Chinese Navy could surpass size of USN

[*Pete* 0]

Quote[/b] ]In any case ,invading china would be a nightmare ,logisticly and millitary ,to much manpower to defend the country.And it would be to costly ,in terms of human losses ,and in finances ,country's would go bankrupt over such a war.

exactly, that is pretty much what i wanted to say with my post, i would not bet on Russia winning over China, absolutely not, but i was merely thinking that they already have a (relatively) massive army with somewhat modern equipment, pretty good training for its soldiers etc etc, plus borber directly towards China.

however, i think India would be less dangerous opponent against China, i might be wrong, possible just blinded by the fact that Russia was as part of Sovjet the strongest the world ever seen, in its time.

as you say, an invasion of China would have to go through an another neighboring country, but it would be so difficult to accomplish and such a force would be needed that the force assembled for gw1 would shrink in comparison.

and about the topic, the fact that China increase its military spendings with 12% is really not much to worry about, the whole nation as a whole is getting richer and richer by the day, so naturally, as now they can afford what they before couldnt, an increase in the budget is logical.

as Denoir said, id rather (based on history) see a larger Chinese navy than a larger US navy.

we (europe, world) would more likely oppose a Chinese agression against sovereign nations more fiercely than an US agression against sovereign nations...so its not a problem for me, that Chinese get a bit stronger.

[SFWanabe 0]

Daniel @ June 20 2005,17:06)]It would make a very interesting OFP campaign: Russia gets attacked, America/NATO helps out - battles fought over invasion-staging islands off the east coast of Asia. Plus usefull addons like VME and RHS would make it very cool.

In fact, I might look into some of the locations...

Do I hear a new campaign for OFP in the works?

[Grim_Fandango 0]

Where did you get that news from jblack?  I ask because I've spent the past two years saying to friends and teachers that there'll be a war between "Oriental and Occidental" by the time my generation (19 years old now) starts assuming positions of authority, i.e. when we are in our forties/early fifties, which seems to gel with the prophesy in your post.

Whew, less than four months old-still postable .

P.S. Nice to see I'm not the only prophet around here also .

lol i've been saying the same thing for the last couple of years....

It's simple world politics, u don't get to be the big boy on the block (China) without knocking off the guy who's already on top (U.S.)

China might surpass the U.S. economically but militarily, i doubt that would happen for 20-30 years and by the time that happened i doubt the U.S. would let military research stagnate to zero.

Hm, learn from the nazis. Technology doesn't neccesarily secure any form of military superiority. I don't know anything about the manufacturing capabilities of China vs. USA but my guess would be that it'd take a lot of force economically and politically for the US to mobilize a workforce to equal China, thus making an invasion of China very very difficult.

Besides, I don't think you should underestimate China in the ways of technology and otherwise, if they don't already have it, they definetely have the cash to buy it from someone else.

I think it's too abstract to theorize about 30 years from now because so much can happen, but if noone shuts down China with economic or political sanctions, then there's no doubt that they have the capability to be a very strong new world power, and I definetely wouldn't want to exclude the fact that they might very well grow stronger than the US.

It's pretty absurd to speculate about going to war with China since most countries have obviously adhered to their importance in Asia and the globe. The US doesn't hide the fact that they would never move into Taiwan if China chose to invade, in spite of speaking so highly of their renewed moral campagin worldwide.

The market favors China, and the market severely effects it's governments, so I guess we all favor China, and that's an emerging all be it disturbing fact. (given the appalling human rights record etc.)

[FatNinjaKid 0]

The market favors China, and the market severely effects it's governments, so I guess we all favor China, and that's an emerging all be it disturbing fact. (given the appalling human rights record etc.)

People are investing in China because they think the risk of war is acceptably small. They would not invest if they were expecting a major conflict. That does not mean that it cannot happen, but a lot of people are willing to bet a lot of money it won't.

