China to deepen military cooperation with Russia

[Rosco T.]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-12/14/content_2330421.htm

China to deepen military cooperation with Russia: senior Chinese military officer

www.chinaview.cn 2004-12-14 00:00:00


BEIJING, Dec. 13 (Xinhuanet) -- China is willing to work with Russia to deepen bilateral military cooperation, and advance Sino-Russian strategic partnership of cooperation, said a senior Chinese military officer here Monday, according to Foreign Ministry sources.

Guo Boxiong, vice-chairman of the Chinese Central Military Commission, made the remarks when meeting with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, who is here on a four-day China visit as guest of Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan.

Guo said as an important part of the strategic partnership of cooperation between the two nations, bilateral military ties have kept strengthening in recent years.

The two armed forces have had frequent high-level visits and expanded their cooperation fields, Guo said. The security consultation system between the two sides operates well, he added.

As for the very complicated situation across the Taiwan Strait,Guo said the separatism activities of Taiwan authorities posed thebiggest threat to peace and stability across the strait.

He said the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) will never tolerate any attempt to separate Taiwan from China, which is a consistent and unchangeable stand of China.

Guo expressed appreciation for Russia's one-China principled stance on Taiwan issue.

Ivanov said Russia-China relations experienced remarkable progress over recent years. The military technological cooperationbetween the two sides continuously expanded and advanced.

He hoped the two armed forces will keep on their mutual-beneficial and friendly cooperation and exchanges.

With regard to Taiwan issue, Ivanov said Russia's one-China stance is steadfast and will not change in the future. Enditem

[bemildred]

1. Another stunning Bush foreign policy triumph.

He's a uniter, not a divider.

[Zorra]

24. AP/MSNBC Nov 1, 2004: "China lashes out at 'Bush Doctrine"

It seems that there is a possibility that this is a response to PNAC stated plans and recent actions that indicate an aggressive push to establish a global empire.

China lashes out at 'Bush Doctrine'
State-run paper: President 'trying to rule over the whole world'
The Associated Press
Nov. 1, 2004

BEIJING - On the eve of the U.S. presidential election, China accused President Bush of trying to “rule over the whole world,” saying the invasion of Iraq destroyed the global anti-terrorism coalition and worsened religious and ethnic conflicts.
snip---
It came in a commentary in a state newspaper by Vice Premier Qian Qichen, who criticized what he called the “Bush Doctrine” as a policy of pre-emptive military attack and a Cold War relic.

“It advocates the United States should rule over the whole world with overwhelming force,” said the lengthy commentary in the China Daily, an English-language newspaper aimed at foreign readers.

China has supported the U.S.-led war on terror, but is wary of Bush’s intentions. Beijing worries about Washington’s heightened presence in Central and South Asia, concerned that it threatens Chinese ambitions to be the region’s dominant military power.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6377949/

China Expands Military Buildup - Pentagon
May 28, 2004
By REUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China expanded its aggressive military buildup last year with more sophisticated missiles, satellite-disrupting lasers and underground facilities, all aimed at winning a possible conflict with Taiwan and exerting power, according to a Pentagon report.

Beijing has more than 500 short-range ballistic missiles, some with improved guidance systems, opposite Taiwan and its defense spending of $50 billion to $70 billion is third behind the United States and Russia, the report released on Friday said.
snip--
The war reinforced China's decision to speed acquisition of improved information technology and weapons mobility, it said.
snip---
Chinese arms buys were up 7 percent in 2003 with major purchases from Russia of 24 Su-30 fighter aircraft for $1 billion and SA-20 surface to air missile systems for $500 million.

http://www.taiwandc.org/nyt-2004-05.htm

And the American electorate allegedly selected Bu$h because they felt that he makes America safer?

How freaking stupid can these people be?

[Higans]

48. Devides you into red and blue.

tries to devide the world. Problem is The world has learned where he draws the line.

Does any ones vote count? I can't answer that question can you?

[Flagg]

2. Could the US take on simultaneously both Russia and China ?

I'm skeptical.

[Lone Pawn]

5. Easily.

Russia's a non-threat. Their army would collapse, and their navy's rusted.

Besides, the US Navy and US Air Force have unquestioned control of the sea and air. Quite simply, we cannot lose a war. We can, however, fail to win one--see Iraq and Vietnam. We could probably take Beijing and Shanghai within a year of the first bombs. We could even hold them. The problem is the degree to which the Chinese people feel Mao-era nationalism. If they're like us, we would have a democratic Chinese government in a five years to a decade. If they're like the North Vietnamese in the 60s, we'd never conquer China.

But as for defense against a potential invasion? Easily. The United States would be the hardest nation in the world to invade. I actually doubt the entire rest of the world, given 10 years, could pull it off without resorting to nukes.

[one_true_leroy]

6. I disagree with your assessment...

I think China in particular will have, if nothing else, a sheer numerical advantage. Also, their autocratic system removes the chance of offending civilian sensibilities, something that cannot be underestimated. I think they have more resolce for bloody battle than we would. Finally, their technology is not far behind us at all. They are masters at reverse engineering, and I'm sure that they have advance far in excess of their former Soviet tech weapons. Because of their secrecy (Russia held an open diletante throughout the Cold War... China seems MUCH more secretive), I worry what their true capabilities may be and am not so quick to dismiss them.

