China vs USA

>>130610347
Technically neither as they'll obliterate each other with thermonuclear weapons.
But in a conventional war, China's size will be its downfall. Bombing their agriculture and infrastructure would collapse the country into a civil war.

> the US has never won a landwar in Asia

Ask the Japanese.

>>130610347
Yes we have. Vietnam.

File: not-amused-pepe-contrast-coffee-mug.jpg (44KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x800px

>>130610738

>>130610738
U sure?

>>130610738
That.....that's a joke...right?

File: 15319103_10157838000945483_5374723536487133687_n.jpg (22KB, 554x380px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 554x380px

>>130610347
US would win
>Chinese training being mostly Drill and parades
every college male must join but they all just learn how to march and why communism is so good.

>Chinese dont have a unified joint command
imagine in a boxing game one character controlled by one player while the other is controlled with 4 different players controlling each limb.

>Chinese tech is awful
All their advanced tech is either knockoffs from us or some other power, so we know what coming

>politicized nature of the military
The army is a glorified police force, and is directly tied to the party, remember aforementioned boxer controlled by 4 people? Now imagine they are all fighting with each other and wont let each other limb get too powerful in the fears it may try to take control after the fight.

Im not afraid of china, the US shouldn't be afraid, euros should be afraid of thier dying race from within, China is a red herring.

>>130611393
technically in Vietnam battles were mesuared by how many we killed and in that sense the US won

>>130610876
>>130610937
>>130611393
He's not wrong. US bombed NV to the peace tables. Fall of Saigon occurred after America had left.

>Secret chinese invasion from Canada.
You will never see it coming OP.

>>130611452
Good info.

File: 1495179987030.jpg (65KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x600px

>>130610738
it ain't me starts playing

>>130610621

lol, the cost of your bombs vs the cost of their farms. you'll bankrupt yourself before you starve them out.

>>130610347
>implying the chinese have any power projection to have a full scale war

File: 1.png (446KB, 455x557px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 455x557px

>>130610876
>>130610937
>>130611393

The US won every fight against the commies in North vietnam. Nixon
dropped like 10x more bombs on that shitty country then in all of ww2 combined.

We brought them to the negotiation table and got a peace deal but south Vietnam
was too weak and unmotivated to fight off the subsequent break of the treaty.

Its like if we won world war two, made peace with Hitler, and gave him half the
country, then he reconquested the shitty American half.

In the end we gained less than nothing but we still "won the war"

>>130611543
wars are won by objectives. the viet cong united their country and expelled the 'invaders'. they won the objective.

>>130610347
Has China won a landwar in Asia?

>>130611393
it's a weird thing to judge. the military could have easily continued to stay there making stir fried gook and rice. but the fucking hippies started to protest and our congressmen pussied out. so we left, and therefore lost. but i think we won all the major battles. so again, we lost, but it was a political failure not a military one.

>>130610347
China has no blue water navy. Doesn't matter if you have millions of troops and can't get them anywhere useful.

>>130612270
It means they'll be able to hold their own and defend their mainland, maybe force the Americans into a peace deal. The Modern American public doesn't have the stomach for a war that'll cost america thousands upon thousands of lives lost

>>130612042
Last one was Mongolian.
>shitty wall

>>130610347
How would China have an economy to fuel this war when it's biggest consumer stops buying its shit?

File: Ur average americucks.webm (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

>>130610738

That is a best post.

>>130611785
china will bankrupt itself before its able to fully arm its manpower.

>>130612923
They wouldn't, both the US and China would try to end it as soon as possible

>>130613043
There's literally no doing that without nuclear weapons.

>>130610738
underrated

File: WW33.jpg (226KB, 647x647px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 647x647px

This image makes it clear who wins

>>130610347
china has pathetic power projection and a weak navy. we would just blockade and bomb them into submisison.

>>130611543
The Vietnam war was a part of containment; communism can only survive through persistent revolution and the eventual worldwide revolution of the workers. If you stop puppet coups from overturning a countries and slow down communist momentum, communism will starve itself out. America's goal was to tie the Soviets into supporting a war they didn't have the money to do, or atleast to slow communist rhetoric enough so economic stagnation would set in; and it worked. The issue for the US came from the using mildly trained boomer kids as soldiers, since afterwards everyone ran there fat pretentious mouths about war crimes, how we "lost the war" since south vietnam fell, and muh warbadpeacelove and pussification.

I believe that believing Vietnam was a "loss," later on, is what cost the US the war in Afghanistan where it proven that insurgency could be used in the opposite sense: to draw a superior invading force into a economic tarpit. Al-Queda's goal wasn't a western fall but rather a collapse of the US housing market that would cause America to focus on investing in domestic economic affairs; in turn, dropping middle eastern focus on upholding the petroldollar; in turn, causing an eventual absence of support for an Israeli state.

Fighting containment wars isn't about attrition or the collapse of another government, its like bringing a knife to a gun fight but making sure to stab the other guy in a place where he will eventually bleed out after he's dealt with you.

>>130613360

how would you effectively blockade them if your ships are in range of their ASBM's?

>>130612704
Yeah, but why would the US try and stage a land invasion of China? What are the parameters of this "war" anyway?

>>130613015

very beautiful video. what is the source?

File: best cuck ever.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>130614271

It is from the conservative channel, Fox. You can find it.

>>130611785
We wouldn't bomb your farms, you Chink. We'd bomb the piss out of your densely populated coast. China only has a hundred nukes. Even if every nuke hit its target, we could still function. We have 2000 nukes. Just 200 nukes aimed at China's population centers would collapse your country.

Its not about manpower. Germany was at war for 6 years with nations that had 10x+ the manpower. And the technology was shit back then, today you can replace a shitload of humans with robots drones and bombs.

>>130610347
Russia will alone destroy USA. Fat pindosy will die.

File: PRC_Population_Density.svg.png (373KB, 1920x1566px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1920x1566px

The Western 55% of China only has 5.7% of China's population. In any sustained bombing campaign, China would collapse from the sheer panic of its population.

>>130613691
>using surface ships

China is reliant on importing raw materials and exporting shitty cheap finishes products. Heavily reliant on oil from Saudi Arabia and Angola.

Get some attack subs out there, as well as land based air patrolling and denying the lanes of shipping. They'd still have land based trade, but that accounts for about 15 percent of their oil.

The second China cannot feed their bloated bureaucracy through exports is the second China devolves into regional warlords.

>>130615235
On the contrary I think China might just collapse on its own soon and the only way to keep it together might be to fight a unifying war

>>130615535
I think China needs to import it's share of refugees

>>130610347
>the us has never won a landwar in asia
has china ever won a land war in north america?

>>130615535
I haven't researched the contemporary Chinese economy in a few years, but it's a bad sign that so many wealthy Chinese are pushing their profits into offshore holdings. We saw the same thing from Russian oligarchs prior to the 2010 collapse there.

>>130615535
Nope china is headed to africa. They are going to mine resources and shag black bitches. The USA wants this to happen as well. China and USA are friends.

>>130611785
>bomb farms
>bomb the factories that allow farms to mass produce
which one do you pick ?

>>130610347

US. In a conventional conflict America would destroy the Chinese Navy and Air Force and place the entire country under siege. Chinas trade economy would collapse as would their ability to import the food necessary to sustain their population. Compounded further as the US would destroy road and rail links within China. We dont need to bomb the farms, just destroy the ability to get the farms foods to the cities. China would be in a massive famine within 6 months.

