operations? Or do they just report on when something goes wrong? 

If so, then this explains the naivety.(Along with the selective reporting if it goes on)


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 19, 2013)

So far from what I've read, Sleip has tried to make the game of war _fair_ and then tried to make it so the U.S. would essentially lose at every single turn with a lot of "what ifs".

I need to rep you for this, Sleip. You have successfully made me laugh off my stress.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Island said:


> I have you strategy. Focus on aerial-naval superiority _is_ strategy. Outside of that, it depends on strategy within specific battles, fronts, or theaters, which is too specific to worth discussing.



It is. I acknowledge that. That's my point.



> The parameters of this discussion have thus far been no-nuclear weapons, so discussing a nuclear war between the two is outside the scope of this discussion, also outside the scope of my post.



Well, but that already puts some nations who rely on those as their strategy (Russia relies on them as much as the US does on Air-Navy support).



> Current technology allows US planes and ships to arrive in _hours_ never mind the significant build-up of ships in the Pacific that is already occurring.



Hours is all that is needed, but planes have a very limited autonomy. Ships can, but there's a limited number of ships that can carry aircraft. Their bet would be their allies there, and that could only make it worse for the region at large and begin scrapping their public image.



> Again, the scope of this discussion was on US versus any single country, specifically China. I could just as easily argue that both the EU and India would support China, but that would drag this topic further off-course.



Indeed. Go on.



> I didn't argue this. Don't try to paint my argument as something it's not.



Good.



> You could argue the inverse too and say "What if a freak earthquake occurs in China?" That's why we control for these conditions when we're discussing hypothetical scenarios like this and assume that unless something is likely to happen, it probably won't.



Except that these scenarios are seldom taken for real. Why did Hitler fail? Same reason.



> *Nobody is contesting that the US will win absolutely every possible scenario; that's just retarded* because one could devise a scenario where Yellowstone erupts midway through the war and decimates the Midwest.



Exactly, but do remember my post about the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan. They were pushed out of the country. A superior, more advanced force where pushed out of Afghanistan by numerically and technologically inferior numbers. This, as unlikely as it could be, could happen in a China vs US war. You have to take Theaters themselves into account, since Theaters have been known to turn the tides of Wars alone (WWII is a testament to this).



> The point here is that when discussing hypothetical scenarios like this, we try to stay within the given parameters, in this case, a war without nuclear weapons, and discount the possibility of unlikely or "freak accident" events occurring such as a natural disaster or a major military blunder by an otherwise competent military commander. Your response has almost entirely been "Well, what if X happens...?" Those hypothetical situations are so specific that they are irrelevant.



They've mainly been holding into account the possibility that the US forces don't win just to get the point across that America's Military is well rounded and has next to no blind spots, but that it isn't without them and that an invasion, without a freak incident, could turn around completely with a good enough strategy.

Of course, what I haven't told everyone is that this would require Chinese strategists to be geniuses, which I doubt they are, but even less than brilliant strategists can come up with a good enough idea.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> Land assault would be in conjuction with air recon, still an American victory.




Which they wouldn't have. Also, this is discussing the separate wings of the American Military being the strongest of their kind. It holds true for the Navy and currently, Air Force, but the Army is debatable. As long as the US can't win a land on land war where both opponents are forced to rely only on what they can do on land, their power there is debatable, and they are the strongest only because of their strategy.

To be the strongest, they need an Army more numerous than China and still more technologically advanced than world's most advanced.

They got one down, where's the other?


----------



## epyoncloud (Dec 19, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> Are US military capabilities not talked about in European history documentaries or school programs? No History Channel there that covers war and other things? Do news stations not follow the US in its military operations? Or do they just report on when something goes wrong?
> 
> If so, then this explains the naivety.(Along with the selective reporting if it goes on)



If they won the war and pacify the population there wouldn't be anything to report. Its because they are doing a shitty job that needs reporting. 

you can make any dumb claims as you want, you can say i throw a punch and the whole mountain would crumble, but the only way to verify is to do it. The US always rely on the international support to subjucate other countries as in the world wars, the US military alone is a piece of crap. Even since the world wars, it has been on a losing streak (the korean war was a stalemate).


