Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 24th, 2012, 04:04 AM   #211

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178

One thing nukes do for the failing former great powers... they will never be invaded while they can afford to maintain a few hundred ICBMs.
rehabnonono is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 24th, 2012, 11:52 AM   #212
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Realism View Post
So by this assessment, China is no match for the United States because the US has thousands of nuclear weapons and China only has a few hundred. So the US could do a first strike with its ballistic missile submarines, ICBM's, Bombers, and Aircraft Carrier based Aircraft that carry nuclear weapons, and pretty much just blanket the country, making sure that there is on possibility of China ever recovering. Oh and that would probably destroy the world anyway. France is militarily superior to China because it has more nukes. Britain is rougly equal to China and Russia is the world's strongest country militarily because it has 1,800 active warheads out of 10,000.
Doesn't this discussion befit 1946 era military logic where the A-bombs would just take care of everything.
Ths is not 1946 military logic. Its modern military logic. Back in 1946, having a bombs did not gaurantee superiority. A bombs could only devastate some small cities and manufacturing them was slow. General macarthur wanted to arrange for 5 bombs during the korean war to basically poison the manchurian neck region, combined with conentional forces, because he could not deliver a killing blow with a bombs to china and knock it out of the war.

China also has submarines capable of carrying warheads. China also has fissle material to make thousands of warheads, the point of making only a few hundred is that thousands are overkill- once you reach a certain number of warheads, your military power has plateaued, any more than that is just stockpiling for showing off, since there aren't enough silos, submarines, and plane in america to launch thousands of nukes at the same time, most of america's warheads are effectively useless.

And if america carries out a first strike with all its nukes, say good bye to planet earth being habitable for any humans at all, including americans. That is why america will never win a war with another nuclear armed power, if they don't use nukes on their first strike they are screwed, and if they use nukes they are also screwed.
deke is offline  
Old October 24th, 2012, 12:00 PM   #213
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 70

Quote:
Originally Posted by rehabnonono View Post
One thing nukes do for the failing former great powers... they will never be invaded while they can afford to maintain a few hundred ICBMs.
Both Russia, China and Israel has been in war or semi-wars on own territory without using nukes. I don't know if India also had nukes when they fought China the last time.
Carlsberg is offline  
Old October 24th, 2012, 12:43 PM   #214
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsberg View Post
Both Russia, China and Israel has been in war or semi-wars on own territory without using nukes. I don't know if India also had nukes when they fought China the last time.
India has fission nukes and a very questionable fusion nuke which is low yield. It has stated itself that its agni 5 missle would be introduced at aproduction rate of two a year, and it didn't have nuclear weapons in 1962.

Israel was not attacked by other nuclear armed states, so it could afford to use its conventional arsenal, and in the sino soviet border dispute, both sides were getting ready to nuke the other side if they invaded the other's territory en masse so your points are pointless.
deke is offline  
Old October 24th, 2012, 12:52 PM   #215

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 8,402

The US does not need nukes to win a war against China, its overwhelming conventional forces superiority is sufficient to completely crush the Chinese military. If anyone is going to push the nuke button in this scenario, it is China, as it is they who would not only get completely annihilated in a conventional war, it is they who also would be completely isolated from major world economies, as the US will quite easily be the trading partner of choice over China for EU, India and Japan and that represents almost 60% of the world's GDP.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old October 24th, 2012, 02:52 PM   #216
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
The US does not need nukes to win a war against China, its overwhelming conventional forces superiority is sufficient to completely crush the Chinese military. If anyone is going to push the nuke button in this scenario, it is China, as it is they who would not only get completely annihilated in a conventional war, it is they who also would be completely isolated from major world economies, as the US will quite easily be the trading partner of choice over China for EU, India and Japan and that represents almost 60% of the world's GDP.
Its overwhelming conventional superiority did nothing for it in the korean war and vietnam war. It had to drag the entire united nations into korea to domthe fighting.

