China vs USA

If China and the US had a war who would win? I think China would win. China has the manpower and size, and the US has never won a landwar in Asia.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/AK6Ad
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000205/full
armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally
youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0
hpschapters.org/sections/homeland/documents/Planning_Guidance_for_Response_to_a_Nuclear_Detonation-2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=WAnqRQg-W0k
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Technically neither as they'll obliterate each other with thermonuclear weapons.
But in a conventional war, China's size will be its downfall. Bombing their agriculture and infrastructure would collapse the country into a civil war.

> the US has never won a landwar in Asia

Ask the Japanese.

Yes we have. Vietnam.

...

U sure?

That.....that's a joke...right?

US would win
>Chinese training being mostly Drill and parades
every college male must join but they all just learn how to march and why communism is so good.

>Chinese dont have a unified joint command
imagine in a boxing game one character controlled by one player while the other is controlled with 4 different players controlling each limb.

>Chinese tech is awful
All their advanced tech is either knockoffs from us or some other power, so we know what coming

>politicized nature of the military
The army is a glorified police force, and is directly tied to the party, remember aforementioned boxer controlled by 4 people? Now imagine they are all fighting with each other and wont let each other limb get too powerful in the fears it may try to take control after the fight.

Im not afraid of china, the US shouldn't be afraid, euros should be afraid of thier dying race from within, China is a red herring.

technically in Vietnam battles were mesuared by how many we killed and in that sense the US won

He's not wrong. US bombed NV to the peace tables. Fall of Saigon occurred after America had left.

>Secret chinese invasion from Canada.
You will never see it coming OP.

Good info.

it ain't me starts playing

lol, the cost of your bombs vs the cost of their farms. you'll bankrupt yourself before you starve them out.

>implying the chinese have any power projection to have a full scale war

The US won every fight against the commies in North vietnam. Nixon
dropped like 10x more bombs on that shitty country then in all of ww2 combined.

We brought them to the negotiation table and got a peace deal but south Vietnam
was too weak and unmotivated to fight off the subsequent break of the treaty.

Its like if we won world war two, made peace with Hitler, and gave him half the
country, then he reconquested the shitty American half.

In the end we gained less than nothing but we still "won the war"

wars are won by objectives. the viet cong united their country and expelled the 'invaders'. they won the objective.

Has China won a landwar in Asia?

it's a weird thing to judge. the military could have easily continued to stay there making stir fried gook and rice. but the fucking hippies started to protest and our congressmen pussied out. so we left, and therefore lost. but i think we won all the major battles. so again, we lost, but it was a political failure not a military one.

China has no blue water navy. Doesn't matter if you have millions of troops and can't get them anywhere useful.

It means they'll be able to hold their own and defend their mainland, maybe force the Americans into a peace deal. The Modern American public doesn't have the stomach for a war that'll cost america thousands upon thousands of lives lost

Last one was Mongolian.
>shitty wall

How would China have an economy to fuel this war when it's biggest consumer stops buying its shit?

That is a best post.

china will bankrupt itself before its able to fully arm its manpower.

They wouldn't, both the US and China would try to end it as soon as possible

There's literally no doing that without nuclear weapons.

underrated

This image makes it clear who wins

china has pathetic power projection and a weak navy. we would just blockade and bomb them into submisison.

The Vietnam war was a part of containment; communism can only survive through persistent revolution and the eventual worldwide revolution of the workers. If you stop puppet coups from overturning a countries and slow down communist momentum, communism will starve itself out. America's goal was to tie the Soviets into supporting a war they didn't have the money to do, or atleast to slow communist rhetoric enough so economic stagnation would set in; and it worked. The issue for the US came from the using mildly trained boomer kids as soldiers, since afterwards everyone ran there fat pretentious mouths about war crimes, how we "lost the war" since south vietnam fell, and muh warbadpeacelove and pussification.

I believe that believing Vietnam was a "loss," later on, is what cost the US the war in Afghanistan where it proven that insurgency could be used in the opposite sense: to draw a superior invading force into a economic tarpit. Al-Queda's goal wasn't a western fall but rather a collapse of the US housing market that would cause America to focus on investing in domestic economic affairs; in turn, dropping middle eastern focus on upholding the petroldollar; in turn, causing an eventual absence of support for an Israeli state.