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

> To be the strongest, they need an Army more numerous than China and still more technologically advanced than world's most advanced.
> 
> They got one down, where's the other?



Are you really this stupid? What part of a smaller highly trained and advanced force will always beat a much larger force do you not get? Not to mention China's military consists of units from the 1950s onwards, we are already more technologically advanced in all aspects than they are.



epyoncloud said:


> If they won the war and pacify the population there wouldn't be anything to report. Its because they are doing a shitty job that needs reporting.
> 
> you can make any dumb claims as you want, you can say i throw a punch and the whole mountain would crumble, but the only way to verify is to do it. The US always rely on the international support to subjucate other countries as in the world wars, the US military alone is a piece of crap. Even since the world wars, it has been on a losing streak (the korean war was a stalemate).



Good lord more stupidity. The reason we ask for international "help" is to legitimize our operations, it looks better if more than one country takes part in it.  In short propaganda for the the populace of the country we are invading. The combat role for the other nations is minimal at best, mostly they are relegated to support roles so they don't screw things up.(With the exception of England, whom actually knows how to fight)


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> That isn't a strategy, that's suicidal.  People won't do that unless there's no longer a guarantee their military could protect them, at that point our work is done.
> 
> Your pandering to try and come up with more and more unfeasible situations in which China wins is pathetic, they know they can't, we know they can't, yet some uneducated Spaniard thinks they can?  Stick to your own country and how far it's fallen.



I know it's suicidal. But you and me know it worked once.

No, it's unlikely they win... very, very, very unlikely, but saying impossible is outright stupid.



Chelydra said:


> Are US military capabilities not talked about in European history documentaries or school programs? No History Channel there that covers war and other things? Do news stations not follow the US in its military operations? Or do they just report on when something goes wrong?
> 
> If so, then this explains the naivety.(Along with the selective reporting if it goes on)



I'm not trying to cover the majority of possibilities (I do know the US wins those) but the minority in which China pulls out something brilliant and pushes the US away successfully. The possibility is always there. Denying it won't change it, even if it's minuscule.



Yami Munesanzun said:


> So far from what I've read, Sleip has tried to make the game of war _fair_ and then tried to make it so the U.S. would essentially lose at every single turn with a lot of "what ifs".
> 
> I need to rep you for this, Sleip. You have successfully made me laugh off my stress.



Someone needs to be the reminder of "nothing written in stone".


----------



## EvilMoogle (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> No, YOU invade them!


Um, I already outlined the "invasion" strategy.

1) Bombardment, crippling China's infrastructure, manufacturing, and military.

2) Wait until starvation and insurgency tears the country apart.

3) Wait a little longer for good measure.

4) Offer to trade food in exchange for a very favorable peace settlement.

No troops ever need enter firing range.

Oh, you mean what if we abandoned any pretense of military strategy and simply charged in blindly?  Why would we do that?

What's your next question going to be, "what if the US forgets to bring weapons and accidentally handcuffs their hands behind their back before engaging in melee?"

From a serious standpoint if we found ourselves needing to invade on the ground for some reason it would come after we've crippled the military and it would look something like Iraq, establishing a "green zone" in the area where we need a presence and generally not having much presence outside of that.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Which they wouldn't have. Also, this is discussing the separate wings of the American Military being the strongest of their kind. It holds true for the Navy and currently, Air Force, but the Army is debatable. As long as the US can't win a land on land war where both opponents are forced to rely only on what they can do on land, their power there is debatable, and they are the strongest only because of their strategy.
> 
> To be the strongest, they need an Army more numerous than China and still more technologically advanced than world's most advanced.
> 
> They got one down, where's the other?




Wtf are you talking about?  Stop entertaining hypothetics, this situation would not happen.  And even if it did, without air support China would still lose to the US Army.  
And the strongest means stronger than everyone else, do you have selective reading problems?



epyoncloud said:


> If they won the war and pacify the population there wouldn't be anything to report. Its because they are doing a shitty job that needs reporting.
> 
> you can make any dumb claims as you want, you can say i throw a punch and the whole mountain would crumble, but the only way to verify is to do it. The US always rely on the international support to subjucate other countries as in the world wars, the US military alone is a piece of crap. Even since the world wars, it has been on a losing streak (the korean war was a stalemate).



