The CHN/ China thread

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Reece

Well I hope when China invades Australia America will help, we have no nukes here and very close to China, I'm sure they are looking at Australia and smacking their lips!!

Could you push Middle Earth in front of them? rumo(u)r has it, Hobbits make great fodder?

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Didn't you forget something Dave

The homefront.

How will the politician react ? The citizens ?

A war is fought at the battle scene and at home.

Markus

I would think that they would realize that such things happen in a war.

If you are looking for a more specific answer to what the American public's reaction might be to losses in that war then all I can point to is the last time that another nation sank our ships. We were so angry we ended up nuking them, twice, and that's after killing a couple million of their troops and bombing their entire country almost back into the stone age.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

I would think that they would realize that such things happen in a war.

If you are looking for a more specific answer to what the American public's reaction might be to losses in that war then all I can point to is the last time that another nation sank our ships. We were so angry we ended up nuking them, twice, and that's after killing a couple million of their troops and bombing their entire country almost back into the stone age.

You are most likely right in your answer.

I was thinking in a peaceful way of thinking

The politicians in the opposition demands a withdrawal.
The defence of Taiwan/Australia/e.t.c. is not worthy all these thousands of American soldiers life.

The Japs attacked an American base. Here USA will defend another country against Chinese aggression.

But it could also mean USA goes one step up and use more powerful weapons.

I truly hope there will not be any war.

Markus

[Skybird]

China is a nuclear power. Japan was not. Just saying.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

China is a nuclear power. Japan was not. Just saying.

Have no clue about the Chinese military doctrine.

I don't know whether they would use nuke or not, if they fail to take Taiwan.

I don't know if USA would use nuke if they failed in defending Taiwan.

Markus

[Skybird]

The US will not nuke in defence of Taiwan. They are not suicidal and will not trade LA and San Francisco for Taiwan. Because China will atomically retaliate against a nuclear strike, and this then will escalate, away from tactical nukes on the ocean to "strategic" nukes in the countries.

However, whether China will start with nukes, is something different. Normally they would not, but they are so drunk of patriotism and megalomania now and so full of themselves and seeing themsleves on the mission to bring heavenly order back to the universe with China naturally being at the centre of all things, that I will not rule out a desastrous miscalculation of theirs that makes them using nukes first. More unlikely than likely maybe - but not impossible. Hybris we call it. For China, the past 200 years of Western dominance were just a little mishap in history. The order of nature and all things in the human world see China as the very centre of everything. That the West must bow to China's claim for global hegemony , is not even explicitly demanded because it must not even be demanded: it is simply implicitly taken for granted, most naturally, like we imply that the word "raining" implies the falling of rain drops from "up" to "down", never the other way around - you must not point this fact explicitly out that it is so, because it just is so.

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

The Japs attacked an American base. Here USA will defend another country against Chinese aggression.

Well your example had the Chinese sinking US capital ships and killing thousands of US servicemen. Regardless of how it started once that happens it isn't going to be just about defending long term allies against foreign aggression. And any American politician who at that point advocated walking away would immediately be branded a cowardly sellout to the enemy ChiComs and justifiably so IMO.

But it could also mean USA goes one step up and use more powerful weapons.

Maybe, cause I'd certainly nuke Peking to save Australia if I were in charge. They have been our friends, allies and comrades in arms for over a hundred years and something like six wars. We won't abandon them if I have anything to say about it.

[Reece]

I vote Dave for President!

[Skybird]

China has apparently given up its doctrine of just minimal nuclear deterrance, and seems to aim at massively increasing its arsenal of warheads, by factors, and it seems it aims at acchieving this much faster than the strategists in Washington had expected. China already now has over 350 nuclear warheads on landbased ICBM's and SLBM submarines. It just introduced a new generation of ICBMs that feature MIRVs. It builds hundreds of new silos, which is much even if some of them may only serve as decoys.

At the same time a network of communications between China and the US that is comparable to that existing between the USSR and the US, does not exist. There is no communication network and no communication mechanism in place to spring to life in case somethign happens and needs to be contained before any escalation spirals out of control.


A US nuking targets in china is a US that will necessarily and inevitably receive its share of Chinese nukie volleys in return. And you can bet these will not just be aimed at "military" targets. Not mentioning even that the huge blast radius makes a destinction between civilian and military targets impossible if an air base or harbour is close to a metropole.

Its absurd to assume the US would accept to get killed dozens of millions of its citizens and its metropoles and industrial centrepoints getting destroyed. Such a president has a good chance not to be just chased away, but getting lynched.

Nuclear weapons are only usable if the enemy has none. That simple it is. The only way to win nuclear exchanges is by not playing them. The prize is avoidance of self-destruction.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

Well your example had the Chinese sinking US capital ships and killing thousands of US servicemen. Regardless of how it started once that happens it isn't going to be just about defending long term allies against foreign aggression. And any American politician who at that point advocated walking away would immediately be branded a cowardly sellout to the enemy ChiComs and justifiably so IMO.


Maybe, cause I'd certainly nuke Peking to save Australia if I were in charge. They have been our friends, allies and comrades in arms for over a hundred years and something like six wars. We won't abandon them if I have anything to say about it.

Again you may be correct, but as Skybird wrote
"Its absurd to assume the US would accept to get killed dozens of millions of its citizens and its metropoles and industrial centrepoints getting destroyed."