[RPM]

88. Agreed

In a conventional war, China has a strong numeric and <gasp> industrial advantage. They can out produce us in men and materiel.

In a nuclear war, it is moot - we all lose, dearly.

We had better get ourselves in line - of course the asshat at 1600 Penna. prolly doesnt care if we turn the earth into a convective oven.
:scared:

[fertilizeonarbusto]

7. Russia still has nukes

And they beat us in natural resources-and let's not even talk about both their levels of education compared ours. I wouldn't fuck with them.

[Lone Pawn]

29. First of all,

in a nuclear war all sides are dead. I'm talking about conventional war. Secondly, Russia may have the natural resources, but lacks an industrial base or the means to process their resources.

[TheKingfish]

103. China lacks an industrial Base????? LMAO

http://www.worldsteel.org/media/fastt/crudesteel.pdf

China produces more steel than the US and Japan combined.

[Minstrel Boy]

11. "Quite simply, we cannot lose a war. We can, however, fail to win one"

Nice semantic triumphalism you have going there.

[Lone Pawn]

28. There's quite a difference.

We failed to win the wars of 1812, Vietnam, and Iraq II.
Germany lost WWI and WWII. You fail to win when you cannot force terms of surrender. You lose when terms of surrender are forced upon you.

[jayfish]

17. This Is A Dupe And You Are...

out of your mind. Without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons we would be destroyed. Get a grip man!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1067220

Jay

[Lone Pawn]

30. Destroyed if we were to try a land invasion tomorrow, yes.

But as it stands, even Taiwan wins air combat wargames against China. After we have air and sea control around China, we play the WW2 game. Quite simply, we have the power to destroy their manufacturing base and armor reserves faster than they can rebuild them. Moreover, we have greater industrial capacity than both nations combined. Explain exactly how the Chinese are going to land troops in Los Angeles when every single wargame shows them unable to land troops in Taipei.

[Minstrel Boy]

104. We're not talking "Red Dawn" here.

The Chinese will not be landing troops in Los Angeles anytime soon. They wouldn't want to. Nor would a single soldier need to for Russian and China to defeat the United States in war.

I hope your veritable "Bring it on!" isn't echoed in Washington. But I rather suspect it is.

[Blue_Roses]

83. well said

there is no way we can take on China AND Russia--especially when we are so "liked" :eyes: in the world today!

[manic expression]

18. The Chinese people

would NEVER tolerate a foreign occupation. It would not matter if every Chinese person hated the PRC, they would still rise up against a foreign aggressor. The resistance in Iraq is not fighting for Saddam, but for an Iraq without American occupation (there are many different views on what they want Iraq to be, but this first reason is common to all). This would be the same, and to a much greater degree, in China.
The expanse of China alone would make it almost impossible for the US (and its allies if it has any) to gain control of the entire country. The US would be outnumbered and unable to cope with such a country even if it was successfully conquered.

[htuttle]

19. That's idiotic -- the US military can't even control Fallujah

You're living in a dream world. I hope the Masters of War at the Pentagon aren't under a similiar illusion.

on edit:
And regarding our vaunted control of the skies, have you read the report about the recent war games ("Cope India") between the Indian Air Force using Russian Su-30's and the US Air Force? Basically, they kicked our ass. Our control of the skies is going to come to an end soon.

[Lone Pawn]

27. There's a difference between an occupation and defense from an invasion.

I didn't say we could control China. What I said was that we could not be invaded. We have both air and naval superiority. Is the Chinese army going to walk to America?

[manic expression]

40. What about Korea?

The Chinese Army was able to overrun US forces rapidly and effectively. Even with complete air and sea superiority, the US ground forces were driven back until the Chinese finally outran their supply lines. Something very similar could happen in a modern day occurance.
Don't forget that in Iraq, our supply lines were almost severed, and horrible administrative actions left the effort very outstretched unnecessarily. I think you're overestimating the US Military superiority at this point.

[Lone Pawn]

64. Different situation.

First, our intelligence gathering capabilities were far less in the '50s, so air superiority meant less. Besides, the Chinese quite frankly surprised us with their intervention in Korea--we simply didn't have a chance to wear down their land strength. Conversely, any war between China and America would have a months-long bombing campaign before a single tank rolled its way onto American or Chinese soil.

Iraq was an experiment in the modern blitzkrieg. In some ways it succeeded, and in many ways it failed. But war with China would certainly not be a blitz. America's strength is its ability to fight a long-haul war--plain and simple, we start out stronger than the Chinese, and we can outlast the Chinese in traditional combat. Of course, when it turns asymmetrical, then America is still as lost as we were in Vietnam--but by that point by definition, we've neutralized Chinese military power--the primary objective, I would believe.

[neweurope]

71. "Experiment in the modern blitzkrieg". Oh my God, all the old

phrases and actions and even gestures (I hate to see * raising his right arm as he constantly does) are popping up again! It sounds to me as if you have no emotion in this. I indeed fear that we're at the eve of war...

And believe me, we would all lose it. Each and every human on this planet.

