What are the chances of the U.S. and China going to war? - Page 2 - Shooting Sports Forum


News and Political Forum News and Politics spoken here!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2013, 15:08   #26
Full Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5
The PLAN is still barely green water, still at least a decade from being blue water. As such, their fights with us would be completely localized, as their forward force deployment would not extend beyond their claimed waters.

Their airlift and rail/tread/wheel deployment ability inland, on the other hand, is much higher, and as far as ground forces are concerned, I think only the DPRK could match them man for man.

Militarily, the only really tactically dangerous facet to their navy, aside from their meager number of modern ships, is their MASSIVE sub fleet which is far superior to our own numerically.

As far as the Japanese attack on pearl back in the day, they had actually intended to hit our carriers, not our battleships- they knew the value of air power.
Jimmy Bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 17:16   #27
Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,287
Originally Posted by Jimmy Bones View Post
The PLAN is still barely green water, still at least a decade from being blue water. As such, their fights with us would be completely localized, as their forward force deployment would not extend beyond their claimed waters.

Their airlift and rail/tread/wheel deployment ability inland, on the other hand, is much higher, and as far as ground forces are concerned, I think only the DPRK could match them man for man.

Militarily, the only really tactically dangerous facet to their navy, aside from their meager number of modern ships, is their MASSIVE sub fleet which is far superior to our own numerically.

As far as the Japanese attack on pearl back in the day, they had actually intended to hit our carriers, not our battleships- they knew the value of air power.
Certainly. If a war should occur with China, it would be half a world away and be a localized air/naval engagement that would be ruinous for both sides. Our economy can not take the additional strain IMHO.

WRT the history end of things, the Japanese did indeed plan to hit the carriers as one of two priorities. Yamamoto and his top planners did indeed regard the CV as the future and wanted their destruction as the priority. However, the black shoes outside the Yamamoto/Fuchida/Genda planners insisted on the BB's as a twin primary target, and they had the political clout to make it stick. This was to haunt them when the carriers were known to be absent on the 6th of December, but with a second "primary" target being present Nagumo had no choice but to carry out the attack.

That is just further fodder for the idea that governments make mistakes. If they really regarded the carriers as the sole objective of the attack they should have backed off at that point, or decided to press the issue even at the cost of part of the First Air Fleet. Nagumo did neither and instead got just enough of a result to ruin his country within 4 short years. Never do a small injury to your enemy.

War with China is unlikely but not impossible given the instability of the Chinese regime and the rich combination of ethnic hatreds and territorial disputes in the area.

All the best,
Grumpy
grumpy_old_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 19:03   #28
Libertarian
 
MDsonofthesouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 302
Nothing is impossible. Honestly the though of invasion here is unlikely as despite gun control the American people are still armed and would pose a venerable threat to an invading force. Add in the unification of the people under a common threat and its easy to deduce that anything would be overseas with light to cyber only attacks on US soil.

Now if its more then one opponent I see flaws in my theory.
MDsonofthesouth is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 02-27-2013, 23:30   #29
Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,287
Update

Interesting article at Beijing War Prep | Washington Free Beacon

Basically the PLA is moving land based missile assets forward as part of the ratcheting up of tensions over the Senkaku Islands dispute with Japan. Personally I still think war is unlikely (call it 20% during the next 5-10 years at a WAG) but it bears watching. The big "black swans" to look for would be things like peasant rebellions in the interior of China (gov't needs a distraction now) or a wild miscalculation/accidental downing of an aircraft (think KAL007 or Iran Flight 655). Then events could take on a life of their own. The recent decision to keep the Roosevelt home due to budgetary concerns as well as the indefinite delay on refueling CVN Lincoln will definitely have made it on to the Chinese radar as signs of US military decay. Interestingly, the Washington is also having her RCOH delayed although she is coming due within three years at the outside. The Washington incidentally is the forward based carrier in Yokosuka.

The thing that makes the DF16 missile deployment so significant is that it was purpose built as a "carrier killer" - i.e. it is a ballistic missile (think ICBM only with conventional warhead, so the re-entry vector will defeat most antimissile assets with the possible exception of the SM3) that reportedly has terminal homing capability and is designed to hit a carrier sized target on the high seas. Range is over 800km giving the Chinese the potential to achieve dominance in the theater.

Biggest problem with the question "will there be a war" is that most people think of war as an unlimited "war to the end" whereas in most of military history wars have been limited in nature with clearly defined objectives. Argentina was never going to conquer Britain and the reverse was also true. So what? Each had its own regional objectives and they decided to use military force to settle the issue.

A local war is possible but is not in any sense predestined. It bears watching however, particularly as the US continues its headlong decline under the current regime.

All the best,
Grumpy
PS One notable quote from the article that is significant is "...The U.S. military is committed to defending Japan in any conflict despite Obama administration assertions that it takes no sides in territorial disputes..." IOW, the US regime is telling China that it will remain neutral. This is an almost unbelievably bad bit of diplomatic policy unless you are trying to trigger a conflict.
grumpy_old_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 23:52   #30
Full Member
 
freesw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 33,143
Originally Posted by grumpy_old_man View Post
PS One notable quote from the article that is significant is "...The U.S. military is committed to defending Japan in any conflict despite Obama administration assertions that it takes no sides in territorial disputes..." IOW, the US regime is telling China that it will remain neutral. This is an almost unbelievably bad bit of diplomatic policy unless you are trying to trigger a conflict.
Nonsense.

We're not obligated to assist Japan in acquiring new territory. And anyway, the administration's approach is entirely appropriate under the present circumstances. Both sides are de-escalating their rhetoric.

China, Japan move to cool down territorial dispute | Reuters

Why is it Republican critics on the sidelines always default to bellicosity? When they're out of office, they insist Democratic presidents talk like North Korea, with the volume turned up to ten all the time.

What would Teddy Roosevelt say?
__________________
Accept no forgeries.
freesw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
asia, china, nuclear war

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:01.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All information is copyright by Perfectunion.com unless already under copyright.