International Can china beat the US?

[Blayt7hh]

The Pentagon simulates war games with China and the result is we lose 100% of the time

Yeah save that nonsense for someone else

 

[Rational Poster]

That's a hell of a good post man and puts things in perspective. Thank you so much for that.

There's actually a very popular Chinese historical battle that explains the concept I'm getting at ironically. Part of their Romance of the Three Kingdoms history/folk lore.

Battle of Red Cliffs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

tldr, the northern lord was a land power and he had to conquer the southern lords of the riverlands to unite all of China. Despite being the much larger power when he tried to invade over the river he was defeated by the southern riverlords who had experience fighting on the river. He was convinced to chain his ships together for stability to make up for his troops lack of experience on boats, and the southern lords set his navy on fire.

Putting more men on boats than your enemy doesn't mean you have a stronger navy.

----------------------------------

 

[Deleted member 577981]

There's actually a very popular Chinese historical battle that explains the concept I'm getting at ironically. Part of their Romance of the Three Kingdoms history/folk lore.

Battle of Red Cliffs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

tldr, the northern lord was a land power and he had to conquer the southern lords of the riverlands to unite all of China. Despite being the much larger power when he tried to invade over the river he was defeated by the southern riverlords who had experience fighting on the river. He was convinced to chain his ships together for stability to make up for his troops lack of experience on boats, and the southern lords set his navy on fire.

Putting more men on boats than you enemy doesn't mean you have a stronger navy.

----------------------------------

Thanks for posting this. I'm definitely going to read this article.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I generally agree, but I'm not entirely convinced that the US will fold after a million deaths. With the exception of the American Revolution, the US has never fought an existential war where the mainland was part of the battlefield, even in WW2 the lower 48 was never invaded, bombed, or hit with anything. We really don't know how the US public will react when the homeland starts taking hits from hostile forces, you might get something like 9/11 where the nation unites behind the military and is willing to do whatever it takes, but it's also possible that morale collapses and everything goes south as you've noted.

Either way, without the resources & industry behind it the US can't win in the long term, the question will be how long it can keep fighting before it goes under and how much damage it can do to everyone else.

True. I'm assuming the US fights a WWI and WWII-type war where they send people abroad and fight on the other side of the world.

The US mainland getting invaded is beyond unthinkable, imo. It simply cannot happen in any even halfway feasible scenario. China or any other country would rather drop atomic bombs rather than try to invade the US.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

True. I'm assuming the US fights a WWI and WWII-type war where they send people abroad and fight on the other side of the world.

The US mainland getting invaded is beyond unthinkable, imo. It simply cannot happen in any even halfway feasible scenario. China or any other country would rather drop atomic bombs rather than try to invade the US.

Why is it unthinkable that anyone would invade America?? Is it just because of how many guns we have?

 

[GhostZ06]

It's not just mixing up your Flankers, it's all the other stuff as well such as not knowing the standard operating procedure for all stealth aircraft. They're not flown in full stealth configuration unless it's in combat or in secure airspace where they can't be scanned by potentially hostile radars. They'll have radar reflectors or external stores mounted when they're flying in civilian airspace or within radar range of non-friendly nations. That is why the Indians were able to track the J-20, not because its stealth sucks.

As for engines, once you have the materials tech the rest of the design is fairly easy. The reason Chinese engines have poor power & reliability is because they didn't have high temperature alloys for the blades in the turbine section, which is why they deformed or melted under high power loads and trashed the engine. They have those alloys now which instantly fixes the reliability problems, all they have to do now is up the compression ratio and mass flow to match the performance of US engines. This is trivial compared to figuring out how to make single crystal nickel-cobalt superalloys.

To summarize, you don't know anything about the SOP of stealth aircraft, can't get your Flankers straight, and you don't know anything about jet engine design and why the Chinese couldn't make good engines in the past. This is why I think you're a hack who's just reading shit off of Wikipedia, everything I've written in this and the previous post is common knowledge amongst those who actually have some degree of expertise in the aerospace field.