[manic expression]

101. China did not suprise us at all

The Chinese foreign minister warned the UN Security Council for months that China would not tolerate American advance to China's border with Korea. After we marched up to the border, suprise, suprise, the People's Army rolls over our lines at every turn. Even if we tried to bomb China, their defense capabilities are undoubtably 1,000 times better than the entire Middle East combined. Our bombing campaign would not be very effective, and the battle for the air could go either way. Nevertheless, even if we won air superiority, it would do little to hamper the advance of the Chinese giant marching into Iran (presuming it was fought there). We cannot outlast the Chinese in combat so easily as you make it seem. Their numbers alone make it a challenge, not to mention the completely idiotic administrative factor in American forces (you go to war with the army you have...).
Again, you lose sight of the bigger picture. We are bogged down in Iraq right now, under any scenario, China would come out swinging and we would be on our heels.
Well, now that our slaughter of Iraq has proved that our "blitzkieg" works and we are invincible, why don't we try to invade Europe since our "experiment" clearly indicates that we can't be beat? That is so wrong. Iraq was a lesson in a very powerful nation massacring a very depleted, desperate and demoralized Iraq. Good job America. Even with this we made monumental mistakes and did very poorly considering the circumstances.
Under the VERY BEST and a VERY UNLIKELY scenario, we would win a very costly half-victory and be decimated in guerilla combat. THAT is defeat, no matter how you look at it.

[Lone Pawn]

107. "come out swinging?"

Let's start with Korea: we honestly didn't expect the Chinese to throw 400,000 soldiers at us. We didn't. We thought it was a bluff; we thought they would think attacking the United States would lead to nuclear reprisal. MacArthur wanted to follow through on the threat. But we suddenly found ourselves fighting ten times the enemy we thought we would be fighting. It was a surprise. And the Chinese gain ground until America returns to its defensive lines and then the war stalemates.

But on to the Chinese "coming out swinging." Where? Are they going to invade the US by means of Iran?

First, the air battle is American. China does not have an adequate air force. They simply do not. They have very little in the way of modern air superiority fighters; most of their air force (which is still vastly outnumbered by our own) is previous-generation Russian-made fighters. In the Navy's wargames, even a combined United States Navy-Taiwanese joint air force achieves control over China. You see, the only fighter they have that's even remotely capable of achieving one-to-one parity with American fighters is the J-10, which isn't even in production. We outnumber them vastly. Our bombing campaign would be costly, true. But it would certainly be more costly for the Chinese.

If China were to declare war, we would immediately pull out of Iraq and/or Iran, potentially to India, depending on how Sino-Indian relations cool in the coming decade. We certainly wouldn't try to "hold them" in Iran or Iraq--that would be idiotic. Our strength is not our ground power; indeed our army is tooled for nation hopping at the moment. Our strength is our air and naval power. Without air power, the Chinese cannot win a prolonged war. Without naval power, the Chinese cannot leave their continent. And without naval power, the Chinese trade-based economy will certainly collapse.

And I firmly believe the numbers are on our side for a long war. Armies are equal. They have the population base. We have the economic base, the industrial base, the air strength, the naval strength, the technological edge, and NATO bound by the charter.

You're putting words in my mouth. You suggested we'd have supply problems. I said our supply lines were stretched in Iraq because we fought a fast war. The nature of combat in China would prevent that. Iraq was a test of blitzkrieg, and it worked spectacularly: even our most gung-ho planners didn't think we'd decimate the Iraqi regular army as fast as we did. Everything after that was abject failure, yes, but the first few minutes were perfect. Now, I never said we couldn't be beat or that we were invincible. I simply said that we were testing a faster form of war, and that it worked well against a weak nation--much better than a 1991 push to Baghdad would have. It did not work well for stabilizing the nation, but that is not the issue at hand.

I'm not suggesting we fight wars just because we can. I am, however, suggesting that if we did, we would not lose an armor-air war merely because we blundered an occupation.

[manic expression]

121. China would have the advantage.

Honestly not expecting a country to attack you is folly and military failure. Don't look at it in a different light because we "didn't think they would do it" because they did and we weren't prepared for it.
If China declared war, we would still be in Iraq and/or Iran. Do you think China will declare war and wait as we mobilize against them? Of course not. Same thing with Korea that you still deny: they will attack fast and hard and we won't be prepared for it. Tactical failure.
The air battle would be in America's favor, but that is granted that the battle even matters. It doesn't matter if you have the air if you're being overrun on the ground.
News flash: In case you haven't noticed, America produces next to nothing compared to China and other countries. China has much more of a capacity to fund a war effort, especially considering we are in debt and we rely upon China for a large portion of our imports.
Our armies are not equal, especially when we are in Iraq right now, and new recruits will be impossible to come by barring a draft.
What is the biggest factor which is not even being considered is that the Chinese would also fight with guerrilla tactics. Just to remind you, war isn't air and armor. It is anything possible. If we are withered down by hit-and-run warfare, then we lost the tactical war. Don't give me any of that "but, but, they aren't fighting fair! We would beat them if they were macho like us!", because that's not how war works. All you have to do is look at Hannibal in Italy to figure out that a relatively weak force can decimate a more powerful one through cunning, unorthodox tactics and sound strategic maneuvers.
The Iraqi Regular Army was nothing. While you wrongly believe that we have proven we can "blitzkrieg" because we sliced through the dismal and worthless Iraqi forces, the reality is that we fought a war with questionable tactics with absolutely no care for what really mattered (after the war, something which you don't even consider for some reason) against a piss-poor army and depleted nation. That does not prove anything.
The US fighting China would lead to the ruin of America on all fronts. Do not fool yourself into thinking such obvious falsities.

