PDA

View Full Version : China Versus American Military?



boxing day
12-08-2014, 11:32 PM
now most people say we can win a war with chinafor me i doubt we can even invade there countrythe reason beingfirst there population is 3x of ourswe rank in the 300 to 400 million will theres is in the billions
no u say that suppior military strategy and technolgy can win it
but infact we cant

in ww2 normandy is a perfect example
german soldiers were better equipped and better trained and seen battle
USA had crappy weapons and bad armor and not that good training as to compare to the germans
wave after wave of men broke threw german lines on the beaches
show that even better trained men cant hold of wave of men charging at you
encluding if they got machine guns
now u say missles am i right?
they have missles to
now u fire missles kill couple millions they fire at you kill couple millions
now look who has the population to keep on fighting war
even tho america has better training out numbering a man 4 to 1 there is no way we could over come a force of that magnitude
bec china can keep drafting men there birth rate is way higher then ours
plus out econmy suck theres is rising more countries will take side with china and not come into the war
the reason be china is one of the world biggest trader plus most companies have factories there
that could affect all the worlds econmy
the usa wont use nukes will democrats are in the white house more diplomacy will try to take place
but in a even of a war china numbers and it current economy and technology and education going up china will soon be above america

if you can persuade me that USA can please enter it i would like to hear your arguments
this is for a paper

o yea all u military guy who answer this
yes the navy can hit a target in what 2 or 3 hours but can u while ur battling no it will take longer just to get there
so dont be saying o we can get to this place fast and take that person out
the world's technolgy is up to date
they have missles to
dont u say we can invade china bec we cant unles u want to lose all the marines. beach invasion is impossible they have enough men to defend there land

sorry for my spelling im really tired
but please enter ur comments i need some counters to my paper

tankgeezer
12-09-2014, 12:47 AM
Not sure where you're going with this,you speak as though you are in the U.S. but list your location as Australia, and are posting from China. That's kinda curious. But for the sake of an answer, open War between the U.S. and China would mean the end of civilization World wide. No one is naive enough to believe such a War would remain confined to those two Nations, it would envelope the entire Planet very quickly. It would end many times over the "couple millions" of lives you spoke of. Who might emerge as the winner ? also an easy answer, no one. The poisoned, and wrecked, and useless Planet that remained would be no sort of prize. I'm not trying to sound dramatic, just attempting to paint a realistic picture for you. It would also adversely impact Honeyclock's bottom line.

I would recommend that you find ,and read this book, it may still be available, it will give some idea of what to expect. Level 7 (novel) by Mordecai Roshwald, 1959.

kallinikosdrama1992
12-09-2014, 04:07 AM
Following tankgeezer's example i will simply say, that even if this war could happen it would not be US-China war, it would be Nato-China war. Nuclear disaster, in matter of hours, in all over the planet. It would probably lasted for couple of hours, or for a year and then it would stop in the blink of an eye with nuclear. No winner, probably no survivor from these two. Nuclear winter and stuff.

Rising Sun*
12-09-2014, 05:27 AM
i doubt we can even invade there country

Why would America, or any other country, want to invade China?


china is one of the world biggest trader plus most companies have factories there
that could affect all the worlds econmy

Which is precisely why it is it contrary to America's, and all other Western nations', interests and, on the other hand, China's interests to start a military conflict. It's a mammoth economic lose-lose for both sides. Even Putin in his wildest expansionist delusions would be unlikely to consider retaking any part of China.


this is for a paper

Suggest you answer: "This is a stupid topic for a paper at any level requiring informed and balanced analysis, and it's a waste of my time dealing with an idiotic proposition about America invading China. Here is a photo of my sock drawer, which has been neatly arranged in a more productive use of my time than writing a meaningless paper about America invading China."

Rising Sun*
12-09-2014, 05:39 AM
Not sure where you're going with this,you speak as though you are in the U.S. but list your location as Australia, and are posting from China. That's kinda curious.

Not really.

Guess who's buying a good deal of Australian real estate with a large appetite for more?

Some of the better suburbs here are increasingly being populated by Chinese from overseas, as are our universities for a different reason as our universities fleece the better off Chinese wanting a Western degree.

Although I do hope the topic for the OP's paper hasn't been set by an Australian university, as this would demonstrate that our university standards have fallen much further to pass foreign fee paying students than even the most pessimistic observer would expect. And I can tell you with confidence that our academic standards have dropped noticeably to allow foreign students to buy their degrees to keep our universities afloat.

JR*
12-09-2014, 05:58 AM
Rather strange head post. I have to second those who have already replied. I am reminded of a comment that was apparently made during US "war cabinet" discussions during the Cuban missile crisis (shudder !). It was to the effect that President Kennedy was desperate to do anything possible to avert a war with the USSR because, in the diplomatic words of the minute, "an exchange of nuclear weapons would not be to the advantage of the United States". That is to put it very mildly. Some years before, then Vice-President Nixon tried to impress visitor Nikita Khruschev (then Secretary General of the Soviet Communist Party) by remarking, "Do you know, Mr Secretary, that the United States has the nuclear weapons capacity to destroy the entire urban population of the USSR twice over ?". Khruschev, with a laugh, replied, "That is all fine, Mr Vice-President - as long as we have the capacity to destroy you only once !". This was true in spades by the time of the Cuban crisis - something that Kennedy's bone-headed generals seem to have had difficulty in grasping. In the end, Kennedy did a deal with the Soviets - very reasonable, actually, on both sides - that the Soviets would happily withdraw the Cuban missiles so long as the US withdrew similar nukes of its own based in Turkey. If you think about it, that was a very sensible deal for both sides, although I do not recall it being publicized at the time.

