China as the new superpower
- Thread starter CH812
- Start date
You're right, I should have said the Chinese can't successfully project power - not that it really changes the debate but if that makes you happy.Ranger68 said:So, just to clear things up, you're NOT talking about the ability to project power - which the Chinese clearly can - you're talking about the ability to project power without possibility of prevention.
Your statement was false.
That the US can *attempt* to prevent an invasion is not arguable - that they would suffer heavily in doing so is also not arguable, operating so close to China's shore. Also, that they could do so with *one* CVG is very very debatable. I think you need to step back and consider that tactical situation.
To attempt a sea based invasion without air superiority or control of the sea would be a form of suicide - China would have no chance at either. In 1944 you could keep an invasion force a secret - today we'd know exactly the number of landing craft weeks before they left port. In fact, those craft would be sunk before they ever loaded a single troop. That is power.
OTB
This operation would be conducted within range of land-based air cover from China, and any counter-air operation the Americans undertook would put their vessels within easy striking distance of Chinese surface-to-surface missiles. That would make it a very dangerous ballgame for whatever CVG was trying to intercede.
The Americans would almost certainly NOT intervene until the invasion was underway. To say that these ships would be sunk in port is incredibly ignorant of political and military realities.
If the Chinese were very keen on invading, it would take the Americans *plenty* to stop them, and they'd get worse than a bloody nose doing it.
The Americans would almost certainly NOT intervene until the invasion was underway. To say that these ships would be sunk in port is incredibly ignorant of political and military realities.
If the Chinese were very keen on invading, it would take the Americans *plenty* to stop them, and they'd get worse than a bloody nose doing it.
Not really, if you think about it. The truth is most often simple. It is the deceptions and rationalizations that are complicated.onthebottom said:That's just a wee bit simple minded isn't it.
For this reason, China's only recourse is to go nuclear. Flirting with guaranteed destruction isn't a sane idea, especially when one doesn't have recourse to MAD. At best, they have a dozen or so ICBM's, to which they would face the brunt of several thousand retalitory nuclear strikes.
onthebottom said:To attempt a sea based invasion without air superiority or control of the sea would be a form of suicide - China would have no chance at either. In 1944 you could keep an invasion force a secret - today we'd know exactly the number of landing craft weeks before they left port. In fact, those craft would be sunk before they ever loaded a single troop. That is power.
How would you portray peace keeping roles then?danmand said:Not really, if you think about it. The truth is most often simple. It is the deceptions and rationalizations that are complicated.
Given:
Using United Nations peacekeeping operations statistics, the Canadian contribution to UN missions is now rather small. Of 92 countries furnishing forces, Canada ranks 34th, placing it in the middle third. With just 239 service members deployed, Canada pales in comparison to, say, Pakistan with 5,252 on UN missions.
what would you say Canada's plan is?
OTB
Don't be a hypocrite, you have no interest in peace keeping. I don't believe Canada should have a large military in order to take part in what you consider peace keeping around the world, i.e. mop up after the US.onthebottom said:How would you portray peace keeping roles then?
Given:
Using United Nations peacekeeping operations statistics, the Canadian contribution to UN missions is now rather small. Of 92 countries furnishing forces, Canada ranks 34th, placing it in the middle third. With just 239 service members deployed, Canada pales in comparison to, say, Pakistan with 5,252 on UN missions.
what would you say Canada's plan is?
Don't presume to know what my interests are if you haven't bothered to read my posts. I'd like Canada to be able to pursue her own agenda and have the "hard power" to back up all the high-minded rhetoric I hear.danmand said:Don't be a hypocrite, you have no interest in peace keeping. I don't believe Canada should have a large military in order to take part in what you consider peace keeping around the world, i.e. mop up after the US.
I don't think you could climb high enough to be so capable as to mob up after the US. but it would be nice if you had some capabilities to back up your foreign policies (at least those beyond selling the US your natural resources).
I've been joking that you guys are pussies, but maybe you're afraid to have resources because then someone might have expectations you'd use them - which I think does indeed make you pussies.
OTB
Then you haven't understood them very well (start about 2 years ago and look for posts on Canadian military...)danmand said:I know what your views are, BECAUSE I have read your posts. And they are not peaceful.
I am all for Canada being a pussy militarily. At least we have universal healthcare.
OK, so you're not going to do that (neither would I, they're not that insightful). I want Canada to have a military capability to follow it's own policies, when you believe in peace-keeping you should be able to deliver troops to affect an outcome - if that is war mongering to you then so be it.
