Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who would win. US vs China?

ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 12:15:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If full out war broke out between the United States and the Peoples Republic of China, who would win? Ok so I know this is probably a real old topic and I only ask cause me and some of the guys in my unit got into a heated argument on this topic just a few hours ago and my curiosity is peeked. Wondering what you all think.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 12:59:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 12:35:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
US.

Our military industrial complex is far superior.
Democracy facilitates better total war.
We have FAR better tech.
We have more nukes.

An interesting question, with many facets. I would like to consider the subject more before I suggest an actual argument to support my instinctive assumptions, but I am confident that an eventual United States military victory could be expected. It would be painful.

I doubt that democracies can better tolerate total war than a fascist police state such as China. However, democracy does provide a more stable platform for trauma; would China fall victim to it's own version of the Bolshevik Revolution? (The Tzar was domestically overthrown in Russia during the First World War, which allowed the nation's defeat by Germany.)

I believe that the American advantages in economic and political reach would eventually prove decisive. War is politics, and America can out-compete China here. I personally cannot see war deaths as anything other than political killings. America has a long track record of successfully justifying its use of political homicide, a skill that China does not have. I cannot imagine this skill would not become important.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 3:02:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://i.imgur.com...
The US clearly
Though if china can deliver some of their 250 nukes no one would win.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 3:23:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The U.S, would win outright, even if we assume nukes are used.

I don't remember much of the military jargon that refers to weapons systems, but here's what happening:

1. The U.S. has military about 20 times more funded than China's.
2. China has not been developing a lot of military stuff in the 70's 80's because of Deng's "focus on economic reform, military second" policies.
3. The U.S, total war production potential is massive. During WWII, the U.S. GDP rocketed by several factors. China's economy is basically running at it's max.
4. It is estimated that the U.S, is about 15~30 years technologically ahead of China. This includes both conceptual technology (such as rail guns) as well as practical technology (such as highly heat resistant materials used in jet's).
5. The U.S.'s ballistic missile defense system is presumably very advanced, in the case of nuclear war.
6. China's long range war facilities (such as oversees bases, long range missiles, and aircraft carriers) are still virtually non existent and are estimated to remain very weak for at least another 10~20 years.

This wouldn't be an even fight unless China develops at the rate that it has for the next 30 years.
0x5f3759df
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 3:36:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 12:35:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
US.

Our military industrial complex is far superior.
Democracy facilitates better total war.
We have FAR better tech.
We have more nukes.

Add superior force projection to that list and you essentially have a war that never reaches the continental US or, if so, briefly. That just screams of immediate progression towards an inevitable ending in the favor of the US.

Decades of structural establishment of forward operating bases in various countries and development/construction of a multitude of carriers is not something that is easily surmountable against a force that is already superior-to-competitive in other regards.
LevelWithMe
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 3:39:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 3:36:59 PM, LevelWithMe wrote:
At 8/17/2013 12:35:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
US.

Our military industrial complex is far superior.
Democracy facilitates better total war.
We have FAR better tech.
We have more nukes.

Add superior force projection to that list and you essentially have a war that never reaches the continental US or, if so, briefly. That just screams of immediate progression towards an inevitable ending in the favor of the US.

Decades of structural establishment of forward operating bases in various countries and development/construction of a multitude of carriers is not something that is easily surmountable against a force that is already superior-to-competitive in other regards.
That's not even including how much time we've had to practice and develop intercontinental logistics. Add supply projection to that.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 4:17:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 12:15:09 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
If full out war broke out between the United States and the Peoples Republic of China, who would win? Ok so I know this is probably a real old topic and I only ask cause me and some of the guys in my unit got into a heated argument on this topic just a few hours ago and my curiosity is peeked. Wondering what you all think.

This is not a serious question. China's nuclear deterrent is not nearly the size of America's. America would outright win a nuclear war with China...its deterrent is meaningless against America's, as America could nuke China's nukes pre-launch in a pre-emptive strike.

Without considering nukes, it would be even less serious. China does not have a blue water navy. China's air force is nowhere near as technologically advanced as America's. China's satellite and communications technology is decades behind America.

What prevents such a war is two-fold:

1) American occupation of China is not possible
2) Nuclear war would result in MAD (i.e. Russia, which does have a sizable deterrent).

---

The real question to ask is whether or not the same would be true 30-50 years from now. IMHO with each passing year, it becomes less and less true.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 4:55:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
On a political field, where Exports and Imports are controlled, China won't hold up. It's largest allies that will actually stick with them are tiny red nations. Russia hates them even. They will lose trade with the US, Europe, etc...

