BF2S Forums China building military at alarming rates

Vilham wrote:

tactical nuke > ur entire army.

spray_and_pray wrote:

Re read my post and try again.

Vilham wrote:

Using a tactical nuke on a military target would not start a nuclear war.

First primary word being "tactical" tactical nukes are of low enough yield that they would only destroy the local area. Secondly, even a tactical nuke probably has a higher yield than any nuke developed 50+ years ago. Even without, have you ever been in a boat that gets hit by a massive gust or large wave? The number of injury's alone would force the attackers to withdraw.

Last edited by dayarath (2008-12-25 15:58:15)

12/f/taiwan wrote:

wtf @ people talking about nukes, strategies, and warfare.

Have any of you ever be in any form of military/had experience with that kind of stuff? Serious question.

spray_and_pray wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Superior Equipment > Larger amount of Infantry

As long as u have more bullet, bombs and missiles than they do soldiers

Might throw in the USSR vs Nazi's in here. Don't think so Determination > Any Weapon

Determination > Any Weapon
Vietnam         > USA

Pattern yes.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

12/f/taiwan wrote:

wtf @ people talking about nukes, strategies, and warfare.

Have any of you ever be in any form of military/had experience with that kind of stuff? Serious question.

I've played the game defcon for countless hours.

http://img.hexus.net/v2/gaming/screensh … _large.jpg


Have you?

nukchebi0 wrote:

The bombing of Serbia wasn't unrestrained. Its not like they were dedicating the full power of the USAF to pulverizing, nor were targets being hit indiscriminately. Nor, really, was the bombing of Vietnam, until Operation Linebacker. I don't think you can use those as predictors of a conflict with China.

Also, consider the Three Gorges dam projects, and the horrendous effect their destruction would have on all of China downriver from them. Additionally, the US has multiple allies next to China; both South Korea and Japan.

spray_and_pray wrote:

dayarath wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

Re read my post and try again.

can't compare the vietcong to a conventional army, so he has a point, a 2000 lbs JDAM will make quick work of any troop buildup

Vilham wrote:

Using a tactical nuke on a military target would not start a nuclear war.

First primary word being "tactical" tactical nukes are of low enough yield that they would only destroy the local area. Secondly, even a tactical nuke probably has a higher yield than any nuke developed 50+ years ago. Even without, have you ever been in a boat that gets hit by a massive gust or large wave? The number of injury's alone would force the attackers to withdraw.

nevertheless creating loads of fallout. noone's interested in that - tactical nuke or not, nuke is a nuke and dangerous as fuck even if they're small.

If you have a determined enemy fighting on their own soil you will run into a lot more problems then you might think. Lets take a look at the Kosovo war in 1999. While it ended up as a "victory" for NATO the Serbian army managed to withdraw holding a very very large part of its forces still intact after 70 days of bombing. The army which knew the terrain put vehicles and SAM sites in forests and mountains which made it close to impossible to be attacked. Ground invasions would have been met with heavy resistance and high casualties, none were attempted. The war was ended with the signing of resolution 1244, after heavy damage to Yugoslav industry and civilian infrastructure not military. In this we can see that a more advanced country then Vietnam suffers from bombing of industry even if the army is intact. Now lets say there is a war with China, you think that the US would be able to send an invasion fleet across the Pacific large enough to provide a fight against the Chinese army while keeping it supplied logistically.

     You are talking about lots and lots of ships carrying tonnes of war supplies every day and if there were to be any interdiction to this it could possibly endanger the whole operation. So what would the US do? Like it always does, try to bomb their industry but im afraid this is no Yugoslavia and the Chinese would have a high amount of SAM Sites protecting these areas and any attempts could be met with high casualties. The Chinese navy at its current stance is in no way equipped to deal with a US surface fleet but still capable of inflicting some damage on those ships that are coming over and the same would go along with the Chinese air force. That is why you can rule out the USA invading China or vice versa happening. In the end you would have a bombing campaign in an attempt to destroy each others industry or what not. If the US had an ally next to China it might be a different story but if this war did happen I don't think there would be a Taiwan anymore, Japan is an option yes but they are restricted to defensive operations only, and supplies would still have to be moved in.

