Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   China thinks that IF it even came down to it, ya know not that they think it ever would or anything, but IF it did, they're pretty sure they can take the US in a fight   (theweek.com) divider line 226
    More: Unlikely, National Air, pre-emptive strike, military assault, U.S. Pacific Command, counterattacks, P L A, Atlantic Council, Security Review Commission  
•       •       •

7551 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jul 2014 at 1:53 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



226 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-10 11:22:09 AM  
A couple things:

1: Taiwan and China are more economically linked than China and anyone else. China's Government faces a population that will violently replace it if the economy doesn't grow. At the moment (and into the next decade or so) China's economy is in serious trouble as a result of a globally unprecedented credit explosion. This is not a boat they should rock. Even if they think a patriotic war will distract the population, it would be the worst possible option.

2: They have to know as soon as they launch an attack their oil supply goes to zero and there is nothing they can do about it.

3: The article is 100% correct about US submarine capabilities. It fails to account for the fact that the surface fleet, Navair, and air force would have little trouble sinking their Navy without exposing themselves. They don't have to fight from the S. China Sea. The US Surface Fleet could withdraw into the Pacific and launch Tomahawks indefinitely.
 
2014-07-10 11:25:23 AM  
I would say, "Please proceed", but we really don't want that.  Even if they would get ground to a fine paste as noted above.
 
2014-07-10 11:30:15 AM  
By the way. I am not so sure that Taiwan shouldn't be a part of China. If were from China I would probably feel the same way given their history. But I understand why Taiwan split and that they may have developed a National Identity in the years since Chiang Kai-shek took his army there.

Americans should recognize that this isn't a big bad commie country picking on its freedom loving neighbor. We should really think twice about who has the moral high ground in any fight involving these two.
 
2014-07-10 11:31:28 AM  
We have Jack Bauer.
 
2014-07-10 11:33:38 AM  
Does this mean all those jobs that left for China are coming back?
 
2014-07-10 11:43:00 AM  

b2theory: By the way. I am not so sure that Taiwan shouldn't be a part of China. If were from China I would probably feel the same way given their history. But I understand why Taiwan split and that they may have developed a National Identity in the years since Chiang Kai-shek took his army there.

Americans should recognize that this isn't a big bad commie country picking on its freedom loving neighbor. We should really think twice about who has the moral high ground in any fight involving these two.



Despite their equally sordid pasts Taiwan has made more progress towards becoming a genuine democracy than China has, so by my yardstick they count as "the Good Guys"


I thought it would have been Super Lulzy if, in 1999, Britain had handed Hong Kong over to Taiwan rather than mainland China.  Honestly it would have been a better fit and the people of Hong Kong would be happier now.
 
2014-07-10 11:55:20 AM  
It's not going to happen any time soon, at least, so.. meh.
 
2014-07-10 11:58:20 AM  
Let's kick their little yapping rat and see what happens
 
2014-07-10 12:03:18 PM  

Magorn: b2theory: By the way. I am not so sure that Taiwan shouldn't be a part of China. If were from China I would probably feel the same way given their history. But I understand why Taiwan split and that they may have developed a National Identity in the years since Chiang Kai-shek took his army there.

Americans should recognize that this isn't a big bad commie country picking on its freedom loving neighbor. We should really think twice about who has the moral high ground in any fight involving these two.


Despite their equally sordid pasts Taiwan has made more progress towards becoming a genuine democracy than China has, so by my yardstick they count as "the Good Guys"


I thought it would have been Super Lulzy if, in 1999, Britain had handed Hong Kong over to Taiwan rather than mainland China.  Honestly it would have been a better fit and the people of Hong Kong would be happier now.


If I was from the main land I might be jealous if their government but I would still feel pissed about the split and I would be even more pissed if a non-Chinese government thought that it was any of their business.
 
2014-07-10 12:06:35 PM  
People said the same thing about the world's fourth-largest army, the one with a solid decade of combat hardening, and their elite Republican Guard.  That didn't turn out so well for Iraq.

That being said: the American mindset of war is based on:
1. No losses of ships of any kind, much less a DDG, SSN or above
2. Very, very few fixed-wing losses
3. A few hundred KIA per year

The Chinese have never fought this way and their strength lies in numbers of cannon fodder troops.  No invasion of China would ever win without turning the population first.  A sea battle would be very costly to any adversary, even if they scuttled the entire Chinese Navy.

