War
War
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.
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.
United States has more bombs then any other country
if it was only them 2
US would win for sure
if it was only them 2
US would win for sure
Originally Posted by Jose Miguel
United States has more bombs then any other country
if it was only them 2
US would win for sure
if it was only them 2
US would win for sure
Originally Posted by Jose Miguel
United States has more bombs then any other country
if it was only them 2
US would win for sure
if it was only them 2
US would win for sure
Originally Posted by unicorn69
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
suspend disbelief for a second. Originally Posted by Mouzie
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.
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.
Originally Posted by unicorn69
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by unicorn69
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.
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.
? Tired of all the ______ vs _______ threads anyway.
Originally Posted by RJ
We will win, or every1 will lose.
M.A.D.
Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
M.A.D.
Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ah RJ you never cease to make me laugh. Originally Posted by nevs666
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.
? Tired of all the ______ vs _______ threads anyway.
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.
Originally Posted by Mouzie
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by RJ
We will win, or every1 will lose.
M.A.D.
Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaⓘ
M.A.D.
Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaⓘ
US would win anyway
and if this would happen the whole world will fall down in economy and in every espect
and if this would happen the whole world will fall down in economy and in every espect
USA has a maddly large airforce get every plane and straffe china with napalm. =p + even though the chineese are f***kin genius they have no imagination something you need to win do things that are out of the box, ne individual something that would well win another war.... and wth the usa cant just go get in a war without the UN gettin involved to... -_- even the chineese arent that stupid.