[tuckessee]

102. Intelligence gathering is better now?!?!?!

What were they doing back then? Arranging chicken guts and reading tea leaves?

Our intelligence now is so bad they haven't gotten one thing right in years.

9-11, Drones, Flowers in the Streets, WMD's, Bin Laden, the Occupation and on and on.

Since the US hasn't viewed China as an "enemy" since the early 1970's I doubt the Americans know Jack Shit about the true capabilities of the Chinese military.

[Lone Pawn]

105. Completely different kind of intelligence.

Figuring out what groups of people are going to think is a far different, far harder, far more subjective task than using satellite imaging and high-altitude drones to determine troop strength and location.

[LibertyorDeath]

22. LOL "Easily."

"Easily." Where to begin

You could sign up & help with the Tactical side of things.

I'm sure Dumsfeld needs a few "good men"

"we cannot lose a war" :)

[Lone Pawn]

31. I believe I am a strategic idiot, as is Rumsfeld.

Tactically, even Iraq was near-perfect.
It's been a strategic mess, though.

[VegasWolf]

35. Oh yeah, an advanced army rolls over civilians! What a triumph! n/t

[Lone Pawn]

39. A strategic catastrophe, but a tactical victory.

The ultimate win-the-battle-lose-the-war situation.

Take Fallujah. We certainly won the battle for Fallujah that took place over that week, and we won it spectacularly. But in doing so we actually made the ground situation worse in most of Iraq--including Fallujah itself, ironically. Tactical brilliance, strategic idiocy.

[manic expression]

42. Not really

You cannot look at war in terms of military tactics and the bigger picture while in separate frames. They are one. In every single war in history, you will find examples in which the greater strategy proved to be very influential in military tactics. How could Hannibal have held the Roman center at Cannae without the Gauls he acquired through diplomacy?

[Lone Pawn]

63. They are of course very tightly bound,

and strategic victories give tacticians freer hands, and vice versa. Similarly, in Iraq, our strategic incompetence gives us very difficult tactical problems. Nevertheless, you cannot deny that our army has succeeded tactically at nearly every level, and is failing strategically at such a level that all tactical victories are pyrrhic.

[Blue_Roses]

84. no way

"Tactically, even Iraq was near-perfect." Oh, come on...

First of all, there wasn't strong opposition--that is until now--and secondly, with no WMD and Saddam's terrible army, we basically just took out the playground bully.

Yeah, it's really going well over there:eyes:

You've been drinking too much of the kool-aide

[Lone Pawn]

108. It's not going well there at all. But that doesn't mean

we've had tactical failures. We've had many, many strategic failures. Tactical failures have been few and far between. Just as in Vietnam, we win almost whenever we engage the Iraqis. But, just as in Vietnam, a million meaningless "victories" don't mean anything.

[Nihil]

120. "Tactical failures have been few and far between"???

Each time an American soldier has died as the result of an ambush, that
is a tactical failure.
Each time an American soldier has shot unarmed civilians, that is a
tactical failure.
Each time an American plane bombs a hospital, that is a tactical failure.

> Just as in Vietnam, we win almost whenever we engage the Iraqis.

Ho ho ho ... 'tis the season to be jolly?

You've had your arse kicked in Fallujah twice now (first time resulting
in an ignominious retreat, the second time resulting in a Lidice-like
reprisal campaign to try to salve your wounded pride).

The only time you "win almost whenever we engage the Iraqis" is because
most of the time you are engaging UNARMED Iraqis!

"It's not going well there at all" ... that has to be the most inanely
stupid understatement of the year.

Nihil

[Massacure]

23. Sunburn = good game aircraft carrier.

[bin.dare]

26. Vietnam was a loss and ...

Iraq is looming as another one. Of course, you may have a peculier definition of win/loss that the rest of us do not share.

[Lone Pawn]

32. Vietnam was a loss for South Vietnam

it was a failure to achieve victory for America. At the end of the day, things were exactly the same for us as they were before the war started.

[bin.dare]

44. "failure to achieve victory" is a ... wait for it ...

a LOSS. A BIG LOSS when you sacrifice 58,000 US military lives to achieve it. Jeez, you are not one of those catastrophic success people, are you?

[Liberal Grant WI]

52. you honestly..

consider Vietnam a success??? in what terms?? we fled from their with our lives and left our world respect in shambles..in my eyes we still have not yet recovered from it...because what military success have we had since the so called victory of vietnam?? and don't say desert storm since that was daddy's war...

[bvar22]

58. IT's Rumsfeld...Rummy..He's here at DU.

Same delusional nonsense.
We didn't lose in VietNam...It was a glorius victory for America...