The climate for an "all-out superpower confrontation", involving use of strategic nuclear weapons, is now much worse. True, arms limitation treaties entered into since the fall of the Soviet Union have somewhat reduced the extent of deployment of strategic nuclear weapons. However, it has perhaps become too easy to forget that both the US (and allies) and Russia still have strategic forces easily capable of turning each other - and indeed the rest of the world - into a large burned-out ball sheathed in green glass, many times over. As for China, it is probable that its strategic nuclear forces are on a somewhat smaller scale. That having been said, there is every reason to believe that it is sufficiently substantial to destroy both Russia and the USA several times over. I believe that the West and China still have some way to go in reaching a reasonably friendly modus vivendi, and the outbreak of Cold War II between Russia and the West is an unhelpful complication. However, there is every reason to enhance positive relations, and a massive disincentive to do anything that might provoke a strategic-level nuclear war between any two of the main players. There is everything to gain from enhanced understanding, and - literally - absolutely everything to lose should anyone be crazy enough to move towards the Red Button. Everyone with half a brain knows this - but the Cuban precedent shows that it could still happen. Many people have forgotten (or are too young to remember) the Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction ("MAD") - but the materials of MAD (lots and lots of strategic nukes in the hands of the three major powers) are still with us, with little hope of this situation changing in the foreseeable future. One cannot "undiscover" something; the Genie let out of the bottle by the Manhattan Project can never be put back there. We need to learn to live with this - otherwise we may all die with it.

Sorry for the long post but, in conclusion, I can only say that I devoutly hope the question of a "hot" war between any of the great powers remains moot ...

Yours from the Mineshaft Gap, JR.

Rising Sun*
12-09-2014, 06:25 AM
If you think about it, that was a very sensible deal for both sides, although I do not recall it being publicized at the time.

My recollection is that, at the time, this was kept secret to save American face.


The climate for an "all-out superpower confrontation", involving use of strategic nuclear weapons, is now much worse.

I think it is less, not least because the former communist countries have moved towards capitalist economies (at least for their elites, in some cases, but the elites were generally venal even at the height of communist nations) and the capitalist nations have become more dependent upon the former communist nations, e.g. Russia supplying energy to Western Europe, China supplying trade goods to the West.

I think the risk of nuclear attack is more likely from minor actors, such as ISIL or its constituent ilk, who are rabid f**kwits not constrained by the sorts of economic self-interest which restrains major nations such as the Western nations, Russia and China. Or, possibly, mid-level actors such as Iran or Pakistan if rabid Islamicist elements get control there, whether of the nation or possibly just to control a launch or export by land or sea. The need for a large bomber has long passed.

Nickdfresh
12-09-2014, 07:06 AM
...
Some of the better suburbs here are increasingly being populated by Chinese from overseas, as are our universities for a different reason as our universities fleece the better off Chinese wanting a Western degree.

...

That's even happening here in very provincial Buffalo, NY. The University of Buffalo is a magnet for engineering students...

JR*
12-09-2014, 07:35 AM
@RS* - sorry, Rising Sun, I think I misexpressed myself. By "climate" I meant the climate created by the sheer presence of huge numbers of nukes that, simply, are capable of destroying the world many, many, many times over if things went slightly, er, Wrong. Back in the days of the Cuban crisis, it was merely a question of "many times over". Unfortunately, there is always the possibility that we might blunder into a "Wrong" scenario, however careful everyone is. Even the "General Ripper" scenario is not beyond possibility. We need to live with this but, with the Genie permanently out of the bottle, complete safety is no longer a possibility.

Yours from the War Room, JR.

7274


"YEEE-HAW !!!"

Rising Sun*
12-09-2014, 08:16 AM
That's even happening here in very provincial Buffalo, NY. The University of Buffalo is a magnet for engineering students...

I think this replicates the experience of China, and more so Japan, in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries when they sent students to the West to learn how to bring their industries, transport, government and militaries up to Western standards, albeit as a consequence of brutish and bullying Western attitudes and conduct which, although acceptable to the West at the time, forced China and Japan to trade with the West for the West's benefit.

The difference is that Japan pretty much retained control of its own land while China was reduced to servile status by the onslaught of other powers carving it up for their own purposes, notably the British with the opium trade and eventually Japan grabbing much of China in the prelude to the Pacific War, but in between most of the European powers, America and Russia grabbed their chunks of China.

China, now resurgent, has a lot of grounds to resent Europe, America, Russia, and Japan, for exploiting it.

China's best revenge may be to dominate trade with the nations which formerly exploited it and, in time, to dictate the terms of trade much as the West, primarily America and Britain, did with Japan in the lead up to and as one cause of the Pacific War.

