Could the US take China as they did Iraq in a conventional war

MooseJam

What do you think folks could the US invade and take red China in a conventional war

Rew

not a hope

Manic Moran

Invade? Not easily. Defend someplace like Taiwan against invasion, should do.

NTM

minidazzler

nope, They would end up with a very large insurgency. They'd be Fecked.

Steyr

Not a hope, then again tactically dropping Nuke's might help.. didnt you know all those internet cafe's are Op's!:p

Prolatarian

There's not enough bullets for a start,and the only way to get enough bullets would be to have them made in China,and they might smell a rat.:D

crianp

The U.S could so take China, they may not have the numbers but the Chinese military is ineffecient and when was the last time they fought a war? The U.S has a boat load of veterans after Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention a state of the art navy, airforce, etc... They would need to hit a couple of key cities and the Chinese would be sent back to 5000BC

Prolatarian

They may be able to defeate the Chinese army but they could never hope to hold the ground due to insurgency.

Manic Moran

It would be interesting. Despite the fact that they invented gunpower, there's no firearms culture in China, such as there is in Arab nations. Private ownership of firearms in China is a bit of a non-runner: The Party finds it a lot easier to stay in power when the People have no guns. As a result, whilst maintaining civilian compliance would be almost impossible, I don't think the insurgency would be that huge.

NTM

Prolatarian

Where do you think the weapons from the army would go.

Cato

If any group would contest American occupation it would have to be the die hard communists, but in a conventional war i think America would win even without tactical nukes, American technology, intelligence gathering and surgical strikes at strategic locations would be one of the main factors in chinas defeat i would say.

MooseJam

I don't think there would be much of an insurgency if any if the US invaded China, I'd imagine they might get the welcome that they expected but didn't get in Iraq

Manic Moran

Prolatarian wrote: »

Where do you think the weapons from the army would go.

US Storage.

If the People's Liberation Army takes offense at the US incursion, and fights its damndest against the invaders, the arms will be found amongst the bodies and those who have surrendered.

If the PLA decides it's going to rebel and generally do an Iraq-1991, they're going to surrender right off the bat.

And do you think the Party thinks it is so loved by the People that if it hands out SKs left, right and centre before the conflict, that they are totally confident they will not be used against them?

NTM

Riddle101

I think it would all lead to a stalemate basically. China has more numbers and also has nukes so if USA did try to nuke them you can be sure China would counterstrike. The US on the other hand have trouble dealing with Asians as we've seen with Vietnam and Korea(I'm Not trying be racist) but The US army has changed over the years, and so has the Chinese army as well

delos

Not a chance.

Where do you think any staging area for the build-up to invasion will be? Looking at the land borders I don't see any that would be friendly so your talking about an airborne / amphibious attack. Even if a viable beachhead was established the logistics of deploying and supplying the forces required to break out would be incredible.

While you might not get so much of an armed insurgency you could get civil disobedience on a huge scale (there is no guarantee that American troops will be seen as 'liberators') and I'm not sure how well equipped the US forces (or any army) are to deal with unarmed protesters without losing public opinion big time.

Steyr

crianp wrote: »

The U.S has a boat load of veterans after Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention a state of the art navy, airforce, etc... They would need to hit a couple of key cities and the Chinese would be sent back to 5000BC

Arent they already there?:p

geekGirl

The US in Vietnam with Korean and WW2 veterns couldn't beat the NVA. They were also fought to a stalemate in North Korea, again with an army with a large number of battle hardened troops. They would be screwed if they fought a conventional war in China. They would kill a lot of Chinese people but that alone doesn't ensure victory.

The Chinese themselves would get aid from all those countries who would like to see the US get a royal screwing. The Chinese people, in a soecity that is more repressive than anything in the west but not more so than any other Chinese government in history would definately not welcome the US as liberators. I reckon the communist party wouldn't have too much to fear from arming their people in an emergancy situation like a full blown US invasion. What have they got to loose. Its all pie in the sky anyway, if the two ever fight it will be in a proxy war like Vietnam or with nukes.

Re Gun control in China (a seperate issue in itself but interesting when thinking about any potential problems controlling a newly acquired civilian population.)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-04/21/content_856308.htm

"Official figures show that from last June to September, police confiscated about 178,000 illegal guns.....Wu said at a press conference last year that although the production, sale and stockpiling of guns and explosives had been decreasing nationwide since 2001, the problem was still "severe" in some areas, such as in Hualong County in Northwest China's Qinghai Province."

