America Vs China

[Ronas]

Hot topic back in 2004-2006 but come 2011 if these two countries were to fight it out who would win?

Rules: No Nukes allowed, No Allies allowed.

Kind of war used
Combat, Land/Air/Sea.

No Economic war since china ripping it at the moment.

[wehrmacht]

America due to massive biological weapon stock duh. We probably even have race specific bio weapons by now. Israel was trying to make them too.

[quenyar]

Nevah underrrrestimate ze power of ze Chinese zzzeerg!

[Salty]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

[naez]

Are you serious? China is a country with modern technology and 5x the population. America can't even beat faggots in sandy lands 10 years later.

[naez]

America due to massive biological weapon stock duh. We probably even have race specific bio weapons by now. Israel was trying to make them too.

SARS was a confirmed bio-weapon linked to PNAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fr...search_Program

I'm sure the Chinese have similar kinetic weaponry.

[Polixenes]

China.
Chinese soldiers know kung fu.
US soldiers sit around telling Chuck Norris jokes.

[casdegere]

I believe we have the best Navy and Air Force. Our planes are much more High Tech. Can't get tanks and troops on our soil if your ships are sunk.

Everyone groans when they talk about a 400 million dollar plane. This is what makes it so expensive...

Imagine you are in one of our newest fighters. You get blips on your radar of enemy planes. Miles away your in a Chinese fighter. You don't have any blips yet...

The US fighter unleashes its missiles then turns around and heads back to get more missiles. The Chinese finally get a few blips on their screens and boy do they appear to be moving fast!

The avionics package in these planes and our Aegis Cruiser system is bar none hot stuff. Take out Chinese Satellites, sink their ships and they are toast.

[Ihealyou]

America would win. The Iraqi and Afghani governments were defeated within days. The US is only struggling in the Middle East now because we were not trained or equipped for asymmetrical warfare. In actual military vs. military combat, which is what we saw at the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the US excels. Obviously China would be tougher to defeat than Iraq, but I still think the US would have an edge over the Chinese due to superior technology and training.

The whole question is pointless, however. The US and China are too economically dependent on each other to go to war.

[Vonkaar]

Your rules pretty well make this a completely fantasy question so why not add Thor and Iron Man to the mix? In which case, the United States wins hands down.

Uh... no economics... umm... no allies...

Okay, well how about unicorns and pixies? Can I include those?

[Juda]

China would smoke usa all day only ting usa could do detnate h.a.a.r.p. ending the world

[wehrmacht]

This is the last thing China would see:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg/792px-Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg

[eqravenprince]

Since China has no shot of ever reaching US soil, I'm going to go with US.

[Bruno]

Since China has no shot of ever reaching US soil, I'm going to go with US.

But if they could...

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w45/dabiglizzard/pic_12090154296958.jpg

[Hasbinbad]

Discounting the PLAAF is a fool's errand.

The Black Eagle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20)

Chengdu J-20 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jxvYMeRw4M)

http://www.defenceaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/j20_1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ja676MG45Zg/TST3p6BF1NI/AAAAAAAAE1E/JeXit4TYRUc/s1600/chengdu-j-20-blackeagle1.jpg

[casdegere]

Its a really nice plane for dog-fighting however, that concept was disposed of by the US a while ago. The new inception of modern aircraft warfare is about who sees who first. Their planes are much cheaper to replace sure, but...good pilot's aren't. :)

[Hasbinbad]

Its a really nice plane for dog-fighting however, that concept was disposed of by the US a while ago. The new inception of modern aircraft warfare is about who sees who first. Their planes are much cheaper to replace sure, but...good pilot's aren't. :)
Are you seriously saying that a generation of 500 million chinese children raised on video games are going to be shitty pilots?

You musta bumped your head, boy.

[casdegere]

Are you seriously saying that a generation of 500 million chinese children raised on video games are going to be shitty pilots?

You musta bumped your head, boy.

LOL, well you might have a point there.

[wehrmacht]

It's a lot bigger and may or may not have exterior materials and paint as good as the F22 for ditching radar. There's no reason to believe the Chinese one is going to stealthier.

[Rasah]

US has a ton more military assets at the moment. They may have more people, but we have way more ships, planes, missiles, etc. In 2011, I don't think the Chinese could bridge the gap.

Now if we told them we would be fighting in 2016, and they had time to prepare, they would kick our shit.

[Massive Marc]

America due to massive biological weapon stock duh. We probably even have race specific bio weapons by now. Israel was trying to make them too.

