US invasion of China.

it really depend if the defender are push to a corner or not. if they belief they are losing, and everything about to end. the chance increase of nuclear war Just went through the roof.

 

That's not going to happen, so why not take advantage of the situation while we can?

 

Well, technically India and Pakistan have not fought a major war since 1971.

India's first nuclear test was in 1974.

They didn't conduct any more until 1998 when the Pakistani's responded with a nuclear test of their own.

 

Your link was broke. Did look it up though. Didn't say anything about Israel ready to launch nukes, but I'm sure they were as ready as any nuclear power. I hadn't read on that war before, so I appreciate you pointing it out. We always think, or at least I do, that neocons and their "axis of evil" is just a scare tactic. However, that altercation was proof positive that one truly exists. I couldn't believe it when I read Cuba, N.Korea and Russia all sent support as well as all Arab nations. Interesting. Of course, can't believe everything you read, so I'll take it with a grain of salt. I find it funny that they can't get any real numbers as to Arab casualties, because the Arab nations never released them, yet somehow know the exact counts of the aid from other nations. But such is the nature of the beast, I suppose. It would be nice to get feedback from a N.Korean, Cuban or Russian who was in the know during that time frame. In the scheme of things knowing that would be more important than an argument over hypothetical scenarios.

 

Don't forget Iraq, they actually contributed forces to the war.

 

But one also has to keep things in perspective. It is still looked at as a war between Syria/Egypt vs Israel. Until a nation actually declares war, geopolitical manners dictates that nation isn't at war, just helping a side. If any involvement in either side of a war dictates that nation is a participant, you would seriously need to rewrite the history of every battle for at least 200 years, if not the entirety of humanity and warfare.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#Aid_to_Israel

I do not know where you looked it up at, I have seen this talked about many times in books about the wars.

Oh, no reason to take it with a grain of salt. It is a well known fact that this is exactly what happened. Cuba had long been a Soviet Puppet, sending troops to conflicts all over the world when they did not want to send Soviet troops (most specifically in Africa and South America).

But the support is well known, it was one of the only things that propped up the Arab nations after each of their wars with Israel. Plus for the Soviet Union (as well as the US) it served a very realistic and practicle purpose.

Since neither we nor the Soviets were involved in a major war, conflicts like this allowed both nations to test their equipment against that of the other side in a possible NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict. We could see how NATO tanks, aircraft and weapons would fare against Warsaw Pact tanks, aircraft and equipment. And a LOT of valuable intelligence was attained in all of those conflicts for both sides (as well as NATO gaining a lot of actual Soviet equipment).

A lot of the reason is that a lot of the soldiers that fought on the Arab side were "Volunteers". This was typical in these wars, and were units that were made up of militias (mostly from Egypt) that were formed of ad-hoc units that were thrown into combat with little to no "official" government recognition or sanction.

And because of the nature of these units, exact figures are hard to come by. Also a lot of personnel were not lost due to combat itself, but because of the terrain and things like heat, hunger and thirst after they were cut off from their parent organizations.

Also you have a large variance in the numbers reported killed by each side of the conflict. The Arab nations were well known to downplay a great deal the numbers killed and wounded. This is why you have a variance of over 10k in the number killes in the Arab side, while less then 300 on the Israeli side.

 

In case you did not realize it, a formal "Declaration of War" is almost non-existant anymore. In fact, I can't think of a single instance of such a thing happening since World War II.

And while Egypt and Syria provided most of the forces (as well as the route to attack Israel), the Expeditionary Forces of Iraq and Jordan provided a lot of men and equipment as well. In fact, the Expeditionary Forces were not far behind the number of personnel and equipment that were provided by Syria.

 

Still, the war wasn't listed as USA/Israel vs Egypt/Syria/Jordan/Iraq/Russia/N.Korea/Cuba/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/Libya/Morocco/etc/etc/etc.....