Yes you do, you're very good at selling us your natural resources and spending the money on yourself - you should be so proud.
OTB
LOLbbking said:OTB - are you warmongering again. Shame on you.
bbk
Yeah, that's me the warmonger.
Those damn Rwandan's had it coming anyway.
Read a good article that it's all about to happen again (this time with Rwanda invading Congo) and the largest UN force currently deployed is not willing to step in and take action.... except for molesting some children that is and shooting protesters protesting their inaction.
OTB
..again, the War was fought, the US did not defeat China in the field. Therefore it was a draw, its really quite simple.
You can make all the excuses you want to, it ended in a draw.
Just like the US lost in Vietnam because they retreated.
End of story.
However, you are wrong Ranger they could not invade Taiwan at the present time because they do not have enough amphibious landing craft. Dont forget Tiawan is a rich country that has modern US weaponry, so it would not be a cake walk.
Last my point was, that if the US did not defeat China on the field of battle 60 years ago, then today with Chinas modernization it would even be harder.
US military supremacy is very over hyped.
Yes the Chineses treated their troops as cannon fodder, Unfortunately that goes back deep in Chinese history. However it was the only weapon they had against the superior American arms.
You can make all the excuses you want to, it ended in a draw.
Just like the US lost in Vietnam because they retreated.
End of story.
However, you are wrong Ranger they could not invade Taiwan at the present time because they do not have enough amphibious landing craft. Dont forget Tiawan is a rich country that has modern US weaponry, so it would not be a cake walk.
Last my point was, that if the US did not defeat China on the field of battle 60 years ago, then today with Chinas modernization it would even be harder.
US military supremacy is very over hyped.
Yes the Chineses treated their troops as cannon fodder, Unfortunately that goes back deep in Chinese history. However it was the only weapon they had against the superior American arms.
No, China has plenty of amphibious craft - which they wouldn't really need because the invasion would most likely entail establishing air superiority over the straits and Taiwanese airspace, followed by the forced seizure of a port facility - much like Dieppe, but with a huge force advantage.assoholic said:..again, the War was fought, the US did not defeat China in the field. Therefore it was a draw, its really quite simple.
You can make all the excuses you want to, it ended in a draw.
Just like the US lost in Vietnam because they retreated.
End of story.
However, you are wrong Ranger they could not invade Taiwan at the present time because they do not have enough amphibious landing craft. Dont forget Tiawan is a rich country that has modern US weaponry, so it would not be a cake walk.
Last my point was, that if the US did not defeat China on the field of battle 60 years ago, then today with Chinas modernization it would even be harder.
US military supremacy is very over hyped.
Yes the Chineses treated their troops as cannon fodder, Unfortunately that goes back deep in Chinese history. However it was the only weapon they had against the superior American arms.
Taiwan would fight fiercely but very briefly without massive US intervention.
Perhaps that should be the judge of a super power - who, not using nukes, can carry out operations or thwart another countries operations anywhere in the world. I don't think China is there yet or close, but 60 years is a VERY long time and they will certainly have the economy to afford such power going forward.Ranger68 said:No, China has plenty of amphibious craft - which they wouldn't really need because the invasion would most likely entail establishing air superiority over the straits and Taiwanese airspace, followed by the forced seizure of a port facility - much like Dieppe, but with a huge force advantage.
Taiwan would fight fiercely but very briefly without massive US intervention.
OTB
My view is that the cat is out of the bag, it is hard to oppress a middle class and China has a small but growing middle class. These people are going to expect to have their private property protected, their opinions heard and their banks solvent. Peasants can't do much but revolt; the middle class can transform the country.bbking said:The economy - 60 years from now. Without some serious changes socially I really see China hitting a plateau and not going much further. Like you said 60 years is a long time, but as things stand today - no way.
bbk
I would agree that without this transformation that China would plateau, but I'm betting that they will reform on the political side like they did on the economic side and become a great power.
I think it's a false assumption to think that China rising means the US falls, I think it will be our largest market and thus enrich us as well. The wealth pie can get bigger and we can all have more to eat....
OTB
*yawn*onthebottom said:Perhaps that should be the judge of a super power - who, not using nukes, can carry out operations or thwart another countries operations anywhere in the world. I don't think China is there yet or close, but 60 years is a VERY long time and they will certainly have the economy to afford such power going forward.
OTB
Anyone who denies that China is a great power because she lacks the military force is totally out of it.
That's all there is to it.