If I remember correctly, both USA and China have race specific weapons.

[wehrmacht]

Now if we told them we would be fighting in 2016, and they had time to prepare, they would kick our shit.

No. Would only take one MIRV warhead to take out their entire population. They're all huddled in the south east. If this is for some reason without nukes, you could load the things up with some kind of bio weapon and get the same result.

[Lasher]

We would cheat and nuke them

US wins

[TigerBloodz]

China may have the numbers, but we've got a century of military-industrial complex black projects on our side. Would probably start with a full-on HAARP assault, followed by a swarm of stealth drone / flying saucer attacks. Pretty sure that no one other than wealthy, scheming globalists could end our empire.

[guineapig]

flying saucer attacks

http://i.testfreaks.com/images/products/600x400/148/sim-city-4-rush-hour.327316.jpg

<3 SimCity 4


(I edited the link for you... happy now? :p)

[Hasbinbad]

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/08/simcity4.jpg

<3 SimCity 4
Fail.

[guineapig]

Explain.

We are talking about a fictitious fairytale war where nukes, allies and economies don't exist.

People start mentioning top secret HAARP technology and flying saucer attacks.

And then I fail for posting a screenshot of a flying saucer attack?

dude...

[Ankiilbiter]

The whole question is pointless, however. The US and China are too economically dependent on each other to go to war.

This.

We live in a global economy, advanced countries experience warfare on the economic level, not the militaristic.

[naez]

China may have the numbers, but we've got a century of military-industrial complex black projects on our side. Would probably start with a full-on HAARP assault, followed by a swarm of stealth drone / flying saucer attacks. Pretty sure that no one other than wealthy, scheming globalists could end our empire.

Indeed, the globalists have been on a quest to destroy America pretty much since its inception. The elite of the western world, particularly the king of England, were knocked off their thrones world-wide by the American revolution. It was one of the only, if not the only, time in history that the common man had secured his freedom from the despotism of 'divine right' to rule.

Also, the Chinese secret societies (Red and Green Gangs, Black Dragon) have already threatened to blow up all the US's satellites. So it's not like we can just do it to them and they can't do it back. The Pentagon has run numerous scenarios for contingency against China and they have stated it is militarily impossible. Even a full out nuclear war would be useless, as China has been preparing underground cities for decades ever since China and Russia went at it in '69, and the USA doesn't have anything as intricate.

Also, China probably wouldn't do a land invasion. As some Japanese admiral said at the height of WW2, "There will be an armed American behind every blade of grass". They would just exhaust the US economically home-court advantage, look into Ramen Noodle Armies.

[Smedy]

We would cheat and nuke them

US wins

Lasher's whistle, totally not clean.

[naez]

smedy sweden dont got nukes or a 2nd amendment

gtfo

[Airdefier]

Your rules pretty well make this a completely fantasy question so why not add Thor and Iron Man to the mix? In which case, the United States wins hands down.

Uh... no economics... umm... no allies...

Okay, well how about unicorns and pixies? Can I include those?

I was reading this during class, loled so damn hard

[Humerox]

anyone who played shadowbane knows who would win and why.

;)

[Fenrisulfr]

Russia.

[Ronas]

The votes are pretty even at the moment.

There were restrictions in place because

1. Use of Nukes wouldn't really be put into play, to me i believe they are there just to scare the other nations but neither countries would use them (Well maybe the US because they are stupid and arrogant) due to one bomb pretty much blasting away 1/5 of the world, and leaving behind scars on the planet that wouldn't regen for over 1000 years.

2. I put in no allies because the US has only won one war in history without allies and that when they fought for there independence? Correct me if i am wrong here.

3. And lastly economic was optional, but taken out due to the chinese having holdings in almost every massive company in the world. Mining, food, constructions. If this were to come into play it would put the chinese on a huge advantage, on top of all that, doesnt the US owe China money too? Plus the chinese are playing it smart using the net for cyber espionage into other companies to take them over. Whilst the US are warring for quick cash in the oil industry countries only.

End game, the US might win if the war was quick and decisive but that wouldn't be possible due to the chinese setting up defenses to counter quick assaults like the shock and awe tactics used in Iraq. The chinese know all counter measures for that already, so the war would be drawn out and the US eventually would exhaust there resources within there own country and lose out in the end.

[naez]

If you want to get technical about it, France was an ally for early America against Britain, joining 1778 and ending it with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Their help in the victory later led to the French revolution. As I said earlier, America freeing itself from 'divine right to rule' toppled the elite world-wide.