Thats a lot of guns for any potential insurgancy to use a base

TerrorFirmer

Not a chance in a conventional war. China maybe behind the US, but they're not remotely as behind as some people seem to think. Not to mention, both the size of China and the sheer impossibility of building up an invasion force large enough to sufficiently make headway without drawing attention or capable of defending itself.

Kaiser_Sma

The outcome of this depends largely on the objective, in a pure invasion with the intent of waltzing and walking out, the americans have a good chance. The reason vietnam and iraq look so badly is because they are a stationary force defending themselves from an illusive insurgency.

The numbers game looks in chinas favour but there are a number of issues that the figures don't show.
China is a massive country and military is spread around it with a number of maratime duties and as a result is largely unspecialised.
The technology gap is still large and isn't getting any smaller, alot of chinese weapons are slightly poorer copies of soviet and russian hardware. In straight up combat this really shows.
As i understand it the chinese military is still structured in a very old fashioned way, with the majority of people on the fighting end and very few relativly in logistics. The US army is the opposite.

Before the war the US will largely cut off the chinese economy, the two countries have a very symbyotic relationship (china invests primarily in america and the US borrows from china. A huge proportion of chinese investments are in the US doller) in this department and although it will hurt america, it is generally assumed that the effects in china would be catastrophic in comparison. This would severly weaken china before an invasion.

If the americans only have to take the economic and urban centres on the east coast, they have a good chance of winning, however if they undertake the ridiculous objective of swanning through the whole country engaging every part of the peoples army and conquoring every town, they will be overstretched and there supply lines long and vunerable to partisans. The result will be another humiliation.

delos wrote: »

Not a chance.

Where do you think any staging area for the build-up to invasion will be? Looking at the land borders I don't see any that would be friendly so your talking about an airborne / amphibious attack. Even if a viable beachhead was established the logistics of deploying and supplying the forces required to break out would be incredible.

South Korea and japan already have substantial amounts of american troops and could both make suitable staging areas. Although it would depend on the political climate.

headzilla

It'd be the equivalent of the Germans invading Russia in WW2

Prolatarian

headzilla wrote: »

It'd be the equivalent of the Germans invading Russia in WW2

That was a very close run thing.

Manic Moran

If it wasn't for the fact that Hitler was such a lousy commander, they might have pulled it off.

NTM

MooseJam

I'd say the pentagon would have contingencies for this, they have plans for everything just in case, have probably played a lot of war games

Prolatarian

Manic Moran wrote: »

If it wasn't for the fact that Hitler was such a lousy commander, they might have pulled it off.

NTM

He was going well until he got fixated on stalingrad

MooseJam

Prolatarian wrote: »

He was going well until he got fixated on stalingrad

yea he should have just encircled stalingrad and head for Moscow, bit silly trying to take it just because of the name

Cato

Prolatarian wrote: »

He was going well until he got fixated on stalingrad

and moscow

Prolatarian

MooseJam wrote: »

yea he should have just encircled stalingrad and head for Moscow, bit silly trying to take it just because of the name

You woudent mind only he said it himself that it wasent important and that all that materd in the south was the cacuses oil fields.

purple'n'gold

MooseJam wrote: »

What do you think folks could the US invade and take red China in a conventional war

Absolutely no chance, the very idea is laughable.

Manic Moran

geekGirl wrote: »

The US in Vietnam with Korean and WW2 veterns couldn't beat the NVA.

There was no end of political constraints in that war. I get the feeling the military's hands would be much less tightly tied in a hypothetical against China. It wasn't a military failure, it was a political one.

NTM

purple'n'gold

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was no end of political constraints in that war. I get the feeling the military's hands would be much less tightly tied in a hypothetical against China. It wasn't a military failure, it was a political one.

NTM

I agree, and don’t forget North Vietnam had the backing of the entire communist world, in some shape or form.

spank_inferno

Even in an invasion the US would win.
Obviously the nation is too large and populous to occupy.
But in a straight up war the US military is too well equiped.
From what I've heard (limited enough) the chinese military structure is poorely organised with poor logistics, training, moral & a command structure based too closely on officers/generals climbing the communist party ladder.

But it would make for a hell of a lot of war movies!

silverharp

As Al Murray said there wouldn't be enough bullets for a start, the only way would be to get the Chinese to make them and I think they would smell a rat!