China?.... a cakewalk...less than a year!
I tell ya...this guy is Rummy Undercover....the mad Dr.Strangelove himself selling Globar WAR on the internet.

Come on...fessup! I know it is you !!


BTW: Have you checked on our Industrial Capacity lately?

Most of our Heavy Machine Industry has been outsourced....to CHINA.

[Lone Pawn]

68. I didn't say we won in Vietnam, I said we didn't lose by the same sense

that we would lose a war with China should the Chinese achieve ultimate victory.

And our industrial capacity still outstrips the Chinese, especially considering that so much of their economy is trade-based.

And I didn't say we should go to war with China. I only said that it was extremely likely that we would win. It would be bloody, yes. It would be expensive, certainly. But we would win.

But am I actually Rumsfeld? Of course! Only one man in America doesn't think our military would lose an open war against a military lacking an air force capable of even defeating Taiwan's and no navy to speak of, and that man is myself, Donald Rumsfeld.

[Lone Pawn]

62. Nope, Iraq is an unqualified failure. Here, let me explain what I meant.

Look, let me lay it out for you.

Iraq lost this war. We came in and destroyed the government, writing the terms of surrender.

America will fail to achieve victory in this war. We'll leave it to the insurgents, but will simply abandon it with no lasting damage, as opposed to surrendering. Since no terms of surrender are set, we do not "lose" the same we we would "lose" should China invade America and "win."

The insurgents will win. They will achieve all of their goals in Iraq.


Now, as pertains to China:

If we invade China, we would likely win the war. We have superiority in all aspects of our military. We would, however, most likely fail to achieve ultimate victory, and retreat back to within our own borders. On the other hand, the Chinese people are nowhere near as radical as the Middle East--I believe they hold the strongest resemblance to the 1920s Japanese, but I could very well be catastrophically wrong.

If we were to invade China and fail to turn them to an ally by force, we would fail to achieve victory, but not "lose." At the end of the day, our position is not severely compromised. The Chinese, however, would win.

If China were to invade us and achieve victory, we would lose. The Constitution would no longer exist.

If China were to invade us and fail to achieve victory, we would win, but they would not lose, unless we were to counter-invade and win.

See?

[Lizzie Borden]

56. No they weren't.

We lost all those soldiers.

[Lone Pawn]

67. While sad, losses were within 'acceptable' range by war's end.

Our capacity to wage war was not hindered.

And I mean acceptable in the military sense, not in the moral sense, so please don't hit me with that.

[neweurope]

73. The world considers you as having lost in Vietnam.

An attacking army that dosn't reach its goal and leaves country again (fleeing is the most common term) is considered having lost the war.

You talk of losses not "in a moral sense"? These are human lives. Ah yes, but the Bushistas term is "collateral damage" and the like.

[Lone Pawn]

110. Look at the first posts of this argument.

And look at the relevence of "losing" versus "not winning" when it comes to invading and being invaded. I admit we could not win a war with China--a Vietnam loss, if you will. We could not, however, WWII Germany Lose a war with China--a proper loss.

Next, the military doesn't care about moral losses. Military success is measured in power projection and denial, not outrage garnered.

[neweurope]

72. Minus a couple of dead and maimed people.

[ElementaryPenguin]

49. WTF? We can't be Iraq or Afghanistan, much less China and Russia

[Lone Pawn]

60. The US army is geared to fight symmetric wars, not asymmetric occupations.

[Liberal Grant WI]

50. reply again..

the thing is....why wouldn't countries use nukes in key areas of the US like DC and NYC??? that alone would cripple everything on the east coast let alone the entire US?!? then an invasion would be relatively easy especially if Russia/China uses Cuba as a launching pad for troops and weapons.. granted i hope it never happens though no one does. and also how can you tell us they would take beijing and shanghai?? oh come on!! we can't even control and police Iraq which wasn't a very nationlistic country and in China i believe they are. i just hope when someone does invade us and bring the fight here that the NRA are on the frontlines..because i know im not going to be..ill go to Canada and i have no bad feelings about it especially if Bush is a part of all of this

[Lone Pawn]

61. If you bring nukes into it, then all sides lose.

[neweurope]

74. You might go to Canada but you'll be brought back.

US-authorities can make arrests in Canada now. It's the "war on terror".

[bvar22]

57. Rumsfeld, Is that you????

Sounds sooo familiar.
Even asking his own questions, and then answering them.

March on Beijing and Shanghai?....a cakewalk! Less than a year.

[Lone Pawn]

66. Yeah, it's me, how did you guess?

As a lifelong sinophile, I'm not advocating war with China. I'm just saying that we probably wouldn't be defeated in open combat. Do I think we could maintain the country postwar? That's something I can't know. But does China have the military capacity to win a war against America? Heavens, no! But yes, I am certainly Donald Rumsfeld. I had a few hours off from f*cking up everything I touch to post comments on a partisan progressive site.

[0rganism]

77. much of the rancor directed at Lone Pawn in this thread is way out of line

Lone Pawn points out that, in his estimation, the Russians and the Chinese are in no position, even allied, to conventionally force a US surrender, and he has said much the same -- albeit for different reasons -- for our military. This is not a reason to act like jerks toward the guy. Dispute his analysis? Fine. But it doesn't have to be emotionally charged.