This is all ignoring the fact that China is a sea exporter, and that's how they keep the lights on in that country.  Call quits to that and forget about their economy continuing to churn.  They don't want war, they just want to play hardball with a few skirmishes.
 
2014-07-10 12:08:14 PM  
So Chinese Generals have planned a strategy that they think will defeat the one military on the planet that poses a true threat to them.  Isn't that exactly what staff officers are paid to do?

It would be more of a story if the Chinese military leadership said "Nope, we can't win. Disband our military, sell off the weapons and plant more tea".
 
2014-07-10 12:24:39 PM  
China thinks it can defeat America in battle

So does North Korea. They too are wrong.
 
2014-07-10 01:01:08 PM  
The current Chinese MBT

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-10 01:04:30 PM  

b2theory: 2: They have to know as soon as they launch an attack their oil supply goes to zero and there is nothing they can do about it.


can't they get it from russia?
 
2014-07-10 01:06:55 PM  
they must have some strategy that involves repeatedly throwing the 1.2 billion citizens it has at us.  they could lose the equivalent of the population of the entire USA and still have .8 billion people left over.
 
2014-07-10 01:12:16 PM  

factoryconnection: People said the same thing about the world's fourth-largest army, the one with a solid decade of combat hardening, and their elite Republican Guard.  That didn't turn out so well for Iraq.

That being said: the American mindset of war is based on:
1. No losses of ships of any kind, much less a DDG, SSN or above
2. Very, very few fixed-wing losses
3. A few hundred KIA per year

The Chinese have never fought this way and their strength lies in numbers of cannon fodder troops.  No invasion of China would ever win without turning the population first.  A sea battle would be very costly to any adversary, even if they scuttled the entire Chinese Navy.

This is all ignoring the fact that China is a sea exporter, and that's how they keep the lights on in that country.  Call quits to that and forget about their economy continuing to churn.  They don't want war, they just want to play hardball with a few skirmishes.


A hypothetical war with China would almost certainly involve Vietnam providing the manpower, Japan and Taiwan handling Air superiority and The US Navy keeping China's navy "off the Board by getting in their way and daring them to do something about it (and the Philippines keeping the fleets supplied)
 
2014-07-10 01:13:05 PM  

SlothB77: they must have some strategy that involves repeatedly throwing the 1.2 billion citizens it has at us.  they could lose the equivalent of the population of the entire USA and still have .8 billion people left over.


They tried that in Korea.   Didn't end up working out for them
 
2014-07-10 01:15:38 PM  

SlothB77: b2theory: 2: They have to know as soon as they launch an attack their oil supply goes to zero and there is nothing they can do about it.

can't they get it from russia?


Most of their oil comes from the Middle East.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-07-10 01:16:25 PM  

SlothB77: they must have some strategy that involves repeatedly throwing the 1.2 billion citizens it has at us.  they could lose the equivalent of the population of the entire USA and still have .8 billion people left over.


They would have to swim really well.  Taiwan was an island the last time I checked.
 
2014-07-10 01:22:21 PM  

factoryconnection: People said the same thing about the world's fourth-largest army, the one with a solid decade of combat hardening, and their elite Republican Guard.  That didn't turn out so well for Iraq.

That being said: the American mindset of war is based on:
1. No losses of ships of any kind, much less a DDG, SSN or above
2. Very, very few fixed-wing losses
3. A few hundred KIA per year

The Chinese have never fought this way and their strength lies in numbers of cannon fodder troops.  No invasion of China would ever win without turning the population first.  A sea battle would be very costly to any adversary, even if they scuttled the entire Chinese Navy.

This is all ignoring the fact that China is a sea exporter, and that's how they keep the lights on in that country.  Call quits to that and forget about their economy continuing to churn. They don't want war, they just want to play hardball with a few skirmishes.


Bingo.  We don't have to actually fight against the People's Liberation Army.  We don't even have to actually fight against the People's Liberation Army Navy or the People's Liberation Army Air Force.

We just have to be able to sink their merchant ships.

Not even all that many, either:  Sink a few in a short space of time, and no business is going to risk it because they won't be able to get insurance for their hulls and cargoes.  Ships will stay in port, factories will shut down, people won't get paid, and in very short order the internal political stability that the PRC leadership so craves is down the tubes.

They *KNOW* this, or at least they *SHOULD* know this.

It worries me sometimes that they don't.
 