I don't know about other Western countries, but here the bulk of department store goods, clothing, household appliances, electronics, and hardware come from China. Forty years ago we could make all of these things ourselves, while China couldn’t make some of them. Now we can't. We export raw materials to China and they come back as finished goods, often at bargain prices, but with the profit on converting the raw materials into finished goods retained in China. This is testament not to anything adverse in China but to the economic rationalist morons who've had their hands on the levers of our elected governments and bureaucracies for the past thirty years or so, who think that it makes sense to export our unskilled and semi-skilled jobs to low wage countries and then to punish our unskilled and semi-skilled unemployed for not having jobs that aren't there for them because the politicians and the wealthy interests they represent have exported those jobs. And, in perhaps the ultimate insult and insanity, our government now grants special visas to workers from low wage countries to work here in occupations where they are often exploited by foreign and local labour firms. Makes sense to politicians, and the rich, in both countries.

Meanwhile the Chinese use their growing economic power to, among other things, send their students here to pursue courses our national government has put out of the financial reach of domestic students from modest financial backgrounds. The result? Who's training the engineers, computer scientists, etc for the future, and who's getting the real benefit of this training my nation, run by knaves and fools, thinks is a bonus because of the short term benefits derived from selling overpriced courses to overseas students?

China deserves to increase its economic power, just as my nation deserves to end up as the poor white trash of Asia when our rich and especially super rich aided by our national governments of both major parties have cut down, dug up and shipped out every natural resource at bargain prices instead of converting them into more profitable finished goods ourselves. At least I should be dead by then.

Rising Sun*
12-09-2014, 08:39 AM
@RS* - sorry, Rising Sun, I think I misexpressed myself. By "climate" I meant the climate created by the sheer presence of huge numbers of nukes that, simply, are capable of destroying the world many, many, many times over if things went slightly, er, Wrong. Back in the days of the Cuban crisis, it was merely a question of "many times over". Unfortunately, there is always the possibility that we might blunder into a "Wrong" scenario, however careful everyone is. Even the "General Ripper" scenario is not beyond possibility. We need to live with this but, with the Genie permanently out of the bottle, complete safety is no longer a possibility.

Yours from the War Room, JR.

7274


"YEEE-HAW !!!"


Might it not be more remarkable that, given the vast array of nuclear weapons and the numerous opportunities for things to go wrong, they haven't been used since 1945 and that this shows a significant degree of reluctance by those possessing them to use them in a MAD world?

Anyway, I think nuclear weapons are overrated. Sure, one of them can do a heap of damage, but so did conventional bombing by the Allies in Germany and Japan in WWII. Would you rather be in Dresden or Tokyo under 'conventional' bombing or Hiroshima?

It's the scale of death and disaster attached to nuclear weapons that gets attention, but at the individual level what does it matter? You're still dead, or in countless ways of suffering.

Would you rather be eaten to death by ants, or a lion?

At the mass level, yes, perhaps we can reduce the planet to a largely uninhabitable irradiated desert, but at the individual level how much worse is that then being severely gassed in WWI?

If I had to die, I'd prefer to be at ground zero in a nuclear attack than slowly dying from gas in WWI, or phosphorous burns in WWII, or napalm burns in Vietnam.

What is so much worse about most of the G20, because that's about where the main action will be, being reduced by nuclear attacks to Hiroshima and Nagasaki on a larger scale? Or Hamburg or Dresden or Tokyo with 'conventional' weapons?

It's all unfair to innocent civilians, but so what? Wars always have been. All that changes is the scale.

tankgeezer
12-09-2014, 10:10 AM
The deal Pres. Kennedy struck with the Soviets did require both sides to classify, and hold secret any information about removing the Jupiter Missiles in Turkey, (and maybe some in Italy, though I have no confirmation of this part) It was a face saving move, and made Kennedy look a bit tougher to the American public than he may actually have been, but it was the wise choice to make. In the later Cold war we were told that weapon systems of a regional, or global nature were meant more, or rather had more value as bargaining chips, or game pieces on a board than a tool for actual use. But in the event the chips did not fall well, they might be resorted to.

JR*
12-09-2014, 10:15 AM
China may well end up as the dominant economic power. Seems to me that, these days, just about everything manufactured is manufactured in China - except perhaps goods from absolute bargain-basement locations like Vietnam and Bangladesh. It could be a rough enough ride for everyone, however. Neither the US nor the EU have the least intention of just letting this happen, and their entrenched position at the top of the world economy means that China will have an uphill struggle. Even at this moment, China is discovering the drawbacks of stashing a lot of the money made by its workers in manufacturing in US Government bonds; gets a bit problematic when (in the absence of anything better) the US Dollar appreciates substantially in relative value. No doubt there will be (more) troubles ahead.

The long-term problem for the West may be that, as it increasingly divests itself of manufacturing capacity, and becomes ever more dependent on services, domestic and foreign, to supply economic activity and employment, it may in the end not prove possible simply to survive on services. This leaves aside the problem of what to do with the vast number of potential workers who will never be fitted to fill "high-value, high-tech" jobs (or even low-value, low-tech jobs like window-cleaning and flower-arranging). Compounding this is the already very evident phenomenon of the migration of money (value, wealth, whatever) "upwards" into ever-fewer hands. This is already damaging the educated "middle" classes of the West upon whose abilities and skills the "new world in the morning" should depend. A very particular threat is the pressure now being put on such people attempting to provide their children with education to a high standard. A horrible image arises of Western societies increasingly resembling ancient Rome in the High Empire, with a small economic "upper class", employing foreign skilled workers to do such real work as there is, controlling the emproled majority through the distribution of "bread and circuses"; and it is hard to see such a society surviving very long in rapidly changing conditions. We could, of course, resort to slavery - anything is possible; the future is largely a closed book.