Quite honestly, that is why we need a declaration of war. On that subject, Paul is right. Or as long as we have "international laws", have one be that any aide in a conflict means you are now actively a player in said war and history will record you as such. So every conflict all nations involved are listed as combatants. As if enlisted men can "volunteer" for a foreign conflict in any standing army. Approval would have to be sought and gained by their respective nation.

 

Because they were not the major combatants. In fact, most had no combatants at all involved in the conflict. So I simply don't see your point here.

How do you pass a law requiring a declaration of war as required? And what makes up a declaration of war? What can you do with one, and what can you not do without one?

If an Indian Navy patrol ship persues a group of Somali pirates to the beach, are they comitting an act of war? Can they not capture these pirates without such a declaration?

This is simply a political game you are trying to play, and it means nothing really.

Well, are you aware that the US (and other nations) normally have "Advisors" and "Exchange Officers"? These are done for various reasons, and the officers involved act exactly as if they were a permanent part of the organization. Including going to war if that is ordered.

And there are long waiting lists to get that kind of duty.

Also the US military allowed a lot of Officers to resign their comissions in order to take "Foreign Service" during time of war.

In World War I, you had the Lafayette Escadrille and Lafayette Flying Corps, which were French Air Force units composed of American volunteer pilots. Among their members was Eugene Bullard, the first black military pilot in the world. In fact, a famout movie was made just a few years ago about this organization.

England formed the similar "Eagle Squadrons", which were also filled with American volunteers. Many of these pilots had first gone to Canada and joined their military. Others were pilots who had volunteered to assist Finland in the Winter War against the USSR.

And after the World War was over, you had the 7th Air Escadrille of Poland, during the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet War. One of those pilots was Merian Cooper, who later would produce the movie King Kong.

Then shortly before WWII during the Spanish Civil War, you had the Yankee Squadron. This was composed of volunteers who went to Spain to fight against the Communist forces.

And there were also ground forces composed of Americans in that conflict. Including the Abraham Lincoln Brigade was a group composed of Infantry and an Anti-Aircraft unit that fought on the side of the Communists in the Spanish Civil War. So I guess in that conflict by your definition, the US fought on both sides of the conflict.

Then we had this happen again during World War II, with the "American Volunteer Group" in China before and during WWII. And Germany also recruited men before and in the early days of the war from the US, Canada and England. Many were accepted into the Waffen-SS and were used as radio intercept and translation specialists. And there were even cases of defections, such as Lt. Martin James Monti.

And many in Europe actually joined the German Army during WWII. Both the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS formed entire units of foreigners, from many different nations. Netherlands, Belgian (actually 2 units, one of Flemish background, the other of Walloon), French (the infamous SS Charlemagne), Estonia, and others.

A great many of the volunteers did not see themselves as fighting for Fascism, as much as fighting against Communism.

And how would you go about getting "Approval" of their nations? A lot of Americans went to fight in Rhodesia and Angola in the 1970's. If I wanted to go to another nation and join their military, there is nothing that could stop me. I do not need approval of the US Government.

 

It is my understanding that Americans who volunteered to help other nations fight in conflicts the government didn't want to be involved in weren't currently enlisted men. The socialist nations helping the Arabs in the 73 war were current members of those nation's military. I would also like to add there is no such thing as "noncombatant" support. Money, logistics, training, intel, communication, surveillance, etc., are as valuable in killing your enemy as aiming and firing a tank round. To help a side with these things is to be an active participant in a conflict. You can argue that fact if you like, but the number one reason western armies kicks the crap out of opponents is it excels in these areas. I'm sure some America hater will jump on and say we lose everything, but that all stems from occupation, within itself is not what our military is designed for. When we hit fast, hard, and get out, no nation comes close.

 

As soft as America has become, if we had to put "regular" people into the military in a large war, we would be routed.

