If D-Day was today

[Akira 0]

Well just remeber Finland wasnt attacked on 9-11 the USA was....

9/11 shouldn't be a blank check to bomb, kill, destroy, and mutilate...especially people that had nothing to do with 9.11.

[SFWanabe 0]

Yea well patroling aint doing much. Atleast we've spotted him on nurmerous occasions but because of tactical errors we lost him. Also you havent been making alot of sense in your points. Are you trying to make a point here or are you trying to increase your post count?

[SFWanabe 0]

Well just remeber Finland wasnt attacked on 9-11 the USA was....

9/11 shouldn't be a blank check to bomb, kill, destroy, and mutilate...especially people that had nothing to do with 9.11.

I agree. Thats why I didnt support the war in Iraq.

[EiZei 0]

Yea well patroling aint doing much. Atleast we've spotted him on nurmerous occasions but because of tactical errors we lost him. Also you havent been making alot of sense in your points. Are you trying to make a point here or are you trying to increase your post count?

My point was made long ago.

[Moving Target 0]

Yea well patroling aint doing much. Atleast we've spotted him on nurmerous occasions but because of tactical errors we lost him. Also you havent been making alot of sense in your points. Are you trying to make a point here or are you trying to increase your post count?

And the point of increasing your post count is? Respect will go down after 100 points of nothingness.

What do you suppose those tactical errors were? People putting on fake beards and a turban in new york?

[SFWanabe 0]

Yea well patroling aint doing much. Atleast we've spotted him on nurmerous occasions but because of tactical errors we lost him. Also you havent been making alot of sense in your points. Are you trying to make a point here or are you trying to increase your post count?

And the point of increasing your post count is? Respect will go down after 100 points of nothingness.

What do you suppose those tactical errors were? People putting on fake beards and a turban in new york?

No the tacical errors were for one letting the Northern Alliance be the ones to go into Tora Bora.

[SFWanabe 0]

Yea well patroling aint doing much. Atleast we've spotted him on nurmerous occasions but because of tactical errors we lost him. Also you havent been making alot of sense in your points. Are you trying to make a point here or are you trying to increase your post count?

My point was made long ago.

Yea well it didnt make much sense.

[xawery 0]

Yea well it didnt make much sense.

This statement says more about you than about Eizei's posts.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Back on topic people! Jeez, with these kind of divisions one does get the feeling we'd never be able to fight a World War now. If D-Day was today...it wouldn't be on the shores of France, but on the iron coast of China. Well, in a couple decades or so anyway. China is the one power which we Western Folk (and sorry for the incessant stereotyping here) have reason to fear, tho' as the U.S.S.R. was feared for sheer bruteness, China is feared for her sheer economic growth. Should we stop having so many consumer goods fabricated and assembled there? Or should we risk lowering our standards of living to make ourselves more self-sufficent again?

[breaker44 0]

Well, if it meant avoiding war and providing a shot in the arm to the west, it may be worthwhile to shift some of this manufacturing business to the middle east. Even though China has grown economically, and therefore, militarily, it has also found a more democratic following within itself.

Anyway, we can pm about that, but when it comes to "war" correspondents, their increasing mission has been to win some sort of journalistic award, and to make their byline more visible on the frontpage. If more journalist were like, well Ernie Pyle than Heraldo Rivera, I don't think there would be this problem.

I'm not sure how things would go should a third world war break out. If you ask me, it would begin in the Hindu Kush/ Kashmere (sp) region north of India., generally, though, that side of the world has been volatile since the collapse of the USSR, so the whole "alliance" thing could come into play, similar to the first world war.

Pleas try to keep the thread to mature debating, not personal attacks, differing opinions are good, that's what keeps the world turning as it does.

-Breaker Out

[SFWanabe 0]

Yea well it didnt make much sense.

This statement says more about you than about Eizei's posts.

Flamebaiting will get you.....

[Major Gripe 0]

Would a war over Kashmir really draw in other nations? I think the rest of the world realises how volatile that region is and would do anything but get involved militaristically for fear of it escalating.

[Akira 0]

Would a war over Kashmir really draw in other nations? I think the rest of the world realises how volatile that region is and would do anything but get involved militaristically for fear of it escalating.

I think it could, when you take into account that both nations are nuclear* powers, and China has claims of its own on parts of Kashmir.

As for D-Day in China...I find that unlikely...at least on the mainland. I find it far more likely that such an operation against the Chinese would be directed at Taiwan, and not the Chinese mainland (where you are just asking for trouble).