Fighting containment wars isn't about attrition or the collapse of another government, its like bringing a knife to a gun fight but making sure to stab the other guy in a place where he will eventually bleed out after he's dealt with you.

how would you effectively blockade them if your ships are in range of their ASBM's?

Yeah, but why would the US try and stage a land invasion of China? What are the parameters of this "war" anyway?

very beautiful video. what is the source?

It is from the conservative channel, Fox. You can find it.

We wouldn't bomb your farms, you Chink. We'd bomb the piss out of your densely populated coast. China only has a hundred nukes. Even if every nuke hit its target, we could still function. We have 2000 nukes. Just 200 nukes aimed at China's population centers would collapse your country.

Its not about manpower. Germany was at war for 6 years with nations that had 10x+ the manpower. And the technology was shit back then, today you can replace a shitload of humans with robots drones and bombs.

Russia will alone destroy USA. Fat pindosy will die.

The Western 55% of China only has 5.7% of China's population. In any sustained bombing campaign, China would collapse from the sheer panic of its population.

>using surface ships

China is reliant on importing raw materials and exporting shitty cheap finishes products. Heavily reliant on oil from Saudi Arabia and Angola.

Get some attack subs out there, as well as land based air patrolling and denying the lanes of shipping. They'd still have land based trade, but that accounts for about 15 percent of their oil.

The second China cannot feed their bloated bureaucracy through exports is the second China devolves into regional warlords.

On the contrary I think China might just collapse on its own soon and the only way to keep it together might be to fight a unifying war

I think China needs to import it's share of refugees

>the us has never won a landwar in asia
has china ever won a land war in north america?

I haven't researched the contemporary Chinese economy in a few years, but it's a bad sign that so many wealthy Chinese are pushing their profits into offshore holdings. We saw the same thing from Russian oligarchs prior to the 2010 collapse there.

Nope china is headed to africa. They are going to mine resources and shag black bitches. The USA wants this to happen as well. China and USA are friends.

...

>bomb farms
>bomb the factories that allow farms to mass produce
which one do you pick ?

US. In a conventional conflict America would destroy the Chinese Navy and Air Force and place the entire country under siege. Chinas trade economy would collapse as would their ability to import the food necessary to sustain their population. Compounded further as the US would destroy road and rail links within China. We dont need to bomb the farms, just destroy the ability to get the farms foods to the cities. China would be in a massive famine within 6 months.

We would not need to invade. We can force them to the table through starvation.

And China has never even been to war, let alone win one....

>china winning?
>kek

archive.fo/AK6Ad

The kikes have been pushing for refugees to go to China, but China won't take them. China also doesn't give any aid to refugees, so they probably wouldn't go to China even if China allowed it.

You see our relationship with china is they give us shit and we give them money and they buy whatever present they want. China want big useless mock city? check. China want to go all solar? go for it. China want to build undersea railroad? More power to ya.

uh you do realize using 200 nukes pretty much render the planet uninhabitable. good job burger, you just killed yourself alongside china.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000205/full

There are no nuclear weapons

their tech compared to US isnt comparable. chinese tanks and aircraft are not even on the same level as some 3rd world countries

>he still believes the nuclear winter propaganda

>Since the first nuclear test explosion on July 16, 1945, at least eight nations have detonated 2,055 nuclear test explosions at dozens of test sites from Lop Nor in China, to the atolls of the Pacific, to Nevada, to Algeria where France conducted its first nuclear device, to western Australia where the U.K. exploded nuclear weapons, the South Atlantic, to Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan, across Russia, and elsewhere.
>armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally

minus the fact that our military is over twice their size. economically, they might have us in a chokehold because they float their currency, but if it went to straight war, we would roll over them

youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

>>nukes going off one at a time

vs

>>hundreds of nukes being detonated at a time.

true but burgers had a sick ass K:D ratio

>average of 40 nuclear tests every year for the last 5 years
>goyim, the earth will die if 200 go off at the same time

last 50 years*

Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot and kill our worker bees? Dont you get it? they work so we dont have to.