We would not need to invade. We can force them to the table through starvation.

>>130610347
And China has never even been to war, let alone win one....

File: 1496969648231.gif (1000KB, 475x242px) Image search: [Google]

1000KB, 475x242px

>>130610347
>china winning?
>kek

>>130615716
https://archive.fo/AK6Ad

The kikes have been pushing for refugees to go to China, but China won't take them. China also doesn't give any aid to refugees, so they probably wouldn't go to China even if China allowed it.

>>130615797
You see our relationship with china is they give us shit and we give them money and they buy whatever present they want. China want big useless mock city? check. China want to go all solar? go for it. China want to build undersea railroad? More power to ya.

>>130614786

uh you do realize using 200 nukes pretty much render the planet uninhabitable. good job burger, you just killed yourself alongside china.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000205/full

File: this is two explosions..jpg (123KB, 900x710px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 900x710px

>>130610621
>>130610621
There are no nuclear weapons

>>130610347
their tech compared to US isnt comparable. chinese tanks and aircraft are not even on the same level as some 3rd world countries

>>130616266
>he still believes the nuclear winter propaganda

>Since the first nuclear test explosion on July 16, 1945, at least eight nations have detonated 2,055 nuclear test explosions at dozens of test sites from Lop Nor in China, to the atolls of the Pacific, to Nevada, to Algeria where France conducted its first nuclear device, to western Australia where the U.K. exploded nuclear weapons, the South Atlantic, to Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan, across Russia, and elsewhere.
>https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally

>>130610347
minus the fact that our military is over twice their size. economically, they might have us in a chokehold because they float their currency, but if it went to straight war, we would roll over them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

>>130616507

>>nukes going off one at a time

vs

>>hundreds of nukes being detonated at a time.

>>130611934
true but burgers had a sick ass K:D ratio

>>130616703
>average of 40 nuclear tests every year for the last 5 years
>goyim, the earth will die if 200 go off at the same time

>>130616946
last 50 years*

>>130616623
Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot and kill our worker bees? Dont you get it? they work so we dont have to.

>>130611785
>cost of
Look at you, thinking like a Jew. Munitions only really have a price tag when an entire country's life is not on the line. In a life or death situation the population of America would line up like ants to volunteer their time to mass produce anything that is required. They would get paid after this hypothetical war is over... maybe... if their side wins.

>>130616623
delusion

>>130613302
No it doesn't, retard.

File: 1468384192873.jpg (106KB, 574x500px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 574x500px

>>130610347
The entire Chinese military is untested in battle. We would overwhelm them with so much precision ass raping in the first 12 hours that it wouldn't even be fair desu.

>>130611452
That makes sense. Plus when was the last time any chinaman had combat experience? Do their generals even know how to fight?

>>130610347
If you take Nukes out of the equation then the U.S. could handily beat China. Hell, Russia could beat china. All you would need to do is drop some defoliating agents on China's agricultural centers. After that all you need to do is watch China collapse under the weight of its own starving population.

>>130616266
Absolutely false.

>>130610937
Having been there in the past 10 years the result of the war has been apparent. We may have lost some battles but we won the war. Capitalism is thriving in Saigon. The number of Burger Kings, KFCs and Dominos in Saigon alone was on another level. They are also pretty good at getting pity tourist bucks by playing the "muh US war of agression atrocity" card to get the most cash from Tourists.

File: image 0.png (64KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 720x540px

>>130610347
China absolutely BTFO. Russia is the only real conventional warfare competitor and most of their armaments are from Soviet stockpiles. I am sure they have modern shit too, but if it came down to a war and they needed to get equipment out quick on a mass scale, they would be down to using old stockpiles.

>>130616946

>>exploding in modern megacities would produce firestorms that would build for hours, consuming buildings, vegetation, roads, fuel depots, and other infrastructure, releasing energy many times that of the weapon's yield [Toon et al., 2007]. estimated the potential damage and smoke production from a variety of nuclear exchange scenarios, and found that smoke would initially rise to the upper troposphere due to pyroconvection. Robock et al. [2007b] examined the climatic impact of the smoke produced by a regional conflict in the subtropics in which two countries each used 50 Hiroshima-size (15 kt) nuclear weapons, creating such urban firestorms. Using the global climate model GISS ModelE (Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York), they calculated that nearly all the 5 Tg of smoke produced would rise to the stratosphere, where it would spread globally, reducing the global average temperature by 1.25°C for 3–4 years and by more than 0.5°C for a decade. This effect was longer lasting than that found in previous “nuclear winter” studies, because older models could not represent the rise of smoke into the stratosphere. Mills et al. [2008] then used a chemistry-climate model to calculate that the concurrent heating of the stratosphere by up to 100°C would produce global ozone loss on a scale unprecedented in human history, lasting for up to a decade.

>>130610347
>China has the manpower and size
>he thinks manpower matters in modern warfare

Please, tell me how China would ship all those men, tanks, trucks, and supplies across the pacific when the United States Navy is the most powerful navy on the planet. Not 1 Chinese soldier would be able to step foot in America.

America would have complete naval and air superiority over China. Our bases in Japan ensure we would have complete domination of the area.

The USA would have free reign to bomb the hell out of China's infrastructure, agriculture, and major population centers.

We wouldn't need a single boot on the ground to cause China to crumble.

>>130617417
Theories are theories.

>>130617417
>modern cities will burn in firestorms

Lay off the dope.

>In a paper by the United States Department of Homeland Security finalized in 2010, fire experts stated that due to the nature of modern city design and construction, with the US serving as an example, a firestorm is unlikely after a nuclear detonation in a modern city.
http://hpschapters.org/sections/homeland/documents/Planning_Guidance_for_Response_to_a_Nuclear_Detonation-2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf

File: merchant.jpg (8KB, 179x131px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 179x131px

>>130610347
Israel would win

>>130617600

>>However, experts suggest in the nature of modern US city design and construction
may make a raging firestorm unlikely

you really should read your own sources.

>>130610347
no debate

china boils and eats dog alive with no sign of remorse. so usa would win

>>130610347
>blackandwhiteshittyfishbait.jpg

>>130617594
of course they are, but one theory has science behind it while the other is muh feelings.

>>130616266
Nice bait.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAnqRQg-W0k

>>130610347
>If China and the US had a war who would win?

The jews and bankers.

There are nukes now, so it will never happen.

In a theoretical conventional war, neither side would win. They have the population and industrial capacity to hold us off indefinitely through attrition. Our civilians are heavily armed, so the US is impossible to invade by force. Stalemate.

>>130617333
> This
> We have been fighting longer
> Out equipment is dialed in better than other countries

>>130611934
The war officially ended for the US in a draw with the signing of the Paris Accords on Jan,26 1972. The NVA violated the agreement and illegally invaded South Vietnam in 1975

>>130617779
200 simultaneous record-breaking firestorms would be necessary for your nuclear winter to occur. The fact that even one is unlikely completely undermines your theory.

The whole argument is nonsense anyway. The conventional idea of a nuclear winter is that the radiation is what causes the end of the earth. That would never happen.

File: tv38JqD.jpg (11KB, 196x255px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 196x255px

>>130610347

>>130615824
>09

There's more?