Kaiser_Sma

Theres more then enough bullets to kill everyone in the world several times over.

headzilla wrote:

It'd be the equivalent of the Germans invading Russia in WW2

Well actually it would be like the germans invading russia at the start of the war.
But the germans only really wanted the choice cuts of russia i.e. infront of the urals. If the americans only went for the fillet of china they'd have a much better chance.

purple'n'gold

Cato wrote: »

If any group would contest American occupation it would have to be the die hard communists, but in a conventional war i think America would win even without tactical nukes, American technology, intelligence gathering and surgical strikes at strategic locations would be one of the main factors in chinas defeat i would say.

Don’t forget, the Chinese have nukes too, and would use them a hell of a lot faster than the USA would.

Cato

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Theres more then enough bullets to kill everyone in the world several times over.



Well actually it would be like the germans invading russia at the start of the war.
But the germans only really wanted the choice cuts of russia i.e. infront of the urals. If the americans only went for the fillet of china they'd have a much better chance.

this post makes me hungry!

Oilrig

Would have thought this would have ended up in the Walter Mitty forum... :rolleyes:

geekGirl

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was no end of political constraints in that war. I get the feeling the military's hands would be much less tightly tied in a hypothetical against China. It wasn't a military failure, it was a political one.

NTM

Perhaps - that attitude would casue the use of nukes though...

Tabnabs

I think you're underestimating the Chinese (however, how long they could hold out...):

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the SIPRI Yearbook 1999, the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal is about 400 warheads. The Bulletin estimates that 20 nuclear-armed missiles are deployed in the intercontinental role, and another 230 nuclear weapons on deployed (or can be deployed) on aircraft, missiles, and submarines with regional capabilities. The 150 remaining nuclear warheads are believed to be reserved for "tactical" uses (short-range missiles, low yield aircraft-dropped bombs, and possibly artillery shells or demolition munitions).

The Dong Feng-5 (DF-5) liquid-fueled missile, first deployed in 1981, has a range of 13,000 km and carries a single multi-megaton warhead.

The DF-5's range gives it coverage of all of Asia and Europe, and most of the United States. The south-eastern US states are at the edge of the missile's range.

In 2000, the total estimated personnel strength of the Chinese military is 2.5 million, of which 1.8 million are in service with the PLA (ground forces).

There are also numerous reserve and paramilitary units, some of which do not fall under the direct control of the PLA. The PLA reserve component has about 1.2 million personnel divided into 50 infantry, artillery, and air-defense divisions. In addition, approximately 1.1 million personnel serve in the People's Armed Police, which includes internal security and border defense forces under the control of the Ministry of Defense.

China's tank inventory has numbered around 10,000 for three decades.

The People's Liberation Army Air Force, PLAAF, currently possesses about 4,350 aircraft, of which the majority are combat aircraft.

China embarked on a large submarine building program in the 1960s, which tapered-off in the late 1980s, which included many diesel-electric patrol submarines and some nuclear powered submarines. Many of the diesel-electric submarines from that construction period are now in reserve. Recently, construction and acquisition of new submarines has begun to intensify.

Since the 1972, the number of ships and overall tonnage of China’s surface combatants has increased at a steady rate. The increase is expected to continue for the next five years, but may decline after that if no new construction or acquisition programs are undertaken. (See Chart 4.)The most recent additions to the Chinese Navy are two Russian-built 'Sovremenny' class destroyers. These ships, the first of which was delivered in February 2000, are the largest and most powerful surface warships ever operated by the Chinese Navy. Their most formidable weapon is the SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic sea-skimming ASM, of which eight are carried. The Sovremenny is also armed with the SA-N-7 'Gadfly', which will give China a limited naval air-defense capability. Up to now, China has possessed only short-ranged SAMs of French or domestic design

However, China's military is outdated and in desperate need of modernisation.

The real question is; who else would get involved if such a conflict took place

Kaiser_Sma

Dyflin wrote: »

I think you're underestimating the Chinese (however, how long they could hold out...):

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the SIPRI Yearbook 1999, the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal is about 400 warheads. The Bulletin estimates that 20 nuclear-armed missiles are deployed in the intercontinental role, and another 230 nuclear weapons on deployed (or can be deployed) on aircraft, missiles, and submarines with regional capabilities. The 150 remaining nuclear warheads are believed to be reserved for "tactical" uses (short-range missiles, low yield aircraft-dropped bombs, and possibly artillery shells or demolition munitions).

The Dong Feng-5 (DF-5) liquid-fueled missile, first deployed in 1981, has a range of 13,000 km and carries a single multi-megaton warhead.

The DF-5's range gives it coverage of all of Asia and Europe, and most of the United States. The south-eastern US states are at the edge of the missile's range.