EDIT: *Changed atomic to nuclear...this isn't 1950.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Well, if it were me, and I was directed with invading China as part of a very large multi-national force (I'm British, so I'd never command), I'd have the Americans, Australians and New Zealanders assault Taiwan - we can assume the Chinese will have taken it or will be about to. That would be the beach head for the superior forces of America. The smaller forces of Europe, on the other hand, would unite with the Indians (and hell, the Pakistanis too, their asses would be on the line) and drive on Kashmir, also assumed to have been taken by the Chinese already. Then both fronts would converge on China itself. European Naval Forces and the Indian Navy in the South China Sea, U.S. and ANZAC Fleets off Taiwan and Japan.

Okay, that is quite a silly little scenario, I know. What worries me if it ever came to a conventional war, would be that the Chinese, feeling cornered, would go tactical with the Atomic weapons. Not nice. Thank God it's only my imagination .

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]Well, if it were me, and I was directed with invading China as part of a very large multi-national force

   Now it's getting interesting.

   I think I would by pass liberating Taiwan for the most part and concentrate the bulk of all allied forces on the main land. Not saying I would completely write off Taiwan, I would send a naval force to engage the Chinese navy there and hopefully blockade the Chinese troops already landed in Taiwan. From there I would then gauge if it would be feasible to invade Taiwan with a smaller force to liberate it. If it would call for a massive force, I would simply keep up the blockade rather than diverting too many forces from mainland Asia.

    Basically I'm thinking more or less of the island hopping campaign in the south pacific during the second world war. Some times an island wasn't worth the time and effort to invade as it could simply be cut off leaving the Japanese forces on it stranded, thus saving time and advancing towards Japan. So looking at Taiwan I would think it almost more important to take the war to China directly overland in an attempt to end the war sooner.

   The whole over land approach though is a bit sketchy at this point though. I'm thinking going through from South Korea if in the scenario North Korea is acting out as an ally to China. Another option would be to cross from India if they end up being involved as an ally, problem with that is crossing the Hindu Kush?

     The question would be getting permission from various countries like Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam etc for permission to attack from their nations. I find permission from them to be very unlikely, as I sincerely doubt they would want to get involved in a war with China.

      On another note about the whole Kashmir issue, didn't China and Pakistan sign a sort of defense pact type treaty in the past year or two?

China going nuclear as a last resort seems unavoidable. That one has me stumped.

[Akira 0]

Interesting. What I would do:

My first goal would be full force in "liberating" Taiwan. Locals are more likely to aid you, it would be a great PR victory, and if indeed an invasion to the mainland is needed it gives you the needed stepping stone, and easy base of operations.

With such a base secured its possible to use region anomosities against the Chinese. India, Pakistan, and Vietnam have all had less then pleasant relations with China...Vietnam fighting a small border war. Assuming this is a war of Chinese aggression (either via Taiwan or the more unlikely Kashmir...or possibly unacceptable actions in Tibet), it would be a simple matter of slick diplomacy to get the required rights to launch attacks into China proper.

Now before an actual invasion, I would certainly institute a 21st century version of strategic bombing by copious use of Tomahawks and Harpoons, B1's and B2's, coupled with Sputniks blockade.

North Korea would be tough. It is most likely they would see such an opportunity as a chance to unify Korea, especially if Allied forces seemed occupied near Taiwan. Japan, S. Korea, and a small force would be necessary to hold and delay N. Korea. That area is the main area of concern as far as unknowns.

As far as nuclear, the only way to negate such action is to make sure they have to contimplate using nukes on their own soil, and using that information to enflame citizens desire to rid themselves of their communist dictators.

Generous use of SF would also be in order.

[breaker44 0]

Id make my assault through Russia, the way the Mongols used to. After a huge bombing campaign by SAC on China's coastline, an Airborne operation would ensue in the north and western parts of the country. Russian armor would support these troops as we push the Chinese out of the hills (where their missiles probably are) and push south and east.

-Breaker Out

[shinRaiden 0]

Post-WW2 'progressive' rules dictate that western nations have to pull their punches because of historical 'guilt', which complicates factors as the devalued peasentry of Asia can more easily engaged by their supreme leaders. They don't loose any political capital by deploying human shields where we would be castigated, and we can't just firebomb the cities anyway.

The problem is that even if we wanted to play old-school "burn the city, level the temples, and sow the fields with salt" tactics, and even if the commie wusses would let us do it, it's not efficent, There's two immediate problems with a land war in Asia, and now a third looming as well. First off is the well-known distance issues. Iraq's not all that big, and it still takes an insane amount of lead time, coordination, and stupid amounts of pork barrel money that could be going to other home district corruption projects to finance. Directly related to that is the forward mobility and deployment issues. Clancy plays with that in "Debt of Honor" and "The Bear and The Dragon". Unfortunately, neither is a likely scenario.

China's not stupid, they'll use the DPRK to push for "reunification" under the Juche banner and kick out the US forces there, solidify alliances with India to clog up that end, promote fiefdoms and such in Indonesia etc, and bottle up Japan via reparations demands for Nanking. Most likely they'd cut deals with Russia on various things, so at best we couldn't stage out of Siberia. That puts Pearl very much alone, and you can kiss Guam goodbye, and Diego Garcia's not going to be much help either.