So how far would USA go in the defence of Taiwan, Australia ?...No one of us know. I think Skybird is more correct in his statement ^ than I am.

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Again you may be correct, but as Skybird wrote
"Its absurd to assume the US would accept to get killed dozens of millions of its citizens and its metropoles and industrial centrepoints getting destroyed."

So how far would USA go in the defence of Taiwan, Australia ?...No one of us know. I think Skybird is more correct in his statement ^ than I am.

Markus

The thing that Skybird ignores, probably deliberately, is that to get at either of those countries, especially Australia, China would have to attack American military units and that changes the whole ball game. They are not just going to appear at the outskirts of Canberra and demand that we stand down. We'll know they're coming and we won't need nuclear weapons to completely destroy any invasion force that they put together long before they touch Australian soil.

So let me ask you Skybirds question back. Do you think the ChiComs having had their entire expeditionary force sent to the bottom of the Coral sea will also be willing to loose millions of their citizens, their cities and industrial centers to retaliate against us for putting them there?

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

The thing that Skybird ignores, probably deliberately, is that to get at either of those countries, especially Australia, China would have to attack American military units and that changes the whole ball game. They are not just going to appear at the outskirts of Canberra and demand that we stand down. We'll know they're coming and we won't need nuclear weapons to completely destroy any invasion force that they put together long before they touch Australian soil.

So let me ask you Skybirds question back. Do you think the ChiComs having had their entire expeditionary force sent to the bottom of the Coral sea will also be willing to loose millions of their citizens, their cities and industrial centers to retaliate against us for putting them there?

Good question Dave.

The only way to win a nuklear war is not to play the game. Maybe the chance that nuke may be used in a war may give China some second thoughts.

I as said before I truly hope I'm correct here-That China has a second thought before invading Taiwan or Attack Australia for that matter.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

So how far would USA go in the defence of Taiwan, Australia ?

Why do you think China would attack Australia? Maybe they will, with distanced weapons: missiles, but not as a priority or goal for a war to belaucnhed just for this, but because Australia may interfere with Chinese actions elsewhere, far away for Australia: the South Chinese sea for exmaple. But lauching a war with the goal to invade Australian ground? Absurd. That they consider invading Australia I practically rule out. They would need to get an invasion fleet with troop carriers to Australian coast, across US- and Japanese- "infested waters, to mention just the two most capable opposing navies there, but then there also is Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines, South Korea... Then they would need to maintain logistic supply chains from China to Australia. And I would expect the Australians by mentality not being overly cooperative either. It all is spelled as "Chinese nightmare".

China will not inavde Australia, not even only to take out Northern bases. They must not. There is no reason for occupying parts of Australia. There are missiles for everything. Cyberware options. Air raids. Submarine launched wepaons. These are what Australia must consider for defence purposes.



Invading Taiwan however is a completely different ballgame. Here an invasion is most likely and would be the reason why they even go to war in the first.



So is taking control of and securing the ressources in the South Chinese sea. All that area is practically Chinese backyard.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why do you think China would attack Australia? Maybe they will, with distanced weapons: missiles, but not as a priority or goal for a war to belaucnhed just for this, but because Australia may interfere with Chinese actions elsewhere, far away for Australia: the South Chinese sea for exmaple. But lauching a war with the goal to invade Australian ground? Absurd. That they consider invading Australia I practically rule out. They would need to get an invasion fleet with troop carriers to Australian coast, across US- and Japanese- "infested waters, to mention just the two most capable opposing navies there, but then there also is Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillipines, South Korea... Then they would need to maintain logistic supply chains from China to Australia. And I would expect the Australians by mentality not being overly cooperative either. It all is spelled as "Chinese nightmare".

China will not inavde Australia, not even only to take out Northern bases. They must not. There is no reason for occupying parts of Australia. There are missiles for everything. Cyberware options. Air raids. Submarine launched wepaons. These are what Australia must consider for defence purposes.



Invading Taiwan however is a completely different ballgame. Here an invasion is most likely and would be the reason why they even go to war in the first.



So is taking control of and securing the ressources in the South Chinese sea. All that area is practically Chinese backyard.

Because I'm convinced that Australia will take an active part in defending Taiwan and will therefore be seen as an aggressor in the eye of the Chinese.

I do not know what kind of defence Australia has, it was therefore I wrote how far will USA go in defending Australia.

China will not invade Au, they will as you wrote use missiles from land based or sub based.

Edit.
Forgot to mention something. We await an invasion of Taiwan as it was obvious thing to do if you were a Chinese. But I'm also convinced that China is looking at Russia-Ukraine dispute and Putin is doing the same-looking at the Chinese-Taiwan dispute. If the only answer is imposed economical sanction-No one of these two country will hesitate and invade. None of them are sure what kind of response USA NATO will come up with, that's why there may be some doubts in Kreml and Beijing.
This is only a thought-Not written by an expert
End edit

Markus

[Rockstar]

I know when Trump admin slapped tariffs against China. The response from the peanut gallery and snowflakes was we should be afraid of China, they’re so rich and powerful.

Screw China it’s a paper tiger isaber rattling is just the usual modus operandi of dictatorships when their economy tanks and it is tanking hard as western manufacturing is moving out of China and others start diversifying their supply chains to countries other than that backwards communist dictatorship.

Capitalism will destroy those commies every single time. All they have are threats of war, we’ll then, bring it on.