I guess Gulf Wars/almost every other military engagement we've been in doesn't count?
If US military is crap, the rest of the world is absolute bullshit.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> Are you really this stupid? What part of a smaller highly trained and advanced force will always beat a much larger force? Not to mention China's military consists of units from the 1950s onwards, we are already more technologically advanced in all aspects than they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord more stupidity. The reason we ask for international "help" is to legitimize our operations, it looks better if more than one country takes part in it.  In short propaganda for the the populace of the country we are invading.



The part where Operation Barbarossa, which is relatively modern, repeats itself, simply because this time, the numbers are large enough to matter. A thousand unarmed men can kill one armed man.

Oh yeah! Because we're invading China because... of what exactly? Didn't we do similar stuff to Nicaragua and Latin America 60 years ago?


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> I know it's suicidal. But you and me know it worked once.
> 
> No, it's unlikely they win... very, very, very unlikely, but saying impossible is outright stupid.



No, it hasn't.  This is US vs. China, if there are citizens fighting China has already lost so this situation isn't even applicable.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> Wtf are you talking about?  Stop entertaining hypothetics, this situation would not happen.  And even if it did, without air support China would still lose to the US Army.
> And the strongest means stronger than everyone else, do you have selective reading problems?
> 
> 
> ...



China's got bigger numbers and nobody knows how they'd fare if they were going at it solo. This is just a way to gauge their power.

As I said, there's a reason the possibility is there. You don't get to decide what happens and what doesn't. If the dice falls in China's favor, you can't flip it to the US side just because.


----------



## Island (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Well, but that already puts some nations who rely on those as their strategy (Russia relies on them as much as the US does on Air-Navy support).


So?



Sleipnyr said:


> Hours is all that is needed, but planes have a very limited autonomy. Ships can, but there's a limited number of ships that can carry aircraft. Their bet would be their allies there, and that could only make it worse for the region at large and begin scrapping their public image.


This line of discussion requires specific knowledge on how the war began, whether there was build up, or we just clapped our hands and China and the US began fighting. There are too many variables here.

Also, the force that is currently within range of China's attacks is token, at best, and even if they are all destroyed, the US has many more. Where China has one aircraft carrier, for example, the US has seven. None of this changes anything.



Sleipnyr said:


> Except that these scenarios are seldom taken for real. Why did Hitler fail? Same reason.


A "real" discussion would require us to know the most likely setup. All we have for this hypothetical is "US, China, war, no nukes!". Any hypothetical situations you present add additional parameters that are therefore outside of the scope of the discussion.

Also, Hitler failed for many more reasons than that, but that's also beyond the scope of this discussion.

Also, also, Godwin's law.



Sleipnyr said:


> Exactly, but do remember my post about the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan. They were pushed out of the country. A superior, more advanced force where pushed out of Afghanistan by numerically and technologically inferior numbers. This, as unlikely as it could be, could happen in a China vs US war. You have to take Theaters themselves into account, since Theaters have been known to turn the tides of Wars alone (WWII is a testament to this).


Again, almost every war since the end of WW2 has either been some kind of expedition, liberation, occupation, or skirmish. There have been no wars on the scale that you're discussing. In a scenario where the Soviets sought to _destroy_ Afghanistan's capacity to wage war with them, they could have easily done so by bombing Kabul and other major cities into oblivion and leaving Afghanistan even more ruined than it already is.



Sleipnyr said:


> They've mainly been holding into account the possibility that the US forces don't win just to get the point across that America's Military is well rounded and has next to no blind spots, but that it isn't without them and that an invasion, without a freak incident, could turn around completely with a good enough strategy.


Again, freak occurrences and poor strategy by otherwise competent commanders are beyond the scope of this discussion since they add additional stipulations. The discussion is "US, China, war, no nukes!" not "US, China, war, no nukes, Yellowstone erupts, the Fifth Fleet gets caught up in a tsunami, and Russia joins in against the US."

