US invasion of China.

The problem is actually similar to one I face in discussions with another poster in here fairly consistantly.

A lot of people are dazzled by the "gee whiz" factor of any new military development or research. They sling onto the "sexy" projects, like airborne lasers, metal slugs that travel at MACH 7, ramjet drones, and things like this.

Yes, they are sexy, they show off US research capabilities. But these are really not "game changers" in the military. In reality, very little has made many changes in the last 40 years.

Do you want an example of a minor pedestrian piece of equipment that has probably made more changes in the military then anything else? This has probably saved more lives, and killed more bad guys then anything else. It was created as pure military R&D, and most of us use it almost daily. But never think of it as "military technology".

The lowley GPS. This has made more of an impact on military operations then all of the stealth aircraft combined. It freed us from having to follow roads, helps prevent us from getting lost, and allows us to call in help, an air strike or a medivac, and tell them exactly where we were. No more need to look on a map and hope you are giving them your location but are accidentially in the gully to the West.

This is the real military equipment that makes a difference. Not all the fancy products that will come out 5-15 years from now, and will only be a fractional improvement over what we have now.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I do agree with what you said about GPS. It has been very important for current military operations. But, most of the wars where these are useful shouldn't happen in the first place. Screwing around in the Middle East is costing the U.S. a lot, and we have nothing to show for it. Every war since world war 2 has been absolutely stupid and worthless. I think we should just avoid stupid wars, and focus on military technology that can help us 10-20 years from now. We could save a lot more money and have a much stronger military at the same time when we might actually need it. I'm glad you pointed those things out about railguns because I didn't know you could only use them on a flat trajectory. I think that by far the biggest change in the future for the military will be invisibility technology. In just a few years, we could have invisibility technology to counter radar. Invisibility technology uses metamaterials, and it seems like this area of research is moving quickly. Once we get it down to the visible spectrum in maybe 15 years, things will really get interesting. They might have to start going to microwaves and gammawave optics to counter, and it would be kind of like night warfare all the time. The U.S. is already about 20 years ahead of every other country technologically speaking, so I see no need for small stuff that will only slightly improve our military capabilities for the next 20 years.

 

I don't think that is true (usa 20 years ahead in tech)

From reading russian military forums, they are constantly producing tech to counter usa tech. But russia and america publically glorfiy in the embaressment and gamesmanship of their military complexes over the other. With china they are quietly creating, with only tip bits of information surfacing to what they are really capable of.

 

they devalue their money, do cheap underhand tricks, hack our computers and steal our intellectual property. I doubt we ever could or would go to war with them, and I KNOW we shouldnt, but they are definitely picking a fight!

 

China learned that trick from the usa (devaluing currency)

Just take a look at the dollar in the current economic markets. The usa is being treated the way it treats others, and does not like it. China is proving to play the geopolitic games with equal cunning.

 

we dont lie about the worth of our country... we just actually made our money worthless...

 

That is a political point, not a military one. And it has nothing to do with China.

And GPS is incredibly usefull everywhere. I wish I could have had it when I was in Panama years ago. In triple canopy jungle, you can walk within 50 meters of your objective and never know it was there.

And it is just as usefull in MOUT, or in urban areas. If you are in a nation that does not even use the same writing system (let alone language), it is almost impossible to move without knowing exactly where you are at all times. And even more important if you need to call in support.

"Oh, you turn down that street that has the wiggly thing at the end of it's name, then turn once you pass the burned out Technical."

Not a good way to conduct operations. But when you can say "Go to grid 45743854.", then they know exactly where you are, regardless of what street that is.

OK, once again avoiding the political point you are trying to make, let me talk about just the military point.

Do you know what has really changed in the military in the last 10 years? The last 20? How about the last 30 years?

Let me tell you, not much at all. Probably 90% of our equipment is the same as it was 30 years ago in 1982. In fact, a great deal of what we use is actually between 25-30 years old. That is when a lot of it was purchased during the Reagan administration.

Ships, aircraft, tanks, trucks, air defense, it is just about all decades old. Just look at PATRIOT. Designed in the 1960's, tested in the 1970's, fielded in the 1980's, upgraded to missile defense in the 1990's. And nothing much has changed on it since.