China's got two clear choices, get bogged down slogging it out on Taiwan, or 'intercede' in a rapid 'neighborly' fashion to a Taipei 'crisis'. There's enough armchair quarterbacks here that have played Victor Troska to see how that will go. The trick is to move in and secure keypoints before a couple carrier groups can move in and blockade the Formosa Straights. In any case, there will be congressional hearings etc about rigging a "Tonkin II" provocation, and lots of other pansy traitors with nothing better to do than sell out their country will stand around waving signs etc.

The other nasty problem with land wars in Asia is the body count. There's a whole heckload of them, and you're not going to have situations like Fallujah, where the civilians clear out and the terrorists stay. If you run the numbers, that's an insane amount of ammo to get the job done the old fashioned way, and how are you going to get it over there? Secondly, how do you plan to do SOF decapitation raids against an infrastructure that massive?

That's something that I hope the planners have taken a long hard look at. We weren't in the business of selling our best toys to the USSR, and our toys worked a lot better, except for the AK and the RPG. Not so with China. All they have to do is line Bill and Hillary's campaign pockets, pay a trivial fine for the 'oversight', send all their kids to school here, steal our technology, tweak it, make it even better, and produce them by the billions.

We didn't think we could beat the Soviet's quantity, so we cleaned their clocks with quality. Now the Chinese have quality and quantity, which cuts the odds dramaticly. We do have a couple trump cards though... the Aussies, the Kiwis, and the Tongan/Samoan/Maori contingent. Heaven help the chinese when the Anzac's roll up to clean out the town...

Actually though, it's interesting to note the increasing military role that the Aussies and the Japanese are playing in East Asian affairs. This is definately going to be a double-bowl-of-nachos armchair-quarterbacking scenario.

[cozza 24]

Id make my assault through Russia, the way the Mongols used to.

The Chinnese have a big ass wall set up around there with Snipers and AT weapons on it and Machine Guns.      

*Edit* I love these new smilleys*

[breaker44 0]

On the great wall of china?

Ya sure there sport?

-Breaker Out

[cozza 24]

No buts its a good idea

[hellfish6 7]

The Great Wall is still a big wall - what general would like to go down in history as the destroyer of one of mankind's greatest triumphs? It's still a military (and now political) obstacle.

[harley 3 1185 0]

The wall is just one very large example of a linear defense - one line. Once part of it is infiltrated by large numbers of rappelling heli-borne troops and infantry mounting an escalade by ladder, the rest quickly becomes worthless.

As for the use of Special Forces, they might just save the day. I assume our intelligence services haven't been sitting on their arses and thus have a pretty good idea where China would keep her Nuclear weapons. If so, utilising the huge numbers of SF forces knocking about the world these days, at the start of the campaign we'd have to send in a great number of "Kamikaze" squads to take out these missile and weapons installations, if necessary sending Airborne Infantry in to cover them (not the Elite Kind, just airnorne ) If all China's Nuclear weapons can be neutralised at one stroke, and her Uranium enrichment facilities neutralised by air, the West would have a damnably easier job of defeating Beijing.

I amend my earlier post by having a British Corps sent to Taiwan with the Yanks, in order to "Liberate" Hong Kong and Macao. Some of us have to get our priorities straight, y'know .

[Postduifje 0]

Research shows that if D-Day were to happen today, over 90% of the people would be very suprised.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]As for the use of Special Forces, they might just save the day.  I assume our intelligence services haven't been sitting on their arses and thus have a pretty good idea where China would keep her Nuclear weapons.  If so, utilising the huge numbers of SF forces knocking about the world these days, at the start of the campaign we'd have to send in a great number of "Kamikaze" squads to take out these missile and weapons installations,

   Unfortunately, even a massive simultaneous assault on every Nuke site in China would miss a few unknown sites. That and such a large operation would have various successes and failures. Some spec ops groups would be lost and their particular objectives failed. In the worst case I could see word reaching the Chinese high commander during the attack, at which point they might launch some out of desperation. All that said, it’s the only option I can see and would be necessary. In the end it seems to come down to waiting until they are cornered and having them launch their full arsenal or taking out as many of the sites as possible and then they feel cornered and launch less than their full arsenal.

    The great wall is an interesting point, though I sincerely doubt any allied forces would be granted permission to attack from Russia. Would do you suppose it would take for Russia to take part? I personally think they would sit the conflict out as neutral nation. If an attack was from the north I believe the great wall would simply prove to be nothing more than a 21st century maginot line. I would hate to be the commander who has to take responsibility in the history books for destroying a section of a wonder of the world though. Makes me think of the monastery at monte cassino.

  It's an interesting the mention of Vietnam. I forgot about their little war with China and that they don’t exactly have rosy relations