>>130617011
>Look at you, thinking like a Jew
I laughed like a little school girl. Thank you

>>130617925
Is that why California is so gay?

If chinks can't defend themselves against a tiny neighboring island what makes you think they stand a snowball's chance in hell against the USA?

>>130612923
>How would China have an economy to fuel this war when it's biggest consumer stops buying its shit?

They just switch their industry over to military production. They don't have much oil or coal, though so they'd need to collaborate with oil producing states.

>>130618061
first off, you said 200 nukes on 'china's densely populated coast'

so your source material is irrelevant considering the 'expert' is said it's unlikely that a firestorm will occur in an american city.

well im open to the idea that 200 nukes won't destroy the world, but my source materiel based on science says it is likely vs your opinion that it isn't hrm, tough call, do i believe science or anons feelings?

>>130618233
Nah. They just kept eating the gay fish that came from all the bomb radiation in the pacific ocean.

>>130615761

What collapse?
Russia is still there and doing much better than a few decades ago.
There was a small dip, but their government and power structure remained in place.
A few oligarchs were BTFO'd and there was fallout from that. No big deal.
China has much more economic leverage than Russia.
Almost all wealthy Americans also have money and investments offshore. Just a matter of hedging their bets (and tax evasion).

China is USA 1941. As soon as war is declared they would turn their factories into mass production of weaponry the likes this world has never seen. If the USA couldn't beat the vietcong you really think we could beat 1.3 billion chinamen?

First of all, the Chinese would be hacked to pieces by the US Navy once they ventured past Taiwan. No more air cover. It would be the Battle of the Philippine Sea, but with less ships.

Assuming the Navy magically disappeared, then the Chinese would be faced with mounting an amphibious operation across the world's largest ocean, having to stop off on the way to assault American-held islands such as Guam and Hawaii. Then they would have to land in California, where it is doubtful they would be welcomed with open arms, except maybe in Berkeley. If they managed to get ashore, they would then have to slog their way across either miles of burning desert and thick forest, where they would reach the Sierra Nevada and the Cascades.

Assuming any of them lived to reach the Rocky Mountains, they would then probably be killed either by Old Man Winter, large numbers of armed Montanians who think anyone not from their state is an alien invader, and large numbers of armed, very well supplied Mormons. They'd be better off trying to conquer Russia or Japan.

File: You Cannot Invade America.jpg (526KB, 1600x1113px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1600x1113px

>>130610347

>If China and the US had a war who would win? I think China would win. China has the manpower and size, and the US has never won a landwar in Asia.

For starters, I'm assuming it doesn't go nuclear. In which case neither side could realistically subdue the other

The US Navy could destroy the Chinese Navy, our Air Force could destroy their Air Force, but at the point that it becomes a landwar things get dicey. The US is better trained and equipped; but the Chinese would have numbers on their side and in the event that we're invading China we'd also be fighting a major insurgency. Insurgency presents an insurmountable problem in China because it has a land area greater than the United States and a population of over a billion which would be logistically impossible to control even if we completely defeated the government forces. The only chance of success would be to install a new friendly government that had the support of at least half the people so that they could assume the duties of administration and dealing with insurgents. While there are a sizable number of Chinese who would be attracted to democracy and free speech any government installed by an invading army is almost certain to be viewed as a foreign puppet by the majority of the population, so even that scenario seems unlikely. There is the mass genocide option; but I doubt that would have the support of the American public.

The insurgency scenario is even worse for the Chinese, since the American populace have a right to bare arms with over 100 million citizens owning over 300 million firearms the Chinese would be faced with a massive insurgency with a decentralized arsenal.

>>130618364
My source is the US government. Your source uses Hiroshima as a model for modern cities, which is laughable. Do you think firestorms will break out in a modern, concrete and steel city?

File: Strangelove Seig Heil.gif (484KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 500x280px

>>130619023

On a side note:

If it does go nuclear then China would get completely glassed by our nuclear arsenal of over 7,000 nukes while the US would likely be heavily damaged; but more or less intact from a strike with China's 300 or so nukes some of which would be intercepted by our superior missile defense technology.

In the wake of that the Pacific and anything close to China would turn quite radioactive, Japan would be completely fucked as would Korea, India would be fucked; but since they already living in pools of their own feces it would likely go unnoticed.

File: China Red Pill 01.png (138KB, 901x461px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 901x461px

>>130618123
Yeah. There's 19.

File: China Red Pill 02.png (72KB, 688x726px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 688x726px

>>130619761

File: China Red Pill 03.png (2MB, 1056x2880px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1056x2880px

>>130619815

File: China Red Pill 04.png (1MB, 800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x1800px

>>130619865

File: China Red Pill 05.png (95KB, 632x1221px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 632x1221px

>>130619908

File: China Red Pill 06.jpg (2MB, 2008x3500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2008x3500px

>>130619947

File: China Red Pill 07.jpg (1MB, 1280x2872px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x2872px

>>130619979

File: China Red Pill 08.png (834KB, 1463x3639px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 1463x3639px

>>130620010

File: China Red Pill 10.png (277KB, 818x2112px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 818x2112px

>>130620036
09 is here >>130615824

File: China Red Pill 11.png (57KB, 661x398px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 661x398px

>>130620372

File: China Red Pill 12.png (946KB, 1400x5552px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 1400x5552px

>>130620393

>>130619023
You do realize that all it would take to strike a massive blow against the Chinese mainland is for their Navy to be crushed and their ports blockaded. Fishing makes up a MASSIVE amount of the food supply in China and entire provinces within Canton survive on fishing alone. There wouldn't be enough farming to feed the Chinese mainland and without access to sea fishing their country would fall into unbelievable famine.

File: China Red Pill 13.jpg (789KB, 648x2196px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 648x2196px

>>130620423

File: China Red Pill 14.jpg (1MB, 968x7648px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 968x7648px

>>130620451

File: China Red Pill 15.jpg (2MB, 700x8069px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x8069px

>>130620484

File: China Red Pill 16.png (1MB, 960x2688px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x2688px

>>130620510

File: China Red Pill 17.jpg (136KB, 1220x947px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1220x947px

>>130620535

File: China Red Pill 18.jpg (1MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1500px

>>130620563

>>130610347
We would all die

File: China Red Pill 19.jpg (1MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1500px

>>130620585

>>130610347
The war hasn't started and the US has already won. America already has military installations in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, Canada and portions of the Middle East. Not to mention the WEB of American economic and military partnerships with countless countries in the world especially in Europe. Fuck even a 12 year playing a RTS game already knows he's fucked if cornered into a situation like this.

>>130610347
The aliens from outer systems will win.
They have sent spies to infiltrate the Earth and provoked nuclear death. Resulting radiation levels will be suitable for the aliens.

File: chiggers_new_race.png (106KB, 829x623px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 829x623px

>>130615797
Be wary of the chiggers

>>130619023

China has a planned economy and a massive industrial base locked and loaded, and they are mad as fuck after their century of humiliation, they'd get back on their feet and beat us through attrition if we didnt force a surrender quickly

You are right that whoever launched a land invasion would probably get themselves in deep, deep shit very quickly though. I think rather than doing that we'd end up with 1914 in the Pacific - just trading islands, equipment and lives until one side broke and that side would almost definitely be the US

>>130611452
This , this , fucking this

>>130610347
U.S would win, easily. If you think otherwise you are deluded or misinformed.