As to cosying up to the Chinese in the meantime -


7277

Our President, H.E. Dr Michael D. Higgins ("Ireland's first Leprechaun President), currently on a State visit to the Land of the Yellow Peril, with Chinese President Xi Jinping, following their review of several hundred Chinese soldiers and marines in the Great Hall of the People, Beijing today. President Xi - who visited Ireland a few years ago when still Vice-President, accepted the invitation for a return visit to Ireland "if he has the time". Fair chance he will make the time - he appears to have enjoyed himself here, last time out.

While the ceremonial aspect of the visit is of course most obvious, Michale Twee is accompanied by our Minister for Finance (arguably the second most powerful figure in our Government), the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and a vast entourage of industrial development bureaucrats and representatives of industry and finance, making this a trade mission vast even by Irish standards. It is just 35 years since Holy Catholic Ireland opened direct relations with "Communist" China; but we have certainly learned to snuggle up to them in the meantime ...

Yours from Tiananmen Square, viewing the tanks, JR.

tankgeezer
12-09-2014, 11:15 AM
I think this replicates the experience of China, and more so Japan, in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries when they sent students to the West to learn how to bring their industries, transport, government and militaries up to Western standards, albeit as a consequence of brutish and bullying Western attitudes and conduct which, although acceptable to the West at the time, forced China and Japan to trade with the West for the West's benefit.

The difference is that Japan pretty much retained control of its own land while China was reduced to servile status by the onslaught of other powers carving it up for their own purposes, notably the British with the opium trade and eventually Japan grabbing much of China in the prelude to the Pacific War, but in between most of the European powers, America and Russia grabbed their chunks of China.

China, now resurgent, has a lot of grounds to resent Europe, America, Russia, and Japan, for exploiting it.

China's best revenge may be to dominate trade with the nations which formerly exploited it and, in time, to dictate the terms of trade much as the West, primarily America and Britain, did with Japan in the lead up to and as one cause of the Pacific War.

I don't know about other Western countries, but here the bulk of department store goods, clothing, household appliances, electronics, and hardware come from China. Forty years ago we could make all of these things ourselves, while China couldn’t make some of them. Now we can't. We export raw materials to China and they come back as finished goods, often at bargain prices, but with the profit on converting the raw materials into finished goods retained in China. This is testament not to anything adverse in China but to the economic rationalist morons who've had their hands on the levers of our elected governments and bureaucracies for the past thirty years or so, who think that it makes sense to export our unskilled and semi-skilled jobs to low wage countries and then to punish our unskilled and semi-skilled unemployed for not having jobs that aren't there for them because the politicians and the wealthy interests they represent have exported those jobs. And, in perhaps the ultimate insult and insanity, our government now grants special visas to workers from low wage countries to work here in occupations where they are often exploited by foreign and local labour firms. Makes sense to politicians, and the rich, in both countries.

Meanwhile the Chinese use their growing economic power to, among other things, send their students here to pursue courses our national government has put out of the financial reach of domestic students from modest financial backgrounds. The result? Who's training the engineers, computer scientists, etc for the future, and who's getting the real benefit of this training my nation, run by knaves and fools, thinks is a bonus because of the short term benefits derived from selling overpriced courses to overseas students?

China deserves to increase its economic power, just as my nation deserves to end up as the poor white trash of Asia when our rich and especially super rich aided by our national governments of both major parties have cut down, dug up and shipped out every natural resource at bargain prices instead of converting them into more profitable finished goods ourselves. At least I should be dead by then.

You should watch the movie "Tomorrow when the War began" takes place in Australia, and involves some of the conditions mentioned. Here's a clip. http://youtu.be/f_KhErNyiq8
In truth, it's not a very good movie, and borrows heavily from Red Dawn. But it's something to do if you're feeling lazy some day. ;)

Rising Sun*
12-10-2014, 08:19 AM
You should watch the movie "Tomorrow when the War began" takes place in Australia, and involves some of the conditions mentioned. Here's a clip. http://youtu.be/f_KhErNyiq8
In truth, it's not a very good movie, and borrows heavily from Red Dawn. But it's something to do if you're feeling lazy some day. ;)

Haven't seen it, and won't. Which is not to say it's any more fantastical than most Hollywood armageddon / splatter movies and which is not to say that they can't be entertaining, if one suspends disbelief for the duration of the film.

I'm vaguely familiar from a distance with the the Tomorrow series on which the film is based, in the sense that I know the books are popular as are earlier books by the prolific author John Marsden who writes for a child / adolescent audience. As does most of Hollywood, although, unlike Marsden, they're not aware they're doing it.

There are, and have been for some years, some interesting parallels in Australia's trade with China and pre-Pacific War trade with Japan.

The essence is that Australia is a big source for China, and pre-Pacific War for Japan, of natural resources run by stupid Australians, notably those in government and the super rich who control much of those resources, who can't see beyond the primitive capitalist chop it down; dig it up; ship it out.

The difference is that nowadays China can buy our resources in an open market where Japan was constrained before the Pacific War by various restraints flowing from the West's response to the 1930s Depression; general Western contempt for and exploitation of Japan in many trade matters; and then the economic restraints imposed upon Japan by the West following Japan's actions in China 1931 onwards. The irony is that the nations imposing restraints on Japan for its military adventures in China had generally been the beneficiaries not so many decades before of their own military adventures in China for their own benefit, to the cost of the Chinese people and its government.

