War

[unicorn69]

In a war, who do you think will win?

China vs. United States

Battlefield: 1. US attacks Pakistan- China's ally, thus bringing China into a war with the US.
2. China begins to challenge US military dominance in the Far East

*If you think of any other battlefield locations, please share.*

Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, other WMD's: Not allowed. Just conventional warfare.

Allies: SCO- China's allies; NATO- US's allies; Must take into account who will actually fight and any enemies either side might have.

Political Consequences: Suspend disbelief that Chinese politicians and American politicians are war hawks and are willing to fight one another. Take into consideration other countries' reaction to the war.

Weaponry: Conventional. Technology cannot go further than 2010. Keep in mind, you must have proof that either country has these weapons. Submit proof.

Okay, shoot.

[Jose Miguel]

United States has more bombs then any other country
if it was only them 2
US would win for sure

[unicorn69]

United States has more bombs then any other country
if it was only them 2
US would win for sure

Firepower does not guarantee victory in this day and age. China's infrastructure is efficient. It can outproduce the United States. In World War II, Germany and Japan were both stronger than the United States. But because the US was able to outproduce tanks, airplanes, rifles, uniforms, etc... faster than them, they lost. Even if China is technologically inferior to the US, they have more soldiers (never underestimate light infantry- special forces can infiltrate enemy lines), and more resources. However, the United States has a stronger navy. They have 11 aircraft carriers while China has only 1 operational, only just recently.

[Mouzie]

United States has more bombs then any other country
if it was only them 2
US would win for sure

Russia got more than the US, so what are you talking about?

Firepower does not guarantee victory in this day and age. China's infrastructure is efficient. It can outproduce the United States. In World War II, Germany and Japan were both stronger than the United States. But because the US was able to outproduce tanks, airplanes, rifles, uniforms, etc... faster than them, they lost. Even if China is technologically inferior to the US, they have more soldiers (never underestimate light infantry- special forces can infiltrate enemy lines), and more resources. However, the United States has a stronger navy. They have 11 aircraft carriers while China has only 1 operational, only just recently.

Acutally it does, perfect example is Israel, which only got around 8 million people. They were able to defeat Arab armies twice their size. Look at Finland during the Winter War, which used firepower and tactical winter tactics to defeat the Russians (at the cost of surrendering 11% of their lands).

In WWII, Germany and Japan was not stronger than the United States. As stated in an argument before, they both lacked serious weapons and tactics needed. Japan SEVERELY lacked the weapons needed and their troops was almost defeated at every single battle with massive losses.

Germany was not stronger because their tanks was shit, they were big and powerful, but they were prone of breaking down and were giant gas guzzeling machines.

Saying the Chinese can outproduce the US is silly, China's weakness is that. They have provinces and regions that is surrounded by factories and such, it would be a crippling blow to any country who suffered bombing and raids.

[unicorn69]

Lets start off by saying. This would never happen. Chinas economic funding would be shut down...the great wal-mart would stop buying from them. but anyways it wouldn't happen but that would be 1 hell of a war i know id have fun till i died.

FFS suspend disbelief for a second.

Acutally it does, perfect example is Israel, which only got around 8 million people. They were able to defeat Arab armies twice their size. Look at Finland during the Winter War, which used firepower and tactical winter tactics to defeat the Russians (at the cost of surrendering 11% of their lands).

In WWII, Germany and Japan was not stronger than the United States. As stated in an argument before, they both lacked serious weapons and tactics needed. Japan SEVERELY lacked the weapons needed and their troops was almost defeated at every single battle with massive losses.

Germany was not stronger because their tanks was shit, they were big and powerful, but they were prone of breaking down and were giant gas guzzeling machines.

Saying the Chinese can outproduce the US is silly, China's weakness is that. They have provinces and regions that is surrounded by factories and such, it would be a crippling blow to any country who suffered bombing and raids.

Germany was stronger than the US. Their panzers were faster, stronger, thicker, etc... They had experience in fighting multiple enemies at once. The Japanese were strong. Their navy initially surpassed the US. They only began to lose once they could not penetrate the Chinese mainland.

China's advantage is it's large size. It can afford to trade land for time. And it's not that simple bombing its factory. China has a sizeable airforce and airdefence as well. Recently, it has developed a generation 5 stealth fighter-> the J-20.

[Mouzie]

FFS suspend disbelief for a second.



Germany was stronger than the US. Their panzers were faster, stronger, thicker, etc... They had experience in fighting multiple enemies at once. The Japanese were strong. Their navy initially surpassed the US. They only began to lose once they could not penetrate the Chinese mainland.

China's advantage is it's large size. It can afford to trade land for time. And it's not that simple bombing its factory. China has a sizeable airforce and airdefence as well. Recently, it has developed a generation 5 stealth fighter-> the J-20.