If in this scenario allies were allowed, it would be in favor of the Chinese. The principle nations of Eurasia, along with the likely inclusion of Russia (who has recently stopped using USD in its trades with China), is more than the Atlantic world could put up a fight against.

[soup]

Not really sure what you guys who voted for China think China could do. Pretty much all China could do to touch the US mainland is launch ICBMs that don't have nuclear warheads, horribly neutering their effectiveness (I'm assuming they have ICBMs that can reach the US, not 100% sure though)

The US Navy is too powerful. China would be almost completely unable to to get anyone anywhere near the US. Maybe some small scale black ops type of stuff, but that wouldn't be nearly enough to topple the US without something on a larger scale going on.

That's not to say the US could just stroll into China and just decimate everything no problem, but at least the US would be able to put people on Chinese soil, in Chinese air, and in Chinese waters.

[naez]

Actually the US navy is rendered useless sitting ducks by Chinese submarines. This is a recent development within the past few years as they have been popping up behind US naval carriers during military exercises. This goes back to the same secret societies who have threated to blow up the USA's satellites because of our foreign policy.

[bakkily]

haarp, would devistate major ports/areas where they can get to sea, air fast enough, though it would take a hell of a lot of energy

[Ronas]

China is the factory of the world, they mass produce ships/tanks/subs/missles/planes anything. Like if they send out 20 000 ships all over the place, plus 20 000 remote planes controlled by there elite gaming soldiers, it would be something like 20-100 to one on every american military unit. You saying 50 shitty planes vus one elite plane they wont be able to take it out?

Its a numbers game in both war and EQ

[Juda]

China’s Carrier Killer Ballistic Missiles are Operational
new DF-21D anti-ship balistic missiles
with their 900-mile range, have reached an early operational status.

[Beastro]

Hot topic back in 2004-2006 but come 2011 if these two countries were to fight it out who would win?

Rules: No Nukes allowed, No Allies allowed.

Kind of war used
Combat, Land/Air/Sea.

No Economic war since china ripping it at the moment.

Stalemate as there is no land to fight on. The only option would be a war in Korea.

China lacks the aircraft and navy to attack the US, the US doesn't have the army to fight China in a land war beyond South Korea.

If they beat them back an offensive into the North and China would be suicide.

This, of course, ignores the fact that the two sides wouldn't goto war in the first place.

[Beastro]

BTW and not of a surprised, ignore every post Naez makes.

[Beastro]

The votes are pretty even at the moment.

There were restrictions in place because

1. Use of Nukes wouldn't really be put into play, to me i believe they are there just to scare the other nations but neither countries would use them (Well maybe the US because they are stupid and arrogant) due to one bomb pretty much blasting away 1/5 of the world, and leaving behind scars on the planet that wouldn't regen for over 1000 years.

2. I put in no allies because the US has only won one war in history without allies and that when they fought for there independence? Correct me if i am wrong here.

3. And lastly economic was optional, but taken out due to the chinese having holdings in almost every massive company in the world. Mining, food, constructions. If this were to come into play it would put the chinese on a huge advantage, on top of all that, doesnt the US owe China money too? Plus the chinese are playing it smart using the net for cyber espionage into other companies to take them over. Whilst the US are warring for quick cash in the oil industry countries only.

End game, the US might win if the war was quick and decisive but that wouldn't be possible due to the chinese setting up defenses to counter quick assaults like the shock and awe tactics used in Iraq. The chinese know all counter measures for that already, so the war would be drawn out and the US eventually would exhaust there resources within there own country and lose out in the end.

Sigh....

1: Scars, how? It would fuck up civilization and gut out almost every city, turning them into plague hole, but what scars to the planet exactly?

2: Pretty much every single war they fought before the Great War. Unilateralism and refusal to be bound up in alliances was central to American foreign policy before the 20th Century (The US looked on them as a web European powers used to drag each other into wars they didn't want to be in).

3: China and the US go to war, they're both fucked economically. One buys too much from the other while the others trade lanes will be shutdown asap.

End game, the US might win if the war was quick and decisive but that wouldn't be possible due to the chinese setting up defenses to counter quick assaults like the shock and awe tactics used in Iraq. The chinese know all counter measures for that already, so the war would be drawn out and the US eventually would exhaust there resources within there own country and lose out in the end.

All modern wars are quick due to the fact that modern warfare is geared towards the massive outpouring of munitions.

