War

[iToXiK]

China pwns america, "we" are fighting for oil right now. We could be invaded and could do nothing about it when osama was supposibly "killed" America turned to High alert for any unusual actions. Does that sound like a confident country?

[nevs666]

China pwns america, "we" are fighting for oil right now. We could be invaded and could do nothing about it when osama was supposibly "killed" America turned to High alert for any unusual actions. Does that sound like a confident country?

Global Firepower - 2011 World Military Strength Ranking

^suck it.
Nobody cares about your conspiracy bullshit.

[iToXiK]

Lmao it was in actual news when Lakers where in the playoffs to keep high alert they might avenge osamas death! xD lmao what a country

[Mouzie]

Global Firepower - 2011 World Military Strength Ranking

^suck it.
Nobody cares about your conspiracy bullshit.

Neat site, I was looking at Israel and it was scary to see how very commited the concription system is. .-.

[nevs666]

Neat site, I was looking at Israel and it was scary to see how very commited the concription system is. .-.

Well the way I see it is there are 10 countrys on top, 7 of which seem to be on the same side, so you fuck with one and the other 6buttfuck you :P

[unicorn69]

Actually the Western powers did step in because of the Rape of Nanjing. Granted, there were other reasons, however the Rape of Nanjing opened the eyes of the world to the Japanese brutality that was facing China. The Japanese didn't even think of Chinese people as human. Just like the Nazi's had the thought that Jews were not human either. And Japan taking China had nothing to do with Japan taking the US. We had recon stations posted on all of the Eastern islands, including Midwest, the Atolls, and Marianna Islands. We were watching them, yes, however our focus was on our allies, and gaining morale support (which wasn't much needed against the Japanese, after December 7th, but morale was needed to fight against the Germans as well.) against the entire Axis. Europe was almost completely dominated by the Germans, save for a few countries, most importantly England, who pleaded with the US to join the war. There can be different opinions on why the Western powers stepped in, however it was mostly the US that fought the Japanese. England, the rest of Europe, and Russia were mostly focused on eliminating any German threats. A little after midway through the Island Hopping campaign, we sent B-25 bombers over Japan off of aircraft carriers (mostly which were stripped to the bone, all of the guns on the planes were removed and replaced with broomsticks painted black) and bombed the living hell out of Tokyo in the Tokyo Raids, starting a firestorm, killing thousands of people, and demoralizing the "invincible" home island. After the destruction of the 3 IJN Aircraft carriers, the war began to turn in our favor.

Not so:

The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Rape of Nanking 1937-38

News reports of the happenings in Nanking appeared in the official Japanese press and also in the West, as page-one reports in newspapers such as the New York Times. Japanese news reports reflected the militaristic mood of the country in which any victory by the Imperial Army resulting in further expansion of the Japanese empire was celebrated. Eyewitness reports by Japanese military correspondents concerning the sufferings of the people of Nanking also appeared. They reflected a mentality in which the brutal dominance of subjugated or so-called inferior peoples was considered just. Incredibly, one paper, the Japan Advertiser, actually published a running count of the heads severed by two officers involved in a decapitation contest, as if it was some kind of a sporting match.

In the United States, reports published in the New York Times, Reader's Digest and Time Magazine, were greeted with skepticism from the American public. The stories smuggled out of Nanking seemed almost too fantastic to be believed.

Overall, most Americans had only a passing knowledge or little interest in Asia. Political leaders in both America and Britain remained overwhelmingly focused on the situation in Europe where Adolf Hitler was rapidly re-arming Germany while at the same time expanding the borders of the Nazi Reich through devious political maneuvers.

The United States didn't want war. They could care less if China was conquered. After all, the British still controlled India and several other countries in the war. Hitler was given Sudentenland and Czechoslovakia. Many leaders wanted to only help the British because the US government believed Germany was more of a threat than Japan, due to racist beliefs.