And you do? lmao i dont use wiki either i have a absolute tone of janes IHS, books, websites i specifically follow to read an inject this shit on a regular. You're telling me things im already well aware. Then you go off and post a video of Pete fucking hegseth? Not a general, not an Ex joint chief, but trumps idiotic pick?


The man who is so unqualified, a fucking toddler would run the pentagon better. *eyerolls*

 

[aerius]

And you do? lmao i dont use wiki either i have a absolute tone of janes IHS, books, websites i specifically follow to read an inject this shit on a regular. You're telling me things im already well aware.

You're full of shit and you got caught. You claim the J20 has shitty stealth because the Indians were able to track them, and when it's pointed out that SOP is flying the planes with radar reflectors installed you say you know that too. And somehow you can't put 2 plus 2 together and figure out that the only reason the Indians could track them was because the J20 had the radar reflectors installed. I don't care what you claim to read, it's obvious you can't think or understand the material. You wouldn't know what an E-M diagram is if you were beaten over the head with one, let alone how to use it.

 

[TeTe]

Any war between the 3 major superpowers becomes a war of attrition, large nations such as the US, China, and Russia are very difficult to cripple let alone destroy with anything other than nukes. It's not like Desert Storm where we can run them over quickly before our weapons stockpiles run out, it'll be like the war in the Ukraine but on a much larger scale. And that's where the problems begin, the US doesn't have the industry to replace losses, it takes years to build a single ship and there's no way to ramp it up since we don't have the shipyards or even the industry needed to build new shipyards in a reasonable amount of time. Then there's stuff like TNT which you need for all those missiles & bombs you're dropping, the US doesn't even have a TNT factory and likely won't have one until 2030. Kinda hard to win a war when you can't even make explosives to blow shit up.

None of the 3 superpowers have enough weapons stockpiled for a decisive initial strike, however, China & Russia have a shitload of heavy industry & factories which can crank out obscene numbers of replacements in a prolonged war. The US does not and will not for the foreseeable future, in fact it continues to de-industrialize which just makes things even worse.

Unless Russia has been holding back in their war against Ukraine, their military looks like dog shit without using their nukes.

 

[GhostZ06]

You're full of shit and you got caught. You claim the J20 has shitty stealth because the Indians were able to track them, and when it's pointed out that SOP is flying the planes with radar reflectors installed you say you know that too. And somehow you can't put 2 plus 2 together and figure out that the only reason the Indians could track them was because the J20 had the radar reflectors installed. I don't care what you claim to read, it's obvious you can't think or understand the material. You wouldn't know what an E-M diagram is if you were beaten over the head with one, let alone how to use it.

I'm full aware of all of this and your not exactly telling me anything i don't know or am fully aware of. Again i do not expect the Chinese to catch us in engine tech anytime soon.


Now if trump and his fuck buddy musk screw up our educational system even more then it already is, an don't promote STEM like we did in the 60....im gonna get a little nervous.


Go ahead an have your temper tantrum an we can talk when you're done.

 

[fedorthegoat777]

Well that wouldn't be a one on one war anyways. . .

China is going to pull in North Korea, Russia, and Iran.

Russia is already tied up with Ukraine so they are not a threat and North Korea will just fire off a few nukes. They will probably land in the ocean or fall on China.

The US will pull in Europe, Taiwan, Japan, Israel, Canada, Australia, and some other countries. Plus the US has global bases.

USA with the win. China knows this which is why they don't attack Taiwan.

One of the articles that I read talked about this ability of China to build ships and planes and that their ability to mass produce munitions is so far beyond ours that we could never last in a long war with them.

There was some fear mongering in this article, but at the same time I found myself thinking where does all our money go if we can't build ships fast enough to replace them in a war with China?

The United States military can't account for 60% of its budget and I think that's a national security issue and I wonder why more people aren't extremely pissed off about it and forcing people to explain where the money actually goes in a time when we can't keep up with China in production of warships and airplanes.