In afghanistan, american cia officers hid in caves and remained hidden in the rear while northern alliance forces fought the taliban and swept them out of kabul, in iraq, america bribed republican guard and iraqi army officers to disintigrate their forces before firing a shot, and bombarded them from the air (the united nations already had no fly zones over iraq and the taliban's air force were mase of of captured ancient mig fighters)

It says alot about american conventional "superiority" that it can only bribe or use proxies against third world militaries. America would never dare try to confront a disciplined conventional force head on, because it would suffer massive losses. When america tried to open up "third force" guerillas (the third force were separate from the roc on taiwan ) in manchuria in the 1950s its operation failed miserably, it cannot even conduct a proper proxy war in china.

In the boxer rebellion, the american marines suffered heavily at tianjin, to an undisciplined and incompetent chinese army.

Btw it seems ok that when certain countries engage in colonial activities in lands that were never theirs before their creation, its only bad when china does it according to lord of gauda. Did you not laud the following country as an example of a democracy?

Development and Ethnocide: Colonial Practices in the Andaman Islands - Sita Venkateswar - Google Books

Asia Sentinel - The Threat to the Andamans' Jawara Tribe

Separatist, Secessionist or Independence Movements in India

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Liberation_Front_of_Assam]United Liberation Front of Assam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
deke is offline  
Old October 24th, 2012, 03:13 PM   #217

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 8,402

Quote:
Originally Posted by deke View Post
Its overwhelming conventional superiority did nothing for it in the korean war and vietnam war. It had to drag the entire united nations into korea to domthe fighting.
Its called economics. Why bear the entire load when you can get your allies to share the load.
And in Korea USA was not overwhelmingly superior, due to the small matter of Russia having the first jet planes and the Chinese having massively greater number of infantry forces.

Quote:
In afghanistan, american cia officers hid in caves and remained hidden in the rear while northern alliance forces fought the taliban and swept them out of kabul,
Indeed, as USA did not want to directly engage in warfare against USSR due to the nuclear situation. Particularly since their proxies were far cheaper and effective.

Quote:
in iraq, america bribed republican guard and iraqi army officers to disintigrate their forces before firing a shot, and bombarded them from the air (the united nations already had no fly zones over iraq and the taliban's air force were mase of of captured ancient mig fighters)
So ? This makes most sense. The prime objective of any military is to win the military objective while incurring the least casualties and expenses. If bribing your enemy works, it is clearly then a viable military tactic that would see preference over sacrificing countless lives.
Incase you havn't noticed, western miltiary powers for atleast the last 300 years havn't been as casual in incurring casualties as autocratic medeival mentality societies were.
They normally took the path of least casualties and least expenditure while attaining their objective, which IMO speaks of a far more matured military institution.

Quote:
It says alot about american conventional "superiority" that it can only bribe or use proxies against third world militaries.
Indeed, it says a lot. That this is a cheaper way and American values the lives of their soldiers to minimize their losses. Why fight when bribing is just as effective ?
Give me one good reason why i should ask my Navy seals to risk their lives when i can throw a couple of million dollars and clear the field through bribery.

Quote:
America would never dare try to confront a disciplined conventional force head on, because it would suffer massive losses. When america tried to open up "third force" guerillas (the third force were separate from the roc on taiwan ) in manchuria in the 1950s its operation failed miserably, it cannot even conduct a proper proxy war in china.
Proxy war against China in Chinese soil is obviously a harder proposition than backing proxies in foreign lands where the Chinese or the Russians would be invaders in and thus not count on local support.
Yes, America would incur massive losses in a conventional military fight with China. That is a given. It would also incur massive losses against India or Russia.
But what is also given, is America would almost certainly dish out more casualties than it recieves and we see that in Korea as well, where American forces took far less casualties than the Chinese forces. That American forces would annihilate Chinese forces in a conventional war is something that is a given due to America's vast superiority in conventional forces.

Quote:
In the boxer rebellion, the american marines suffered heavily at tianjin, to an undisciplined and incompetent chinese army.
You mean the battle where General Dorward and Liscum lead a combined army of 6900 against an Imperial army of 12000+ with boxer rebels and still lost only 250 dead and 500 wounded ?
Indeed, such 'heavy losses'!!

Quote:
Btw it seems ok that when certain countries engage in colonial activities in lands that were never theirs before their creation, its only bad when china does it according to lord of gauda. Did you not laud the following country as an example of a democracy?