Every modern war conventional war has either ended quick and decisively or both sides wound up expending all their munitions and could only continue when their backers rushed to resupply them (The Abrab-Israeli wars).

Discounting the PLAAF is a fool's errand.

The Black Eagle

Chengdu J-20


Both in the infancy of their development. The mainstay of China will remain rip off Russian designs for quite some time.

The only problem is America is shooting themselves by slack on aircraft development and will rely on aircraft whose design history began in the 60s and were developed a decade after that.

US has a ton more military assets at the moment. They may have more people, but we have way more ships, planes, missiles, etc. In 2011, I don't think the Chinese could bridge the gap.

Now if we told them we would be fighting in 2016, and they had time to prepare, they would kick our shit.

America is over committed and under funded while the Chinese are still decades from training their military to be of Western quality.


No. Would only take one MIRV warhead to take out their entire population.

A single warhead wouldn't even destroy a single city.

you could load the things up with some kind of bio weapon and get the same result.

How to deploy?

"Things" is not the answer.

This.

We live in a global economy, advanced countries experience warfare on the economic level, not the militaristic.

Has been for the last two centuries.

Actually the US navy is rendered useless sitting ducks by Chinese submarines. This is a recent development within the past few years as they have been popping up behind US naval carriers during military exercises.


All Chinese subs currently in service are only glorified diesel subs, they can't run over 20 knots for long without destroying their engine machinery.

Chinese metallurgy is notoriously poor in quality.

China’s Carrier Killer Ballistic Missiles are Operational
new DF-21D anti-ship balistic missiles
with their 900-mile range, have reached an early operational status.

Launch a ballistic missile, start a nuclear war.

[naez]

Beastro fancies himself a brilliant military strategist. However, his basic lack of understanding of the geopolitical context that current events play handicaps his ability to do so. He also grossly downplays the role that secret societies play in the horse trading of international affairs.

America was the leading superpower for the past century. China will be the new one.

[Beastro]

Beastro fancies himself a brilliant military strategist.

No, I just parrot others who know wtf they're talking about.

America was the leading superpower for the past century. China will be the new one.

Depends on if China implodes due to population and ecological damage. If not, then yes.

[Spud]

What if China has mini-ditka on their team?

[wehrmacht]

China has been preparing underground cities for decades ever since China and Russia went at it in '69, and the USA doesn't have anything as intricate.

The US on the books strategy for dealing with nuke attacks is to absorb the first wave and just let whoever is targeted die. China can't use a strategy like that because it only takes one MIRV warhead to take out their entire population of 1 billion. This is why China is much easier to kill in any war with technology past WW2.


That's not to say the US could just stroll into China and just decimate everything no problem

Anyone with WMD's can due to the map below. If you say "without nukes", there are still plenty of weapons just as effective against that.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/china_population_83.jpg

[soup]

Anyone with WMD's can due to the map below. If you say "without nukes", there are still plenty of weapons just as effective against that.



The implication of my statement was that the US wouldn't be able to just casually go over and make China roll over and die. Cause massive amounts of devastation and death? Sure. Have China roll over and die? lol no

[Smyd]

I'm not American, so from an outside point of view, no-one stands a chance against China...

In more ways than one they are slowly taking over the world and it's very worrying. Hell yeah I would want America to win, but realistically, I think they wouldn't...

Never the less.. burn the ****s!

[Prince]

The US on the books strategy for dealing with nuke attacks is to absorb the first wave and just let whoever is targeted die. China can't use a strategy like that because it only takes one MIRV warhead to take out their entire population of 1 billion. This is why China is much easier to kill in any war with technology past WW2.



Anyone with WMD's can due to the map below. If you say "without nukes", there are still plenty of weapons just as effective against that.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/china_population_83.jpg


hows that any different than the us?

http://www.goreorchids.com/GalleryStorage/usa_population_density.jpg

[Beastro]

China can't use a strategy like that because it only takes one MIRV warhead to take out their entire population of 1 billion.

Keep say it, but it's bullshit until you describe exactly how one warhead would kill a billion people when it's insufficient to wipe out even a single city.

Besides, warheads aren't commonly targeted at population centers, they are sanely targeted at the enemies war make capabilities. It just so happens many of them fall within population centers.

The Soviet Union varied from that because of their different take on a nuclear exchange. They didn't think it would end after the first exchange and prepared weapons to be fired after that to keep the enemy down.

They also looked on the world differently and had pretty much every capital, NATO or neutral regardless. The SU would be hurting and the turd world would become a threat potential threat post-WWIII and since all those countries are centered completely around their capitals, nuking them would keep them out of the picture.