In 2000, the total estimated personnel strength of the Chinese military is 2.5 million, of which 1.8 million are in service with the PLA (ground forces).

There are also numerous reserve and paramilitary units, some of which do not fall under the direct control of the PLA. The PLA reserve component has about 1.2 million personnel divided into 50 infantry, artillery, and air-defense divisions. In addition, approximately 1.1 million personnel serve in the People's Armed Police, which includes internal security and border defense forces under the control of the Ministry of Defense.

China's tank inventory has numbered around 10,000 for three decades.

The People's Liberation Army Air Force, PLAAF, currently possesses about 4,350 aircraft, of which the majority are combat aircraft.

China embarked on a large submarine building program in the 1960s, which tapered-off in the late 1980s, which included many diesel-electric patrol submarines and some nuclear powered submarines. Many of the diesel-electric submarines from that construction period are now in reserve. Recently, construction and acquisition of new submarines has begun to intensify.

Since the 1972, the number of ships and overall tonnage of China’s surface combatants has increased at a steady rate. The increase is expected to continue for the next five years, but may decline after that if no new construction or acquisition programs are undertaken. (See Chart 4.)The most recent additions to the Chinese Navy are two Russian-built 'Sovremenny' class destroyers. These ships, the first of which was delivered in February 2000, are the largest and most powerful surface warships ever operated by the Chinese Navy. Their most formidable weapon is the SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic sea-skimming ASM, of which eight are carried. The Sovremenny is also armed with the SA-N-7 'Gadfly', which will give China a limited naval air-defense capability. Up to now, China has possessed only short-ranged SAMs of French or domestic design

However, China's military is outdated and in desperate need of modernisation.

The real question is; who else would get involved if such a conflict took place

well the original question was for a conventional war. So assuming the chinese and americans don't use their nuclear arsenal. In an atomic slugging match, it's safe to say that america would come out tops (although probably missing a few cities at least.)

Well any way lets compare these chinese stats to the americans

Active personel:
US - 1.4 million
China - 2.5 million

Reserves:
US - 1.4 million
China - 2.3 (including PAP)

Ground forces:
US - 0.5 million (regulars) , 0.2 million (marines, non-reserve)
China - 1.8 million

Tanks:
US - 6,000 (MBT's only)
China - 10,000

Combat Aircraft:
US - 2,500
China - 2,300

Attack Helicopters:
US - 2,300
China - 60

Navel Vessels:
US - 280
China - 100

These are all approximate values rounded off, there may be some disparity in terms of classification.

purple'n'gold

China Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 281,240,272
females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

USAManpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 54,609,050
females age 18-49: 54,696,706 (2005 est

Source, The CIA world factbook
Note that the Chinese outnumber the USA in cannon fodder big time.

Kaiser_Sma

Well i was going by a realtivly unexpected attack, you can never gaurantee drafting numbers or quality.

MooseJam

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Attack Helicopters:
US - 2,300
China - 60

wtf that really stands out lol, do they hate helicopters in China or what

Prolatarian

I would imagin the US would be able to take and hold some of the costal cities but get boged down inland. Who would help the the US would really depend on the reasons given for the war but you can asume that the UK and NATO would help in moast circumstances.My bet is a stalmate and a peace treaty that favours the West.

Oilrig

Never going to happen, they've learned the lesson from Iraq that technology is not a substitute for numbers when it comes down to holding territory.

The Chinese are not stupid, their risk assessment would include lessons learned by the US from GW2... I'm pretty sure the Pentagon/White House has learned a hard lesson too.

Its one thing knocking out an asset, its another thing taking control of a country...

Psy Ops is the US underbelly, they just don't get it.

Tenger

crianp wrote: »

The U.S could so take China, they may not have the numbers but the Chinese military is ineffecient and when was the last time they fought a war? The U.S has a boat load of veterans after Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention a state of the art navy, airforce, etc... They would need to hit a couple of key cities and the Chinese would be sent back to 5000BC

In theory yes the US 'should' win but definitely at the current time.
Yes the US has a lot of veterans. However those same veterans are drained as are the resourses to replace them back home. The US military by its own admission is currently stretched very thinly. The wear and tear on their equipment is taking a huge toll on their ability to conduct combat ops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you have read any Patrick Robinson books, he is of the opinion that the Chinese are the new opponent of the US. (Nimitz Class is his first book)

Army: Chinese hugely out numbers the US but apparently the PLA still use tactics from several decades ago. The troops are conscripts and have basic equipment. Lack of combat experience is a huge negative. However the US would need a lot more troops to deal with the chinese unless some of them laid down their weapons. Yes a SEAL team may be able to fight off an chinese regiment with air support but can the ratio of troops perfom an encirclement to capture chinese army groups,as the Germans did in Russia 1941. Also the US have a small relatively elite force (compared to the armies of WWII/Cold War) There have a large logistical arm and unfortunately a problem they will face (and are now facing in Iraq) is the difficulty of defending this suppyline. Thye cannot afford to use well trained offensive troops to do this. And they do not have enough second-line units (national guard?) to adequately protect the supply line.