>>130615988

Korea

>>130620712
What a fucking defeatist cuck faggot. Do you even know what the American war time economy is like? It was fucking insane in WW2 and what they are capable of in modern times is fucking scary. Imagine every company and industry in the US shift to war time production and the population mobilized. China is would shit its pants, your lack of faith is probably due to the fact that you are a parasite chink immigrant or just an uneducated left wing faggot.

>>130610347
the west already lost the war against china.

australia lost half its navy then tried to save face after footage from the south pacific spread by basically spreading the same footage and claiming victory which is funny as hell

then the EU tried to invade kazakstan to go into china and got fucked up

the united states had chinese soldiers in washington after the american government tried to have the national guard attack koreans when they should have been dealing with dangerous BLM protesters

no nukes used on china. china also wiped out the puerto ricans america put in malaysia after WW2 was over to cover up the genocide. half the country tried to fight the other half. china sided with the east asians

and the philipines tried to get rid of the japs in the philipines but the japanese special forces which they technically arent allowed to have but fuck you they have them have left the flips in a no win situations. the flips are also just puerto ricans. if they try anything they will be wiped out and no one will save them just like malaysia

There are more guns in the United States than there are people.
You can destroy the government, cripple major infrastructure, slaughter the military, but you could never conquer the land.

>>130611704
KYS
It's called Fortunate Son you goddamn stupid motherfucker you

File: Big bait.jpg (220KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 3000x3000px

>>130610347

>>130613302
Kek look at that. Helps you visualize how truly master race we europeans are. Imagine 11 people taking on 89 and winning. Thats what happened

>>130611704
>it ain't me
kys you dumb fucking nigger you cant even get the song name correct

>We have the largest army on earth!
>Just ignore that fucktardedly huge ocean between us and the fact that our navy would be weak by Cold War standards.

>>130610347
It would end with both sides being reduced to ash.

>>130610347
China has a 100% wholly untested and ill trained military with ZERO capability of projecting power and an enormous (insurmountable really) tech gap. No, we could not win a land war in China. Give us a neutral ground and we will roll them.

>>130623256

The US wouldn't need to fight a land war.
A naval blockade alone would be enough for China to collapse.
Bomb some infrastructure and it's GG.
I don't think they're going to do it. The economic fallout for the US will be too high.

>>130617845
Kek

>>130621681
woowooo is better anyway

>>130610347
USA, China has bred anything but Patriotism, none of those cucks will risk their lives for a shit country

>>130623982
>implying chinks have souls

>>130610347
china cant mobilize their troops very well

File: kungfumaster.webm (3MB, 482x434px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 482x434px

>>130610347
SINK THE CHINKS

>>130624350
wtf

File: 1495769161192.jpg (151KB, 388x443px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 388x443px

>>130610347
The initial zerg rush would be challenging but the fighting would turn into a standstill


SOURCE: THE KOREAN WAR!

>>130624350
backstory on this?

>>130624051
Soul or no soul, the majority of chinks are poor, the rich all immigrated to the west, the only reason I see the US losing is if they do a ground invasion and is met with an endless sea of chink eyes charging at them out of kill or be killed

File: 1496730356903.jpg (68KB, 857x919px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 857x919px

>>130615723
1812 when Canada repelled our "liberation" force.

File: IMG_1056.jpg (59KB, 499x376px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 499x376px

>>130616063
>sees .gif
>clicks .gif
>waits for something special to happen
Mfw I realize I've been staring at a butthole and waiting for something to happen...

>>130624350
That's absolutely disgusting. Such a repulsive act is worthy of death.

File: michaelbei.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>130624564
not sure desu

>>130624528
The Korean war was halted largely by geography though. North Korea is up in a mountainous area and SK is a lot flatter and lower down. Advancing from SK into NK is suicide. And SK has it's battle lines drawn so far back that advancing from NK into SK is also suicide because you'd have to move down into the meat grinder at the bottom of the hills. You can only secure a surrender with an occupation force and there's literally no way for one to safely send an occupation force into the other.

>>130624909
Holy shit that was epic

File: 1492488978445.png (200KB, 999x442px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 999x442px

>>130624478
It's reality baka desu senpai. Welcome to /pol/

If both sides agreed to a conventional War, then USA would win.

In war, size is only as good as it's mobility, and China would have to have to pay multi-trillions of dollars in order to afford adequate, or even less-than-adequate transportation for all of their troops, so naturally they would have to use their troops to invade US friendly places like SK or Vietnam (ironically, Vietnam has friendly relations with US). doing so would tick off the international community, and everyone, especially Russia, would join in the effort to destroy/regime change China.

At this point, the sheer size of it's population would lead to multiple insurgency forces popping up against China, funded by us and our allies/enemies, and fighting them alone will probably bankrupt China.

China's size is it's biggest downfall.

>>130610347
>China has more manpower

File: a0dcd1d17efbdec1a3adcdd5df5e2341.png (3KB, 470x250px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 470x250px

>>130610347
China doesn't even have nukes yo

>>130613302
they'd need a land invasion of the U.S. to win, which our air and sea defenses would shoot down

if we go fight them over there it may or may not be a slaughter. honestly we'd probably just nuke them to avoid so many casualties on our side. it's why US russia and china will never be involved in another major world war, nukes are involved now.

>>130611785
One modern day bomb can put a sizable dent in a city, all it takes is one or two bombs and a farm that is supposed to feed billions is un-operational

>>130624909
>be that guy on bike
>narrowly avoid out of control semi
>light standard gets knocked over and lands right on your head causing your fuel tank to rupture and explode, the pain of burning alive would be excruciating, fortunately you were instantly killed when the rest of the carnage caught up to you.

>>130624940
Considering that the USA wasn't fully committed to the Korean War it did pretty good. China and North Korea had it much much easier logistically. Allies/USA you have the entire Pacific to traverse with a stop in Japan and then another traversal across to South Korea. Amazing how well they held and pushed the zerg back despite these seemingly insurmountable hurdles. What country in history has shipped huge machines of war and amounts of manpower across the oceans like the USA? The British Empire at it's height couldn't even do it which is why it's amazing what they were able to grab or hold with so little resources.

>>130610347
today we win, in 50 years probably not because we are going to be a shitskin country while chinese improve their DNA through engineering

>>130610937
We beat the shit out of Nam so bad that when Indonesia had a communist uprising they killed about 1m commies so we would leave them alone.

And they are pretty prosperous today in comparison to Nam.

No nukes? It would be a draw, actually USA would win in the long run. It's near impossible to occupy USA properly. All those damn gunlovers itchin' to use 'em on human beings.

>>130610347
USA because China has inferior military technology. The US doesn't need to fight a serious land war in China. All of China's major cities and production centers are coastal regions. Also the US has won a land war in Asia. What do you think the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima were fought on? Korea was a UN job and got fucked up horribly and sabotaged by Truman because he didn't have the balls to let MacArthur do what needed to be done, and that was use nuclear weapons against Mao and communist China. Same thing happened with Patton when he said the USSR needs to be destroyed and he got killed for it.

KANGZ

>>130610347
China would be fucking annihilated. Their styrofoam ships are no match for our real things.

