GLOBAL ECONOMIC TRADE WAR!

[Disco Pickle]

as to military strength between us and China..  

http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/chinavsunitedstatesmilitary.jpg

wallstats.com did this one.  of course statistics are, as always, dependent on who gathers the info.

by land war, I meant invasion and holding of land in the traditional sense.  This precludes the use of nuclear weapons to take out major population dense areas and dramatically lower their potential manpower recruiting abilities should they begin to sustain heavy losses.

I don't claim to know it all you old fucks, and if you have a book to recommend then by all means.

The Pickle is well aware you don't go from being a lowly cucumber to a real Pickle over night.

Uh, that graph is rather simplistic.  Chinese logistics suck and nothing on here indicates the weakness of the Chinese Navy versus the American Navy.  It also does not take into account American dominance in electronic warfare or their superior combat experience (the last time the PLA took part in actual combat was in the 1970s, when they invaded Vietnam).

America couldn't occupy China, but I doubt they'd be that stupid....well, for the most part.  Eric Cantor would probably demand it, and call anyone who pointed out the utter stupidity of trying a traitor.  A war would be fought over somewhere, like the Spratly Isles or, less likely, Taiwan.  American allies would also be involved, namely Japan, who would, with American support, likely lay China's economically vital east coast to waste.  Indeed, Clinton's military pact with Japan in the 1990s was designed precisely with this event in mind.  Equally, America has been making moves to become closer with India in the past decade, and India are not on good terms with China, both because of past wars and because of suspected support for Maoist rebels in the country.  India performed rather well in those wars, often despite them being intitiated by China and Pakistan and having to fight on two major fronts.

Finally, America has rather large airbases in Central Asia from where it could perform surgical strikes against Chinese infrastructure in Xinjiang, destroying their ability to produce crude oil internally.  Through in an external blockade, and Chinese industry would be crippled.

Of course, it wouldn't go all America's way.  China doesn't intend to attack where America is strong...and going by their Assassin's Mace program, that means they are focusing on highly unconventional warfare programs, including cyberwarfare, financial attack, terrorism and disinformation on a grand scale.

But in terms of conventional military methods, aiming to cripple rather than occupy a country, America does have the upper hand.  Indeed, these are the kind of operations their military actually carries out rather well.

our air superiority would certainly be debilitating to their war capabilities and supply lines.

Atrophy as a tactic, I think, would be easier for the US military to use with effect.  Like Dok said, we're pretty damn good at getting supplies moved around quickly.

Where do you think Russia would stand in this hypothetical?  Hands off but equipment supply to China? or is the "reboot" something they'd stick with considering our history working together post WWII?

Don't confuse Russia with the former Soviet Union.

I'm not, but I am still expecting that Russia will do what's best for Russia. 

[Adios]

Which I suspect would not involve jumping in between 2 superpowers.

[Cain]

Russia would be quite happy to see both sides bleed each other out.  It works with China now, but only to balance against US dominance.  Their alliance is merely one of current mutual benefit, which would be discarded in a moment should it cease to work for them.  And being dragged into a hot war between America and China would not be in their interest.

They may, of course, cause mischief in Central Asia, the Middle East and "Near Abroad", but it'd be taking advantage of and continuing the chaos to Russian benefit.

[Don Coyote]

warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.

Most of my reading has been historical.

amateurs talk about tactics.
professionals talk about logistics.

[Telarus]

warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.

Most of my reading has been historical.

amateurs Players talk about tactics.
professionals GMs talk about logistics.

[Don Coyote]

warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.

Most of my reading has been historical.

amateurs Players talk about tactics.
professionals GMs talk about logistics.

NERD

[Doktor Howl]

warfare, the actual tactics of it, has always interested me but could use a lot more in depth study of it, especially modern warfare.

Most of my reading has been historical.

amateurs Players talk about tactics.
professionals GMs talk about logistics.

I think I just saw God.

[Requia ☣]

What do they teach in history classes these days? 

It's been a decade since I took any classes that covered the Korean War, but let me see if I can remember what happened after China got involved.

We went from controlling 90% of Korea, and being a stones throw away from creating a united democratic* Korea to controlling only half.

The Chinese managed to successfully reverse the theory of air superiority, taking airbases with land troops in order to keep our planes out of the sky.

*Or puppet state, but we're talking about what they teach in history classes.

[Doktor Howl]

What do they teach in history classes these days?  

It's been a decade since I took any classes that covered the Korean War, but let me see if I can remember what happened after China got involved.

We went from controlling 90% of Korea, and being a stones throw away from creating a united democratic* Korea to controlling only half.

The Chinese managed to successfully reverse the theory of air superiority, taking airbases with land troops in order to keep our planes out of the sky.

*Or puppet state, but we're talking about what they teach in history classes.

Yeah, and what was left of the Chinese force when we got back to the 38th parallel the second time?

Also, puppet state?  I was unaware you were such a supporter of North Korea's enlightened regime.

[Requia ☣]

I can hate both.

Yeah, and what was left of the Chinese force when we got back to the 38th parallel the second time?

Wasn't covered. 

[Don Coyote]

I don't remember being taught anything about the Korean War at all.

[Doktor Howl]

I can hate both.

Yeah, and what was left of the Chinese force when we got back to the 38th parallel the second time?

Wasn't covered. 

Thought as much.  You're talking out of your arse.

Dok,
Forgot you were a fucking expert on all things.

[Requia ☣]

On the puppet state thing: I don't think the US influenced government in Korea was anywhere near as bad as what north Korea turned into, but neither do I think the US is really going to get that involved in another country without at least trying to rig the game for the foreseeable future.

The question was 'what is taught in History classes', not what actually happened.

[Doktor Howl]

So, do you have any support for the argument, or was this just another failed attempt at pedantry?

[Requia ☣]

What argument?