The idea that we are asleep and resting on our laurels and prideful enough that we don't realize that we could be falling behind in a serious way, spooks me a bit

And it is all true.
People know where the money goes. In politicians back pockets and government waste. They feel powerless to do anything about it.

Hopefully Musk fixes things.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Well that wouldn't be a one on one war anyways. . .

China is going to pull in North Korea, Russia, and Iran.

Russia is already tied up with Ukraine so they are not a threat and North Korea will just fire off a few nukes. They will probably land in the ocean or fall on China.

The US will pull in Europe, Taiwan, Japan, Israel, Canada, Australia, and some other countries. Plus the US has global bases.

USA with the win. China knows this which is why they don't attack Taiwan.

And it is all true.
People know where the money goes. In politicians back pockets and government waste. They feel powerless to do anything about it.

Hopefully Musk fixes things.

I think it is profoundly naive to believe that musk will fix anything except that he will get way more money from the government than he was getting before and potentially his competitors will get funding cut.

I do not believe a single good thing will come of this or that it was ever intended to have good come from it.

He has already walked back his claim to cit 2 trillion from the budget even though he said it often before the election.

If they do save any money it will be by cutting soldiers, funding, medical care and pay.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Why is it unthinkable that anyone would invade America?? Is it just because of how many guns we have?

The right-wing fantasy of citizens repelling invaders with the shotguns in their closet is just that, fantasy. But military strength is real and is a huge factor. Remember, the US spends more than the next 10 countries combined or something and has done so for several decades now.

Geography is the other factor. For China or Russia to invade, they'd have to first invade Canada or Mexico and then cross into the US. Of course, the moment they land in either country, the US would bomb the ever loving shit out of them.

A straight invasion from the ocean into the east or west coast of the US is beyond impossible. The Allies invading Normandy is the biggest amphibious invasion in history and that took years of planning and grouping in a friendly country (Britain), while having to cross the tiny English Channel and land in an allied country that was occupied.

China or Russia would have to send millions of soldiers over thousands miles of open ocean and land in a country of 340 million people with the biggest military in the world. That's pretty much science fiction.

 

[aerius]

Unless Russia has been holding back in their war against Ukraine, their military looks like dog shit without using their nukes.

If you look at the war from a Western framework & understanding, it's easy to conclude that it's nearly stalemated and Russia has been struggling mightily for almost 3 years. Westerners generally focus on territory taken so if the front lines aren't really moving then no one is winning. Then add in all the media bias & propaganda where Ukrainians are killing Russians at something like a 10:1 to 20:1 ratio and it's not hard to see why we believe Russia's military is shit.

Reality is very different. People don't understand the scale of the war, Ukraine at the start of the war was more heavily armed than all of Europe put together, they had more tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, and anti-aircraft systems than the entire EU, and then the US and NATO poured in their entire stockpiles as the Ukraine's Soviet era equipment was destroyed (fun fact, Ukraine had more artillery at the start of the war than the entire US military). On top of that, Ukrainian soldiers are incredibly tenacious, NATO armies would've broken ages ago if they had to endure the outright hell that the Ukrainians are facing. There's a lot of testimonies from foreign mercs on the Ukrainian side that this war is the most hellish shit they've ever seen, far, far worse than anything in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of the other conflicts in my lifetime.

Fighting a war against an opponent as heavily armed, tough, and determined as the Ukraine is difficult to say the least, it's even harder if you want to keep the casualties somewhat reasonable. Plus, Russia wants to occupy a large chunk of land after they're done so they don't want to bomb everything into rubble either since they're the ones who will have to rebuild it. This is why they're taking their time instead of going for the big offensives that many people are expecting. The Russians know that artillery does about 70%-80% of the killings in a modern war, so what they've decided to do is dig in and use their 5:1 artillery advantage to shell the Ukrainians until they're sufficiently weakened before slowly advancing the front lines.