>>130625594
Shame he didn't purge Phillippines while they had the chance. It would be a much better place imo.

>>130611452
While it is true that China's military tech is far behind the ability of the US, they're far from a pushover.

Remember the Korean war. Then China was far behind the US in terms of technology, and had near nonexistent/negligible navy and air force. And through sheer determination and mass human wave charges (these wave attacks were actually highly calculated and used innovative formations to minimize casualties but it was still human wave attacks), yet they still fought the US to a standstill. I don't think that we could repeat that today, and If we tried that again I don't think it'll end in a stalemate, in fact I think we'll lose. You may argue that that's only true if we tired to repeat the Korean War, but the lower difference between China and the US's military strength today should be considered.

>>130623709

China is now going to be able to contest our naval and air superiority, we can't blockade their coast. It just won't work and we'll be fucked up. What we can do however, is block the strait of Malacca where 80% of China's fossil fuels travels through. This however would fuck up everyone's economy but if we're at war with China, that's the least of our concerns.

>>130622524

China's only maintains about 260 nukes today. This won't be enough to reduce us to asses. We will be able to reduce China to ashes easily as most of the important targets are are clustered around the coasts. We will however, be seriously fucked in return, but not annihilated.


The biggest advantage the US has over china is experience. No matter how well trained the Chinese troops are they don't actually know how to fight besides shooting knife wielding Uighur in Xinjiang.

In conclusion, we could win easily now by simply blockading strait of Malacca before taking over a few islands in SCS and bombing a few oversea and mainland millitary bases. China is working on fixing the oil vulnerabilities through central asia, but if we strike now they won't be able to finish it.

File: f35.jpg (234KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1024x576px

>>130610347
China couldn't even touch American soil, their navy and air force is pathetic, how the fuck would they win a war against us?

>>130625818
*ashes

>>130625409
>USA wasn't fully committed
The USA dropped nearly as much ordinance on the Korean Peninsula as it dropped across all theaters in World War 2. Millions of people had died. Both the South Korean and North Korean armies were completely destroyed by that point and it was just a US/China proxy war ontop of the smoldering remains of both North and South Korea.

Almost nothing remained of Korea in the end. North Korea is a Chinese puppet state and South Korea is a US puppet state. Rebuilt out of remorse.

>>130625821
the will touch us with nukes

>>130612270
Planes tho

>>130625879
damn, this is a tough redpill to swallow. why don't the koreans hate us?

>>130612704
Surgical strikes across China would cause the largest starvation event in human history. They would be fucked.

>>130625879
326,863 USA vs 1350000 China doesn't sound like proxy war.

The chinese and the americans basically just had a conventional war.

>>130625818
war has changed completely since then
it'll be short lived ranged war - you don't even know the variables that will be involved.

>>130610641

Underrated.

File: gear up.gif (2MB, 400x151px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x151px

>>130625913
We have far more nukes, are more spread out, and have better ICBM defenses, along with more nuclear armed submarines and nuclear armed aircraft capable of delivering nukes close to their shores.

File: chinesefingertrap.webm (2MB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x240px

>>130626051
yep, even a week long naval blockade would cause it to completely collapse

>>130625984
You have 6 millions jews, so your country is really proficient at lying propaganda.

>>130626125
The scenario I described was a short lived war where the USA goes for outlying Chinese territories and the Strait of Malacca. Blocking the Strait of Malacca would take about 2 hours for USA considering Singapore is US puppet.

>>130626205
>implying Russia won't help china on the downlow

File: 1491816607176.jpg (162KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1000x1000px

>>130616637
>China being a sitting duck

>>130610347
ugh you fags really never get tired of hyping a U.S.-CHINA war, isn't it? Okay let me play it out for you what would happen if these two are stupid enough to go to war
Situations given:
>U.S. being the aggressor
>the war happens in Taiwan or SCS since China currently doesn't have the ability to fight too far away from the mainland
>No other country involved
how it will play out
>U.S would have advantage at first bc they have a more experienced and advanced navy and China soon shows a sign of losing
>China will start to tactical nuke every military base in Asia pushing U.S. to a full scale war
then two scenarios
>U.S. reacts with nuclear bombs
>M.A.D
or
>U.S calls for a armistice
>sign peace treaty

Honestly if you have any idea about how connected these two economies are, you would know such war will never happen bc it's a lose-lose situation.

Really, why do people care?

If your worried this will actually happen, your fucking retarded.

>>130626249
A week won't do it and we can't blockade them. They have this sort of thing all figured out. They even have a strategic pork reserve.

>>130615120
Which vodka was it tonight, Ivan?

>>130626090
Well by the time the UN coalition was assembled there was no South Korea left. They had literally been pushed to the sea. Hence the battle of Inchon. And then the US bombed the shit out of everything. Civilian infrastructure was almost completely gone. Kim still wouldn't surrender. General MacArthur even tried to get congressional authorization to use nukes. But yeah... Then China started flooding in and managed to secure the 39th parallel. And the US managed to contain them there, because of that whole meat grinder thing at the bottom of the hills. It was ugly. The whole war was a mistake if you ask me. I know Kim 1.0 was an asshole, but the loss of life was just... insane.. just for what was essentially a civil war.

File: heli.gif (2MB, 400x171px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x171px

>>130626272
And we'll have all of NATO helping us.

>>130613302
Yeah, and if you throw a hand grenade in Beijing, it kills 100 people. Imagine dropping a bomb on any city. Imagine trying to keep that many people supplied during war time.

Also, any sane country would take the US's side given our tendency to literally and figuratively rape those who don't side with us in wars that we win.

>>130620670
>chiggers
Kek oh fuck you deserve credit for that one

>>130610347
>China has the manpower and size, and the US has never won a landwar in Asia.
And China won a landwar in the Americas... when?

>Technically neither as they'll obliterate each other with thermonuclear weapons.
Don't they have something like 30 nukes? We've been prepping to shoot down Russia's 3000 nukes for sixty years now, there's no way theirs will ever reach us. (Unless Russia helps them).

File: Fallout 1 cover.jpg (214KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 960x960px

>>130610347

>>130610641
> two nukes doesn't mean you won ground war

uncertain

File: main-qimg-c5f94ed22deff2a1dd20648c1f193382.png (367KB, 570x380px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 570x380px

>>130626567
It wasn't really a meat grinder. There is this stereotype of Soviets and Chinese commies just charging into everything and overwhelming trough sheer numbers or getting all shot down. this isn't really true or at least not for the Korean war. The soldiers were trained to charge in formation with calculated spacing to minimize casualties from artillery and gunfire. Staying back and firing was calculated and predicted to result in more casualties due to overwhelming american firepower, namely aircraft and artillery that would have decimated PVA forces.

The Russians probably had the stereotype left over from Napoleonic era. The average Russian line infantry men would have six rounds to practice EACH YEAR. So they didn't bother shooting much of the time and just formed up in column with line in front of line and charged.

>>130626466
>babby's first aircraft carrier

>>130615120
What about Russian-Americans?

>>130610347

The US would never invade mainland China. American objectives are to prevent China from attacking the US' Asian allies (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc.) and from blocking shipping through the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. Neither of these objectives involves invading mainland China. Any war with China is going to be an air and sea battle, not a land battle.