Conversely, China had not in the past couple of centuries engaged in the rampant acquisition of foreign and often distant territories that the European and American powers did, such as Egypt by Britain and the Philippines by the United States as recently as the early 20th century (Yeah, I know it's more complicated than that, but in both cases the major powers acquired control essentially by force of arms.) Instead, China, whose rulers like Japan's wanted to be left alone by the foreign devils, was forced by Western and other powers to submit to their demands for trade stations in China, as also happened in Japan in the same era.

Which brings us to the great irony that Germany and Japan in wars of expansion in WWII weren't doing any more than the other major powers had been for a century or two beforehand, except that following WWI the noble ideals of the League of Nations outlawed such conduct although, curiously, allowing the major powers to hold their conquests and colonies.

Leaving aside Japan's war crimes and crimes against humanity in these campaigns (as we should leave aside, say, Britain's in Palestine until it was handed over to the Israelis who gained it by a campaign of war crimes and crimes against humanity), there is a magnificent irony in France and Britain being offended by Japan grabbing their colonies in, respectively, IndoChina and Malaya/Singapore.

All things considered, China has for the past couple of centuries to 1949 been the innocent victim of exploitative military and economic assaults by the West and other powers, notably Russia, pre-WWII.

And, all those things considered, China is behaving with great restraint as its power grows.

tankgeezer
12-10-2014, 03:45 PM
Well, the movie recommendation was a jest, :) but the story was about Australia being invaded by forces of a coalition of communist Asian Nations. This in order to bring about equitable distribution of Australia's natural resources. The invaders felt that Australia had been very, very selfish.
I do not find it inconceivable that in a generation or two, conditions in the World may be such that an Asian Union could come into being. (whether this Union would include the communist Asian Nations is another matter) This could, though it's just a surmise on my part, place your Nation in an uncertain position economically, and maybe Culturally.
China has shown restraint militarily, but their adventures in cyber espionage show them to be fairly aggressive in their efforts to steal industrial, and military information. It would appear that they are engaged in developing a cyber war doctrine, along with attendant capabilities, and strategies, and defenses. I must also assume that every other Nation of means is doing the same thing.
It would be the highest order of foolish for them to alienate their customer base, as right now business is good, international relations are acceptable, though perhaps not happily so on all sides. Your assessment is as usual correct, there is no reason for an attack by either Nation upon the other. For the U.S. it would require an unconscionable provocation against it, or another NATO member . I share your view of that being very unlikely.

Rising Sun*
12-11-2014, 08:05 AM
Well, the movie recommendation was a jest, :)

I know, but I couldn't resist a dig at Hollywood. Who can? :D


but the story was about Australia being invaded by forces of a coalition of communist Asian Nations. This in order to bring about equitable distribution of Australia's natural resources. The invaders felt that Australia had been very, very selfish.

Yes, equitable distribution of natural resources is a very good idea. Just not something that has commended itself to, picking an example at random ;), the OPEC states, especially those Arab or related types which have bugger all apart from oil to fund their support for sundry radical Islamic movements. Then again, support for such movements isn't limited to oil rich nations: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=417501:islam-in-msia-sliding-towards-fundamentalism-violence-expert&Itemid=2#axzz3LavuunTj


I do not find it inconceivable that in a generation or two, conditions in the World may be such that an Asian Union could come into being. (whether this Union would include the communist Asian Nations is another matter)

I doubt it.

The last time it was tried it was the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" under Japan's force, and that was the best chance it ever had of succeeding as Japan supplanted the various colonial powers and was able to impose it's brilliant conception of inhumane labour and economic conscription by military force, for its benefit for a few years.

Since then, the various former colonies have gone their own ways without any unity. I can't see, for example, Malaysia which is moving steadily towards a Sunni Islamic state having anything in common with, say, Vietnam which, in theory anyway, as a communist state is hostile to religions and, to the extent it isn't, definitely ain't Muslim.


This could, though it's just a surmise on my part, place your Nation in an uncertain position economically, and maybe Culturally.

Possible, even probable, but the biggest threat to us down at the bottom of the planet is that the uncertainty might be resolved by us being taken over by someone else (pretty much what we did to the Aborigines, but this time it would be seen by most here as serious :confused:) and it won't be an obvious economic or cultural takeover (the US pretty much achieved that unintentionally during and after WWII due to its much more advanced and interesting things) but something more insidious which gradually alters the nation and those who run it, quite possibly by an extension of Chinese (both PRC and ethnic Chinese outside and hostile to PRC) investment in Australia.


China has shown restraint militarily,

So far, but its recent development of and intentions to expand a deep water navy and projecting that navy shows that China has the potential and perhaps the interest to replace Japan three quarters of a century later to contest the Pacific with the US. (Yeah, I'm arguing against myself here, but any nation with as much military muscle as China bears watching.)


but their adventures in cyber espionage show them to be fairly aggressive in their efforts to steal industrial, and military information. It would appear that they are engaged in developing a cyber war doctrine, along with attendant capabilities, and strategies, and defenses. I must also assume that every other Nation of means is doing the same thing.

Agree, entirely.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US and its allies are matching or perhaps even ahead of China as, for example, the Poles were on early versions of Enigma but not publicised at the time for obvious reasons.