2014-07-10 01:26:39 PM  

Magorn: SlothB77: they must have some strategy that involves repeatedly throwing the 1.2 billion citizens it has at us.  they could lose the equivalent of the population of the entire USA and still have .8 billion people left over.

They tried that in Korea.   Didn't end up working out for them


Wasn't that Russia's strategy against the Nazi's? Keep throwing bodies at 'em until they jam up the tracks on the Panzers.
 
2014-07-10 01:49:16 PM  
mojoimage.com

/what is this i don't even
 
2014-07-10 01:56:06 PM  
They could just withhold making all our circuit boards for our jets and win.
 
2014-07-10 01:56:07 PM  
It would certainly solve a lot of problems, particularly overpopulation.
 
2014-07-10 01:57:26 PM  
In related news Walmart announced they could defeat fat people IF needed but why kill your best customers.
 
2014-07-10 01:59:20 PM  
Little boy fantasies.
 
2014-07-10 01:59:57 PM  

gopher321: [mojoimage.com image 779x486]

/what is this i don't even


oh come on, like we'd really notice the difference being rules by another communist entity.

/amidoinitrite?
 
2014-07-10 02:00:26 PM  
Meh. All they need to do is cut off Wal-Mart and precipitate a economic crisis. They don't need to fight us with troops and guns.
 
2014-07-10 02:00:38 PM  
i58.tinypic.com
You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"!
 
2014-07-10 02:01:08 PM  
China:  Here is 3 trillion in U S dollars.  Please convert it to Euros.

Merica:  Nooooooooooooooo!
 
2014-07-10 02:01:55 PM  

Mentat: We have Jack Bauer.


We have more than just that.
i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-10 02:02:35 PM  
 
2014-07-10 02:03:28 PM  

Magorn: I thought it would have been Super Lulzy if, in 1999, Britain had handed Hong Kong over to Taiwan rather than mainland China.  Honestly it would have been a better fit and the people of Hong Kong would be happier now.


Yeah, apart from the fact that Hong Kong wouldn't exist any more because tanks would've rolled across the border immediately. And planes. And lots of other war toys. And every one would've been angry.

/Hong Kong is basically indefensible
//as was nicely proven from 8-25 December 1941
///what *should* have been done is that Britain should've stopped pushing the issue of lease expiration
////if they'd done that, Hong Kong would still be a colony -- but because we Brits couldn't tear our eyes away from the small print we painted the Chinese into a corner and left them no choice but to take it back from us
//Thatcher lobbing herself down the stairs didn't help, either
 
2014-07-10 02:03:31 PM  
I think they are suggesting they could take over Taiwan without the US intervening, after the Iraq debacle the citizenry doesn't really want to get involved in that kinda shiat so they probably could.
 
2014-07-10 02:03:59 PM  
We could simply light the entire region up with nukes, We would rid the world of the population of billion + chinese in a flash. And if we wanted send a few towards India and the global population is essentially cut in 1/2


Go ahead and try it. We have them sitting in silos waiting for an excuse. and there are plenty of people in the US with the follow through to launch those birds just to see what they can do.
 
2014-07-10 02:04:30 PM  
Yo, PLA swabbies...

media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
 
2014-07-10 02:04:43 PM  
If there is a war with China, who will supply us with garlic, honey, processed chickens and iphones. I foresee a black market trading those for oil.
 
2014-07-10 02:05:21 PM  

b2theory: Taiwan and China are more economically linked than China and anyone else. China's Government faces a population that will violently replace it if the economy doesn't grow. At the moment (and into the next decade or so) China's economy is in serious trouble as a result of a globally unprecedented credit explosion. This is not a boat they should rock. Even if they think a patriotic war will distract the population, it would be the worst possible option.


1) Start war on Taiwan
2) Let Taiwan "win."
3) Dissolve PRC and unify with Taiwan
4) Keep the same assholes in power under a new name

Everybody wins.
 
2014-07-10 02:05:59 PM  
I wouldn't try it just because everyone should know by now that if the US gets taken down, even if the invader strictly does so via land invasion and follows all the gentleman's rules for warfare, the US is gonna drop every nuke it has on the aggressor before it topples, just out of spite.

\okay, maybe I'm exaggerating
\\or am I...?
 
2014-07-10 02:06:10 PM  

dittybopper: factoryconnection: People said the same thing about the world's fourth-largest army, the one with a solid decade of combat hardening, and their elite Republican Guard.  That didn't turn out so well for Iraq.