However, another thing about wars is that it lets us test and refine our equipment. If not for the last decade, we would not have uparmored vehicles, body armor 3 generations advanced from what we entered the conflict with, entire new generation of trauma techniques and supplies (the military is the largest R&D in the world for trauma medicine), the CamelBak, Radios, friendly fire advoidence systems, and almost anything else we use.

The general way the military works is that during times of peace, our equipment generally stagnates. We use the same stuff and train in the same tactics for years and years and years. The way the military trains, is equiped and fights has progressed a great deal since 2001. If you woke up a soldier who had been in a coma since 1992 and dropped him into the Army today, he would hardly recognize it. Oh, most of the large equipment is the same (tanks, artillery, aircraft), but the personal equipment (helmets, body armor, rifles) is far advanced of what we used then.

And one of the problems we had in the Gulf War was the fact that hardly anybody but some old members nearing retirement had any experience in combat. Between 1973 and 1991, we had not had any kind of major conflict. So we had Battalion and Regimental commanders leading units who had never heard a shot fired in anger. We still did the job, but not as well as we would have with veterans. Today, your average Captain has more combat experience then most Generals had in the last war.

Once again, you are looking at the Fantasyland technoogy, that is a great many decades away. And in reality will make no difference to the military.

We have had Stealth aircraft for decades. And how much use has it really been? Stealth is a double edged sword for the military in all aspects. Sure, the concept is nice, the enemy does not know you are there. But that can largely be done even without such fanct technological gadgets. For thousands of years commanders have been able to make armies and equipment vanish simply by use of terrain and tactics.

And also do not forget, if the enemy does not know where you are, neither does your side. This can be a huge problem.

And "stealth" is not all you seem to make it out to be. There are a great many ways to know that there are troops in the area. Direct visual is just one of them. There is also sound, smell, how the local wildlife and indi personnel react, in addition to things technology can detect like radio and heat.

And this type of technology is only of a possible use in an ambush. And in this such technology would be of no real benefit at all. Because they would not be in the open, but hiding behind cars, walls, building, and the terrain. Trust me in this, I have hid behind a bush and watched an entire platoon walk within 10 meters of me and never knew I was there. It is just experience and training. Not technology.

If you were able to go forward 20 years, you will more then likely find a military almost exactly like it is now. Some things will hopefully be retired by then however, like the 30+ year old equipment most of us use. But I do not count that very highly.

 

Metamaterials can hide sound, infrared, and radio waves, and eventually visible light. This is why I said the only thing you can probably use to detect this is gamma and xrays, and I think there are ways you can use metamaterials to detect things as well. The first thing these would do is hide airplanes, submarines, and tanks and artillery. It also costs a lot of money and time to train people to be stealthy. You usually have to maintain a great distance if you want to be stealthy. If you have invisibility, you can walk right up to them in a wide open space.

The whole gulf war was over in a month, the ground invasion in 3 days, less than 500 people died, and most of them from friendly fire. Not bad for not having a major war in 20 years. Politics plays a very important role in warfare, and it seems like you are trying to ignore one of the most important parts of warfare. I do agree with you that a lot of times war has been won by things people don't pay attention to like who can supply the best, etc.

And actually this does have to do with China. Like I said, China wouldn't even be close to my first choice for an invasion. But if we maintain our economic advantage over them, we can maintain our military advantage over them. To maintain an economic advantage, we need to stop getting involved in pointless wars. If we were the only country to have invisibility technology, it would be an unbelievable advantage, and an invasion of China wouldn't be too difficult. This probably wouldn't happen for 20 years since there are other targets we could invade with conventional weapons. I am imperialist, but I believe we should focus on defense and Latin America instead of "peace keeping missions." Where you are fighting and the reason you are fighting for changes tactics a lot.

I'm confused on if you are going from the Vietnam War to the Gulf War as an example of military technology or the gulf war to now. If you are saying Vietnam to the Gulf, the F-15 was a huge step up from the F4 and so was the M1 Abrams tank. Missiles got much better during that time. Air superiority helps out GPS as well since you can hit ground targets without worrying about losing aircraft, etc. Yes, technology hasn't improved much in the last 30 years or so. The f15 was developed in the 70's and the f22 in the 80's.

 

Once again, in theory This is research into technology that is decades at least away from being of any use on a battlefield.

 

Why do people keep parroting this phrase as if its a fact?? Its been shown again and again that China does not own most of American debt.

