Conventional war against China

They can't.

That's the reason China gets away with everything they do.

>>31916190
Because the U.S. has the ability to cause disruption of foreign aid and the entirety of China's time would be wasted sending soldiers to confiscate food from the poor while the cities died out. Or we could just fuck with their standing wave equipment so they couldn't cloud seed and by the time it took them to get past our allies in the sea most of the farming areas would be turned into dust bowl.

Lol one us marine could take on at least 30 Chinese conscripts in a firefight and win

we wouldn't fight a conventional war
not even China would be up for it

>>31916217
then why did the USMC get blown the fuck out in the Korean War by the PLA

Unmatched navy and air force.
Any fight that happens would be fought on Chinese clay.
The massive population of China becomes it's own enemy when the US disrupts it's ability to feed and supply it's population.

You can't fight a modern conventional conflict without air superiority.

How is China going to supply it's military once stocks of fuel and equipment run out, if China has no oil refineries, electrical grid, internal railway or highways?

USA is outmatched in the Pacific by China quite significantly.

It wouldn't be pretty for the USA.

>>31916239
What air superiority? The 187 and 20 B-2s aren't going to cut it. Everything else is non stealthy and has no chance of causing that much damage

>>31916249
187 F22's*

>>31916239
You couldnt fly freely over china tho

>>31916190
>>They need to to cross the entire fucking ocean to engage the enemy
We have the only navy capable of such a thing

>>enormous manpower disadvantage
Are they going to swim at us?

>>the Chinese Navy/Airforce doesn't need to match the Americans in sheer numbers to win, the US has global commitments while the Chinese do not
The US navy is capable of taking on every other navy on the planet simultaniously
>>the Chinese can make equipment faster and cheaper than the US can
wartime economy is big bucks, you can bet industry would love to have to pump out a bunch of boats against.
>>the US cannot afford even another Iraq size conflict, buried in debt
We will make it all back rebuilding china after we win :^)
>>the Chinese would be willing to sacrifice more to defend their homeland
'the chinese'? The chinese people would mostly be with us, thats what we do.
>>the technological gap between the two shrinks every year
latest cutting edge chinese stuff is closing on our decades equipment, oh no.
>>the US would never be able to successfully land enough men in China to ever have a chance of defeating the PLA
The PLA is mostly college kids unfit for any real war.

>>31916222
To go to college in china you must do time in the military. Your training consists mostly of propaganda classes. The actual combat viable portion of the PLA is probably fairly small.

Back then they were more hardcore because communism. Now they are a capitalist country being ruled by 'communists' whos main power is propoganda, not patriotism.

1. Always at least 2 Carrier Battle groups in area.
2. Yes. but we don't have to immediately land troops to gain a tactical advantage.
3. Most will be sunk in port/ destroyed on the ground.
4. Not if your industrial capability is damaged/destroyed.
5. Actually, it would be good for our economy, ie, WWII.
6. Or maybe they seize the opportunity to finally rid themselves of their technocratic totalitarian masters.
7. But not fast enough.
8. Don't have to initially, and once we did the resistance would be lessened.

The US is gonna win but lose in the occupation period.

Seriously, it's gonna be like every wars the US is gonna be involved in, until they change their way.

>>31916247
Lmao

File: whofarted.jpg (169KB, 991x657px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 991x657px

>>31916247
ebin

>>31916319
The reason why the occupation period hasn't worked in Iraq or Afghanistan is Islam. The occupation period has done wonders in both Japan and Germany post-WWII. I could see the same being done in China.

>>31916190
>It is obvious that any conflict would take place on China's turf.
So right out the gate, you've already admitted China is on their own soil in the defensive?

What's the punishment for fucking it up at the chinashillcenter these days? Do you have to "donate" a kidney?

>>31916190
I dont think that any sane person thinks that anyone is able to invade China or even win a conventional war right over or in front of China. They have a coast full of conventional artillery, AA and ASMs. Then they still have their complete navy and air force to assist that.
Good luck to the idiot trying to break through that.
>>31916239
And China can feed itself. They invested in securing food sources in their own country over the last decades.

File: bait.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>31916247
>outmatched in the Pacific

>>31916872
Is that why we sell them so much food??

>>31916222

They didn't, the Army did.

OP Smith was pretty tits.

>>31916190

>they need to cross the entire ocean

Works both ways.

>global commitments

That the US can drop in case of total war. Withdrawing from Syria and co wouldn't cost the US anything in terms of power. Infact it'd probably cause China more grief when their rebels start getting support from the belligerents that would otherwise be focusing on US troops.

>chinese can make shit faster

That is true. But the shit they make is 80s level for the most part. It's not like they are making Type 26 frigates or Type 45 en masse. They are making Type 23s at best and even then they aren't giving them all the shit the West has had for generations. It's like making a bunch of tanks with 125mm guns and autoloaders but then not giving them thermals and night sights with targeting computers. Might still have the potential to do shit but its not realistically happening.

>US cannot afford another Iraq

True. China however cannot afford an internal rebellion when the US and her allies stop buying Chinese made shit.

>Chinese would be willing to sacrifice themselves

No. They fucking wouldn't. Chinese aren't Japs. The only reason they were willing to run headlong into gunfire in Korea was they had a fucking commissar forcing them to do it and guaranteed victory. In a modern conflict? Noone wants that shit outside religious fanatics.