China's navy is much smaller, less advanced, has only made a handful of forays outside of Chinese territorial waters, and has no combat experience outside of shooting at Vietnamese fishermen. America's navy is much larger (large enough to take on every other navy in the world, simultaneously, and still have more firepower), much more technologically advanced and capable, and has actual experience in combat and operating worldwide. China has to rely on land-based ballistic missiles to try to target America's carriers... which are defended by systems designed to shoot down or spoof such missiles (and have done so successfully in tests), and can send aircraft, cruise missiles, etc. that outrange these ballistic missiles, allowing the US Navy to take out most of the launchers without their most vulnerable ships coming into range of them. The Air Force is also capable of participating in this battle; B-52 and B-1 bombers can fly from the mainland US, fire cruise missiles at the Chinese missile bases, and then turn back to base, and there are Air Force bases in the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, etc. that put US bomber and fighter assets close to China.

In air battle, it's also no real contest: the US has better planes and more of them. Better missiles too. China's best aircraft are Russian monkey models, and while Russian fighters like the Su-27 and Su-35 are very competitive against the F/A-18 and F-15, not so much against the F-22.

If the US decides to attack the Chinese mainland, they can do it with SLBM's and cruise missiles; bomb dams to flood half of China and dry up the rest

File: amZaklpA3_480w_v1[1].jpg (29KB, 480x407px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x407px

One tactical nuke dropped on shenzhen and one dropped on guangzhou and boom, almost the entirety of production infrastructure of China is fucked. Game over.

>>130627275
That terrain still looks like a bitch though. Looking at google earth of the peninsula it's hard to imagine how you'd actually move armor around in a war scenario. 95% useless mountains on both sides of the border. All the terrain of any civil value is along the yellow sea coast.

>>130625818

China hardly has any projection power. They can only put up a fight on their own territory and immediate vicinity. The Naval blockade can happen in the South Chinese and Philippine Sea. Those artificial islands they're working on won't give them enough of a foothold to stand up to the American carriers and airforce operating from nearby bases.

The shit they are doing in the South Chinese Sea could give America an excuse to start navel blockades without them being the one that escalates it into a hot conflict. But they're letting it happen. They have no intention of going to war or directly cause Chinese collapse.

>>130613302
And zero fucking kikes. What a beautiful place.

>>130627690
i imagine 1 of the 14 americans would be a kike, and we'd probably attack the europeans on his orders to defend israel from anti-semitism and protect our based black brothers in africa

>>130627469
>bomb dams to flood half of China and dry up the rest

This. It would be just as effective as nukes, while it could be sold as just attacking infrastructure (the dams are power plants after all). Make no mistake, the casualties would be worse than nuking a few of their largest cities.

>>130627660

Start a naval blockade, not one that escalates it into a hot conflict. Are you out of your mind? Although the Jewish media would probably spin some shit up for you.

The artificial Islands actually do give them a footing, and if I remember correctly they already have SAMs on some of them. In a conflict the missile batteries would screen Chinese missile boats and submarines, or possibly even an entire fleet if they feel ambitious, which would make blockade there impossible.

>>130610876
You need to history moar

File: bald-eagle-closeup.ngsversion.1396530980855.jpg (1MB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x900px

>>130627469
Hardon achieved.

>>130615824
Intawesting...

>>130628095

If i remember correctly in WW2 they did that themselves. Although it did cause a lot of civilian casualties it did stop you from attacking a city. If I remember correct that river was the Yellow river although I forgot the city you Japs were besieging.

>>130621081
Or maybe and just maybe it's because America hasn't been in a major war for over 50 years so no one can grasp at the idea of a wartime America when the majority never lived in one.

China instantly, because the whole world would help her. I think we are all just waiting for a moment when America decides to attack one of the other super powers(russia/china), so we can oblitarte the yanks out of this planet. Like seriously who the fuck would even be on American side?

>>130628162
>Start a naval blockade, not one that escalates it into a hot conflict

No, a naval blockade will definitely escalate into a hot conflict, but the Americans won't be the ones that fire first. I'm saying the that the Chinese will start a hot conflict in reaction to a naval blockade. The US has to sell the war to their own population and the rest of the world. They'll want to be able to point at China and say "they started it". Remember WWII where Japan started a hot conflict in reaction to trade sanctions.


If the artificial islands are actually militarily significant, it supports my point that the US is not gearing for war. They're letting the Chinese build-up in the South Chinese Sea happen.

>>130628754

Nobody will be on American side tho this time. The whole world is fed up with them. Maybe if this happens 20 years from now and America changes, ok then other countries would help. But a chance in hell that other big countries would help them right now.

>>130610621

>American nuclear arsenal: 4,000 warheads
>Cumulative yield: 547 megatons
>Max range of ICBM's: 15,000 km

>Chinese nuclear arsenal: 260 warheads
>Cumulative yield: 111 megatons
>Max range of ICBM's: 14,000 km

And American ICBM's and SLBM's are much more accurate than Chinese equivalents.

>>130610641

The US beat the Japanese in their island hopping campaign and successfully invaded and occupied the mainland.

The US successfully fought off the North Korean invasion of South Korea and sent the Chinese army packing.

The US also sent troops to China during the Boxer Rebellion and kicked China's ass.

In fact, China hasn't won a war against a foreign power in 400 years.

>Sino-Vietnamese War, 1979
>China takes disproportionate casualties, loses more tanks than the enemy possessed, achieves none of its objectives, is forced to retreat back to China... declares victory anyway

>Sino-Soviet Border Conflict, 1969
>China fails to achieve any of its objectives, takes massive casualties; finally gets what it wants in 2004 by making concessions to Russia

>Korean War, 1950-1953
>China takes disproportionate casualties, fails to help North Korea invade South Korea, pulls out of the war when the US threatens to nuke Beijing

2nd Sino-Japanese War, 1931-1945
>China gets its shit pushed in, only gets bailed out by America fighting the Japs

>Soviet invasion of Xinjiang, 1934
>Russians annex half of Xinjiang, China can only cry about it

>Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
>China gets wrecked by a joint American-British-French-German-Russian-Japanese force of only a handful of troops vs literally millions of Chinese
>Chinese end up killing more Chinese than white people

>Japanese Invasion of Taiwan, 1895
>Japan just moves into Taiwan and rubs their balls on all of China's things, China screeches autistically but can't do shit about it

>1st Sino-Japanese War, 1894-95
>China takes massive casualties, lose just about every single battle

Cont.

>>130625818
Consider that we didn't actually attack China directly during the Korean war, any new conflict would almost certainly involve strikes on their infrastructure.

>>130628162
>Start a naval blockade, not one that escalates it into a hot conflict

No, a naval blockade will definitely escalate into a hot conflict, but the Americans won't be the ones that fire first. I'm saying the that the Chinese will start a hot conflict in reaction to a naval blockade. The US has to sell the war to their own population and the rest of the world. They'll want to be able to point at China and say "they started it". Remember WWII where Japan started a hot conflict in reaction to trade sanctions (basically the US and allies cut off their oil).


If the artificial islands are actually militarily significant, it supports my point that the US is not gearing for war. They're letting the Chinese build-up in the South Chinese Sea happen.

>>130628961

The other countries in the region are on the side of the US. Either they have their own beef with China, or they are basically occupied countries with American military bases. Unfortunately most of the world is America's bitch, this country included.

