#10154

Our navy would utterly destroy theirs in open combat. Their only hope would to surprise attack us with thousands of anti ship missiles, and make us leave the region. With a couple thousand marines, combined with a coalition from the dozens of surrounding countries that hate China, we would have a very good chance of defeating them in the South China sea, or near the Japanese islands. You don’t need a massive force of marines to take an island, just look at ww2, we would storm islands with around 30,000 marines.

China’s only experience in warfare within the past 40 years has been getting their asses handed to them by Vietnamese militias.

#10155

Again, that is all nice, but it is containment, not victory. And you can contain a 1 billion people nation only for so long before it bites you in the ass. Also, China is nuclear the same as Russia - they could nuke your navy once they start loosing.

Would you resort to nuking mainland China as retribution knowing it would lead to nukes fallin on mainland US?

#10156

How is that not victory? Keeping them out of the South China sea and destroying their navy would be a crushing blow to them, and they would the chance of becoming the world super power. You don’t have to invade a nation to defeat it in war.

1 Like
#10157

Actually, you do, unless they accept the defeat. We are talking 1 billion people country with nuclear arms and own space program, we are not talking Iraq after 20 years of sanctions.

#10158

It’s irrelevant weather they accept defeat or not, if we destroyed their navy they would have no way of continuing the war.

#10159

Yes and we are talking about a military with zero experience, piss poor training, piss poor funding, horrible corruption issues, and no joint command.

#10160

Pasted image2000×1882 506 KB

Take a look at this map.

This is where a major with with China would be taking place. They are building islands here because, they can’t project their power for shit from the mainland. Once their navy is at the ocean floor, they have zero way of waging war here, same goes for the Japanese islands which Japan is now fortifying with tons of anti ship missiles, and AA defences.

If they wanted to continue the war after that they would have to invade Vietnam or South Korea, which as discussed above is not practical.

#10161

the question still stands what would russia gain strategically from invading former soviet states ? fuck all apart from maybe on or two that may have major ports .

[quote=“snejdarek, post:10151, topic:21032”]
You are still repeating the mistake of thinking of the Putin’s clique as politicians/statemen while they are gangsters in politicians’ seats - making them that more dangerous.
[/quote] i think you make the mistake of thinking putin is a reckless idiot . in doing so you make a huge mistake he is much more cunning than that he knows how to play the game and certainly how to out play obama .

he is very traditional in his technique of rulling which when you watch that documentary Dmitry Medvedev (former russian president and set to take over from putin , also the guy who ordered the invasion of georgia ) explains when talking about his differences with putin especially when it comes to economy

1 Like
#10162

defeating china in a small regional war is all thats needed , it would destroy china’s reputation and the US would re-enforce their position as the leading global super power

but on the flip side was china to win the us would lose all credibility along with the number one spot .

which is exactly why it wont happen unless its forced upon either side .

look at argentina for example , that involved about 15,000 men on boths sides . we defeated them they ran home embarrassed , all support for war at home wiped out over night they wouldnt dare venture out again .

but hey then again a single type 45 could deal with the entire combined airforce of south america so im not surprised they wont venture out again

1 Like
#10163

As I said - that happened because they accepted defeat, not because they were militarily defeated. That is a huge difference, and that is something very unlikely in China were a person’s (soldier’s) life ain’t worth much.

#10164

i understand what you’re saying but that depends on whether the Chinese high command actually think they could win the fight and they’re not idiots . escalating the war further than what me and @SirWarriant are saying is going to be nuclear war .

no stable minded individual is going to even go there

#10165

Nobody commented on that yet.

#10166

because it wasnt worth a reply , china is NOT going to nuke the US unless it was facing complete total defeat . and even then why the fuck would they nuke a naval fleet , they would hit Washington and wipe out the US high command .

but again never ever going to happen

1 Like
#10167

Again it doesn’t matter if they accept defeat or not, without a navy they couldn’t do jack shit in the South China sea period.

We did tests, to see if nuclear weapons could destroy entire fleets, and the results were extremely disappointing. They’re not going to use nukes unless they are being invade and on the verge of defeat. Not to mention that would irradiate the fuck out of the area, and they effectively posin themselves.

1 Like
#10168

Nuke navy - tactical use of nukes is something different than nuking US - strategic use.

Because it would still leave possibility of mainland nuking open, while nuking Washington would mean all out nuclear war.

It is not about entire fleet, but about it’s foundations - carriers.

#10169

BTW, given my avatar name… it is 97 years since the Czechoslovak-Polish war in which gen. Šnejdárek led the Czechoslovak forces.

1 Like
#10170

wouldnt even need to destroy the entire fleet , just sink the main logistical ships and strategical ships .

aircraft carriers , supply ships , flag ship .

again argentina , the moment we sunk the Belgrano and this image was boomed across the globe

the Argentinian navy returned to port .

1 Like
#10171

Lol, they have thousands and thousands of anti ship missiles, designed to take out our carriers. Using a nuke would be utterly retarded and it would risk nuclear war.

Once again, using a nuke that close to themselves would be a very stupid move, and could cripple them. It’s out of the question.

#10172

not at all it would end the same way . the US nuking china tactically back then quickly turn into hitting the mainland .

no one is going to risk their entire country over a few fucking ships

[quote=“snejdarek, post:10168, topic:21032”]
Because it would still leave possibility of mainland nuking open, while nuking Washington would mean all out nuclear war.
[/quote] be all out nuclear war either war

[quote=“snejdarek, post:10168, topic:21032”]
It is not about entire fleet, but about it’s foundations - carriers.
[/quote] they dont need nukes to have a go at a carrier , they are funding massively into carrier killers for a reason

1 Like
#10173

Look, gents, why would Czech generality make a war plans that effectively meant that 2 million Czechoslovak soldiers would die within 2 weeks?

It makes no fucking sense. Yet this is what the commie fuckers here designed. Roll through forces in West Germany into France, die along the way, make way for subsequent Russian forces.

No fucking sense altogether. Still, this was the official order of battle should the cold war become warm.

After two weeks the losses were supposedto be so massive that there were no further plans for our army. Just sit and wait for Russians to take over and continue the march forward.