Adding rules and stipulations as you go along is the adult version of changing the rules of a playtime game when you find out that you can't win.



Sleipnyr said:


> Of course, what I haven't told everyone is that this would require Chinese strategists to be geniuses, which I doubt they are, but even less than brilliant strategists can come up with a good enough idea.


Unless we have actual data on how capable China and US commanders are, we would assume that both are equally as competent since, again, assuming Chinese commanders are geniuses and US ones are not adds additional stipulations that are outside the scope of the discussion.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Operation Barbarossa will never repeat itself, because unlike WWII we have the units that can hit everywhere, there will no longer be factories relocating behind the Urals to avoid bombing. We dont have to deal with planes and tanks being too cold. Had Hitler actually had long range bombers the outcome would have been different. Good lord actually study modern combat.

Just give up and admit your wrong and spare us the trouble.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> No, it hasn't.  This is US vs. China, if there are citizens fighting China has already lost so this situation isn't even applicable.



No. I mean when it comes down to numbers and technology. The Afghan rebels were weaker in all areas and defeated their enemies. Leave it at that. Whether part of their opponents were the government or not doesn't matter. Strategy and strategy alone won there and it can claim yet another victory any day. It's strategy that's gotten the US so far.


----------



## Fujita (Dec 19, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> What's your next question going to be, "what if the US forgets to bring weapons and accidentally handcuffs their hands behind their back before engaging in melee?"



The Chinese would all spontaneously walk into the discount Civil War bayonets the army would ship out after the fact


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> No. I mean when it comes down to numbers and technology. The Afghan rebels were weaker in all areas and defeated their enemies. Leave it at that. Whether part of their opponents were the government or not doesn't matter. Strategy and strategy alone won there and it can claim yet another victory any day. It's strategy that's gotten the US so far.



An insurgency =/= a country fighting a country.  The US (in your scenario) isn't trying to conquer China just defeat it.  There's no part in this that an insurgency comes in to play.  

Besides the Mujaideen didn't "beat" the Russians, they just survived long enough to see them leave.  That isn't a win by any means.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Island said:


> So?
> 
> 
> This line of discussion requires specific knowledge on how the war began, whether there was build up, or we just clapped our hands and China and the US began fighting. There are too many variables here.



That's what I've been getting on so far. You can't take a winner for granted when the variables of an actual war may be different!



> Also, the force that is currently within range of China's attacks is token, at best, and even if they are all destroyed, the US has many more. Where China has one aircraft carrier, for example, the US has seven. None of this changes anything.



The War is on China. Your call.



> A "real" discussion would require us to know the most likely setup. All we have for this hypothetical is "US, China, war, no nukes!". Any hypothetical situations you present add additional parameters that are therefore outside of the scope of the discussion.



Exactly my point! We don't know the setup, and it influences how a war goes BIG TIME! It could go any way! Even if history leans towards one side.



> Also, Hitler failed for many more reasons than that, but that's also beyond the scope of this discussion.
> 
> Also, also, Godwin's law.



No!



> Again, almost every war since the end of WW2 has either been some kind of expedition, liberation, occupation, or skirmish. There have been no wars on the scale that you're discussing. In a scenario where the Soviets sought to _destroy_ Afghanistan's capacity to wage war with them, they could have easily done so by bombing Kabul and other major cities into oblivion and leaving Afghanistan even more ruined than it already is.



Yet they didn't. Would the US just brute force an invasion and destroy everything? We know not, so we can't say.



> Again, freak occurrences and poor strategy by otherwise competent commanders are beyond the scope of this discussion since they add additional stipulations. The discussion is "US, China, war, no nukes!" not "US, China, war, no nukes, Yellowstone erupts, the Fifth Fleet gets caught up in a tsunami, and Russia joins in against the US."
> 
> Adding rules and stipulations as you go along is the adult version of changing the rules of a playtime game when you find out that you can't win.