>>130611934
Do you think our objective was to hold Vietnam you dipshit? The objective of the Vietnam war was to exhaust the Soviets by forcing non-stop proxy wars around the globe. You remember, the Soviet Union, that country that no longer exists?

If the war is judged on stays, the US won every battle, destroyed the enemy infrastructure while the mainland was untouched, and killed the enemy at 60:1 before withdraw was decided and peace negotiated. Clear victory.

If the war is decided based on objectives: the spread of communism was achieved, the Soviet Union destroyed.

If the war is judged by results: No more USSR, China becomes a major trading partner, Vietnam becomes a friendly trading partner.

There is no sane analysis that could conclude anything other than total victory for the US in Vietnam.

>>130629057
There was this one idiot called McArthur who wanted to do such a thing and nuke China as well. But Truman had some brains and fired him. A new conflict would not result in us striking china's military infrastructure. To minimize military, political, and economic repercussions. Such conflicts don't last long.
>>130629164
Those islands are VERY militarily significant. and the US is always gearing for war against brown people somewhere. Now that they have military infrastructure on those islands, we can't blockade them there and they secure that stretch of the route. China has successfully pulled off a very wise geopolitical move and such an investment will serve China well.

>>130629044

>Sino-French War, 1884-85
>China surrenders to the French, of all people

>1st Opium War, 1856-1860
>China loses to British, French, and American drug peddlers

>1st Opium War, 1839-42
>China loses to British drug dealers, cedes Hong Kong

>Sino-Burmese War, 1765-69
>China takes massive casualties, loses

>Sino-Russian Border Conflicts, 1652-1689
>China manages to win a 'war' against Russian peasants and pioneers who have no military support, only taking 36 years to do so... still takes massive casualties

In every single war, the Chinese massively outnumber their enemy, but even when they have technological parity they still take disproportionate casualties and then give up. Shit, in the Sino-French War, the crew of three French ships went up against an army of tens of thousands of Chinese troops... slaughtering 2,000 or so Chinks and taking only 13 casualties themselves.

The only thing the Chinese are good at in warfare is dying by the truckload, and shooting unarmed Tibetans then calling it a 'war' and claiming victory.

>>130610347
the USA never fought a large uniformed organized military in Asia except for the Japanese, who we beat. We always fought commie insurgencies (which are hard to extinguish with doctrines meant for armies) and pulled out of vietnam and had a ceasefire in korea.

china's navy and airforce is literally a joke with no combat experience.
a big army means nothing without force projection.
US win every time

>>130629560
>the US is always gearing for war against brown people somewhere

To be fair, there are always brown people somewhere asking for war.

There are other stretches to enforce the blockade. If it's important like you say: the US let it happen. That says something about their lack of enthusiasm to go to war with China.

>>130629555

The Vietnam War is like the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

>US wins damn near every battle, inflicts massive casualties, and would have steamrolled North Vietnam if allowed to do so
>North Vietnam could never win so long as the US was in South Vietnam
>US finally pulls out because of commies at home demanding we quit
>North Vietnam invades South Vietnam, which apparently can't be bothered to defend itself, and declares victory

This is equivalent to beating the shit out of someone, wailing on him for thirty minutes, then when he's laying broken and bleeding, you walk away- and he calls you a pussy for 'running away' and announces he won the fight.

>>130629638
You forgot Japan raping the shit out of them before and during WWII.

>>130629971
Yes true. The only blockade the US has any sort of hope of pulling off is at the Strait of Malacca. Even then, the Chinese have thought of this and are now working on a pipeline through central asia. They aren't dumb you know. Gradually they well become ever more secure and then we can't really do anything against.

China is in a great position. They have an army just good enough to not be wiped by the US in a traditional conflict, and they have influence over the world to take number 1 in the economical factor. The US Army is larger, modern as fuck, but the resources the US would have to spend to cripple China would be too much. Let alone win the war. Too many loses, too much money, popular revolt like in vietnam but this time against a real army. And there's a scenario where if China manages to win some battles, it could have a domino effect.
In case of an all out war, both sides would be destroyed.

>>130630215
But we wouldn't blockade them, that is not how the USA does it. We would covertly fund Somalian pirates and other poor South Asian countries to attack their ships whilst spending billions that politicians and contractors will pocket most of that will later turn on us.

>>130610347
China
no question

>>130630387
China has the ability to protect the interest of its trading vessels, not to mention that an attack on Chinese shipping would draw international intervention. China infact has military base in Djibouti. It probably has naval capacity, can someone confirm?

Also if the war dragged on for too long, the USA trying to invade mainland China would look like that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAwRng7pom8

>>130625821

the US would not win anything with the JSF

>>130621355
hi newfriend.

look if Dim Sum wants to fuck with us we'll reduce China's population to 10 million overnight.

File: article-2540068-1AACCE4700000578-124_964x630.jpg (288KB, 964x630px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 964x630px

>>130630982
sure buddy

>>130620451
>there is no fairness if you do not let us cheat
hmmmmmmmmmm

File: Canada Poster.jpg (77KB, 800x522px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x522px

>>130630486
What Successful Wars have you waged again? Oh right you just enjoy riding our Dick to avoid war.

>>130610347
Well considering China never won a war in its entire history, my money's on us.

>>130630486
we pushed china's shit in way easier than the americans

File: amerifat btfo.png (153KB, 322x826px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 322x826px

>>130611849
>>130611554
>>130629555
>>130611543

Literally every time there are Amerifats who do this. Pathetic.

>>130633842
>Wikipedia

Anyone who has edited wikipedia before and dealt with the editors knows that wikipedia is a steaming turd and the editors are the biggest incel losers on the face of the planet.

>>130610738
kek

>>130632018
Thread agains china
>>Canadian poster defending chinks.

GO BACK TO CHINA YOU CHINK

>>130625974
Logistics tho
Electronic Warfare tho
Phased Array RADAR tho
Aircraft Carriers tho

Do you seriously thing China could wage an untouched air war against the US across the Pacific Ocean, Chang?

>landwar

You realize the US can just blockade China right? On a map China has a huge coast but there's a bunch of islands that makes it easy to blockade (Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan). That's why the Chinks want to build a pipeline through Pakistan so bad.

>>130610347
Russia. Same shit as WW2: the country that sits it out longest is in the best position at the end of the war.

>>130630215
The US thought of this too, hence Afghanistan.

>>130610738
GIMME SHELTER

>>130628683
Saudi Arabia and Israel

Remember that China was cucked by Japan, and Japan was cucked by the US, so by the laws of transitivity it follows that China would be cucked by the US.

>>130623937
lmao

>>130628095
>implying china hasn't had this exact same scenario play out numerous times in their history

All china has to do to fuck up the whole world is nuke Tokyo and Seoul. The global economy would crash.

File: 32413424321.jpg (57KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x450px

>>130610347
US has 13 k Airplanes China has 3 k. US has war based economy,nukes and navy that Chinese couldn't even touch.

>>130611704
>it ain't me starts playing

>>>/tv/

>>130613691
Taiwan and Vietnamese holding guard.