Brief History of WWII: Outbreak of War

The staffs agreed that if the United States entered the war the Allies should concentrate on the defeat of Germany first. The President authorized active naval patrols in the western half of the Atlantic, and in July, American troops took the place of British forces guarding Iceland.

Brief History of WWII: The Pacific War

Even before Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the American military chiefs had agreed on a common strategy with Great Britain: Germany, the most powerful and dangerous of the Axis powers, must be defeated first. Only enough military resources would be devoted to the Pacific to hold the Japanese west of an Alaska-Hawaii-Panama defensive line.

World War II

After the war began in Europe in 1939, people in the Americas were divided on whether their countries should take part or stay out. Most Americans hoped the Allies would win, but they also hoped to keep the United States out of war. The isolationists, wanted the country to stay out of the war at almost any cost. Another group, the interventionists, wanted the United States to do all in its power to aid the Allies. Canada declared war on Germany almost at once, while the United States shifted its policy from neutrality to preparedness. It began to expand its armed forces, build defense plants, and give the Allies all-out aid short of war.

It was only after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor that the US began to become actively involved in the war.

The war in the Pacific essentially began on September 18, 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria, which was known for its natural resources. The Japanese thought that from Manchuria, they could go on to control all of northern China. After Japan had established dominance in China, it could expand elsewhere. The Great Depression, Japan's population explosion, and the need to find new resources and markets to continue as a first-rate power, were other causes of the invasion.

The Japanese struck at a time when most countries were more concerned with the depression than with an invasion in far-off China. The United States introduced a policy of non-recognition, declaring that it would not recognize Japan's conquest.

The League of Nations did nothing but condemn Japan formally. Therefore, many consider the invasion of Manchuria as the real start of the war because aggression was not suppressed.

Since 1937, Japan had been buying cotton, gasoline, scrap iron, and aircraft equipment from the United States. After the “undeclared war” between Japan and China began in 1937, most Americans sympathized with the Chinese.

In 1938, this led the United States to place an embargo on exporting aircraft to Japan. The government also froze all Japanese assets in the United States. Relations between Japan and the United States became increasingly tense in the fall of 1941.

The US "sympathized" but [I]t did not take action because of isolationist policies.

[unicorn69]

Global Firepower - 2011 World Military Strength Ranking

^suck it.
Nobody cares about your conspiracy bullshit.

This only compares both nations' capabilities during peacetime. What about wartime, when all factories are mobilized for war, and assets are frozen, and embargos are placed? However, I do admit, that for the most part, this is accurate.

[Mouzie]

This only compares both nations' capabilities during peacetime. What about wartime, when all factories are mobilized for war, and assets are frozen, and embargos are placed? However, I do admit, that for the most part, this is accurate.

Most of China's factories are located on the coastal areas, which is easy target for invasion/bombing from the massive US fleet. China doesn't even have the basic naval and is outdated compare to the US.

[unicorn69]

Most of China's factories are located on the coastal areas, which is easy target for invasion/bombing from the massive US fleet. China doesn't even have the basic naval and is outdated compare to the US.

You don't need a navy to win a war. A large, strong airforce and static coastal defences will suffice against any amphibious invasion.
China's factories are not actually near the coast. They are more inland. The cities on the coast serve as ports to export their products. Look at the Three Gorges Dam for example.

[Mouzie]

You don't need a navy to win a war. A large, strong airforce and static coastal defences will suffice against any amphibious invasion.
China's factories are not actually near the coast. They are more inland. The cities on the coast serve as ports to export their products. Look at the Three Gorges Dam for example.

Wrong, it's a common military ideology that a strong navy force is important. You need blue water status, which mean you can send ships from your sea to theirs. Aircraft carriers is the founding factor of war and yes they are located in the coastal/slight mainland because the population is near the coast. It was a common factor during the Sino-Japanese War because Japan captured all of major cities and yet China refused to surrender.

Even in terms of air force, the United States planes, bombers, and systems is far better than the Chinese, the Chinese even lacked shealth tech needed for planes and bombers.