>tech gap shrinks

No it doesn't. China still can't make a reliable jet engine or naval design. Their main 'tech' is hand me down Russian models that they've spent money on improving or outright stealing.

That's why they still use the same basic gun and autoloader that Russia does and why they are forced to buy Russian engine designs.

>US would never successfully land enough men in China

Don't really need to. The entire idea of modern conflict is that you win the war before you commit to occupation. This is done by destroying general infrastructure and such.

3 Gorges Dam wouldn't last a day.

>>31916894

>we sell them so much food

Because it's cheap? Corn is literally subsidised to the point that your entire farming system is reliant on it. China has more than just the US for food supplies and could easily get theirs from other nations.

relevant

https://soundcloud.com/war_college/how-chinas-military-might

>>31916217
Infantry wins skirmishes.
Not modern wars.

>>31916691
Or Vietnam.

The japs only allowed you to occupy because the emperor allowed you to occupy.

Germany too feared the Soviet too much.

>>31916194
>Believed the China stronk meme
Just because we can doesn't mean we should sonny. What is the point of starting a war with a country that is choking itself out on communism

File: 1477017160149.jpg (55KB, 258x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 258x360px

>>31916190
>Deal with it burgers, you cannot defeat China in a conventional war and your superpower status should be revoked

>>31916190
I'm gonna bite
>>They need to to cross the entire fucking ocean to engage the enemy

Which is why we have 7th Fleet and all our overseas bases
>>enormous manpower disadvantage

I'ts a naval and air war, numbers don't matter as much because the huge-ass Chinese army is useless
>>the Chinese Navy/Airforce doesn't need to match the Americans in sheer numbers to win, the US has global commitments while the Chinese do not

dude, diverting large forces from around the world to where they are needed the most is the USA's specialty, from Valiant Shield where the US got together 3 carriers for an exercise, to Desert Storm with 6 carriers and a bunch of Airforce planes to bomb Iraqis
>>the Chinese can make equipment faster and cheaper than the US can

not a factor considering how fast modern war is, you fight with what you have
>>the US cannot afford even another Iraq size conflict, buried in debt

lol
>>the Chinese would be willing to sacrifice more to defend their homeland

lol
>>the technological gap between the two shrinks every year

lol
>>the US would never be able to successfully land enough men in China to ever have a chance of defeating the PLA

not necessary, land invasion is not a requirement for victory

>>31916247
welp, you do have the Philapeans now.
I see no way the U.S. could possibly win now.

>>31916222
Did you not read anything about it? The Marines had far outstretched their lines when China attacked and even then, they managed a breakthrough and regroup all the while China took massive casualties. Read about chosin reservoir

>>31916992
What difference does that make?

>>31916190
>They need to to cross the entire fucking ocean to engage the enemy

not even a yank but that's retarded. They have Guam, Okinawa and Hawaii not to mention bases in Japan, Worst Korea and wherever else. Also if war took place I imagine many S.E Asian countries would not take kindly to China throwing their weight around and assist the USA wherever possible with the use of supplies and bases

>>31916190
Let's put it this way

>everyone hate the U.S, at least dislikes them and thinks they're cocky and stuck up
>but everyone hates China and Communism disguised as a democracy

Everyone would have a common enemy in China. Even if they are all the Asian Jews who control a good chunk of the worldly market, they'd still come to the aid of the US.

>>31916190
Nome of the supes could win a war on the other's territory.

All 3 would definitely hold out against a conventional invasion or bombardment by the other.

They Chinese and Russians could have a higher chance, because they touch each other, but the US could not sustain an invasion of Asia, and Asia could not sustain an invasion of America.

Too much distance and too many subs to be able to keep groups supplied and well-mannered.

>>31917801
Not sure why the distance really has anything to do with it. As another anon said, we aren't having to ship little boxes of war materiel from plants in the us to ground troops in china. The us has a worldwide logistics chain supported by its many bases and ships. The distance is meaningless. The only thing that would make it difficult is interdiction by subs. But that can't stop the flow of supplies. Just slow them down

What is China's turf? Any war the USA gets into with China would be one supporting a regional ally, not the USA invading mainland China.

For example, even though Taiwan is very close to China, their ability to force a hostile landing and protect their shipping & aircraft from; submarines, aircraft, mines, and operate safely without stealth aircraft is very dubious.

Ok, faggots. How about Russia + China vs Burgerland + The rest of the world ?

>>31916190
> It is obvious that any conflict would take place on China's turf.

Very untrue. If the US goes to war with china it will be via a ally in the area calling them in. The main area of conflict will be centered on the ally's territory, not the coast line of China. That is not to say that the US will not have open waters action.

The Goal that the USN has in the event of a war with China is a effective blockade at distance. It would be to stop fishing and food shipments. It is a net food importer and its fishing fleets mostly work in foreign waters. China' own coast's have be over fished so to be effective the first 300 KM of water next to china would not really even have to be controlled. But want about farming you ask? Surely China can just farm more right?

Not really. Much of its food supplies issues are rooted in water table issues.Truth is that is getting worst right now and has no signs of getting better.

The USN believes that that in the event of blockade on China it will take 5 to 7 months for it to reach crisis levels.

>>31916262
>Now they are a capitalist country being ruled by 'communists' whos main power is propoganda, not patriotism.

But patriotism uses propaganda too.