Development and Ethnocide: Colonial Practices in the Andaman Islands - Sita Venkateswar - Google Books

Asia Sentinel - The Threat to the Andamans' Jawara Tribe

Separatist, Secessionist or Independence Movements in India

United Liberation Front of Assam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The threat of lifestyle to the Jarawa tribe is unavoidable but i do commend the Indian authorities to leaving the Sentilinese island completely alone. I am yet to see the Chinese do something similar in support of neolithic tribes.
Regardless, India is a democratic nation with far greater claims to territorial sovereignty due to the popular will backing it, which cannot be stated in the case of China where for all intents and purposes, Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia are subjugated regions who've never expressed their tacit approval of Chinese domination.

It is further noted in the case of Arunachal Pradesh, a territorry administered by India since the British Empire days, where the populace clearly has voted to be a part of India, which China fails to recognize and which IMO, is a clear case of Chinese despotism having lesser priority than democratically backed mandates of nations with a more evolved socio-political structure.

Last edited by Lord_of_Gauda; October 24th, 2012 at 03:29 PM.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old October 24th, 2012, 06:49 PM   #218
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
Its called economics. Why bear the entire load when you can get your allies to share the load.
And in Korea USA was not overwhelmingly superior, due to the small matter of Russia having the first jet planes and the Chinese having massively greater number of infantry forces.

Indeed, as USA did not want to directly engage in warfare against USSR due to the nuclear situation. Particularly since their proxies were far cheaper and effective.

So ? This makes most sense. The prime objective of any military is to win the military objective while incurring the least casualties and expenses. If bribing your enemy works, it is clearly then a viable military tactic that would see preference over sacrificing countless lives.
Incase you havn't noticed, western miltiary powers for atleast the last 300 years havn't been as casual in incurring casualties as autocratic medeival mentality societies were.
They normally took the path of least casualties and least expenditure while attaining their objective, which IMO speaks of a far more matured military institution.

Indeed, it says a lot. That this is a cheaper way and American values the lives of their soldiers to minimize their losses. Why fight when bribing is just as effective ?
Give me one good reason why i should ask my Navy seals to risk their lives when i can throw a couple of million dollars and clear the field through bribery.

Proxy war against China in Chinese soil is obviously a harder proposition than backing proxies in foreign lands where the Chinese or the Russians would be invaders in and thus not count on local support.
Yes, America would incur massive losses in a conventional military fight with China. That is a given. It would also incur massive losses against India or Russia.
But what is also given, is America would almost certainly dish out more casualties than it recieves and we see that in Korea as well, where American forces took far less casualties than the Chinese forces. That American forces would annihilate Chinese forces in a conventional war is something that is a given due to America's vast superiority in conventional forces.

You mean the battle where General Dorward and Liscum lead a combined army of 6900 against an Imperial army of 12000+ with boxer rebels and still lost only 250 dead and 500 wounded ?
Indeed, such 'heavy losses'!!

The threat of lifestyle to the Jarawa tribe is unavoidable but i do commend the Indian authorities to leaving the Sentilinese island completely alone. I am yet to see the Chinese do something similar in support of neolithic tribes.
Regardless, India is a democratic nation with far greater claims to territorial sovereignty due to the popular will backing it, which cannot be stated in the case of China where for all intents and purposes, Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia are subjugated regions who've never expressed their tacit approval of Chinese domination.

It is further noted in the case of Arunachal Pradesh, a territorry administered by India since the British Empire days, where the populace clearly has voted to be a part of India, which China fails to recognize and which IMO, is a clear case of Chinese despotism having lesser priority than democratically backed mandates of nations with a more evolved socio-political structure.
Its clear that you are deliberately trying to confuse third party readers of this topic. I never mentioned arunachal pradesh. I posted links to manipur, nagaland, and assam. This is not the first time you did this and if you keep on blatantly misconstruing my posts like you did here and in the chamber about ili you will get reported. The manipuris and nagalanders not only rejected indian rule but revolted as well.