It would be the highest order of foolish for them to alienate their customer base, as right now business is good, international relations are acceptable, though perhaps not happily so on all sides. Your assessment is as usual correct, there is no reason for an attack by either Nation upon the other. For the U.S. it would require an unconscionable provocation against it, or another NATO member . I share your view of that being very unlikely.

I think the greatest risks to the current reasonably stable situation are that (1) some fairly minor issue such as territorial claims to disputed islands gets out of hand and or (2) there is some unpredictable event such as China's rulers deciding to go back to the future, a la Cultural Revolution or, much less likely, internal pressures for democracy on the Western model, both of which will produce severe repression.

JR*
12-11-2014, 11:02 AM
Regarding "oil-rich nations" - I was amused by the cover of the most recent edition of the "Economist" magazine, which featured a cartoon illustrating the conflict of "Sheikhs v. Shale". The explosion of US hydrocarbon extraction resulting from "fracking" has greatly upset the international hydrocarbons market as we have recognized it for the last 80 years or so. This has already resulted in a substantial collapse in world oil prices, and natural gas prices (which are subject to infrastructural inertia) will in time follow. The double-dealers of Saudi, Qatar, UAE etc. - not to mention their fellow-travelers in places like Venezuela, Nigeria etc., may have to think again about their contributions to "revolutionary" causes. Interesting to see where this heads ... Yours from the bar, drinking the post-fracked water, JR.

Nickdfresh
12-11-2014, 05:33 PM
It certainly has a lot to do with fracking, but the prices are also drastically effecting the fracking industry here in much the same way it has OPEC. But heating the house in winter is much cheaper than it used to be...

JR*
12-12-2014, 07:11 AM
Hello, Nick. Yes, of course the fall in world prices will have implications for the US fracking industry. I was listening to an analyst on radio this morning who opined that the price situation would "self-adjust" in time - "time" being about one year. Maybe.

I hate to keep referring back to earlier phases of my ill-spent life but, a very long time ago, I was natural resources "expert" in our Department of Finance. Hydrocarbon prices were very high at the time (Second Great Oil Crisis) and there was much talk about the possible exhaustion of the resource long before the world was ready for such a development. I remember attending a seminar on the subject; most of the presentations were in line with the standard thinking. However, one sensible contributor pointed out that hydrocarbon supplies follow a sort of "yo-yo" pattern. Price increases incentivize new exploration in areas previously considered uneconomic, and investment in new technology (as with fracking). After a lag of a few years, production increases, the incentive for further exploration and technological innovation reduces, prices eventually rise again .... and so on.

It is a bit early to say how much of a hiccough the emergence of fracked hydrocarbons might produce in the "natural" cycle of the hydrocarbons industry. Price falls will certainly result in some curtailment of exploration in the fracking sector, and also in the more conventional areas of hydrocarbon exploration. Production - now that is something else. Many countries involved in "conventional" production are very heavily dependent on their hydrocarbon revenues (the long-term implications of this for their economies is a separate and problematic subject). As a result, they are likely to be very reluctant to lower prices - the reaction of OPEC to the emergence of fracking shows this already. It would be strange if the frackers of America were not influenced by similar considerations. What this suggests is (and I know saying this is offering a hostage to Fortune) that self-adjustment may prove difficult in this market in the near future.

There is a further point. The hydrocarbon revenues of producing countries constitute part of the assumptions upon which the borrowing capacity of such countries is based. The rapid fall will without doubt impose severe pressure on these countries to repay their debts. We are not just talking about the likes of Nigeria and Venezuela (although that is bad enough - I understand that Venezuela is close to a debt default). We are also talking about the Sheikhs of Araby, and even Russia. Could this lead to another banking crisis ? And can the international economy survive one so soon ? Yours from the Qatar Thunderdrome, JR.

Rising Sun*
12-12-2014, 08:15 AM
Fracking demonstrates desperation in extracting energy. I doubt it's a good idea in the environmental and social long term, and maybe the short term given complaints by people in fracking areas.

However, that's only my opinion, which is as nought compared with the opinion of the Prime Minister of my nation who, as can be seen from his following comments, is a man with unique mastery of science, climatology and economics, not to mention a great vision for the future.


“Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world,”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/04/coal-is-the-future-insists-tony-abbott-as-un-calls-for-action-on-climate-change

:confused::confused::confused:

JR*
12-12-2014, 10:09 AM
Is this a reference to Mr Abbot ? If so, I suppose we can now refer to him as the "Black Abbot". [/quote]

Rising Sun*
12-12-2014, 11:36 AM
Is this a reference to Mr Abbot ? If so, I suppose we can now refer to him as the "Black Abbot".

Or, with some justification, his occasional title down here as "The Mad Monk", referencing his days as a failed Catholic seminarian, which explains so much and so little about the troubled man.

burp
12-13-2014, 09:21 AM
now most people say we can win a war with chinafor me i doubt we can even invade there countrythe reason beingfirst there population is 3x of ourswe rank in the 300 to 400 million will theres is in the billions
no u say that suppior military strategy and technolgy can win it
but infact we cant
First of all, China doesn't have any willing of attack America. It already owns part of public debt of America. So the growth of China is linked to the growth of USA. At the same time, the large rich USA market is very important for a lot of industrial chinese companies: e.g. chinese Foxconn that produces for USA big IT company a lot of products (iPad and iPhone of Apple, Kindle of Amazon, computer of Dell, HP and so on).