There is a problem there. I'm not changing the rules, but this game that hasn't even began, has so many variables anything could happen, however unlikely it seems. Most of the time "it" won't happen, but that doesn't means "it" *CAN'T* happen.



> Unless we have actual data on how capable China and US commanders are, we would assume that both are equally as competent since, again, assuming Chinese commanders are geniuses and US ones are not adds additional stipulations that are outside the scope of the discussion.



And that's the variable that keeps the war's outcome as "? (likely American victory)" rather than "American victory".



Chelydra said:


> Operation Barbarossa will never repeat itself, because unlike WWII we have the units that can hit everywhere, there will no longer be factories relocating behind the Urals to avoid bombing. We dont have to deal with planes and tanks being too cold. Had Hitler actually had long range bombers the outcome would have been different. Good lord actually study modern combat.
> 
> Just give up and admit your wrong and spare us the trouble.



This is troubling you? Oh goodness!

You have the units that can hit everywhere... but is everywhere the same as everything? Also, Americans will focus on the bulk of the military, as is with most wars, you do have to worry about mechanical failures, lack of autonomy and/or numbers or endurance of each plane. With long range bombers, all Hitler would've done is buy himself some time.

Good gracious! Spare me your grief and go read strategy books or look up the Operation itself!


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> That's what I've been getting on so far. You can't take a winner for granted when the variables of an actual war may be different!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I accept your concession that you know nothing about how the US military works, that you have a lack of general warfare doctrine in general, and cannot accept the facts presented to you that refute every point you have made. Good day sir.

 However please feel free to continue to highlight your lack of knowledge of US military capabilities and doctrines and ignoring the failings in all aspects of China's


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Fujita said:


> The Chinese would all spontaneously walk into the discount Civil War bayonets the army would ship out after the fact







Mider T said:


> An insurgency =/= a country fighting a country.  The US (in your scenario) isn't trying to conquer China just defeat it.  There's no part in this that an insurgency comes in to play.
> 
> Besides the Mujaideen didn't "beat" the Russians, they just survived long enough to see them leave.  That isn't a win by any means.



Invading forces have an endurance limit. They just need to tire and halt their advance long enough that trying to go further will simply be meaningless.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

^China doesn't have the capability to do that.



Sleipnyr said:


> And that's the variable that keeps the war's outcome as "? (likely American victory)" rather than "American victory".



No.  Thanks to our recent wars, current Generals and Admirals are seasoned with battle experience, they aren't incompetent.  And if they were they'd be removed, they aren't gonna cause us to lose a war.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> I accept your concession that you know nothing about how the US military works, that you have a lack of general warfare doctrine in general, and cannot accept the facts presented to you that refute every point you have made. Good day sir.



I accept your concession that you gave up to easily to an argument that cannot be refuted unless you're a determinist... that unless you're an insider, there's no way of knowing how a war would really go, and that you have run out of any excuse you may have to counter any point. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## Island (Dec 19, 2013)

Again, you keep changing the stipulations and filling in the blanks for variables you don't have answers for. In this type of debate, people assume a degree of normality where unlikely events won't happen and the status quo remains the same. Under the stipulations of "US versus China, no nukes!" and with that knowledge _alone_, the US wins. Any additional information you bring to the table that is not backed up by facts from reputable sources is hypothetical in nature and changes the parameters of the discussion. Therefore, it can't be used.

Also, the Soviets didn't destroy the Afghanistan because that wasn't their intent. A war between China and the US or any other similarly-sized combatants would undoubtedly be a war of survival first and a war of liberation/occupation second. There is no reason why the US would enter the war with the same mindset that it had in Vietnam or the Soviets had in Afghanistan.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> ^China doesn't have the capability to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Thanks to our recent wars, current Generals and Admirals are seasoned with battle experience, they aren't incompetent.  And if they were they'd be removed, they aren't gonna cause us to lose a war.



Who's to say that?

Yes, that means your strategy is solid and you'll win because of genius strategists, tacticians and experience. Good. That's what wins ANY war. Equipment is nothing without somewhat smart enough to know where to put it.