 

The U.S. military has the most combat experienced military with the greatest number of combat veterans within its ranks. I would take some suburban kid trained by a combat veteran over a poor peasant trained by conscripts. I don't think anyone accuses the US soldiers who've been on two, three, and even five plus combat deployments as being soft.

 

I agree with this.

Look at the fun the US/UK are having trying to train the Afghan forces.

 

thats afghan. chinese army are pretty well trained. if you do some research on recent specops or army event/tournament from different countries, you notice china is in top of the list. their army is well disciplined. its not an army you can compare with taliban or iraq army.

 

To be honest, I didn't read the whole thread and went in totally the wrong direction!

I agree, the Chinese are not third-world and having worked with them before, I respect the people immensely. I am sure they have great personnel in their armed forces.

.. not sure how committed they would be to their "leaders" if the snot hit the fan though?

 

I think that point goes both ways. Whether dictatorship, one party rule, or plutocracy, it is easy to claim people support you when there is no legitimate option for them to do otherwise.

 

Plutocracy. Hmm!

Be realistic. In the west we all have reasonable opportunity. I came from poverty to do reasonably well, without to much in the way. We like to dramatize the negatives of capitalism as it is all we can complain about. Ultimately it is our system and we can change it. At the very least we can exploit or ignore it. We all have a reasonable chance of a reasonable life. We have a small minority of people who exploit the system at every level - be it a politician claiming unjustified expenses. or a "working" class citizen, using children as a paycheck.

To compare our situation in anyway to a the Chinese is ridiculous.

The Chinese are very clever people. they must be very frustrated.

 

We will form a Anglo-Sino Alliance that will allow us to push technology forward at an amazing pace. Then, this Alliance will leave Earth and venture off into the stars where it will create a powerful Stellar Alliance. Now, one day it will have to fight a war against the "Browncoats" but we all know how that ends.

 

You are right of course. Better believe in pop songs than in pop history.

If you look at Syria today, you may see something like a replay of the American Civil War. If the United Nations existed at the time of the American Civil War, there would be a resolution calling for military intervention to save the South and condemn Abraham Lincoln for murdering his people.

Unfortunately for the South, the European powers were weak and preoccupied with their own problems, otherwise they would definitely intervene in the Civil War and 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18–40 would not have perished.

 

What advantage do you have? How can you take advantage of the situation? Make sure that your old jar is not an empty vessel.

 

The U.S. has by far the best military in the world. You can take advantage of the situation by taking over other countries, though China probably wouldn't be one of them.

 

It was a good thing that 30 percent of Southern white males died. You should murder your own people if they revolt. Otherwise, there might have been a bunch of territorial wars and tension between the 2 countries that would have caused a lot more deaths.

 

The US could not take over any other nation if it was REALLY against another nuclear states wishes. The US could not attack any other nation if it were a threat to any nuclear power.

If its not the case, why have we heard nothing from the white house wrt Pakistan and the Taliban? I thought you would "treat any nation that harbors terrorists, as terrorists themselves?"

its simple....the US doesn't even fancy that fight. So if they cant do anything wrt Pakistan, how would they square up to the Chinese?

In a world of nukes, conventional wars between major countries will never happen again.

You know, I know and everyone else knows....If there were no nukes there, the US would now be all over Pakistan right now.

For the US it seems, under certain circumstance, ignorance is bliss.

 

It's a cost benefit analysis. The U.S. could probably topple the Pakistani government and do extensive damage to the country in an all out air attack. However, it would cause a lot destability in the region, cost lives and money, hurt their international image, and possibly require nation building similar to Iraq/Afghanistan. What would the U.S. gain?

It all comes down to circumstances. The U.S. has virtually nothing to gain and everything to lose in a war with China. China is in a similar position.....if not worse. That can all go out the window rather quickly if conditions deteriorate. Wars between "great" powers are not finished. To think so is silly. You have thousands of years of human history suggesting otherwise. Globalization and recent worldwide prosperity has curbed large scale conflicts, but that could chance quickly.