Personally I believe that markets tend to have a better situational understanding than opinionated politicians like Donald Rumsfeld. Look at how the oil market reacted to his initial plans to make war in Iraq, and look where the oil price is now. In fact many security agencies keep a very close eye on investment behaviour to predict possible areas of conflict. General Poindexter (former chief of the DARPA IAO) even suggest trying to model the risks of possible terrorist attacks with kind of "futures market" for CIA employees. IMO that plan was pretty smart, but it never happened cause people didnt understand it. They were complaining about the fact that it would allow market participants to make money if such an attack should really happen one day...the ugly face of democracy.

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hm, learn from the nazis.

Whats with you and Nazis?

[harley 3 1185 0]

Just to clarify, Admiral John Poindexter was the Reagan NSA behind the "Iran-Contra" affair of the 1980s. Convicted of lying to Congress (hell hath no fury like lied-to politicians), conspiracy and destroying evidence. It was thought only natural that a convicted felon of such character be brought back into the (Republican) government someday.

As FatNinjaKid says, Poindexter was made head of the Pentagon IAO, "The Information Awareness Office" Not exactly the best place for a man with his talents methinks...

And as for "learn from the Nazis"; that's questionable-due to the fuhrerprinzip mentioned in another topic here, Hitler singlehandedly led Germany to the pinnacle of domination then to a heretofore unknown defeat. I'm quite sure that the Chinese Military, whilst totally autocratic on some levels, will have invested majorly in leadership talent, and like the U.S. will have many a war plan locked away for future use.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

I agree with the both of you, but the lesson taught by the nazi focus on "teknologie über alles" was that technological superiority only takes you so far. Ie if a tiger tank could knock out 10 shermans before being knocked out itself, it wouldn't help much if the allies could produce 20 shermans for every 1 tiger tank. Superiority in numbers does hold a certain significance, as well as technology.

SFWannabe, the nazis were the last great conquering empire in this world that engaged in total war. Clearly a war with China would be of at least the same proportions considering the country's notable military strength, so I feel that it's a very good example to use in any comparison to future warfare of that extent, and certainly this topic in particular. And it was a reply to another poster that claimed that American technological superiority would ensure them victory. That's in no way a certainty, as we saw 60 years ago.

And as to the relevance of the nazi empire on the world today, every army in the world uses nazi tactics today.

[Mr_Tea 0]

Do you mean that Nazi tactics Sun Tzu descripet 2400 years before?

The Nazis didn`t invented the tactic to warfare.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

Do you mean that Nazi tactics Sun Tzu descripet 2400 years before?

The Nazis didn`t invented the tactic to warfare.

Nevertheless they set the standard in modern times that was to be followed in modern warfare for years to come.

And I don't think Sun Tzu said anything about armored divisions or armor wedges. Until the Germans showed the rest of the world how it was done, tanks were seen purely as infantry-support weapons. They were also the innovators of the airborne infantry, the west just copied that.

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]SFWannabe, the nazis were the last great conquering empire in this world that engaged in total war.

There's nothing great about the Nazis and it offends me when somebody says how great of an army they had.

[Moving Target 0]

meh, when you take over 90% of Europe, give me a call

And technology is a greater advantage than quantity, in korea the Chinese/north koreans had 3 times as many troops as the UN, and still lost.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

6-->

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif[/img]6)]

Quote[/b] ]SFWannabe, the nazis were the last great conquering empire in this world that engaged in total war.

There's nothing great about the Nazis and it offends me when somebody says how great of an army they had.

It's historical fact. I despise what the nazis did, I mean my uncle died in a nazi prison, but the way they managed to build an army from the ashes of a country utterly beaten and ravaged by war in less than 20 years to become one of the worlds leading military powers I only have the greatest respect for, in a technical sense.

True, their purpose was insane, even though a lot of countries were anti-semitic, racist and doing alot of the things the nazis were made infamous for (funny how the people who win the wars forget their own responsibility), but you can only admire what they managed to do, how morbid it may have been.