As for whether Russia is "holding back", that is a more complex question than it appears. If we use the layman's definition, yes, Russia is holding back a lot because it hasn't thrown its entire army at the Ukraine yet, not even close. However, there's other considerations such as how many men you can pack into each mile of the front line before they get all clumped up and become easy pickings for drones & artillery. Throwing more men & equipment at it may not necessarily change much, so it could also be argued that there's not much difference between using 20% of their army vs. throwing in the kitchen sink.

Finally, some food for thought.

https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3240&context=parameters

Excerpt:
The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities
in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace
casualties. Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained
rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action
to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries.
With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will
require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained
about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same
number of casualties in two weeks.

3600 casualties per day is more than double the current Ukrainian casualty rate. The entire US Army would be combat ineffective within a year.

 

[fedorthegoat777]

I think it is profoundly naive to believe that musk will fix anything except that he will get way more money from the government than he was getting before and potentially his competitors will get funding cut.

I do not believe a single good thing will come of this or that it was ever intended to have good come from it.

He has already walked back his claim to cit 2 trillion from the budget even though he said it often before the election.

If they do save any money it will be by cutting soldiers, funding, medical care and pay.

I believe government spending is a major problem and BOTH parties have failed equally at this. Trump already failed at it last term and so has Biden.

Musk has a chance. And I am rooting for him and so should all Americans.

Talk is cheap, let's see the results.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I believe government spending is a major problem and BOTH parties have failed equally at this. Trump already failed at it last term and so has Biden.

Musk has a chance. And I am rooting for him and so should all Americans.

Talk is cheap, let's see the results.

Well I'm with you in one area here. I definitely have no problem praising musk if he does something right...


But I guarantee he cuts competitors funding if it's at all possible and improves his own and no one like him with so many conflicts of interest should be in charge of what he's in charge of.

 

[djacobox372]

Yeah, China has 4 times the US population and a MUCH higher tolerance for deaths and casualties.

The US only had 300,000 deaths during WWII and Americans are still traumatized from it. China had about 20 million. And they have a long history of extremely bloody wars and revolts.

In the unthinkable scenario where both countries have to send people to the meat grinder, China outlasts the US without a doubt. No way the American public accepts even 1 million deaths.

The US nuclear arsenal is powerful enough to take out everybody in china in less than 24 hours. There would be nobody left to "outlast" anyone.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

True. I'm assuming the US fights a WWI and WWII-type war where they send people abroad and fight on the other side of the world.

The US mainland getting invaded is beyond unthinkable, imo. It simply cannot happen in any even halfway feasible scenario. China or any other country would rather drop atomic bombs rather than try to invade the US.

Imagine when they got to Texas? Holy shit that would be interesting

 

[Deleted member 110072]

If you look at the war from a Western framework & understanding, it's easy to conclude that it's nearly stalemated and Russia has been struggling mightily for almost 3 years. Westerners generally focus on territory taken so if the front lines aren't really moving then no one is winning. Then add in all the media bias & propaganda where Ukrainians are killing Russians at something like a 10:1 to 20:1 ratio and it's not hard to see why we believe Russia's military is shit.

Reality is very different. People don't understand the scale of the war, Ukraine at the start of the war was more heavily armed than all of Europe put together, they had more tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, and anti-aircraft systems than the entire EU, and then the US and NATO poured in their entire stockpiles as the Ukraine's Soviet era equipment was destroyed (fun fact, Ukraine had more artillery at the start of the war than the entire US military). On top of that, Ukrainian soldiers are incredibly tenacious, NATO armies would've broken ages ago if they had to endure the outright hell that the Ukrainians are facing. There's a lot of testimonies from foreign mercs on the Ukrainian side that this war is the most hellish shit they've ever seen, far, far worse than anything in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of the other conflicts in my lifetime.

