US invasion of China.

So why do it in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those 2 wars caused a lot destability in the region, cost lives and money, hurt the US's international image, and required nation building. And that was all to do with terrorism, something Pakistan is apparently supporting.

There is no difference.. except pakistan has nukes.. and housed Bin Laden.. But of course, they knew nothing about his presence there... hmm.

 

I thought you would "treat any nation that harbors terrorists, as terrorists themselves?": When did I say this? I agree with IgnoranceIsBliss with the rest.

 

You need to think harder on this. You really can't see the difference between the U.S. position circa 2001/3 versus the U.S. position circa 2012....and that's without even considering the larger size and military prowness of Pakistan.

 

Well, starting today, we would need to raise taxes and cut the deficit; unless we can pay all our own bills, we could not even hypothetically go to war with China.

 

You'll find through history that long-term debt isn't much of a deterrent to war. U.S. debt during WWII was MUCH larger than it is today.

 

well Afghan was headquarter of taliban and al queda, so the attack was justified after 911, and because taliban won't surrander al queda. if they did, we would never went to war in afghan.

iraq on the other hands is Bush personal war. someone he have obession with it, maybe due to his father we never should went to iraq, there is no WMD, no known al queda etc.

 

our debt hold by chinese will not affect us in the event of war. since we basically will default on chinese debt. but it will hurt US credibility, and economy in the long run. our economy will be affected, since china is our largest trade partner, which never happen in cold war. if war happen sunddenly that mean the both import/export will stop, thus hurt both countries economy. but we have nothing to gain by go to war with china, and everything to lose.

 

The people in the military now are the cream of the crop who want to be there. I guarantee if you would draft the typical video-game playing, lazy couch potato that would be the majority of a much larger army, the results would be nowhere as good.

 

While drafts do tend to degrade the quality of enlistees/officers, China suffers from the same problem with their mass conscripts. The U.S. however, has the money, experience, and combat veterans to whip the "video game" generation into shape.

 

This question is humorous.

In order to invade we would have to put a Carrier Battle group close to China. China would launch one or two supersonic stealth nuclear anti ship cruise missiles and that would be the end of the Carrier group.

The US would then have trouble finding folks to enlist in the Navy for the next mission.

The infantry would then have to swim over to invade China. Chinese fishing boats would then use drift nets to round up these brave soldiers. They then would be sent to deprogramming camps where they would be shown how stupid the idea of invading China was and the sent back the the US to tell others.

 

The debt after WWII was a big deal but since Europe had been destroyed the US was able to grow its way out of that debt. The US manufacturing machine was untouched and we became a massive exporter to the rebuilding industrialized world. .

Today is a much different story. Indeed we could ramp up the war machine but who would we attack ?

We cant attack Nuclear equipped countries without sustaining massive damages to ourselves after which it would be the US rebuilding and some other country who did not participate in the war getting rich.

 

its same with china. their army is well trained, though they lack the combat experience. they have the money, and i can guranntee you that the poor chinese farmer can take much more hardship/trainning than US video gamers. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to train a regular solider for war.

 

I didn't say you did say it.

"[w]e have made it clear to all nations that if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists, you are an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account." - George W Bush.

So... when are they going to be held to account in Pakistan, hmm?

 

I do not need to think harder about this! And no, i do not see the difference between 2003 and 2012, not when you consider what the War on terror is all about. If you cant justify holding pakistan to account, you cant justify starting wars in Afghan or Iraq.

"[w]e have made it clear to all nations that if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists, you are an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account.".... (Unless your Pakistan, of course. You might bite back)

 

Uncle Ferd says it wouldn't be worth it...

... dey ain't got enough womens to go around as it is.

 

To be fair, George Bush didn't pay much attention to Afghanistan.

 

To be fair, George Bush didn't pay much attention to anything.

 

This would be an interesting test. Some of the "toughest" most combat experienced men on this planet are of the U.S. "videogame" generation. These guys wipe the floor daily with Taliban insurgents who grew up as goat herders on $200 a year. You'd be amazed at the transformation that one can undergo in basic training.

Also, China has a massive conscript army and very limited funds, their training, while likely better than Pakistan/Iraq, is nowhere near U.S./NATO levels.