I was once a member of the danish socialist/communist party, I am not a nazi-lover (I am currently a liberal grassroot before any McCarthyists get going)

As much as I hate risking being mistaken for a nazi, there's no way in Hell that I'd ever distort history just because I disagree with their cause. I think truth is more important than politics.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

meh, when you take over 90% of Europe, give me a call  

And technology is a greater advantage than quantity, in korea the Chinese/north koreans had 3 times as many troops as the UN, and still lost.

The loss wasn't exactly devastating, they just failed to take over south Korea, it's not like it came to a war of annihilation. Besides, North Vietnam managed to beat the US and South Vietnamese 20 years later due to pure superiority in numbers. The Vietcong were just farmers with AK's, but they were willing to die just to take one american life. Fanaticism like that is a worthy enemy.

I never said technology didn't play a part, but quantity can certainly play an equally important role

[Moving Target 0]

when you can hide underground though, and appear from any number of different trapdoors at the same time to attack, you dont really need superiority in numbers to win

Although modern day china, with its advances weapons systems, is just a big target for nukes. 1 Trident could wipe out 3 chinese cities, with there overcroweded populations, so in that respect a navy is useless.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

when you can hide underground though, and appear from any number of different trapdoors at the same time to attack, you dont really need superiority in numbers to win  

Although modern day china, with its advances weapons systems, is just a big target for nukes.  1 Trident could wipe out 3 chinese cities, with there overcroweded populations, so in that respect a navy is useless.

In that respect any conventional military is useless.

But all you're doing is eradicating life from the face of the planet. The US fires it's nukes, China fires it's nukes, and we all die. Good times.

It's not like the american missile shield actually works. Fire enough nukes at the US mainland and you got yourself a barbecue.

Whatever happened to the good old days with broadsides and waves of musketeers meeting respectfully in a field away from anyone that didn't have much to do with the whole thing?

Nukes take all the fun out of war.

[Akira 0]

I have undertaken a study of the problems discussed, and using SPWIN as my model and analysis tool have reached the following conclusions:

1)The US Marines, with a little air support, can easily wipe out a significantly larger Chinese force.

2)A land war in Asia is winnable, assuming the logisitical chain can keep up with the rapidly advancing coalition forces.

Now there are of course some slight issues with this analysis model:

1) Assumes naval ability to deliver units to Asia proper.

2) As noted, assumes logistical supply.

3) Assume war will remain conventional.

4) Assumes Chinese leadership will act as SPWIN AI.

Carry on.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

I have undertaken a study of the problems discussed, and using SPWIN as my model and analysis tool have reached the following conclusions:

1)The US Marines, with a little air support, can easily wipe out a significantly larger Chinese force.

2)A land war in Asia is winnable, assuming the logisitical chain can keep up with the rapidly advancing coalition forces.

Now there are of course some slight issues with this analysis model:

1) Assumes naval ability to deliver units to Asia proper.

2) As noted, assumes logistical supply.

3) Assume war will remain conventional.

4) Assumes Chinese leadership will act as SPWIN AI.

Carry on.

Hehe, as Sun Tzu said,

A plan only lasts until it's put into effect. (not his exact words but the point is the same)

[harley 3 1185 0]

Grim_Fandango; I have to agree with pretty much everything you say (and you have written alot ). Superiority in Numbers can trump technology, but generally it is the standard of tactics and training involved which wins battles. For instance the devastating defeat wrought by the Japanese on British Imperial forces in Malaya in World War Two - nothing quite like it has EVER occured in British history (God forbid it EVER happen again). 60,000 Japs against 125,000 Brits, Aussies and Indians - both were roughly equal technologically yet the British just got totally outfought on the grander level, resulting in Singapore.