The amount of U.S. debt China owns is about equivalent to Japan's ownership.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUUk6wVNrY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUUk6wVNrY[/ame]

 

And I wouldn't want to invade china for a couple decades anyway, so it fits in. We should focus on other areas first, expand our economy and military well past China's, then invade them. Invading China at this point in time would be pretty stupid. The best time would have been 20 years ago or 20 years from now if the U.S. is smart.

 

So you think it will be a good idea to invade China 20 years from now when they are the biggest economy in the world and their military has been substantially upgraded? You should really think that through more plus the fact that they have nuclear missiles that would wipe out most of your population.

 

It would only be that way if we have bad leaders which we will most likely have. There's no rule saying we have to keep going at the same pace with the same policies. There's no rule saying we have to waste trillions of dollars on "peace keeping missions."

 

What have the Chinese ever done to you to warrant an American invasion force in order to kill China's men, women and children?

Oh nvm, you still remember the American humiliation of the Korean War, of Vietnam War at the hands of the Communists I bet. The fact that there are plenty Americans who still believes the USA has the right to force American style Democracy down the throats of people at Gunpoint says a lot about this nation.

 

Do some research on Chinese nuclear capabilities. They most certainly cannot wipe out "most" of the U.S. population....not even close in fact.

 

We are talking about in 20 years time. Do the Chinese tell you how many nukes they have?

 

How about doing the most logical thing in the first place.

Don't invade them at all unless absolutely required for our own defense or in defense of an allied nation? And even then, I would not look to "invade" them, but to destroy their offensive capability and occupy key locations in order to achieve a cease fire?

I have to admit, this constant talk of "invasion" of other nations in these forums (China, Iran, Soviet Union/Russia, North Korea, Argentina, etc) makes me rather sick. Because they are almost universally made by people who have never served in the military, would never serve in the military, and have absolutely no idea what they are talking about in the first place.

 

The Third Man, et al,

The Chinese are not stupid, nor are they likely to act like a third-world country. They are very practical and long range planners; as opposed to America which is myopic in view and not good at long range strategy at all.

(COMMENT)

In the long view, America becomes an insignificant issue and an irrelevant power as a nation. Over time, America will have exported all its technology, manufacturing and production capability. What high paying jobs are replaced with low wage earning incomes. It will no longer be able to support the worlds largest budget for military use and it will gradually reduce its demand for high end consumer goods, with only the top 3% able to afford them.

The Chinese will gradually work their economy to a commanding level that, someday, probably in the next half century, they will surpass the US. They will have the consumer base and they will have the income to finance great projects. They don't need to defeat the US in a military confrontation - they won't even need nuclear weapons. Back during the banking crisis and bailout, China could have easily dumped our economy and crippled Wall Street. But they didn't. Why! Because they see the US as a great fixer-upper that they can buy outright in the coming years.

Remember, in the last 50 years, the US went from the nation that put men on the Moon, to a nation that cannot afford a manned space vehicle. It is American astronauts that have to hitchhike into space.

The US will be irrelevant, in the future, and you can thank Washington for that.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I don't even like democracies. If they hand over their nation peacefully, there is no reason for anyone to die. So, it is their own fault that their people get killed.

 

No war the U.S. has ever been involved in had to do with the defense of our country from a foreign nation. Just because someone didn't serve in the military doesn't mean they do not know what they are talking about anymore than someone who has served in the military. What is the point in serving in the military if the use of our military is for pointless wars in the Middle East? There are positions in civilian life that are more important to the defense of this country than serving in the military. You may know weapons systems, etc. better than I do, but people who serve in the military don't know the overall politics of warfare better than anyone else. Invasion is a good thing if used right. I think the world needs more of it instead of these stupid proxy wars.

 

In 20 years time, the U.S. could have missile defense systems, too.

 

We already do, many of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-67_Standard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-3

The 2 above work under this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 (President Obama mothballed this one)

So guess what, that one already exists, and has for over a decade.

 

Do you use similar attitude towards women as well? "Let me Fuk you or get raped??" Because its their fault for not submitting to you?
No wonder Whites have been labeled as barbarians by the Chinese in the past.

 

You must remember History is Cyclic. A wiser person understands that the USA's overextended military industrial complex must always find a new enemy in order to keep its personnel employed. Unlike some Americans the Ordinary Chinese citizen do not spend their time wondering which nation has better weapons, or which nation they should invade next.

Americans may not be able to afford their own ride into space, but hey, at least you have your nukes and a big bad Navy right???