 

regular solider doesn't require alot trainning. check recent special ops/ army tournament result, china is in top of the list.

they got $3.2 trillion surplus, and their military budget are increase double digit for the past 20 years. their budget is currently the 2nd in the world. we got taliban on the run is partially due to trainning, but mostly due to our air support and advance military equipments.

if you only compare solider to solider base. chinese army is well train and decent equiped. the chinese peasants can take alot hardship and well disciplined.

i would not underestimate chinese trainning, since they do get alot fund and due to culture, living conditions, their recurit can take much more hardship/discipline compare to some video gamer. the only thing they lack is Real comabt experience and better heavy equipments. they study western/russian army for decade, and understand all the trainning etc etc.

here is a long article if anyone interest to read it.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub858.pdf

 

Regular soldiers in the U.S. usually spend at least 1 year training before deploying to a combat zone. NCOs typically have 2-8 years of experience with 1-3 combat deployments. SNCOs typically have 10-20+ years of experience and 2-5 deployments. Officers follow a similar progression. This leads to an extremely well trained and experienced military. China's conscription system doesn't cater to this system. Spending a year or two as a conscript isn't going to give you top level training. Especially when your trained by other conscripts.

China has a pretty large defense budget (MUCH MUCH smaller than the U.S.) but it has a MASSIVE army. It's expenditures per soldier are much much lower than in the U.S./NATO. "Studying" U.S./NATO tactics doesn't make them as well trained as their Western counter-parts. The U.S./NATO has smaller, technologically advanced, professional armies. China has a much larger military of conscripts that derives its strength from numbers. It has several large hostile neighbors and internal strife so it needs large numbers of troops. I think the PLA's training levels are superior to Iraq/Pakistan, but they're no where near U.S./NATO levels.

Discipline and the ability to endure hardship is only a tiny part of being a soldier, and one that can be taught/developed. Indepedence, aggression, confidence, leadership, and calmness under pressure are more important and more difficult to develop. I think the U.S. system tends to cater to the later more.

 

you have to remember if there is war with china, we gonna draft, which mean solider will be train in few month instead years.

china conscript army is volunteer army, is not well trained compare to the professional chinese army. china does have a perfessional army program and it does have alot personnel with years of experience. there is no reason to train 2million professional solider if there is no war anytime soon.

think about korean war, how many US solidier die and been push back to 38 parallel. back then china was just formed, all their soliders don't have any trainning, underrated equipment and firepower.

most US army recurits are enroll for few years then quit, unless they want to pursue a career. its same with chinese, they can get out after 2-4yrs, or stay and advance to officer etc. most foot solider we recurit in US are fresh out of high school, stay in army few years then go back to school.

the advantage of US is its superior military equipment. as for regular foot solider, its about same.

never underestimate trainning of chinese army. they have the $$$, decades of study western doctraine, participate in many join excerise, event, contest etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Special_Operations_Forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Raid see the table below

 

Please do not try to tell us that the best soldiers in today's military were part of the pile of (*)(*)(*)(*) video game generation. They were on top of whatever they did as teenagers, they certainly were not playing many video games.

 

Video games desensitize people to violence, aside from the sedentary nature of them...they can be a preparatory tool for actual combat. Emphasis on preparatory, because of course there is a HUGE difference between a video game and the real thing...

 

some youtube on chinese solider trainning and info that i found.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/arm...ce-basic-training-its-effectiveness-4258.html

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyBq9yautMg&feature=related"]Chinese PLA Army Sniper and DMR training - YouTube[/ame]

i guess this is chinese version of Military channel in US.

 

I am in my 20's and am really good at call of duty. I am also f***ing useless at anything that even resembles running.

However, I do agree with you. If i were called upon to defend the west and were fortunate enough to be issued with the extreme conditioning perk by HM Armed Forces, I reckon I could overcome my cardio-vascular issues and quite easily get myself a decent kill/death ratio vs a Chinese opponent. I reckon I may even be able to call in a AC-130... or perhaps a MOAB.

To be honest, I think the biggest problem would be obtaining a Chinese Type 95 Assault Rifle. I kick ass with that beasty. Do NATO countries possess these?