The Typhoon Class SSBNs were built to this premise, they'd remain under the Arctic ice during the main exchange and then only surface and fire their SLBM months later to attack NATO as they tried to rebuild.

The US on the books strategy for dealing with nuke attacks is to absorb the first wave and just let whoever is targeted die.

This is result of Kennedy, McNamara and the Democrats dismantling of the SACs anti-ballistic missile defence projects in the early 60s and them later cutting into the new attempts at it when Bush was in power.

They're also responsible for the shift from manned bombers to ICBMs which reduced the reaction time during a nuclear crisis from days and hours to 5 minutes.

[Beastro]

Fucking lack of an edit button on here...

Anyone with WMD's can due to the map below. If you say "without nukes", there are still plenty of weapons just as effective against that.

How to deploy? How to deploy?

Bio and Chemical agents are often more trouble than they're worth anyway and are more effective as a defensive weapon than an offensive on.

[Juda]

Sigh....

1: Scars, how? It would fuck up civilization and gut out almost every city, turning them into plague hole, but what scars to the planet exactly?

2: Pretty much every single war they fought before the Great War. Unilateralism and refusal to be bound up in alliances was central to American foreign policy before the 20th Century (The US looked on them as a web European powers used to drag each other into wars they didn't want to be in).

3: China and the US go to war, they're both fucked economically. One buys too much from the other while the others trade lanes will be shutdown asap.



All modern wars are quick due to the fact that modern warfare is geared towards the massive outpouring of munitions.

Every modern war conventional war has either ended quick and decisively or both sides wound up expending all their munitions and could only continue when their backers rushed to resupply them (The Abrab-Israeli wars).


Both in the infancy of their development. The mainstay of China will remain rip off Russian designs for quite some time.

The only problem is America is shooting themselves by slack on aircraft development and will rely on aircraft whose design history began in the 60s and were developed a decade after that.



America is over committed and under funded while the Chinese are still decades from training their military to be of Western quality.



A single warhead wouldn't even destroy a single city.



How to deploy?

"Things" is not the answer.



Has been for the last two centuries.



All Chinese subs currently in service are only glorified diesel subs, they can't run over 20 knots for long without destroying their engine machinery.

Chinese metallurgy is notoriously poor in quality.



Launch a ballistic missile, start a nuclear war.

its not a ICBM its a fuckin carrier killer you know that most powerful navy you once knew now all sunk to the bottom cause a few missles

[Beastro]

its not a ICBM its a fuckin carrier killer you know that most powerful navy you once knew now all sunk to the bottom cause a few missles

There's more ballistic missiles types than the ICBMs.

The US may recognize a SRBM/MRBM launch as not a threat to CONUS but India and Russia will immediately shits their pants and launch because they don't know wtf the thing is heading for.

Russian and India launch, Pakistan and NATO then launch.

It takes a good 20-30 minutes to know where a ballistic missile is going. You have only 5 to order you're to get your ready and flying before the enemies land. Even less with the shorter ranges missiles so you fire ASAP.

Solely relying on ballistic missiles has always been retarded and one of the greatest fuck ups in the history of nuclear deterrence was the shift to soley relying on them instead of a mixed force with bombers which are both harder to hit, give you a greater reaction time to prevent a crisis from going to war and have thinking human beings behind them.

FYI, there's no such thing as a ballistic missile "self-destruct system", once they're fired WWIII begins.

Of course, all this is beside the fact that we have yet to see these Chicom missiles in action. They are after all, ballistic: Once the CBG makes even the slightest turn the missile will just plop harmlessly into the sea miles from the carrier.

The US keeps a close eye on missile launches from every country and in war time conditions, bar a ballistic launch triggering a nuclear exchange, every CBG in range will alter course.

You can counter that the US GSP sat system will get knocked out right off the bat and you'd be right... just like China's equivalent will be and without it there's no way the Chinese will even know where the US carriers are much less fire off missiles at them.

And of course, we haven't yet touched upon the fact that the USN is arming their escort ships with ABM systems as we speak.

Cut out the dick waving and state facts.

[bman8810]

1. Use of Nukes wouldn't really be put into play, to me i believe they are there just to scare the other nations but neither countries would use them (Well maybe the US because they are stupid and arrogant) due to one bomb pretty much blasting away 1/5 of the world, and leaving behind scars on the planet that wouldn't regen for over 1000 years.