>cost of
Look at you, thinking like a Jew. Munitions only really have a price tag when an entire country's life is not on the line. In a life or death situation the population of America would line up like ants to volunteer their time to mass produce anything that is required. They would get paid after this hypothetical war is over... maybe... if their side wins.

delusion

No it doesn't, retard.

The entire Chinese military is untested in battle. We would overwhelm them with so much precision ass raping in the first 12 hours that it wouldn't even be fair desu.

That makes sense. Plus when was the last time any chinaman had combat experience? Do their generals even know how to fight?

If you take Nukes out of the equation then the U.S. could handily beat China. Hell, Russia could beat china. All you would need to do is drop some defoliating agents on China's agricultural centers. After that all you need to do is watch China collapse under the weight of its own starving population.

Absolutely false.

Having been there in the past 10 years the result of the war has been apparent. We may have lost some battles but we won the war. Capitalism is thriving in Saigon. The number of Burger Kings, KFCs and Dominos in Saigon alone was on another level. They are also pretty good at getting pity tourist bucks by playing the "muh US war of agression atrocity" card to get the most cash from Tourists.

China absolutely BTFO. Russia is the only real conventional warfare competitor and most of their armaments are from Soviet stockpiles. I am sure they have modern shit too, but if it came down to a war and they needed to get equipment out quick on a mass scale, they would be down to using old stockpiles.

>>exploding in modern megacities would produce firestorms that would build for hours, consuming buildings, vegetation, roads, fuel depots, and other infrastructure, releasing energy many times that of the weapon's yield [Toon et al., 2007]. estimated the potential damage and smoke production from a variety of nuclear exchange scenarios, and found that smoke would initially rise to the upper troposphere due to pyroconvection. Robock et al. [2007b] examined the climatic impact of the smoke produced by a regional conflict in the subtropics in which two countries each used 50 Hiroshima-size (15 kt) nuclear weapons, creating such urban firestorms. Using the global climate model GISS ModelE (Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York), they calculated that nearly all the 5 Tg of smoke produced would rise to the stratosphere, where it would spread globally, reducing the global average temperature by 1.25°C for 3–4 years and by more than 0.5°C for a decade. This effect was longer lasting than that found in previous “nuclear winter” studies, because older models could not represent the rise of smoke into the stratosphere. Mills et al. [2008] then used a chemistry-climate model to calculate that the concurrent heating of the stratosphere by up to 100°C would produce global ozone loss on a scale unprecedented in human history, lasting for up to a decade.

>China has the manpower and size
>he thinks manpower matters in modern warfare

Please, tell me how China would ship all those men, tanks, trucks, and supplies across the pacific when the United States Navy is the most powerful navy on the planet. Not 1 Chinese soldier would be able to step foot in America.

America would have complete naval and air superiority over China. Our bases in Japan ensure we would have complete domination of the area.

The USA would have free reign to bomb the hell out of China's infrastructure, agriculture, and major population centers.

We wouldn't need a single boot on the ground to cause China to crumble.

Theories are theories.

>modern cities will burn in firestorms

Lay off the dope.

>In a paper by the United States Department of Homeland Security finalized in 2010, fire experts stated that due to the nature of modern city design and construction, with the US serving as an example, a firestorm is unlikely after a nuclear detonation in a modern city.
hpschapters.org/sections/homeland/documents/Planning_Guidance_for_Response_to_a_Nuclear_Detonation-2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf

Israel would win

>>However, experts suggest in the nature of modern US city design and construction
may make a raging firestorm unlikely

you really should read your own sources.

no debate

china boils and eats dog alive with no sign of remorse. so usa would win

>blackandwhiteshittyfishbait.jpg

of course they are, but one theory has science behind it while the other is muh feelings.

Nice bait.

youtube.com/watch?v=WAnqRQg-W0k

>If China and the US had a war who would win?

The jews and bankers.

There are nukes now, so it will never happen.

In a theoretical conventional war, neither side would win. They have the population and industrial capacity to hold us off indefinitely through attrition. Our civilians are heavily armed, so the US is impossible to invade by force. Stalemate.

> This
> We have been fighting longer
> Out equipment is dialed in better than other countries

The war officially ended for the US in a draw with the signing of the Paris Accords on Jan,26 1972. The NVA violated the agreement and illegally invaded South Vietnam in 1975

200 simultaneous record-breaking firestorms would be necessary for your nuclear winter to occur. The fact that even one is unlikely completely undermines your theory.