As for German armoured doctrine, the German Tank community based its tactics on many ideas suggested and tested by British Army officers in the Inter-War period - despite the clear advantage of an independent tank arm working in advance of the infantry, the British never adopted the ideas of Fuller, Hart, le Q Martel et al. The Germans did, and were somewhat surprised (and relieved) when the British did not practise what they had preached in Northern France, 1940.

Needless to say, when the British mounted an attack of 70 tanks at Arras with a few of infantry batallions in support, the commander of the German Armoured Division opposite was so alarmed he radioed his superiors that he was being attacked by an armoured corps, and was almost overrun by the advancing enemy. That commander was Erwin Rommel. (Alas the attack had no reserves at all due to collapsing state of the Allied Lines. God only knows what would have happened if Rommel had been captured and the German line pierced. Hindsight is a lovely thing )

Btw Akira, what is this SPWIN you speak of?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Btw Akira, what is this SPWIN you speak of?

Akira's Highly Accurate Forecast Model

[Grim_Fandango 0]

Grim_Fandango; I have to agree with pretty much everything you say (and you have written alot ).  Superiority in Numbers can trump technology, but generally it is the standard of tactics and training involved which wins battles.  For instance the devastating defeat wrought by the Japanese on British Imperial forces in Malaya in World War Two - nothing quite like it has EVER occured in British history (God forbid it EVER happen again).  60,000 Japs against 125,000 Brits, Aussies and Indians - both were roughly equal technologically yet the British just got totally outfought on the grander level, resulting in Singapore.

As for German armoured doctrine, the German Tank community based its tactics on many ideas suggested and tested by British Army officers in the Inter-War period - despite the clear advantage of an independent tank arm working in advance of the infantry, the British never adopted the ideas of Fuller, Hart, le Q Martel et al.  The Germans did, and were somewhat surprised (and relieved) when the British did not practise what they had preached in Northern France, 1940.

Needless to say, when the British mounted an attack of 70 tanks at Arras with a few of infantry batallions in support, the commander of the German Armoured Division opposite was so alarmed he radioed his superiors that he was being attacked by an armoured corps, and was almost overrun by the advancing enemy.  That commander was Erwin Rommel.  (Alas the attack had no reserves at all due to collapsing state of the Allied Lines.  God only knows what would have happened if Rommel had been captured and the German line pierced.  Hindsight is a lovely thing )

Btw Akira, what is this SPWIN you speak of?

Thanks for the extra facts, very interesting. I am by no means a military historian, I just love war programmes on the Discovery Channel

Communist countries are definetely jokers militarily since they have a way of breeding fanatics and idealists through the system itself.

And if you have an enemy that's completely willing to give up his life to take yours, you're in trouble as a westerner, his determination will absolutely be stronger. I want to get back to my Operation Flashpoint He just wants to kill me or die trying.

I think that's a very important factor in China. Now, I don't know how the general Chinese dude or dudess feels about China, but I have a feeling that whoever forced themselves over their borders would face a nightmarish resistance from the Chinese fanatics. After all, modern day China was built on the very same principle of unrelenting, utterly selfsacrificing combat on the side of the Maoists, and that is definetely a considerable foe no matter the technology. But of course it requires great numbers to take the massive casualties, which if anything, China has like no other nation on the planet

To add to that you have the entirely demoralizing aspect of that kind of resistance. We've all heard the stories, seen the movies and the reports from Vietnam, as well as Iraq of soldiers that are just sick of it all, and in Vietnams case the vietnamese fanatics actually succeeded in making some US troops lose all hope, and fight like their adversaries.

Imagine having people wanting to die just to kill you, that'll knock the socks of any American mid-western GI just wanting to kick some commie ass.

In my oppinion, China could very well become a hellhole the likes of which no US serviceman had ever imagined in his worst nightmares, but hopefully we'll ever know.

[Akira 0]

Ruh Roh

Quote[/b] ]Chinese dragon awakens

By Bill Gertz

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

June 26, 2005

Part I

China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.

U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

China's military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan.

