Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Blame no one but the fat lazy and poorly educated Americans who want these cheap junk. It’s not like china had a gun to all your heads. You bought them and continue to buy them.....china smart, Americans dumb.
The most "educated" among us seem to be the ones saying we need to "move on" and find new jobs, new industries, and accept buying all the cheap crap made by the Chicoms. In many cases, China has cornered the market long ago, and an American made version no longer exists, or is prohibitively expensive to purchase.
Yeah Bush senior is right there with Clinton, but Clinton is the one who actually did it so he gets the credit. LOL
The Russians are step above China and one can't underestimate the ability of Russian fighter aircraft. China's are basically knock offs of outdated Russian planes.
I agree our satellites are a weakness. If we lose them many of our weapons will become useless or nearly so.
Your understanding is outdated, but carry on. Misinformation is always good for china. Yeah, china is weak and Russia is strong. Yeah so strong that its one and only carrier can’t even get overhauled because there’s no one in Russia who can and no drydock big enough. Meanwhile China is working on its third aircraft carrier and there are 8 heavy cruisers being built.....the first two are already names Nanchang and Lhasa...
All Chinese ports and Naval vessels are within range of US forces while the bulk of the US Navy is not, safe at distance outside the range of Chinese weapons. The US with airpower and standoff long range missiles can eliminate a large portion of the Chinese Navy in the opening hours of any conflict.
What needs to be understood clearly is the US has invested $400-$600 billion per year in defence over decades and it enjoys dominance is all areas of military power. It is not just one service but all elements of military power used as a combined force which makes even small US units, deadly. This comparison applies to most US forces including the Navy, Air force and Marines. The US Navy alone has more modern combat aircraft then the PLA air force. When you factor in US Navy, Air force and Marines airpower it is overwhelming against any foe.
This said, by no means, am I suggesting having a war with the Chinese is a good idea. Butthis whole "beg the chinese for forgiveness" attitude is laughable to say the least.
China has nukes so your whole thing makes no sense. You sink a chinese ship and they take out la...china may not nuke the world 40 times like the us but once is more than enough. Nuclear powers do not lose wars. And china has stand off long range missiles too. In fact they may not have as many but their missiles are longer range so they’ll hit you before you hit them. Get updated info if you want to be a credible armchair general.
China has nukes so your whole thing makes no sense. You sink a chinese ship and they take out la...china may not nuke the world 40 times like the us but once is more than enough. Nuclear powers do not lose wars.
What is the point you are trying to make? U.S. has no nukes? I even said, by no means, am I suggesting having a war with the Chinese is a good idea, but this whole "beg the Chinese for forgiveness" attitude is laughable. They have too much to lose, just like the U.S.
The most possible scenario is a regional conflict, probably would be resolved very quickly, not a war. nuke is the last resort, not the first, sheesh.
Second largest air force:
US Navy/Marines (USMC are considered Naval Aviators)
There's been recent speculation about US response if there was a Chinese attack on a Carrier Group. Most defense experts believe that if one should happen it would likely be a rogue operation and the Chinese would break all kind of records making sure we'd know that.
On the other hand, if it was a sanctioned operation they would know that their vaunted PLA Navy would become artificial reefs within a few hours. That's the firepower, convential, one of our carrier groups has. We have twelve of those.
In 1999 5 U.S. Stealth Bombers guided missiles "accidentally"
took out the Republic of China Embassy.
(F-117A shootdown parts held in embassy for technology theft) .
When push comes to shove the U.S. does not play games.
China and Russia are quite a bit larger than Iraq. There's also quite a few more people. But I don't disagree that the USA would have a great advantage with our superior technology. Much of that technology requires satellites and other things that could be vulnerable though. Russia and China could knock this technology out, making our over reliance on this high tech stuff our achilles heel. Inevitably, space will be weaponized. The next big war will probably make that a reality. It's amazing how rapidly technology advances when an all out war breaks out.