File: ChinaImperialismCartoon-460x656[1].jpg (473KB, 460x656px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 460x656px

>>130610347
>The greatest military power ever on earth
vs
>the chink cucks who got raped and pillaged by tiny Japan and have lost wars all throughout history against various nations

gee I wonder who would win

The U.S wouldn't do shit. It's one thing to invade Iraq where millions wanted Hussein dead. China is fiercely patriotic. There is no way the U.S could mount a ground assault. They could try to impose sanctions and blockade China like Cuba, but then China would seize any and all U.S assets in China. Want to know what that would do to the U.S economy? Now let's also consider that China can take out satellites. They could cripple the U.S network. And as for resources and man power, China is still a communist country with very little regard for human life. They could convert factories into war machines and send millions to farm and feed their army. This war won't happen but the U.S has no chance of winning. Neither does China though.

>>130633028
Canadians burned down the Whitehouse in the war of 1812. Burgers don't know their history.

>>130629044
The chinese are garbage. Japan literally and figuratively raped them multiple times. The chinese should be sucking America's cock for saving their ass.

Usa mainly due to a vast navy, multiple airbases, large air force, and a nation to create resources to continue a war while china might run out of fresh water in the next few decades and people breath air out of fucking cans

>>130610347

China would starve.

File: gee I wonder.jpg (127KB, 1318x350px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1318x350px

Yeah more troops are nice but technology and strategy is more important

>>130641740
THIS

Without superior tech and strategy more population simply means more dead chinks, not victory for the chinks

File: 1461086107864.jpg (88KB, 379x596px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 379x596px

>>130641740
>but technology and strategy is more important
>and strategy
>The what says the American general

After MacArthurs terrible strategies in Korea US has done away with strategic planning as a whole.From Vietnam search and destroy has been US plan to fight pretty much every conflict their in meaning that they come in they kill a lot of people then boast about their k/d -ratios and go home and leave whatever strategic importance they were fighting about in the first place to overrun by the enemy.

Without your economic output, massive tax revenues and technological advantage you'd already destroyed by China and Russia who lack everything else but have generals have the courage to scheme strategic plans beyond "let's kill a lot of people, claim vicotry and fly home before all the mothers start protesting in front of my house and the wife gives me the couch treatment".

>>130610347
Youre 100% wrong.

File: 1434919356510.jpg (2MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2000px

>>130610347
how I see it going If nukes disappeared and US/China Allies stayed out of the fight
First off I think US would eventually come out on top with high losses. China would slowly lose control of the air to USAF through precise strikes on military targets and electronic warfare. Once US bombers and fighters can operate in your airspace unchallenged its pretty much over. The USN will take control of the sea with Tomahawk strikes on naval targets and carrier ops. Ground forces will move in on strategic postilions along the coasts to allow more US troops and supplies to move in. moving further inland will take time but US having control of the airspace will shut down most movement of Chinese forces. I'm guessing 2-4 years till the US pounds Chinese forces and force a surrender, US troops have been in combat since 2001 in Afghanistan and 2003 in Iraq and I'm sure we all remember the shock and awe campaign (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NktsxucDvNI) and the US took out Iraqi AA systems which was considered to be pretty formidable at the time. China has conducted some Anti terror missions along its borders and maybe in other countries but most of its military has not seen real combat.

>>130624909
>michaelbei.webm
Lmfao

>>130627232
Pacific islands man.

>>130610347
>US has never won a landwar in Asia.
Neither has the PRC.

>can't win against tiny vietnam
>wants to defeat china in war
top kek

>>130645282
China couldn't win against Vietnam either tho

File: 1479862269247.jpg (150KB, 1012x1024px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1012x1024px

Invading the United States is real fucking hard. The only country that is succeeding is (arguably) Mexico

The US Navy is much larger (albeit carrier based) and thus hard to take out

Conversely the Chinese army is the largest in the world and is decently equipped. Only a large coalition could take them down

>>130645603

>Conversely the Chinese army is the largest in the world and is decently equipped. Only a large coalition could take them down

True as this is the Chinese military are a joke and I'm sure most of Merica's allies would be itching to shoot the chinese.

>>130610347
Depends on what the war goal is.

Any war of mainland invasion would be lost by the attacker.

If it's South China Sea control i think the US can win fairly comfortably if it commits and mobilizes accordingly

>>130610347
Good thing they aren't connected by land then isnt it? China's barely holding their country together as it is from unrest, the moment shells start falling on beijing it's ogre.

chinks start shit. USA drops a bunker buster on the Three Gorges Dam. millions of chinks drown and large parts of china gets wiped out.

>>130645282
vietnam defeated china after the US war in vienam and it cause more casualties.

>>130626428
Nobody talks about goku vs. Superman because they're "worried" about the fight. That's the fun of the hype.
>china
>commies
>giant capitalist tho
>our 'enemy'
Its bullshit. The real fight is the world stipping (((them))) anf islam.

>>130626357
No. The minute they start fueling their missiles we will pre-emptive strike them.

Chinas nuclear deterent is pathetic. Due to the communist parties internal paranoia they keep their missiles unfueled, seperate from the launchers, with the warheads not installed. Each component, warhead, missile, launcher, is under a different command structure, because of fear of nuclear coup.

A nuclear war against china would easily be winnable.

China may end up getting a few retaliatory strikes off, but they just dont have the capability to be a threat to the US on the whole, when you consider this would effectively be a full scale major war settled in a matter of hours, the US would probably come out ahead compared to a purely conventional war in that kind of exchange.

China would be much smarter to just write off their nukes entierly in this scenario, and engage in conventional conflicts in the hope that some sort of peace arangement could be negotiated, which it probably would given that the US could not invade mainland china very effectively at all.

>>130621032
The only reason of their victory was that they were fighting you, kek.
>tfw a platoon of Russians cucked a regiment of Chinks

>>130640207

That stings leaf.

>China
>man power
Yeah, no. The entire Chinese population are beta as fuck, if there's one over 4 foot 2 he's considered a freak and sent to the Chinese circus.
And have you ever bought anything from China? I can guarantee if the Chinese went to war, as soon as they opened fire, the gun would just fall to bits.

>>130610347
Mutually assured destruction.
Nobody wins.

There is quality and quantity and the US has both. China likes to pretends it has massive military power but its a little girl dressed up as a monster. We have the will, we just need an actual worthy enemy to band together and want to destroy, otherwise we waste our time looking for one in Vietnam and the middle east.

>>130610876
>losing political support for the war means burgers got BTFO in Vietnam

Look at the stats. It was probably the most one sided 'war' in history... Only a deluded dimwit would claim the Vietnamese achieved military victory

There isn't going to be a war.

If there were one, the PRC would be incinerated quickly and MAYBE a handful of PRC ICBMs would successfully make it to the US without being intercepted or blown up before launch and MAYBE a small number of those would successfully detonate causing civilian casualties in the US.

But like I say, there isn't going to be a war. The billionaires at the top of that communist empire don't want their comfortable lifestyle to end. So they'll back down when they believe the US is serious - like they are doing with Trump at the moment (and they did not do with Obama).

The PRC is falling apart, collapsing under the weight of its own absurdity, just like the USSR in the 70s. Everyone knows this.

>>130633095
>never won a war
>one of the largest countries, assimilated all its invaders

Really makes you think...

>>130638316
Right after they did that they would be destroyed. Once the nukes start flying it's GG. America now has justification for turning your country to ash.

But taking China out or China taking those cities out would effectively cause a global economic crisis.