(I read somewhere that at one point in Korea some UN troops had to give up there position due running out of ammo to deal with the waves of chinese)


Navy: Do the Chinese have a carrier? The have a very large fleet of coastal craft while not a lot of 'Blue Water' capability. The US are currently trying to improve their coastal/inshore capability. I do know that their submarine fleet (usually the main threat to US carriers groups) is in tatters and completelyout dated compared to the US subs. The US also have the Aegis equipped cruisers to defend from missile attacks from minland. The Chinese do have the Sunburn missile (think that is the name) which was designed by USSR to kill carriers. So in theory the US should be able to dominate the seas and littoral areas of the area of operations.


Air Force: US relies heavily on air power. In terms of quality they are way ahead. The F15 and F22 should be able to cope with most PLA aircraft. (At least if the F15s stop being grounded!) I believe the 'new' chinese fighter is equal technologically to an early F15. Add in the US strength in airborne radar and long range missile and they are ahead. A problem in this sphere may be the sheer numbers of aircraft the chinese could throw up. being outnumberd over 4-1 means you may not have enough missile shots to deal with the enemy.

This is terribly uninformed opinion (Think a day spent on various military websites is needed to top up my armchair knowledge)and doesn't even take into account the nuclear options of both countries. Perhaps the US could invade and decapitate the government of China by capturing key coastal cities but the sheer scale of the country and of pacifying it would hugely overwhelm the small yet well trained (and expensive) US armed forces.

I have a book written by a US Army Lt.Col concerning the future of the US armed forces. The main point he gets across is that by producing highly trained 'battlespace combat specialists' the US is making itself unable to fight a drawn out war with casulaties. (For example the armoured cav/mechanised units are usually short on dismounted troopers,the drivers and gunners are seen as the priority for the theorised mechanised mission)The current US army has so many specialised units that getting combat ready units takes far longer than just training new recruits to move and shoot.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Militarily the US could probably bomb any other country in the world back to the stone age, so yes they could kill China dead.

But I doubt the US soldier has the fighting ability to kick sh*t off a stick, its politically weak and the US population doesn't have the belly for a fight.

Tragedy

Dont forget that India and Pakistan would likely take this as an opportunity to settle some old scores between themselves and between India & China.

Tenger

Tragedy wrote: »

Dont forget that India and Pakistan would likely take this as an opportunity to settle some old scores between themselves and between India & China.

Very good point here. In isolation the US should be able to take on and win versus the PRC. However the US would not be able to bring its entire military to bear on the situation. The US was have to maintain readiness to deal with situations that may erupt if the US is concentrating on China (Kashmir, Middle East,palestine,Russia and several neighbours)

And in the scenario of this discussion what would be the reaction from the US to Russia,India and/or Pakistan taking advantage and occupying large tracts of China. (As another aside, anyone read Clancys "The bear and the Dragon"?)

Even at present the US still have troops in Korea. Do they still have significant troops in Europe anymore? I think that their Japanese USAF squadrons are leaving soon if not already. They have 12(?) carriers but only 3-4 were ever on tour near the Gulf at any one time. They need a couple in the Pacific, one in Indian Ocean,the Atlantic and the Med plus several at home refitting.

Tragedy

India hates China and Pakistan, Pakistan hates India and has been quite friendly with China, both have nukes and I think are quite willing to use them if necessary - and then you have Afghanistan and tribal Pakistan thrown in.

I dont think the biggest can of worms from the US invading China would be in China, it would be in the Afghanistan/Pakistan/India area

RedPlanet

Despite America having a lot of experience making war, a massive military budget and state-of-the-art equipment; you can't deny that they are just plain crap at war.
They take on 3rd world countries that can't really defend themselves and militarily dominate for the most part, but it doesn't seem to make much difference to the outcome.

Tragedy

Whats that saying about words being stronger than swords? Well thats been the case for the americans since WW2, hampered by politics at every step.