Fighting a war against an opponent as heavily armed, tough, and determined as the Ukraine is difficult to say the least, it's even harder if you want to keep the casualties somewhat reasonable. Plus, Russia wants to occupy a large chunk of land after they're done so they don't want to bomb everything into rubble either since they're the ones who will have to rebuild it. This is why they're taking their time instead of going for the big offensives that many people are expecting. The Russians know that artillery does about 70%-80% of the killings in a modern war, so what they've decided to do is dig in and use their 5:1 artillery advantage to shell the Ukrainians until they're sufficiently weakened before slowly advancing the front lines.

As for whether Russia is "holding back", that is a more complex question than it appears. If we use the layman's definition, yes, Russia is holding back a lot because it hasn't thrown its entire army at the Ukraine yet, not even close. However, there's other considerations such as how many men you can pack into each mile of the front line before they get all clumped up and become easy pickings for drones & artillery. Throwing more men & equipment at it may not necessarily change much, so it could also be argued that there's not much difference between using 20% of their army vs. throwing in the kitchen sink.

Finally, some food for thought.

https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3240&context=parameters

Excerpt:
The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities
in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace
casualties. Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained
rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action
to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries.
With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will
require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained
about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same
number of casualties in two weeks.

3600 casualties per day is more than double the current Ukrainian casualty rate. The entire US Army would be combat ineffective within a year.

It does depend a lot on the nature of the war again, if it was some kind of conflict actually in Chinese territory or perhaps some near neighbour(India, Vietnam, North Korea, etc) the US would likely not be able to push for a mass draft than easily but if it were a conflict happening much closer to home or in western Europe(or maybe Japan and South Korea) I think mass drafting would potentially be easier to push plus a general shift into a war economy.

The exact nature of US/Chinese relations going forward I think is quite hard to predict as there arguably isn't quite the same ideological divide as the cold war with China being more of a semi planned capitalist authoritarian nation than a full on state run like the USSR and its allies. China is likely to be battling for influence with the US on the same kind of terms as the US, its not going to be pushing for anti capitalist governments which are state run as the USSR did so you could argue the two can co exist rather more easily, nations do not need to "pick a side" nearly as much.

The situation of the cold war historically as well I would argue was quite different, WW2 left the USSR in control of half of Europe and long with the memory of the Nazi's bloody invasion I think that led to a nation which was highly militarised and defensively minded. Added to that as well whilst the USSR industrialised very rapidly it was never close to the US in economic terms and was only able to compete militarily due to a very heavy focus on that.

The Chinese on the other hand I don't think are as defensive, there are parts of the west of the country which have some separatist tendencies but they've been flooded with Han Chinese immigrates for decades now so I don't think theres the same feeling their existing control could be lost as their was in Eastern Europe or central Asia from the USSR. Economically as well the Chinese seem to have a far better potential future than the USSR, I suspect there view is more one of avoiding direct conflict and simply outgrowing the US over decades.

As far as Ukraine goes I do think its a conflict were we've seen the kind of military tactics favoured over the last few decades by powerful states fail in the face of a rival developed state. The idea of very rapidly dramatic advances like the second Iraq war really hasnt suceeded, I spose the Russian did gain a good deal of ground they've kept early on but it looks like they were trying to either topple the Ukrainian government or force them into a negotiated settlement. Likewise the Ukrainian counter offencive the following year also seems like it failed to achieve very much as did the Kursk offensive. Economic war as well really hasnt had the results I suspect the US hoped it might, at least that we were told that it might in the early stages of the conflict.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

The US nuclear arsenal is powerful enough to take out everybody in china in less than 24 hours. There would be nobody left to "outlast" anyone.

Yeah and China and Russia also have enough to do the same to the US.

All the scenarios I'm giving assume that they fight a conventional, non-nuclear war.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Imagine when they got to Texas? Holy shit that would be interesting

A bunch of untrained, lifted truck drivers trying to take out an invading unit rolling through would learn really quick.

A Siege of Leningrad-style scenario would be the only one where the huge number of civilian guns would make a difference. The Nazis wanted t to completely take over the USSR and annihilate its people because that was part of the lebensraum plan. But that's an extremely unlikely goal for any invading force here. China or Russia aren't going to de-populate the US so that they can come live here.