I'm just going to go ahead and assume you were exaggerating and don't really believe those claims. If you really did, you would believe that we destroyed 40% of the world during WW2.

A picture of Hiroshima now:
http://infinitebuildersolutions.com/images/hiroshima-today-japan.jpg

[Prince]

just fyi the nuclear weapons the US, Russia etc have nowadays are pretty different from the two bombs that were dropped on Japan in WW2.

[Prince]

For instance, Fat man had a blast yield of 21 kilotons of tnt (88 terajoules of energy) and little boy had a yield of 13-18 kt TNT (54-75 TJ). Modern nuclear weapons (using the B83 as an example) have blast yields of up to 1.2 Megatons (1,200 Kilotons) of TNT, equivalent to 5,000 terajoules of energy. There's a pretty big difference between the impact that one of these bombs would have if detonated compared to the long term effect of fat man + little boy on Japan.

[naez]

yea bros we create mini black holes by shooting particles at each other. i think we're gonna do a bit better than 1940s before silicon wafers

[bman8810]

For instance, Fat man had a blast yield of 21 kilotons of tnt (88 terajoules of energy) and little boy had a yield of 13-18 kt TNT (54-75 TJ). Modern nuclear weapons (using the B83 as an example) have blast yields of up to 1.2 Megatons (1,200 Kilotons) of TNT, equivalent to 5,000 terajoules of energy. There's a pretty big difference between the impact that one of these bombs would have if detonated compared to the long term effect of fat man + little boy on Japan.

You are referring to two different types of bombs. The first type of bomb you are referring to is an atomic bomb and relies solely on fission. The second type of bomb you are referring to is a thermonuclear bomb which utilizes both fusion and fission.

Also, 1954 was the first testing of a hydrogen bomb; i.e. a thermonuclear bomb. It released the equivalent (approximately) of 10 megatons of TNT. As such, the 1/5th of the earth claim is still far from accurate.

[Beastro]

For instance, Fat man had a blast yield of 21 kilotons of tnt (88 terajoules of energy) and little boy had a yield of 13-18 kt TNT (54-75 TJ). Modern nuclear weapons (using the B83 as an example) have blast yields of up to 1.2 Megatons (1,200 Kilotons) of TNT, equivalent to 5,000 terajoules of energy. There's a pretty big difference between the impact that one of these bombs would have if detonated compared to the long term effect of fat man + little boy on Japan.

Most modern US weapons are geared to initiate below their maximum yield and, at least under Bush, there were projects looking to replace the US deterrent with warheads whose yields were below the first generation of nukes.

Big bombs are, for the most part, a waste. The only real advantage they give is that the initiation material is greater and thus the bomb doesn't been to be serviced and have parts replaced as much (mainly the tritium which has a fairly short half life).

Even a megaton+ nuke still wouldn't destroy a whole city, nor would the after effects be as bad as the Jap bombs, again because of air bursts.

[naez]

well you see the Hiroshima bombs were hydrogen. nowadays we learned how to enrich uranium and plutonium and shit. now i aint no rocket scientist but I think more neutrons = better dirty bomb for fucking the environment up

[wehrmacht]

Keep say it, but it's bullshit until you describe exactly how one warhead would kill a billion people when it's insufficient to wipe out even a single city.


How can you pretend to know any of this stuff about war yet not know a MIRV is more than one nuke.

[Prince]

i am p sure a 1.2 megaton bomb dropped over manhattan would destroy all of new york city

[Beastro]

How can you pretend to know any of this stuff about war yet not know a MIRV is more than one nuke.

One warhead still = one MIRV warhead.

I still stand by that statement.

An MIRV "claw", in the absence of a ABM system or any chance of failure (expect only 1/3rd of your missiles to get launched: 1/3rd being serviced, 1/3rd expected to fail and 1/3 expected to work and they still have yet to face an ABM defence) would be capable of destroying the majority of a single city, but not wipe out a billion people.

FYI, ballistic missiles with MIRVs capability are not packed to their maximum capacity either, the typical SLBM, be it Russian, American, British or French (I'd assume China follows the same model) is only fitted with a single bus of 3 warheads because there are more missiles now than there are warheads to fill them all up.

i am p sure a 1.2 megaton bomb dropped over manhattan would destroy all of new york city


The buildings would soak up a ton of energy and prevent the ones furthest from the initiation from feeling the full brunt on the blast, even if it's still an air burst.

Of course, this is all trivial, nukes (at least all of the US ones, and most of the Soviet ones, China doesn't have enough to go over targeting.) are not targeted at population centers, they are targeted at targets of value, many of which happen to be inside population centers.