The whole argument is nonsense anyway. The conventional idea of a nuclear winter is that the radiation is what causes the end of the earth. That would never happen.

...

>09

There's more?

>Look at you, thinking like a Jew
I laughed like a little school girl. Thank you

Is that why California is so gay?

If chinks can't defend themselves against a tiny neighboring island what makes you think they stand a snowball's chance in hell against the USA?

>How would China have an economy to fuel this war when it's biggest consumer stops buying its shit?

They just switch their industry over to military production. They don't have much oil or coal, though so they'd need to collaborate with oil producing states.

first off, you said 200 nukes on 'china's densely populated coast'

so your source material is irrelevant considering the 'expert' is said it's unlikely that a firestorm will occur in an american city.

well im open to the idea that 200 nukes won't destroy the world, but my source materiel based on science says it is likely vs your opinion that it isn't hrm, tough call, do i believe science or anons feelings?

Nah. They just kept eating the gay fish that came from all the bomb radiation in the pacific ocean.

What collapse?
Russia is still there and doing much better than a few decades ago.
There was a small dip, but their government and power structure remained in place.
A few oligarchs were BTFO'd and there was fallout from that. No big deal.
China has much more economic leverage than Russia.
Almost all wealthy Americans also have money and investments offshore. Just a matter of hedging their bets (and tax evasion).

China is USA 1941. As soon as war is declared they would turn their factories into mass production of weaponry the likes this world has never seen. If the USA couldn't beat the vietcong you really think we could beat 1.3 billion chinamen?

First of all, the Chinese would be hacked to pieces by the US Navy once they ventured past Taiwan. No more air cover. It would be the Battle of the Philippine Sea, but with less ships.

Assuming the Navy magically disappeared, then the Chinese would be faced with mounting an amphibious operation across the world's largest ocean, having to stop off on the way to assault American-held islands such as Guam and Hawaii. Then they would have to land in California, where it is doubtful they would be welcomed with open arms, except maybe in Berkeley. If they managed to get ashore, they would then have to slog their way across either miles of burning desert and thick forest, where they would reach the Sierra Nevada and the Cascades.

Assuming any of them lived to reach the Rocky Mountains, they would then probably be killed either by Old Man Winter, large numbers of armed Montanians who think anyone not from their state is an alien invader, and large numbers of armed, very well supplied Mormons. They'd be better off trying to conquer Russia or Japan.

>If China and the US had a war who would win? I think China would win. China has the manpower and size, and the US has never won a landwar in Asia.

For starters, I'm assuming it doesn't go nuclear. In which case neither side could realistically subdue the other

The US Navy could destroy the Chinese Navy, our Air Force could destroy their Air Force, but at the point that it becomes a landwar things get dicey. The US is better trained and equipped; but the Chinese would have numbers on their side and in the event that we're invading China we'd also be fighting a major insurgency. Insurgency presents an insurmountable problem in China because it has a land area greater than the United States and a population of over a billion which would be logistically impossible to control even if we completely defeated the government forces. The only chance of success would be to install a new friendly government that had the support of at least half the people so that they could assume the duties of administration and dealing with insurgents. While there are a sizable number of Chinese who would be attracted to democracy and free speech any government installed by an invading army is almost certain to be viewed as a foreign puppet by the majority of the population, so even that scenario seems unlikely. There is the mass genocide option; but I doubt that would have the support of the American public.

The insurgency scenario is even worse for the Chinese, since the American populace have a right to bare arms with over 100 million citizens owning over 300 million firearms the Chinese would be faced with a massive insurgency with a decentralized arsenal.

My source is the US government. Your source uses Hiroshima as a model for modern cities, which is laughable. Do you think firestorms will break out in a modern, concrete and steel city?

On a side note:

If it does go nuclear then China would get completely glassed by our nuclear arsenal of over 7,000 nukes while the US would likely be heavily damaged; but more or less intact from a strike with China's 300 or so nukes some of which would be intercepted by our superior missile defense technology.

In the wake of that the Pacific and anything close to China would turn quite radioactive, Japan would be completely fucked as would Korea, India would be fucked; but since they already living in pools of their own feces it would likely go unnoticed.