No they wasn't, you'll understand when you read the German logics and the American ones. Because, I already posted it to someone. I really don't want to make another long ass post explaining stuff just for someone to try and counter argument.

The German Panzers were not faster, they were not 'stronger, or thicker'. The Panzer III and Tiger were known to break down, while the rest were light tanks or medium tanks which the Allies had. The American tanks were more rugged, reliable, faster, and can be build much quicker.

And it's true that Japan did surprised the American fleet, but as a Japanese admiral said. "Yamamoto, when once asked his opinion on the war, pessimistically said that the only way for Japan to win the war was to dictate terms in the White House, requiring them to eventually invade the United States and march across the country while fighting their way to Washington — i.e., Japan would have to conquer the whole of the United States. Yamamoto's meaning was that military victory, in a protracted war against an opponent with as much of a population and industrial advantage as the United States possessed, was completely impossible — a rebuff to those who thought that winning a major battle against the US Navy would end the war. However, in the US, his words were recast as a jingoistic boast that he would dictate peace terms at the White House."

It would be impossible.

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

Russia got more than the US, so what are you talking about?

That isn't accurate. Russia's top sources for accessing stockpiles of wmd's says the US has more, while the USA's sources say Russia has more. So I think it is safe to say that this subject is under speculation and can't be answered with any real credibility by either you or I.

[Mouzie]

That isn't accurate. Russia's top sources for accessing stockpiles of wmd's says the US has more, while the USA's sources say Russia has more. So I think it is safe to say that this subject is under speculation and can't be answered with any real credibility by either you or I.

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Current U.S. and Russian Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles

[nevs666]

1: Why is this in the debate fort?
2: U.S would win.
3: We won ww2 with fire power, A-bomb
4: Just because we produced more light tanks does not mean we didn't have heavy tanks.
5: If the U.S ever went to war with China (seeing as we are there biggest trading partner) there economy would goto shit.

[unicorn69]

1: Why is this in the debate fort?
2: U.S would win.
3: We won ww2 with fire power, A-bomb
4: Just because we produced more light tanks does not mean we didn't have heavy tanks.
5: If the U.S ever went to war with China (seeing as we are there biggest trading partner) there economy would goto shit.

1. Isn't this a debate?
2. Perhaps
3. Taking A-bomb out of equation
4. Of course, but 90 percent of the US army in both Europe and the Pacific were equipped with Sherman tanks.
5. Just suspend disbelief for this debate as i have already stated.

[nevs666]

1. Isn't this a debate?
2. Perhaps
3. Taking A-bomb out of equation
4. Of course, but 90 percent of the US army in both Europe and the Pacific were equipped with Sherman tanks.
5. Just suspend disbelief for this debate as i have already stated.

I find it more of a disscution then a debate, well thats very covenant for you dont you think? Proof ?
Tired of all the ______ vs _______ threads anyway.

We will win, or every1 will lose.


M.A.D.

Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah RJ you never cease to make me laugh.

[unicorn69]

I find it more of a disscution then a debate, well thats very covenant for you dont you think? Proof ?
Tired of all the ______ vs _______ threads anyway.

Eh. No one is really responding to this thread anyway.

[WOLFPACK X69X]

Lets start off by saying. This would never happen. Chinas economic funding would be shut down...the great wal-mart would stop buying from them. but anyways it wouldn't happen but that would be 1 hell of a war i know id have fun till i died.

[RJ]

We will win, or every1 will lose.


M.A.D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

[unicorn69]

No they wasn't, you'll understand when you read the German logics and the American ones. Because, I already posted it to someone. I really don't want to make another long ass post explaining stuff just for someone to try and counter argument.

The German Panzers were not faster, they were not 'stronger, or thicker'. The Panzer III and Tiger were known to break down, while the rest were light tanks or medium tanks which the Allies had. The American tanks were more rugged, reliable, faster, and can be build much quicker.

And it's true that Japan did surprised the American fleet, but as a Japanese admiral said. "Yamamoto, when once asked his opinion on the war, pessimistically said that the only way for Japan to win the war was to dictate terms in the White House, requiring them to eventually invade the United States and march across the country while fighting their way to Washington — i.e., Japan would have to conquer the whole of the United States. Yamamoto's meaning was that military victory, in a protracted war against an opponent with as much of a population and industrial advantage as the United States possessed, was completely impossible — a rebuff to those who thought that winning a major battle against the US Navy would end the war. However, in the US, his words were recast as a jingoistic boast that he would dictate peace terms at the White House."

It would be impossible.

M4 Sherman Tank
Imperial Japanese Navy Air Force in WWII

We're getting a little off topic. Whoever is on the defensive in this case would win. If either side tried to launch an amphibious assault, they would be decimated.

We will win, or every1 will lose.


M.A.D.

Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disregard nuclear weapons and other wmd's.