As a redundancy, several missiles are assigned to a specific target. For instance, the entire British nuclear deterrent would have be spent on the leveling on Moscow alone.

Funny thing is, Moscow was all smoke and mirrors, the Soviets had nothing of importance placed within the city and spread disinformation about it to turn it into a nuke sponge.

[Beastro]

well you see the Hiroshima bombs were hydrogen. nowadays we learned how to enrich uranium and plutonium and shit. now i aint no rocket scientist but I think more neutrons = better dirty bomb for fucking the environment up

Still fails in light of the face that all warheads bound to land on cities are air bursts and thus produce a minimum of fallout.

The only targets set for ground bursts would be underground military targets such as ICBM silos which are set well outside of population centers.

As for neutron bombs, if you're thinking of them, they were only built by the US with on thing in mind: to irradiate the Soviet tank waves which would flood into Western Germany.

Even then it was a faulty theory to work on and they didn't come to much.

[Beastro]

well you see the Hiroshima bombs were hydrogen.

And fuck again this lack of editing.

Little Boy was enriched Uranium, Fat Man was Plutonium.

No doubt you just said the BS above to troll as you always do Naez.

[naez]

So they were. From what I can tell hydrogen bombs may be even better than uranium weapons because of the type of reaction. But like I said it doesn't take a brain surgeon to be a rocket scientist.

[bman8810]

I considered responding to naez and then I realized that responding to the trolls just means the trolls win. Seriously though, you don't have to have a degree in physics, chemistry, nuclear engineering, or chemical engineering to understand the difference between a hydrogen bomb and an atomic bomb.

[naez]

you dont need a degree in anything to be an expert on the internet

[bman8810]

An expert on the internet can easily discern the type of bomb dropped on Hiroshima or the difference and relative power of hydrogen bombs and bombs using uranium.

Does that mean you just fail completely?

[naez]

More like tl;dr. Nuclear war-- never will happen. Would have already. I have other more important conspiracy trivia to catch up with.

[moleman124]

Initially America would have decent micro to keep China at bay , but china would simply end up out macro'ing America

[Envious]

China would never get here, then they would starve.

[Beastro]

I considered responding to naez and then I realized that responding to the trolls just means the trolls win. Seriously though, you don't have to have a degree in physics, chemistry, nuclear engineering, or chemical engineering to understand the difference between a hydrogen bomb and an atomic bomb.

But that's the fun with Naez, just treat him straight up answering his deliberate errors and undermines his shtick.

Anti-Troll 101: Act completely clam and level headed.

[Hasbinbad]

All modern wars are quick
..wait..

How long has the US been in the middle east?

[Hasbinbad]

Both in the infancy of their development. The mainstay of China will remain rip off Russian designs for quite some time.
Yeeeeah.

It's the same aircraft.

Chengdu is the manufacturer of aircraft model J-20, code named "The Black Eagle."

You want us to think that you're smart, huh?

[Hasbinbad]

The mainstay of China will remain rip off Russian designs for quite some time.
My point stands. Discounting the PLAAF is a fool's errand.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Sukhoi-T-50-PAK-FA-KnAAPO-2S.jpg

5th gen fighters were only our little secret while the f-22 was the yf-22..

The cat is out of the bag.

[Vendar]

China will use all its mmo gold farmers to hack America's gibson rendering them unable to defend themselves.

both economies crash.


Smedy emerges from the rubble as the last standing and takes over as the head of the new world order.


duh.

[naez]

that would make him the antichrist

[mitic]

china and usa would kill each other and austria emerge as the new global power

obv~

http://military.discovery.com/technology/weapons/images/07-steyr-625x450.jpg

[Beastro]

My point stands. Discounting the PLAAF is a fool's errand.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Sukhoi-T-50-PAK-FA-KnAAPO-2S.jpg

5th gen fighters were only our little secret while the f-22 was the yf-22..

The cat is out of the bag.

Still in prototype and won't be in service for more than a decade, the mainstay will remain Sukhoi ripoffs just like the US will remain tied to the F-15,-16 and -18.

For the next decade or two China will still retain it's old weakness' but come 2030-2040 is when they'll pull a head of the US. Even then the faction that wants a blue water navy will still be babying an infant fleet.

BTW, the ballistic carrier killers was just a BS project started by the brown water clique to undermine said blue water proponents drive for a navy to challenge the USN.