War is a game of Chess, where anything is possible. Say otherwise and the only one you're lying to, is yourself.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

Island said:


> Again, you keep changing the stipulations and filling in the blanks for variables you don't have answers for. In this type of debate, people assume a degree of normality where unlikely events won't happen and the status quo remains the same. Under the stipulations of "US versus China, no nukes!" and with that knowledge _alone_, the US wins. Any additional information you bring to the table that is not backed up by facts from reputable sources is hypothetical in nature and changes the parameters of the discussion. Therefore, it can't be used.



Therefore the scenario Sleipnyr is going for is this: What would happen if China and the US went to war, and oh the US can't defend itself, or attack. Thus Sleipnyr can reach the outcome he wants, a victory for china.


----------



## Mider T (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> Who's to say that?
> 
> Yes, that means your strategy is solid and you'll win because of genius strategists, tacticians and experience. Good. That's what wins ANY war. Equipment is nothing without somewhat smart enough to know where to put it.
> 
> War is a game of Chess, where anything is possible. Say otherwise and the only one you're lying to, is yourself.



It's generally known what a country can and can't do.   Read and learn.

The US knows how to fight wars, and it's got the tech to do it.  China already lacks the experience, there's no amount of strategy or tactics that's gonna come out dominant of such awesome power through air superiority.

You keep bringing up chess like we're fighting the in Middle Ages or something, it's embarrassing and you don't even know why.

Red, White, and Blue all over the place.


----------



## Island (Dec 19, 2013)

Sleipnyr said:


> War is a game of Chess, where anything is possible. Say otherwise and the only one you're lying to, is yourself.


You're so deep that I can't even see you anymore.

You're also wrong. Comparing war to chess implies that both sides start equal, and that is almost never the case. Saying this is chess would meant that both China and the US start with X soldiers with Y equipment on a symmetrical battlefield with the same starting positions, and therefore, the battle entirely comes down to whose strategy is better. In reality, China and the US are using vastly different technology, weapons, and have different levels of industry and resources available to use.


----------



## Nordstrom (Dec 19, 2013)

Island said:


> Again, you keep changing the stipulations and filling in the blanks for variables you don't have answers for. In this type of debate, people assume a degree of normality where unlikely events won't happen and the status quo remains the same. Under the stipulations of "US versus China, no nukes!" and with that knowledge _alone_, the US wins. Any additional information you bring to the table that is not backed up by facts from reputable sources is hypothetical in nature and changes the parameters of the discussion. Therefore, it can't be used.
> 
> Also, the Soviets didn't destroy the Afghanistan because that wasn't their intent. A war between China and the US or any other similarly-sized combatants would undoubtedly be a war of survival first and a war of liberation/occupation second. There is no reason why the US would enter the war with the same mindset that it had in Vietnam or the Soviets had in Afghanistan.



Under your rules, we can't pick up a winner specifically BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CHINA CURRENTLY IS CAPABLE OFF! By experience and history, you'd go for the US, but you don't know what China can't do. We've not seen them in War. The only time we did see them do something smart, even the US itself was impressed by it (getting a sub close to one of their ships and they don't realize it).

In your status quo, there'd be no War in the first place. As war is ALL ABOUT VARIABLES, saying "X vs X with no variables" is talking about an unrealistic war! Unless this is a fighting game, that doesn't cut it.

I do admit the whole part about the Invasion having a different purpose, but then again, think about why the US would invade China and what they'd want to do... take over the government? Decimate the country? It could play differently depending on the REASON the US has to invade.


----------



## Chelydra (Dec 19, 2013)

We know exactly what China is capable of doing, we watch their drills and listen in on their communications, we read their training manuals, we actually operate some of the same equipment they use so we can learn its weakness. Do you think the US just sits there with its thumb up its ass? 

We likely know more about the capabilities of the Chinese military than the Chinese government itself does.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Dec 19, 2013)

Mider T said:


> Red, White, and Blue all over the place.



On the ceiling.

In the Vodka.

Slipping down your back like a damn Slip-n-Slide. feels good, don't it?

R, W, and B er'rywhere.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 19, 2013)

Thread has been thoroughly derailed. All you people are dumb dumbs.


----------