Personally, I think the major way it falls flat is by ruling out a nuclear war of some sort, as it's ultimately no-win. While true, I think it to be quite likely, perhaps starting on a small scale "tactical" exchange, and not to be excluded from consideration. Remember, we ourselves are not led by sane men, and the Russians and Chinese can hardly claim better. I think Bush would have zero compunction about launching the nukes if he thought it was in God's Plan for him to do so; we rely upon the earthly greed of his cabinet members to ward off such a catastrophe. Many of Bush's ardent followers would no doubt think of it as a fulfilment of their armageddonist fantasies. Question then is, how much "civilization" would be left on any given continent and is it sufficient to continue the war.

Regarding conventional warfare, I think Lone Pawn's pretty much spot-on as far as he goes. We have a military that is quite capable of taking almost any given single objective or sequence of objectives, even national capitols, very quickly. Holding hostile territory is much more difficult, prohibitively so. That said, much of the initial stage of such a war, Bob Help Us All, would consist of high-altitude bombing and cruise missile attacks against urban centers and ground radar installations. Any ballistic missile activity would be oriented toward destroying satellites. This would not be a "watch it on TV" kind of war, after the first 8 hours.

The United States, via the Air Force, has a definite advantage when it comes to the "jumping off point", but it gets increasingly tricky from then on. Once American troops are deployed on the ground in China and/or Russia, the situation becomes essentially unsalvagable. Having no conventional recourse, the remaining Russian or Chinese governments would certainly use whatever nuclear options remained after the air bombardments. How things unfold after the vaporization of LA, Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. and a few more major American cities are laid waste is anyone's guess.
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
My speculation? Full retaliation, possibly excepting those places occupied by American military, followed by a concerted effort from Mexico and Canada (increasingly concerned throughout this ordeal) to remove remnants of the Psychobush administration from power. Meanwhile, remnants of the confused and polarized American citizenry begin our second civil war, as "red America" begins its Purge of Sodomites. The urban populations, some previously decimated by nuclear holocaust, are at an initial disadvantage, but there are already other foreign powers entering the American fray from the borders. National Guard such as are not assigned to overseas duty attempt to preserve "order" through martial law while repelling the invaders, but are generally ineffective as factionalism overwhelms unit cohesion. The troops deployed in Asia have long since lost contact with "home base", and are now playing a dangerous occupation game in a situation where they continue to have military superiority but have weak logistical support. Long-range communications are spotty everywhere, due to the incredible destruction among major communications hubs, and they will get much much worse within a month. Food and water are already scarce all around, and anything near the various "blast zones" is as good as poison -- not that it matters to the former inhabitants.

Elapsed time since beginning of hostilities: 3 days, tops.

Let's do everything we can to make sure it never comes to this.

[Lone Pawn]

113. Thanks.

Nice to know that there are some who can disagree without calling the other guy freeper.

[NickB79]

78. LOL

"We could probably take Beijing and Shanghai within a year of the first bombs. We could even hold them."

Three words for you, with regard to fighting the Chinese military on their own turf: human wave attacks. With a population of over 1 billion, it wouldn't be too hard to get the required men (and women) to swell the ranks.

[Lone Pawn]

99. And three sets of two words for you:

Carpet. Bombing.
For. Months.
Before. Invasion.

With air superiority, you can grind their army until you achieve dominance. And you wouldn't invade a minute before that.

[PsychoDad]

79. Didn't china...

Pretty much hand our butts back to us in the Korean conflect? They almost completly drove us from the penensula.

[shadowknows69]

80. doesn't mean they won't try

you really believe everything they said about us having the most technologically advanced and unbeatable army huh? this is the age of the microchip kids. everybody can have everything if the price is right. "russia's ships are rusty?" good one. yeah I'm sure they're in much worse shape for being idle than our ships are from constantly bopping around the globe using up ammunition and fuel.

[Lone Pawn]

114. Russia's ships really are rusty.

No, I'm not kidding you. Nearly half the St. Petersburg fleet is unseaworthy. America is the world's dominant naval power, bar none.

[shadowknows69]

118. how long have you been a russian ship rust inspector?say that 5 times fast

lol. I believe you dude I was just saying they're not today's top of the line maybe but they aint a bunch of outrigger canoes either. top of the line for the cold war anyway and many of them just as nuclear capable as ours.

[Lone Pawn]

119. Yeah, nuclear capability really makes all conventional warfare talk

academic at best.

Speaking of outrigger canoes, perhaps Polynesia is an untapped ally in the War on Terror...

[shadowknows69]

82. oops

[Journeyman]

13. Oh, we could take 'em on, no problem. . .

Would we have a chance outside of hell to prevail? Not likely without liberal use of nuclear arms. And I do believe that'd be one time when ShrubCo would happily go "liberal."

[VegasWolf]

14. I doubt if we have enough footsoldiers to quell an uprising in Starbucks

[Lone Pawn]

65. We have more than enough soldiers...

they just aren't part of the military yet.

1. In case of war with China, we're out of Germany, Afghanistan, and Iraq immediately.
2. There will be a universal draft.