Anyway, US politics fucked over the USAF by canceling the -22 after only 189 units. Such a small number, all will be over worked and I doubt many will last beyond 2020.

China won't over take America by catching up and surpassing US tech, American politics is glad to freeze their force in the 1980s and let the Chicoms play catch up....

The rest if the air arm.... well all I can say is "Dave", with a shudder.

[Beastro]

china and usa would kill each other and austria emerge as the new global power

obv~

http://military.discovery.com/technology/weapons/images/07-steyr-625x450.jpg

Damn bullpups, keep those AUGs in Counter Strike.

[mimixownzall]

With a far superior navy/air force, China would have a hell of a time getting here.

That is a long distance to cover trying to get millions of personell to america.

Let's say they do manage to get to America. Now they face the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet.

[Beastro]

Yeeeeah.

It's the same aircraft.

Chengdu is the manufacturer of aircraft model J-20, code named "The Black Eagle."

Tired, got the engines wrong.

They seem to be testing two different engines on two prototypes, the native (rip off) WS-10 and the Russian AL-31F.

You want us to think that you're smart, huh?

Spare me the dick waving, I'm just posting in this stupid thread to keep it from degenerating into blind US patriotism and anti-Americanism.

[Beastro]

With a far superior navy/air force, China would have a hell of a time getting here.

That is a long distance to cover trying to get millions of personell to america.

Let's say they do manage to get to America. Now they face the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet.

No damn way China could fight to the US, a logistical impossibility.

The only scenario would be a war with Korea as the battlefield. Beyond that it's just the USAF and USN against the PLAN and PLAAF on China's doorstep.

The US would economically choke China to death before they too would succumb to the economic dark age plaguing the whole world the war would cause.

[naez]

US cannot economically "choke" China. The US economy depends on Asian credit just to keep going, whereas China can sustain itself.

Also the Chinese navy would defeat the United States' with ease, especially with a home-court advantage. One submarine can sink an entire fleet of ships before backup subs arrive. However the United States has flying saucers that go underwater, but I'm not sure if they are equipped with any sophisticated weaponry (but I would assume so).

[Beastro]

US cannot economically "choke" China. The US economy depends on Asian credit just to keep going, whereas China can sustain itself.

The US has the military to blockade China long enough to drag them down along with.

In the end this thread is just silly because it all comes back to the enormous economic damage that would result from such a war.


Also the Chinese navy would defeat the United States' with ease, especially with a home-court advantage. troll troll troll troll troll

Could have gotten a bite had to you not added in the flying saucer bit there man.

[naez]

Yea I thought I might have trolled a bit too far

[Ronas]

Was just thinking back to Iraq wars, the first time around with Kuwait America/UN stuck a sanction on fresh water/food and disarmant of any missle/biological weaponry to Iraq. The second time around the justification of invasion was for non-existant WMD.

Basically invaded a country with no defense system, demoralized/rotting population, no offensive capabilities. I guess that poor country was a dumping ground for the US to send all there expired weaponry on to make new and improved ones.

The strategies used was to go all out with no form of retaliation, China on the other hand is a whole new playground, the chings actually think. That's the major turning point in war games, its not who has the better weopon but who has the better plan as history has shown us time and time again.

[Ronas]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8299495/WikiLeaks-US-and-China-in-military-standoff-over-space-missiles.html#disqus_thread

[moklianne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

Russia and China both have something similar to HAARP. I'd go with the US, but I don't want to think how bad that war would be. Even without nukes.

[philbertpk]

They wont do it. China would rather wait the US out until they can come in and take over economically OR until we welcome them as our saviors after the power gets cut off.

They wont fight a war.

[Hasbinbad]

My point stands. Discounting the PLAAF is a fool's errand.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Sukhoi-T-50-PAK-FA-KnAAPO-2S.jpg
Still in prototype and won't be in service for more than a decade, the mainstay will remain Sukhoi ripoffs just like the US will remain tied to the F-15,-16 and -18.
Rofl dude. That picture *IS* a Sukhoi. T-50.
You want us to think that you're smart, huh?

[bman8810]

Rofl dude. That picture *IS* a Sukhoi. T-50.

That is a picture of a prototype.

[Beastro]

Rofl dude. That picture *IS* a Sukhoi. T-50.

And hence why I should never pull all nighters ever again.

[Beastro]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8299495/WikiLeaks-US-and-China-in-military-standoff-over-space-missiles.html#disqus_thread

ASATs are a minor leap from ABMs. The US has been tinkering with them since the 50s, though without the success the ABMs had.