That being said: the American mindset of war is based on:
1. No losses of ships of any kind, much less a DDG, SSN or above
2. Very, very few fixed-wing losses
3. A few hundred KIA per year

The Chinese have never fought this way and their strength lies in numbers of cannon fodder troops.  No invasion of China would ever win without turning the population first.  A sea battle would be very costly to any adversary, even if they scuttled the entire Chinese Navy.

This is all ignoring the fact that China is a sea exporter, and that's how they keep the lights on in that country.  Call quits to that and forget about their economy continuing to churn. They don't want war, they just want to play hardball with a few skirmishes.

Bingo.  We don't have to actually fight against the People's Liberation Army.  We don't even have to actually fight against the People's Liberation Army Navy or the People's Liberation Army Air Force.

We just have to be able to sink their merchant ships.

Not even all that many, either:  Sink a few in a short space of time, and no business is going to risk it because they won't be able to get insurance for their hulls and cargoes.  Ships will stay in port, factories will shut down, people won't get paid, and in very short order the internal political stability that the PRC leadership so craves is down the tubes.

They *KNOW* this, or at least they *SHOULD* know this.

It worries me sometimes that they don't.


You mean,,,  you don't know about the secret tunnels? Of course you don't... THEY'RE SECRET!
 
2014-07-10 02:06:35 PM  
A war would be most inconvenient.

/understatement
 
2014-07-10 02:07:09 PM  
My thoughts...

If we tried to invade China, we would lose.  And it would be VERY costly.  Especially in human lives.  Especially the Chinese.  They would literally throw themselves by the 1000s into the meatgrinder until there were comparatively few left.  That would take a long time.  And they would still hold their ground.
If China tried to invade here, they wouldn't even make it across the ocean.  And it would also be very costly.

In the end, niether the US or China want war.  Our economies are to tightly dependant on one another.  And there really is no reason to suppose that we would ever go to war with them again.  The last time was in Korea.  That didn't go too well for either side.  Although, we got M*A*S*H.  That's something.
 
2014-07-10 02:07:37 PM  
America isn't what it used to be. We have more firepower by far, but not the resolve we used to. I'm talking about the average shlub on the street. A country like china with resolve and vastly superior numbers could pecker slap us.
 
2014-07-10 02:08:23 PM  
I see no clear advantage to having submarines.

blogs-images.forbes.com
 
2014-07-10 02:09:52 PM  

Harry Freakstorm: China:  Here is 3 trillion in U S dollars.  Please convert it to Euros.

Merica:  Nooooooooooooooo!


Why would anyone care?
 
2014-07-10 02:09:59 PM  
If China's government were to decide to attack US assets in the Pacific, they would do several ridiculously bad things simultaneously. ASATs and carrier-killers would make a serious mess of things.

/they know that we know that, hence, they won't.
//world economic fallout would cost them too much.
 
2014-07-10 02:10:50 PM  

dittybopper: We just have to be able to sink their merchant ships.

Not even all that many, either: Sink a few in a short space of time, and no business is going to risk it because they won't be able to get insurance for their hulls and cargoes. Ships will stay in port, factories will shut down, people won't get paid, and in very short order the internal political stability that the PRC leadership so craves is down the tubes.


Except that was almost the exact reason we justified action against Germany in two different world wars and it's a recognized war crime, that's a good idea, tactically
 
2014-07-10 02:10:58 PM  
You can lob 40-50 big nukes anywhere on the planet and you'll have a dying planet in worldwide chaos. Not to mention our TOTAL dependance on technology, China just needs to blind us and we can't launch a 25 year old plane.
 
2014-07-10 02:11:50 PM  
USA: You couldn't beat us.
China: You citizens just go ahead and breed all you want and if we run out of food, we'll just invade the USA
USA: *GULP*
 
2014-07-10 02:12:00 PM  

Harry Freakstorm: China:  Here is 3 trillion in U S dollars.  Please convert it to Euros.

Merica:  Nooooooooooooooo!


Actually, they can't do that without flushing their own banks down the drain. That cash actually represents dollars owed to Chinese merchants and people investing in China. If those assets were devalued significantly China's banks would be insolvent in a manner they couldn't hide.

It is also the primary means by which China's wealthy have moved their wealth to the US and China.
 
Displayed 50 of 226 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report