At the same time, China is conducting a non-violent acts of aggression in order to penetrate USA most important military and civilian industries, with cyber warfare because it fears the technology gap that still exists.


in ww2 normandy is a perfect example
german soldiers were better equipped and better trained and seen battle
USA had crappy weapons and bad armor and not that good training as to compare to the germans
wave after wave of men broke threw german lines on the beaches
show that even better trained men cant hold of wave of men charging at you
encluding if they got machine guns
I cannot agree with that. USA forces had already begun action in Nord Africa. With some battles, like Kasserine, high officials had learned differences between manuals and operations in real world. USA had advantages in terms of sheer numbers for sure, but also it deployed some elite unit like Paratroopers and Rangers on the field. The air superiority of USAF was based upon good training and technologically advanced airplanes.

leccy
12-13-2014, 10:35 AM
Very odd post so I will reply to the WW2 part




in ww2 normandy is a perfect example

german soldiers were better equipped and better trained and seen battle

The German units on the 'West Wall' were in the most part garrison troops, many were ex PoW's, some exempt duty on more active fronts due to illness or injury's. Not all had seen battle nor were they better equipped.

Many of the better troops were in the mobile Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Divisions stationed back from the front.

The Germans also had next to no answer to the Allied Naval forces or Airforces - the support of both these forces were very telling

USA had crappy weapons and bad armor and not that good training as to compare to the germans

The 'ALLIED' Forces had some very good weapons (with most being at least comparable with what the Axis had in Normandy) and were well trained, they did not have as much combat experience in some cases - Combat experience can work both ways as some green units performed more aggressively than battle seasoned units

wave after wave of men broke threw german lines on the beaches

Omaha was the only really bloody beach - Sword, Juno, Gold, Utah were to lesser extents hard fought but less casualties, Allied armour landed on the day with naval gunfire support ably assisted the Airborne (para and glider troops) and Commandos to link up with the sea landed forces

show that even better trained men cant hold of wave of men charging at you

You could say that is almost the popular view of the UN forces against the NK and Chinese forces in Korea, not Normandy

encluding if they got machine guns

The Germans had defence in depth, beach obstacles, minefields, shoreline bunkers and trenches containing machine guns, artillery, AT guns, AA weapons, further in you had field and long range artillery, rocket batteries, strong points. With mobile units kept ready to head to the invasion area

Frankly Dude Really
03-10-2015, 05:28 AM
now most people say we can win a war with chinafor me i doubt ....

in ww2 normandy is a perfect example
german soldiers were better equipped and better trained and seen battle
USA had crappy weapons and bad armor and not that good training as to compare to the germans
.........

sorry for my spelling im really tired
but please enter ur comments i need some counters to my paper

This is a china man troll.
No american even flipped youth of today would say this...



show that even better trained men cant hold of wave of men charging at you
You could say that is almost the popular view of the UN forces against the NK and Chinese forces in Korea, not Normandy
Exactly,..and WHO purports this kind of battle tactics ? right: communist chinamen and north koreans

Frankly Dude Really
03-10-2015, 05:38 AM
That's even happening here in very provincial Buffalo, NY. The University of Buffalo is a magnet for engineering students...

Wasn't yamamoto studying in the USA before the war ? and ? did it help him to become LESS imperial japan patriotic and /or peace loving minded ?

God help us , if the likes of "Boxing Day" are swarming our universities and military academies only to return with better equipped knowledge but brimming with nationalistic hatred ?!
(aaaaahhhhhhhhhnother example are our ISIS friends that for the most have "enjoyed" western education , lifestyles and training.....)

Wittmann
03-14-2015, 01:00 AM
Research Korean War then go to any store.

I'm just saying back in the day you didn't have to buy same thing over and over again and feel like you won lottery if it actually worked. It's more of economic war now and we are flooded with this cheap junk that you couldn't even sell for scrap because it's so cheap to start with.

Wittmann
05-09-2015, 01:02 AM
Back on Topic ,


Research the Korean War Original Poster, then thank God you weren't there because I sure as hell do.

Nickdfresh
05-10-2015, 08:55 PM
Wasn't yamamoto studying in the USA before the war ? and ? did it help him to become LESS imperial japan patriotic and /or peace loving minded ?

God help us , if the likes of "Boxing Day" are swarming our universities and military academies only to return with better equipped knowledge but brimming with nationalistic hatred ?!
(aaaaahhhhhhhhhnother example are our ISIS friends that for the most have "enjoyed" western education , lifestyles and training.....)

You can't kill us if you loves us. :) Destroy our cheeseburgers, excellent crafts beers, markets for their products, etc.?


It's not 1940 or so anymore...

tankgeezer
05-11-2015, 12:19 AM
No Walmart, or Dollar Stores are included in China's primary Target Packages, so all is well FDR :)

JR*
05-11-2015, 04:23 AM
Regarding Yamamoto, he was one of the bright boys of the Imperial Japanese Navy. He was extensively involved in the military end of diplomacy in the interwar period. While he was a loyal (and ambitious) Japanese officer who was willing to do his duty in war with energy and to the best of his considerable abilities. One of his diplomatic posts was as Naval Attaché at the Japanese Embassy to the USA. Rather than confining himself to the protocol goldfish bowl in Washington, he made best use of his opportunity to make an appraisal, not just of America's actual military capacity at the time (in many respects not impressive) but also of its economic/military potential. This left him under no illusions about the difficulties that Japan would face in a war against the USA. After Pearl Harbour, he is recorded as commenting, "I can run wild in the Pacific for one year, maybe two. After that, we will face great difficulties. Nobody who has seen the oilfields of Texas, or the automobile factories of Detroit, can doubt this.". Yet, when asked why, if he held views like this, he was willing to take part in the prosecution of Japan's war, he is said to have replied, "I am the sword of my Emperor.". A point of view not uncommon among senior Japanese officers, not least those with diplomatic backgrounds who had an unusually clear view of the capacities of their enemies. Best regards, JR.