Land... China's entire flank is covered in US allies, including the third largest economy, Japan. There is also Taiwan and South Korea, as well as the Philippines. With US/Japanese (and South Korean) support, China wouldn't make it past the coast. They most definitely with not make it past US forces in the Middle East (as the US had planned for.) Even if they did, we wouldn't lose much, they still have thousands of miles to go.

Resources: China doesn't just need to support an army, but a population of 1.35 billion. Without the mass trade needed to feed and provide them with fuel, China will either fall to revolution or attrition.

Distance... China is thousands of miles from US on all ends. With allies, and bases, the US is already up on China. With Japan and the Middle East, they would immediately be on the Defensive. They would have to make it to the US, than across the whole nation to reach our capital, or move through Europe/Africa. The US is up on their land already..

No matter what happens, a land invasion of the US will not ever work. With 98.3 guns per 100 (overly patriotic) people, holding US territory would cripple the Chinese Army. Even if they kept the land, the losses of holding it, and the man power needed to suppress 300 million armed people would cripple their war effort. The US, however, doesn't have that far to go to get into Beijing.

'Merica! XD
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 5:23:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 4:55:00 PM, donald.keller wrote:
On a political field, where Exports and Imports are controlled, China won't hold up. It's largest allies that will actually stick with them are tiny red nations. Russia hates them even. They will lose trade with the US, Europe, etc...

This is 100% false. China is on good trade terms with all of Australasia. In fact, trade in that region is larger than trade with US/Europe combined. China is leading trade negotiations in that region, not Japan, and not the US.

Land... China's entire flank is covered in US allies, including the third largest economy, Japan. There is also Taiwan and South Korea, as well as the Philippines. With US/Japanese (and South Korean) support, China wouldn't make it past the coast. They most definitely with not make it past US forces in the Middle East (as the US had planned for.) Even if they did, we wouldn't lose much, they still have thousands of miles to go.

Those alliances will be severely tested. The US will be at a disadvantage in power projection in that region the more developed China gets.

Also, those alliances are built on nothing BUT US power projection. All other factors - culture, history, even language, easily side with China.

Resources: China doesn't just need to support an army, but a population of 1.35 billion. Without the mass trade needed to feed and provide them with fuel, China will either fall to revolution or attrition.

Again, this is balderdash. Without mass trade, any and every nation will fall to revolution or attrition. That China has a gigantic population means that if they ever close the technological gap, they will be at an advantage to take what they can't get in trade.

Distance... China is thousands of miles from US on all ends. With allies, and bases, the US is already up on China. With Japan and the Middle East, they would immediately be on the Defensive. They would have to make it to the US, than across the whole nation to reach our capital, or move through Europe/Africa. The US is up on their land already..

Middle East alliances are being tested. Iran and Iraq are siding with China/Russia. I sincerely doubt in the long term that Japan will side with the US over China. All that would be required for that relationship to sever is for China to be able to project more power over Japan than America over Japan. Also, America would more than likely never let Japan get nukes like how it let Israel get nukes, so that's not a viable option either.

No matter what happens, a land invasion of the US will not ever work. With 98.3 guns per 100 (overly patriotic) people, holding US territory would cripple the Chinese Army. Even if they kept the land, the losses of holding it, and the man power needed to suppress 300 million armed people would cripple their war effort. The US, however, doesn't have that far to go to get into Beijing.

'Merica! XD

The same is true of an American land invasion of China.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 5:46:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 5:23:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/18/2013 4:55:00 PM, donald.keller wrote:
On a political field, where Exports and Imports are controlled, China won't hold up. It's largest allies that will actually stick with them are tiny red nations. Russia hates them even. They will lose trade with the US, Europe, etc...


This is 100% false. China is on good trade terms with all of Australasia. In fact, trade in that region is larger than trade with US/Europe combined. China is leading trade negotiations in that region, not Japan, and not the US.

To clarify, I meant Australia, East Asia, and SE Asia when I said Australasia (which apparently includes almost none of that, lol).
http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 3:34:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
After having had time to think about this, I have come to an annoying, but I think defensible, view.

China and the United States would destroy most of each other. Neither side would "win." One side might be less mauled, which is a poor target to hope for.

The winners would be those who would profit most from such a war; powers that make millions from war, and use their fortunes to influence those who have the power to cause war. These war profiteers can always be expected to go unmolested throughout war. Conflict makes this society (to the exclusion of all others) stronger the longer and bloodier it is.

Axiom: The wealthier the war millionaires are allowed to become, the more influential they become to political decision makers. The more influential they become, the more likely a war will occur that will enrich them further.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 11:30:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 3:34:46 PM, DeFool wrote:
After having had time to think about this, I have come to an annoying, but I think defensible, view.

China and the United States would destroy most of each other. Neither side would "win." One side might be less mauled, which is a poor target to hope for.