"There's a growing consensus that at some point in the mid-to-late '90s, there was a fundamental shift in the sophistication, breadth and re-sorting of Chinese defense planning," said Richard Lawless, a senior China-policy maker in the Pentagon. "And what we're seeing now is a manifestation of that change in the number of new systems that are being deployed, the sophistication of those systems and the interoperability of the systems."

China's economy has been growing at a rate of at least 10 percent for each of the past 10 years, providing the country's military with the needed funds for modernization.

The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military and increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what many defense officials view as a fascist state.

"We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," a senior defense official said.

For Pentagon officials, alarm bells have been going off for the past two years as China's military began rapidly building and buying new troop- and weapon-carrying ships and submarines.

The release of an official Chinese government report in December called the situation on the Taiwan Strait "grim" and said the country's military could "crush" Taiwan.

Earlier this year, Beijing passed an anti-secession law, a unilateral measure that upset the fragile political status quo across the Taiwan Strait. The law gives Chinese leaders a legal basis they previously did not have to conduct a military attack on Taiwan, U.S. officials said.

Page 1

Page 2

I think its safe to venture that the US will not be out of Iraq in 2 years, or at the very least, not be back up to strength in that time. It will be hard for the US to defend Taiwan, especially if it expands into a general war with China (though I think there would be plenty "Allies" that would want to take shots at China). This of course also brings up the problem of N. Korea.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Well this is interesting...

1) Modern technology prompts one of the oldest civilizations in existance to change to expansionism... now that's just great...

2) Taking into account that China will invade Taiwan, will the US be able to just accept that fact? If they have someone like Bush as president, definitely not... It's not that the US would have failed to keep a promise to a weak country's people for the first time (Afghanistan... ), if they let the invasion happen...

3) Go Putin!!! Make Russia strong, and stop selling your good stuff to anybody!!! Though I doubt that he'll be able to proceed much (he can't even get rid of the Chechen rebels once and for all, lol), and, no matter how many times you'll hear the soviet hymn, I don't think the good old U.S.S.R. will ever exist again... Though Russia better get itself into shape, otherwise it'll get its ass kicked if China decides to invade it...

4) Let's hope we westerners can develop some alternative technologies that will nullify our dependency on fossil fuels, that'll solve everybody's evergy crisis, and hopefully nobody'll have to invade another country because of it...

[Homefry 0]

The article is rather troubling... I sincerely hope the exercises and buildup are for something rather than an invasion of Taiwan. I think if China throws enough of its military might at Taiwan fast enough... Taiwan doesn't stand a chance. That said... America will be in a tight spot. First off... the region it said it was going to protect is now lost... and it has to determine what to do next. It can condemn the action, and move forces to free Taiwan.

What will ensue... if hostilities begin.. will be the largest naval battle... and probably air battle we have seen since WWII. Even with America having superior technology... the sheer numbers of Chinese naval craft and aircraft could overpower a relatively large American naval response force.

The fact that America has sworn to defend Taiwan puts us in a very tight place in the event of any aggression... so I think we just have to hope that China stay's cool and doesn't do anything stupid.

[4 IN 1 0]

china is not as strong as though imo(dont mess with it i am a chiness), and most of the ppl in china knows that, it might have 13 billion ppl in my country but it will be hard to get 1 billion of them to fight, and the idea of guerrila fighting is not really that tactical good idea on modern warfare, which may have nasty result not only for US but for china itself, so china wants to make a change to have a modernize and professionalize military units inorder to catch up with the world, just like its economy, and its just somethings that US and countrys around them didnt want to see.

if you dont belive it, just hear what those extrem right hand in japan says, for them bitching china for having a growing military power is just some stone on the road that stop them to get the hold asia, and they use it as a reason to grow their own military power, change its name and get the "rights" to start a WW III(sorry for that if i attacked the innocents who dont have this thoughs at all), and for those in US, well, all red flags are evil, and they HAVE to get rip of it.