The boxers and nie shicheng's tenacious army were fighting against each other around tianjin, it says something about the allies massive imcompetence that they failed to take advantage of this and were forced to blow two holes in the city gates, leaving them unguarded to let the imperial army escape. The 500 wounded included permanently disabled and paralyzed people. Its not "oh i got shot in the arm and ill be walking again in a week".

The boxers were not actually involved in any of the sieges or fighting against the foreigners at tianjin or beijing, they mostly fled when the battle started. Around 15,000 of nie's soldiers were engaged in the actual battle at the city walls, and the majority of them escaped intact, i mentioned already that the allies deliberately blew open gates and left them unguarded to facilitate their quick escape because they were afraid of actually fighting the tenacious army in hand to hand, urban style combat. Only a few snipers remained behind to offer resistance. The allies never got around to the most brutal combat that would have come if they didn't allow for the escape, the casulaties they suffered were all incurred when they tried to storm the city walls directly.

Most battles in the boxer rebellion only incurred relatively little casulaties on both sides in comparison to the sino japanese war or russo japanese war, thats why historians count the significance by the percentage of forces engaged.

China in convulsion - Arthur Henderson Smith - Google Books

China's conventional forces includes non nuclear tipped irbm and icbm missles, and america's military bases in asia and the continental usa could be targeted by these weapons.

Last edited by deke; October 24th, 2012 at 06:59 PM.
deke is offline  
Old October 24th, 2012, 07:10 PM   #219

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 8,402

Quote:
Originally Posted by deke View Post
Its clear that you are deliberately trying to confuse third party readers of this topic. I never mentioned arunachal pradesh.
Gee, i wonder why- perhaps because it exposes your position as nothing more than Chinese irridentism ?

Quote:
I posted links to manipur, nagaland, and assam. This is not the first time you did this and if you keep on blatantly misconstruing my posts like you did here and in the chamber about ili you will get reported. The manipuris and nagalanders not only rejected indian rule but revolted as well.
Nowhere in enough numbers to warrant a referendum. At the very least, we see their presence in India, a free country where nutbars of every time exist and are not muzzled. Please show us how many people agitating for Tibetan or Xinjiang's independence are given the platform instead of being muzzled by the despotic dictatorate of China.
There are always fringe group of secessionists in virtually every country. Every now and then a bunch of Hawaiians get together to demand independence from the US, every now and then a Quebecois nutbar wants Quebec to be independent. India is no different, particularly with Chinese and Pakistani meddling in their affairs. But as civilized nations do, they don't jail the ones who demand independence, harass their families and use thugs to intimidate all action. Medieval dictatorial civilizations that still have some self-civilizing to do, do so.
Quote:
The boxers and nie shicheng's tenacious army were fighting against each other around tianjin, it says something about the allies massive imcompetence that they failed to take advantage of this and were forced to blow two holes in the city gates, leaving them unguarded to let the imperial army escape. The 500 wounded included permanently disabled and paralyzed people. Its not "oh i got shot in the arm and ill be walking again in a week".
yes, i am sure you were there on the battlefield to determine if the 500 wounded were all screwed for life or as is usual with any army reporting its wounded, ranged from temporarily disabled ones or permanetly disabled.

Quote:
The boxers were not actually involved in any of the sieges or fighting against the foreigners at tianjin or beijing, they mostly fled when the battle started. Around 15,000 of nie's soldiers were engaged in the actual battle at the city walls, and the majority of them escaped intact, i mentioned already that the allies deliberately blew open gates and left them unguarded to facilitate their quick escape because they were afraid of actually fighting the tenacious army in hand to hand, urban style combat. Only a few snipers remained behind to offer resistance. The allies never got around to the most brutal combat that would have come if they didn't allow for the escape, the casulaties they suffered were all incurred when they tried to storm the city walls directly.
Nothing more than Chinese revisionism. The allies were the entrenched one, holding a position while being outnumbered more than 2:1. When the beseigers start to scatter, the beseiged does not expose itself to numeric inferior field combat, they let the defeated beseigers leave. Which is precisely what the Brits/Americans did.
if my objective is to hold the position, i fail to see how it serves my purpose to chase after the retreating assaulters, particularly when i am outnumbered more than 2:1


Quote:

China's conventional forces includes non nuclear tipped irbm and icbm missles, and america's military bases in asia and the continental usa could be targeted by these weapons.
Indeed. So could China's and given American superiority in air and water, the Chinese would be hit far harder than the other way round in a conventional war.
I am sorry but you lose all objectivity when you deciede to put your patriotic glasses on and declare that anyone in the world today could win a conventional arms war against the Americans.
To tell you the truth, the entire Chinese and Russian air forces and navies could amalgamate and US would still put it out of the park incurring less than 1/5th the casualties.