Rising Sun*
05-11-2015, 08:46 AM
After Pearl Harbour, he is recorded as commenting, "I can run wild in the Pacific for one year, maybe two."

There are varying versions of the exact quote and when it was made, but:

1. The most common version is that Yamamoto said he could run wild for six months, perhaps a year, from the commencement of the proposed hostilities.

2. It preceded Japan's Pacific War by at least some months when expressed in response to the proposed war, or perhaps even earlier on some less reliable accounts. Whichever, it demonstrated an astute appreciation of Japan's inability to wage a sustained war against, primarily, the USA.

3. It was also correct, as the turning point against Japan was the Battle of Midway, which was six months after Japan commenced its Pacific War and which damaged the IJN and in particular the IJN's carriers and carrier pilots to an extent from which the IJN never recovered, while the Americans went on to build a much greater carrier force; many more carrier planes; and to train many more carrier plane pilots much more quickly than the IJN managed by holding largely to its pre-war training program.

Rising Sun*
05-11-2015, 09:08 AM
No Walmart, or Dollar Stores are included in China's primary Target Packages, so all is well FDR :)

Actually, they are, and they have already been conquered and occupied.

Try finding much there that ain't made in China.

Double irony in the champions of low wage, anti-union, anti-worker capitalism such as Wal Mart buying most of their goods from the Chinese communist champions of the workers running a laissez faire capitalist state which makes the 19th century American robber barons look like the benefactors of a charitable state.

JR*
05-11-2015, 10:54 AM
RS* - can't disagree with you regarding Yamamoto's statement of his views on this subject. It does make sense that it should be pre-Pearl Harbour, and there must be some uncertainty as to its precise content. It would not be particularly surprising if Yamamoto overestimated Japan's ability to maintain an active war in terms of time. One thing that is pretty clear, I think, is that he (and he was not alone) had reservations about Japan's ability to sustain a war against the US to victory. Diplomatic assessments of economic capacity do (even now) tend to be somewhat imprecise, and lacking in precise quantification. Nonetheless, I think that he was pretty astute, and feared the final outcome.

On the "Walmart Question" - I remember seeing an interview that some western film crew made with a young Chinese woman, working in one of their "c**p factories". She was surrounded with Christmas decorations - plastic Santas and the like - bound for export to the West. Asked whether she knew what the c**p she was making was all about, she said she had no idea. She only hoped that the foreigners would keep on buying it, so that she and her friends would have a job. So far, so good ... JR.

Rising Sun*
05-12-2015, 06:55 AM
One thing that is pretty clear, I think, is that he (and he was not alone) had reservations about Japan's ability to sustain a war against the US to victory.

He certainly wasn't alone. Admiral Nagumo, who commanded the fleet which attacked Pearl Harbor, predicted "The success of our surprise attack on Pearl Harbor will prove to be the Waterloo of the war to follow." (Given that Pearl Harbor was the opening attack in nearly four years of war and that Waterloo was the decisive end to Napoleon's wars, that comment is somewhat difficult to understand, although its import is clear enough. Maybe it lost something in translation.)

Yamamoto said in September 1941: "It is a mistake to regard Americans as luxury loving and weak. I can tell you that they are full of spirit, adventure, fight and justice. Remember that American industry is much more developed than ours and - unlike us - they have all oil they want. Japan cannot vanquish the United states. Therefore we should not fight the United States."

Source for above quotes is Pacific Fury, Peter Thompson, Random House Australia, 2009, pp. 8-9


Nonetheless, I think that he was pretty astute, and feared the final outcome.

He was astute to the point of accurate prophecy.


The Japanese, it must be emphasized, did not seek the total defeat of the United States and had no intention of invading this country. They planned to fight a war of limited objectives and having once secured these objectives to set up a defense in such depth that the United States would find a settlement favorable to Japan an attractive alternative to a long and costly war. To the Japanese leaders this seemed an entirely reasonable view. But there were fallacies in this concept which Admiral Yamamoto had pointed out when he wrote that it would not be enough "to take Guam and the Philippines, not even Hawaii and San Francisco." To gain victory, he warned his countrymen, they would have "to march into Washington and sign the treaty in the White House." [49] Here was a lesson about limited wars that went unheeded then and is still often neglected. (My emphasis, to underline the distressing failure of various belligerents around the world, and the USA in particular, to heed Yamamoto's wisdom and the comment of the US WWII official history authors close to sixty years ago, preceding predictable failures in limited wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, among others.)
http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_04.htm

Having made the grievous mistake of disposing of almost all of my many books some years ago, I can't lay my hands on a published source for the "run wild for six months" quote.

From imperfect memory, I think Yamamoto made recorded comments to the same effect on several occasions, including at senior government level when proposals for war were being considered, and or in response to the decision to go to war, and similar comments to other senior naval officers and other senior people in government.