[neweurope]

75. Couldn't you please get the * out of Germany before your war with China?

Having enemy troops entrenched within my own country makes me feel kinda uneasy.

[Lone Pawn]

98. My war? I don't want war. I'm just saying I don't think we'd lose it.

[NNN0LHI]

25. I don't want to ever find out the answer to that question Flagg

There is no doubt such a war would go nuclear within the first few days. At that point those still living would be envious of the dead. There is no fucking winners here.

Don

[Lone Pawn]

69. It might not go nuclear.

Actually, both the Chinese and Americans are fundamentally pragmatic. Neither are idealistic enough to damn their nation to destroy the other. I can see it going nuclear, but it would be a very, very difficult choice for either side to make to fire the first missile, and an even more difficult choice to make for the other side to fire the second.

[shadowknows69]

81. bush would launch without hesitation

[Liberal Grant WI]

46. Nope

just thinking about pure numbers China easily can send waves upon waves of troops. Russia still has a somewhat strong military but not as strong of course during the Soviet Union "glory days". US can't fight the battle against them now especially when we can't even win our so called war on terrorism and of course our war for oil.

[colonel odis]

86. we can't even beat iraq. what do you mean russia and china? n/t

[Lone Pawn]

3. I wouldn't blow this out of proportion.

They're just reaching out to all possible allies. As long as China and the US are economically dependant on one another, I don't think we'll see a Sino-American cold war--not as long as their economy relies on US investment and our dollar relies on Chinese loans.

[VegasWolf]

10. That's why China reduced their investments in US Treasury Notes

from 530 bln to 160 bln last year. Get over it.
China is number 1 economically in the world. They
are the world's largest exporters and importers. We
need them for loans one hell of a lot more than they need us.

[Lone Pawn]

34. Number one?

Excuse me?
First of all, China's top five importers and exporters are all either the US or US allies--and their growth is based entirely on foreign trade.

That said,

China's GDP: $6.449 trillion
Military expenditures: $60 billion

America's GDP: $10.99 trillion
Military exenditures: $370.7 billion

Yes, I can see how they blow us out of the economic water.

[VegasWolf]

36. What other numbers do you have up your ass! Bye! I don't talk

to morans!

[Lone Pawn]

37. Up my ass? Try the CIA World Factbook:

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

[NNN0LHI]

45. Welcome to DU Lone Pawn. That is just VegasWolf's way of showing...

...he likes you. Really. Don't let it get you down and thanks for the link with the info.

Don

[VegasWolf]

54. Thanks, NNN! LOL, but economic theory is a little more complex than

two GDP numbers from the CIA site this guy quoted.
China is the largest
exporter and importer in the world. Most economists
recognize China's emerging dominance. With our
crippling deficit, loss of manufacturing jobs, and
general economic malaise we are in no condition to tackle
anyone. This guy was just talking so much nonsense
all over this thread, i just had no energy to argue.

[NNN0LHI]

55. I don't know jack about economics

But I enjoyed reading you guys "discussing" it. Perhaps I can learn something and not be so ignorant on the subject in the future? Take care for now and see you later.

Don

[Lone Pawn]

59. And China's economy is based entirely on this importing and exporting.

So explain to me why our economy would collapse because China tries to collect on loans and the US refutes all Chinese debts due to state of war, and China's economy remains afloat despite the fact that their biggest trade partners are all allies legally bound to embargo China in event of war with the United States.

[VegasWolf]

92. I think it would take too long to explain it to you.n/t

[Lone Pawn]

112. I'm not stupid.

You're the one, I recall, who didn't recognize something as basic as GDP numbers, but I'll just assume you did the smart thing and asked for my sources. What I know is that China's economy is growing at ridiculous rates--entirely along the Eastern seaboard, centered in the Shanghai and Guangzhou economic zones. I know that Chinese investors are overspeculating, and financing construction with loans to be paid with revenue made from future stock gains. I know that foreign trade with NATO, Australia, South Korea, and Japan provides the vast majority of its economic growth, and I know that in event of war all trade will immediately cease between said nations and China. Now explain what keeps the bubble from bursting. I'm an intelligent enough person, I've taken a few classes, I read the Economist every week, so don't hesitate to use jargon.

[neweurope]

76. Maybe you should read up on PNAC.

Makes very interesting reading. So far the Bushistas have been acting upon it page by page.

:scared:

[goforit]

93. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

[Lone Pawn]

111. I've read more than you think.

I subscribe to several foreign affairs journals. I know all about PNAC. They're not the only neocon think tank in the world, you know.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

4. Chess Masters! We're in Check

If China decides to call in our debt and Russia wants free reign and our military is over extended and we're broke, aren't we screwed?

[mauritanian]

8. Non issue

Not to be picky, but just how would China call in our debt?

The treasury notes they purchase are not callable. All they could do is re-sell them on the open market, and take a big hit of a discount if they did that because the US Dollar has been cheapened (which is good for us).

Going forward, if they decide not to reinvest in US treasury bonds as the ones they hold mature or with more of their cash they generate; the effect would be that the United States would have to up our interest rate to attract other investors to our treasuries, not hard to do because we have done it time & again in the past.

Trust me, I understand these things.