yes china and russia are larger than iraq, and that does work to their advantage, sort of. and yes satellites are vulnerable, not only urs, but theirs as well. but we do have a big advantage that we can pull out, its called the SR71 that plane cruises at around 2000 miles per hour, its top speed to this day is classified, as is its ceiling, and range. its photographic capabilities are indeed massive as well. it can stand off in international airspace above 80,000ft, and take pictures of large swaths of china and russia, and even the russian MIG25 foxbat cant catch the plane. and the turn around time for the photos taken by the SR71 are just a couple of hours at most.
so yes, taking out our satellites would be an inconvenience for us, but it would be a disaster for the chinese and russians. we have older technology that is still viable to this day, and we have newer technology still being fully developed as well as on the drawing boards and in the prototype stage that is superior to what we have now.
and with chinas economy in chaos right now due to the tariffs we put on them, and the fact that we, their biggest customer by far, would not be doing business with them in a shooting war, means chinas source of money would virtually dry up overnight, putting them into a world of hurt. and we are fully capable of blockading the south china sea, which means china is going to lose a huge amount of goods and supplies going int their ports, they depend on the sea lanes far more than we do, since its tough even today to get over the himalayan mountains int china and still carry enough materials to supply their soldiers and keep their military machine running. even taking into account overland supplies from russia.
China doesn't even need a navy. They have "ship killer" missiles. They have nukes. They are working on rail guns and hyper sonic weapons, and by all accounts, they are advancing steadily. They are also good buddies with Russia now. While we know Russia over exaggerates their own capability, we do know they have plenty of nukes and modern weapons, and they are probably crazy enough to turn a hot war into an all out nuclear war. The most dangerous people are those with nothing to lose.
I'm not sure what lefties think we have to gain by continuing with "business as usual" when it comes to trade with China. We are literally feeding a beast that doesn't like us and watching it grow. It's not unlikely that we will have to confront that beast in the not to distant future.
A navy is for projection of power, a blue water navy that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
The Chinese have one carrier group that hardly every leaves the coastal sea, and I think they're building a second.
We have 11, which is ten more than any other country.
Who cares how they pay for theirs? At least it's not SA, buying state of the art weapons of oppression with oil.
Their carrier is a training carrier, in preparation for having a large scale carrier program.
As for paying, well, on one hand the Pentagon is saying China is a threat and we spend a huge amount of resources countering that threat. On the other hand, the US gov is directly responsible for funding this threat.
If they are a threat, quit funding it, if they are not a threat, quit spending such huge resources countering it.
And the carrier is from the Soviet Union. It’s a bit old...
It has been modernized and being sued essentially as a training carrier in preparation for their carrier program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
Tariffs are bad for the US. Trump is still a moron.
The Chinese navy budget according to the article is like $50 bil. That’s nothing.
They have a lot of little boats. Russia still has more large warships.
They have an antique carrier.
They have no experience using the big boats.
They’re still thirty years behind the US. The US would get a bloody nose brawling with China... but it’d be ten times worse for China.
They have a lot of little boats as brown water (as in defense) is their primary duty, however, they have dozens and dozens of frigates, destroyers, and submarines.
The US has the naval and air power to blockade the entire world's trading routes all at once and basically bring all trade to a near halt across the world simultaneously. We don't need to storm the castles...just starve them out. China, nor Russia would start lobbing nukes due to the immediate and devastaing response. Some nuts like NK or Iran might because they don't care if they get wiped out. So they may be used as proxies if the string pullers thought they could pull it off without being exposed.
Russia and China may have lots of land mass, but it would likely work against them as neither has the mileage of roadway and rail that the US has. That means that interior trade routes can more quickly and easily be stopped or slowed. No other country has the projected power to invade the US mainland or disrupt anything longterm and perhaps not even short term save for a few isolated incidents. Basically the US's manufacturing would be free to ramp up and deliver while the Russians and Chinese would have to spend considerable amount to resources continuously rebuilding their capabilities.
The big mistake the US could make is in trying to invade...that would probably not fare well.
The other big mistake the US could make is by letting the politicians and or a weak President run the show instead of letting the military do what it does. In time of war, I think the US hampers it's own forces with uneccessary and baffling rules of engagement. The Geneva convention pretty much spells out the rules...to put our forces on the line with some of the additional, often counterintuitive ROE's is not necessary and should not be done IMHO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