[unicorn69]

Wrong, it's a common military ideology that a strong navy force is important. You need blue water status, which mean you can send ships from your sea to theirs. Aircraft carriers is the founding factor of war and yes they are located in the coastal/slight mainland because the population is near the coast. It was a common factor during the Sino-Japanese War because Japan captured all of major cities and yet China refused to surrender.

Even in terms of air force, the United States planes, bombers, and systems is far better than the Chinese, the Chinese even lacked shealth tech needed for planes and bombers.

The military ideology might be applicable in World War2, but in modern warfare, the navy is not as important. It is only useful as a projection of power. The battleship is obsolete, leaving only the aircraft carrier as the most important part of a navy. The Chinese even developed the Dong Feng Anti-Ship Missile.

Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers | U.S. Naval Institute

I also pointed out that if either side were to attack each other, the one going on the offensive would have to conduct an amphibious invasion, requiring air support more than naval support because naval ships are basically sitting ducks.

The Chinese are catching up to the US in terms of air power, but it still has a long way to go.

Chengdu J-20 - China's 5th Generation Fighter

[Mouzie]

The military ideology might be applicable in World War2, but in modern warfare, the navy is not as important. It is only useful as a projection of power. The battleship is obsolete, leaving only the aircraft carrier as the most important part of a navy. The Chinese even developed the Dong Feng Anti-Ship Missile.

Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers | U.S. Naval Institute

I also pointed out that if either side were to attack each other, the one going on the offensive would have to conduct an amphibious invasion, requiring air support more than naval support because naval ships are basically sitting ducks.

The Chinese are catching up to the US in terms of air power, but it still has a long way to go.

Chengdu J-20 - China's 5th Generation Fighter

You completely missed my point, instead of using World War II, which the navy power was the battleship. The United States, Japan, Soviet Union, and other global power understood the need of aircraft carriers. A navy is very important, if you lack a strong navy you lack the need to send in supplies and help your troops with fire support. Saying it isn't important or shouldn't be in a spreadhead assault is just plain silly and ignorant. It also showed your lack of military training, before you invade, you must have a powerful navy to send in supplies, troops, heavy weapons, air support, etc. An aircraft carrrier have the power to that and you can keep sending me links to try and prove your points, but you're only showing the weapons. Shall I shall you the US anti-missle systems on most of their ships? Shall I show you their shealth bombers and powerful and effective planes? Shall I show you the powerful submirines and the ability for the United States to quickly invade?

You're not proving any points but instead saying that China got this little thing, well, Israel and United States just invented a anti-missle system to fire missles before they hit their targets, but I am not going to try and use that as a point. Like I said, you need to step away from weapons and such and look at the big picture. If you have two countries with one lacking the navy power to even lift a finger at the US soil then you got problems. Yes, load of manpower indeed, but the country of China is also facing issues of dissants and if people got a chance to fight, then they will. Even might side with the democatic 'Taiwan'. If you don't understand the big picture then there is no need to debate anymore.

[unicorn69]

You completely missed my point, instead of using World War II, which the navy power was the battleship. The United States, Japan, Soviet Union, and other global power understood the need of aircraft carriers. A navy is very important, if you lack a strong navy you lack the need to send in supplies and help your troops with fire support. Saying it isn't important or shouldn't be in a spreadhead assault is just plain silly and ignorant. It also showed your lack of military training, before you invade, you must have a powerful navy to send in supplies, troops, heavy weapons, air support, etc. An aircraft carrrier have the power to that and you can keep sending me links to try and prove your points, but you're only showing the weapons. Shall I shall you the US anti-missle systems on most of their ships? Shall I show you their shealth bombers and powerful and effective planes? Shall I show you the powerful submirines and the ability for the United States to quickly invade?