Nobody argued that US forces are invulnerable to Chinese forces, the argument is, China will not win a straight up conventional military fight with the US, it will almost certainly take far more casulaties than it will inflict.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old October 24th, 2012, 07:19 PM   #220
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,033

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
Gee, i wonder why- perhaps because it exposes your position as nothing more than Chinese irridentism ?
Except for the fact that the british annexed it in 1914 by invasion.

Quote:
Nowhere in enough numbers to warrant a referendum. At the very least, we see their presence in India, a free country where nutbars of every time exist and are not muzzled. Please show us how many people agitating for Tibetan or Xinjiang's independence are given the platform instead of being muzzled by the despotic dictatorate of China.
There are always fringe group of secessionists in virtually every country. Every now and then a bunch of Hawaiians get together to demand independence from the US, every now and then a Quebecois nutbar wants Quebec to be independent. India is no different, particularly with Chinese and Pakistani meddling in their affairs. But as civilized nations do, they don't jail the ones who demand independence, harass their families and use thugs to intimidate all action. Medieval dictatorial civilizations that still have some self-civilizing to do, do so.
wrong. Fringe separatists in hawaii do not have to take up arms to fight for their freedom, unlike manipuris, nagas, or assamese. Please show me how many people are actually agitating for xinjiang and tibet independence, and explain to me why exactly should the CTA have khamba and amdo forked over to them when people there explicitly reject tibetan rule, despite the CTAs claims on amdo and khamba. And the same goes for xinjiang where "uyghur" separatists claim all of ili as their historic homeland and say all non uyghur have to go.

We see their presence in india because they actively revolted against he indian government and took up arms, the indian government isn't giving them a platform

Quote:
yes, i am sure you were there on the battlefield to determine if the 500 wounded were all screwed for life or as is usual with any army reporting its wounded, ranged from temporarily disabled ones or permanetly disabled.



Nothing more than Chinese revisionism. The allies were the entrenched one, holding a position while being outnumbered more than 2:1. When the beseigers start to scatter, the beseiged does not expose itself to numeric inferior field combat, they let the defeated beseigers leave. Which is precisely what the Brits/Americans did.
if my objective is to hold the position, i fail to see how it serves my purpose to chase after the retreating assaulters, particularly when i am outnumbered more than 2:1
wrong again. The japanese general fukushima explicitly warned the allies to let the chinese army escape or they would fight to the death, and it was a japanese soldier who blew the gate open, almost risking his life since other allied soldiers wouldnt do it,

Warriors of the Rising Sun: A History of the Japanese Military - Robert B. Edgerton - Google Books


Quote:
Indeed. So could China's and given American superiority in air and water, the Chinese would be hit far harder than the other way round in a conventional war.
I am sorry but you lose all objectivity when you deciede to put your patriotic glasses on and declare that anyone in the world today could win a conventional arms war against the Americans.
To tell you the truth, the entire Chinese and Russian air forces and navies could amalgamate and US would still put it out of the park incurring less than 1/5th the casualties.

Nobody argued that US forces are invulnerable to Chinese forces, the argument is, China will not win a straight up conventional military fight with the US, it will almost certainly take far more casulaties than it will inflict.
if americas superiority in air would wipe out the entire chinese military, explain why america has failed to wipe out its enemies in afghanistan, who don't have an airforce or antiaircraft weapons.
deke is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
china, usa



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Neolithic China, the China you do not know about. Wadjet Horus Asian History 40 June 16th, 2011 10:52 PM
Saying Hello from China/CA~ Mono New Users 18 March 20th, 2010 09:36 AM
Hello from China buckhardt New Users 11 January 10th, 2009 09:26 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.