     Too long a post yes, a lot of maybes, this is what I believe would be the most likely scenario. You cant move millions and millions of soldiers which is what the US would need into China, why did I mention Kosovo, to prove that air power alone would inflict little damage on the army but could instead be used on bombing of the Industry. Then again this whole subject is pretty defunct from the start China and the US are huge trading partners and I don't foresee anything happening in the nearby future.

nukchebi0 wrote:

The bombing of Serbia wasn't unrestrained. Its not like they were dedicating the full power of the USAF to pulverizing, nor were targets being hit indiscriminately. Nor, really, was the bombing of Vietnam, until Operation Linebacker. I don't think you can use those as predictors of a conflict with China.

Also, consider the Three Gorges dam projects, and the horrendous effect their destruction would have on all of China downriver from them. Additionally, the US has multiple allies next to China; both South Korea and Japan.

Last edited by spray_and_pray (2008-12-26 04:14:01)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If they can close the gap between our spending and theirs, I'll be impressed.

As it currently stands, we have a military budget that is about 10 times theirs.

Irrelevant, they are nuclear armed and have about 10 million surplus males of military age.

Basically China owns Asia.

Last edited by maffiaw (2008-12-26 21:51:33)

nukchebi0 wrote:

spray_and_pray wrote:

Mate, I was in Serbia during said "unrestricted bombing" indeed they hit buildings which the military had occupied. What you don't understand because of propaganda or what not, the army was in Kosovo not central and northern Serbia where the bombing was. Much of this was aimed at industry Oil Refineries etc as well as the transport system in key bridges. The army has no use for these bridges they have an amphibious force and pontoons, this however did cripple the economy, the then "Yugoslavia" was in no fighting state simple because of these attacks. I extend to you an invitations however to visit Belgrade which still holds many of these destroyed buildings in memory of that war and then you can tell me what they were targeting. I lived in the center of the city, 50 metres from my house is a destroyed buildings and across the road from that a destroyed TV Station. Such buildings can be found around the city, when these were hit the windows of my apartment were blown out. Don't always beleive what your politicians tell you especially during war, I prefer to see evidence then judge and I did see what was hit.

I was mostly talking about allocation of USAF/USN resources. What I really meant was that they weren't throwing every plane and every missile at Serbia; hence, it was a "restrained" response. That being said, I can't argue with you about the extent of the damage or the targeting, because naturally, I wasn't there.

However, you did point out something interesting - that the air strikes were mostly aimed against Belgrade. I think we do find a parallel in history with Vietnam, where the US focused its strikes against cities. Naturally, until they literally carpet bombed Hanoi, the strategy wasn't too effective (as it likewise took a while to get anything achieved in Kosovo). However, it is highly unlikely that such a strategy would be employed against China. If you want a better historical indication of what the air power in use against China would be (assuming non-nuclear, of course) look to Iraq in 1991, or in 2003. Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world in 1991, with a tech level (relative to the era) near China's. We all know how quickly and efficiently they got destroyed. This repeated itself in the second attack; during the actual fighting against Iraq's army, there weren't that many causalities. China is much more like Iraq than Vietnam, and looking at the strategy used against Iraq would be the best idea when trying to predict how an invasion against them would function. I know China has SAM sites - but Iraq also had the best air defense grid in the world trying to defend Baghdad. It didn't get them very many kills, and didn't deny the USAF/USN operating area. The US didn't forget how to suppress enemy air defenses in the time its been mired in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And South Korea and Japan both have a cross next to their names and would be incapable of launching attacks at China for different reasons, don't be silly. I also addressed the case of the US using Japan or South Korea as bases and would still require heavy logistical support and these too would only be staging points as any land invasion would have to follow through with supplies to mainland China.

Considering that both South Korea and Japan are major US bases, I think you are underestimating their ability to provide a staging ground for both troops and supplies to any invasion. Its not as much of a logistical nightmare considering everything can be stockpiled there. And naturally, actually getting to mainland China would be very easy, because no invasion would be launched prior to securing naval and air superiority of the region. Considering the condition of China's navy, it wouldn't be the most difficult thing. And obviously, air superiority, as has been assumed throughout this argument, is incredibly easy to secure with F-22s. Yes, I do agree with the inability of South Korea and Japan as actual nations to invade, but that doesn't preclude the US from using them as territorial extensions.