You're not proving any points but instead saying that China got this little thing, well, Israel and United States just invented a anti-missle system to fire missles before they hit their targets, but I am not going to try and use that as a point. Like I said, you need to step away from weapons and such and look at the big picture. If you have two countries with one lacking the navy power to even lift a finger at the US soil then you got problems. Yes, load of manpower indeed, but the country of China is also facing issues of dissants and if people got a chance to fight, then they will. Even might side with the democatic 'Taiwan'. If you don't understand the big picture then there is no need to debate anymore.

You need to understand that a navy is not the main force in a military. The navy, airforce, armor, etc... are all supplements to the main weapon- infantry. Yes, to launch an invasion would require a sufficient naval force. However, to defeat your enemy, you need your infantry. YOU'RE completely missing MY point. I am saying whoever is launching the invasion needs a strong naval force. You also disregard the fact that shipping supplies over simply means having a small fleet with air support to move armor and supplies. A navy is only good for protecting the supply line with a convoy and gaining a foothold. I am not saying you don't need a navy at all. I am saying it takes a second place priority.

You're not looking at the big picture. I only brought up the posts to prove that China is not as technologically deficient as you might think. You also need to understand that yes, the US is stronger in every aspect militarily, but will it be able to sustain itself in the long run. Read about the Punic Wars, specifically how the Romans defeated Hannibal despite suffering embarrassing defeats. Read about the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, specifically the Battle of the Red Cliffs, and how Sun Quan and Liu Bei defeated Cao Cao despite Cao Cao having numerical superiority.

[Poison]

doesnt matter ^ america=best army most money in military also

[Mouzie]

You need to understand that a navy is not the main force in a military. The navy, airforce, armor, etc... are all supplements to the main weapon- infantry. Yes, to launch an invasion would require a sufficient naval force. However, to defeat your enemy, you need your infantry. YOU'RE completely missing MY point. I am saying whoever is launching the invasion needs a strong naval force. You also disregard the fact that shipping supplies over simply means having a small fleet with air support to move armor and supplies. A navy is only good for protecting the supply line with a convoy and gaining a foothold. I am not saying you don't need a navy at all. I am saying it takes a second place priority.

You're not looking at the big picture. I only brought up the posts to prove that China is not as technologically deficient as you might think. You also need to understand that yes, the US is stronger in every aspect militarily, but will it be able to sustain itself in the long run. Read about the Punic Wars, specifically how the Romans defeated Hannibal despite suffering embarrassing defeats. Read about the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, specifically the Battle of the Red Cliffs, and how Sun Quan and Liu Bei defeated Cao Cao despite Cao Cao having numerical superiority.

I never said the navy was the strongest point, but it played a huge role in invasions. You're fumbling here my friend, I said that in a military point the navy is a huge factor. It plays a part in amphibian invasions regardless of manpower. Don't have a good navy? Kiss your ass goodbye when you step on the beach. And how am I missing your point? You keep changing the subject, your view on the subject kept changing. Is navy a huge role or not? If so, you proved my point, if not, then expain why. You're fumbling the subject, I can't see what side you're taking. If you're saying that a strong navy is needed for an invasion of China, then you just proved my point with China's sea and airforce being outdated compare to US fleets and aircrafts. It takes a combine attack from land, air, and sea to invade a country. But luckily China isn't ruled by the infantry/air force standard. Better yet, I ironiclly did the same thing you did in a game and I will show you. Don't bash me, but it's pretty interesting to a point:

As you see here, I outnumber the Japanese by FAAAAAAAR, I have over 7.5 million Chinese troops, with a stable but small airforce. I invaded Korea and made it a Communist nation. But what's the point? Well, I focus on industries, which you can clearly see the major cities near the coasts. And as for Japan? They are blocking my sea, while you can see on the list, my industries and military put me to number one. But with a lack of even a strong navy I couldn't even invade the simpliest of the Korean islands. Japan prevented me from doing anything.

Which also proved my point, I never said the United States or China would win, I was just stating facts. In a huge chance, the United States and China would have a statemate war or even worst. M.A.D.