[spotbird]

20. As we raise our interest rate our debt increases,

the value of the dollar declines making it increasingly less attractive as the international currency of choice. The euro then replaces the dollar as the preferred currency in Asia and the Middle East.

Meanwhile back at home the increasing interest rates put a strain on already overextended middle class users of consumer credit, so they buy less. Imports are getting more expensive and necessities like food and energy (both of which we import more of than we produce) take such a cut from consumers budgets that discretionary spending on cars and washing machines declines further.

The housing market bubble pops because there aren't that many people who can purchase outrageously overpriced homes at 10%.

[mauritanian]

90. Or a meteor could hit earth and kill us all.

settle down.

[spotbird]

91. So you think that the international community is going

to keep loaning us as much as we want to borrow, and never use this power to influence policy?

A meteor hitting us is far more likely.

[VegasWolf]

95. Exactly right! n/t

[billyoc]

87. Welcome to DU, mauritanian.

:hi:

Do you mean that the Chinese don't have any T-notes that are callable at all, or just that most of the ones that they're buying lately aren't.

[mauritanian]

89. t bills are not callable, you can just resell them in the open market.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

9. Precisely

Yet one more step towards American irrelevancy and the fading of the last great hope for democracy. Thanks again, rethugs. But, at least those fags can't marry.

[VegasWolf]

16. Shhh! just move your money out of the country before the Freepers

catch on.

[Endangered Specie]

12. USSR II.

[VegasWolf]

15. and Chimpanzee want's to start a trade war with China over textiles.hah!

[Anakin Skywalker]

21. All Right! More News

to cause anxiety among the American rightwing. This is great! Some of these jack-offs are holdovers from McCarthy days.

[VegasWolf]

33. Is there anything that chimpanzee can't fuck up? Boy do I feel safe, not!

[proud patriot]

38. bush is a baffoon

:eyes: lord help us

[VegasWolf]

41. or, is that 'babbon'? n/t

[are_we_united_yet]

43. Oh shit! n/t

[goforit]

94. Tic Toc Tic Toc..........

[ElementaryPenguin]

47. So much for BushCo Empire! This alliance kicks our ass!

:puke:

[Lone Pawn]

115. Yes, I'm certain that a non-binding agreement between Russia and China

is far more powerful than the binding agreements between the United States, NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, despite the fact that Russia is a nonentity, and has been since 1993.

[Sara Beverley]

51. This will also be part of the GW Bush legacy.

How to bring about the demise of the most powerful democracy on earth.

[biglake]

53. War for real.How does that feel? Worthy opponents.

Makes me realize how pathetic our excuses for invading poor Iraqi people.
We really are ugly americans. Bush will be out of his league and we will fear as never before. They are tired of the Texas bigmouth. They want that oil too.

[donheld]

70. Is it just me or

does it appear more everyday that U.S. = Screwed?

[Tripmann]

85. Just a quick point people..

..it takes two sides to fight a war, Iraq was NOT a war, it was an invasion, a massacare, a slaughter, but NOT a war. And the US can't even nail down that country despite crippling it. China? Not a hope in hell unless you're planning on vapourising 1 billion people, and risk having a counterstrike.

Anyway, the holy war isn't against the chinese OR the russians.

Tripmann

[goforit]

96. Point well taken.

[VegasWolf]

97. Exactly! n/t

[w4rma]

100. This is the biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of the US.

Easily the biggest. This is worse than the Iraq occupation, although admittedly the Iraq occupation is probably a big reason for this happening as that single error made the U.S. a parah in every corner of the world AND tied nearly all of American forces up there for the forseeable future.

[Laurab]

106. Our military may be superior....but....

Aren't we kind of busy for the forseeable future? And holding "backdoor" drafts because we don't have enough troops? I don't really think it's a good idea to be thinking about war with other countries (Iran, China, N. Korea, who knows who'll be next), when we don't have any warriors. As bullying and arrogant as this administration is, they have to be aware that you do need manpower to fight in a war. I think?

[genieroze]

109. Oh, how freakin lovely. eom

[Rochambeau]

116. Another mission accomplished Emperor Bunnypants !

It's worst than the Cold War. At the time, for the good of all of us for sure, USSR and China were enemies...

Definetely the Chimp is a champion... That bastard will not stop until he will fuck absolutely EVERYTHING up !

[DireStrike]

117. *IF* such a war were to start, it would go nuclear.

One nuke inside the US. Probably a major city, but nothing too damaging to the economy. Detonated by enemy forces or by hawks hiding in the shadows of our government.

And then Hannity would come into play.

"You don't even want us to use tactical nukes? After what they did to (city)? These are small nukes, and they only want to use them on military bases - isolated outposts. Furthermore, they're designed to bury the resulting nuclear waste in the explosion. Why do you hate America?"

Then it's only a matter of time until a "mistake" nuke of a small city, then a larger one, then a larger one, and hell there's so much radiation there anyway we might as well just take out their infrastructure while we're at it. There's still plenty of arable land, right? And all we have to do is crack down on the dissidents at home, make sure we keep all the dangerous ones behind bars, and they can't nuke us here. Unless somebody makes a mistake. But that won't happen. Right?