The winners would be those who would profit most from such a war; powers that make millions from war, and use their fortunes to influence those who have the power to cause war. These war profiteers can always be expected to go unmolested throughout war. Conflict makes this society (to the exclusion of all others) stronger the longer and bloodier it is.

Axiom: The wealthier the war millionaires are allowed to become, the more influential they become to political decision makers. The more influential they become, the more likely a war will occur that will enrich them further.

It would certainly be a costly war for both sides however I gota say Its an almost guaranteed US victory. Now my only thing with what you said is "china and the US would destroy most of eachother"? Are you taking about direct damage on US soil? I understand in lives and equipment lost in the invasion of China but I don't see it as plausible for the Chinese to ever even set a single foot on US soil. For instance how would they even get here?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 12:06:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 6:14:09 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There are no winners in war.

Nonsense. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China were all winners from the Iraq War.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 12:09:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 11:30:42 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/19/2013 3:34:46 PM, DeFool wrote:
After having had time to think about this, I have come to an annoying, but I think defensible, view.

China and the United States would destroy most of each other. Neither side would "win." One side might be less mauled, which is a poor target to hope for.

The winners would be those who would profit most from such a war; powers that make millions from war, and use their fortunes to influence those who have the power to cause war. These war profiteers can always be expected to go unmolested throughout war. Conflict makes this society (to the exclusion of all others) stronger the longer and bloodier it is.

Axiom: The wealthier the war millionaires are allowed to become, the more influential they become to political decision makers. The more influential they become, the more likely a war will occur that will enrich them further.

It would certainly be a costly war for both sides however I gota say Its an almost guaranteed US victory. Now my only thing with what you said is "china and the US would destroy most of eachother"? Are you taking about direct damage on US soil? I understand in lives and equipment lost in the invasion of China but I don't see it as plausible for the Chinese to ever even set a single foot on US soil. For instance how would they even get here?

My only contention here is with the word "victory". The only way the US would decisively "win" such a war is to whittle down the population to something far less than the US, either through carpet bombing or nuclear warfare. If they do not, the insurgency will destroy any attempt at a US occupation. It would make Iraq look like a picnic.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 12:29:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The US would win hands down, no competition. This isn't a serious question for anyone who knows anything about the militaries of these two countries. Wrichriw has a valid point about the definition of victory though, but I doubt the US would have to invade mainland China to subdue it. The chances of war breaking out between either of the countries any time soon is ridiculously slight anyway
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 7:20:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 12:29:45 AM, thett3 wrote:
The US would win hands down, no competition. This isn't a serious question for anyone who knows anything about the militaries of these two countries. Wrichriw has a valid point about the definition of victory though, but I doubt the US would have to invade mainland China to subdue it. The chances of war breaking out between either of the countries any time soon is ridiculously slight anyway

No, invasions on either side are not needed. In fact, considering the damage potential for both parties a proxy war is the most likely type of conflict between these two. By "proxy war" I mean a conflict such as those that became common during the Cold War. The US/Soviet wars took place in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba and so on... not in Alabama, the Ukraine, Texas and Tajikistan.

Nothing in the whole world is as enraging or as unforgivable as weakness and vulnerability. These conditions will invite a relentless attack with the slightest provocation. (Ask this nations top earners if they despise and want to harm the unemployed, minorities and the middle class. Ask the poor and middle income earners if they admire the wealthy. Compare and contrast the answers.)

The US and China are not "weak." Either of these states can kill billions of human lives within hours of deciding to do so. If we want an honest evaluation of conflict between them, we must re-define what a "pitched battle" between them would look like. It would not be a massed-army attack, or a doomsday nuclear holocaust. It might not even involve bullets. I would look to our main vulnerabilities within our campaign finance system. Why would China spend billions on aircraft carriers when bribing their way into our congress is so much cheaper?
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 8:11:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I wont go into deep technical detail, but the US has the capacity to wage extensively long and costly wars much better then the Chinese do, so no matter what damage both nations do manage to do to each other, as time goes on the odds grow more and more in favor of the US.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 8:49:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 7:20:15 AM, DeFool wrote:

The US and China are not "weak." Either of these states can kill billions of human lives within hours of deciding to do so. If we want an honest evaluation of conflict between them, we must re-define what a "pitched battle" between them would look like. It would not be a massed-army attack, or a doomsday nuclear holocaust. It might not even involve bullets. I would look to our main vulnerabilities within our campaign finance system. Why would China spend billions on aircraft carriers when bribing their way into our congress is so much cheaper?

I think this is getting close to the nature of the current conflict, but I also see it departing from the intentions of the OP.

Another "vulnerability" is labor competitiveness, which IMHO is China's main advantage, one they have fully taken advantage of during the Bush years, and one they will continue to take advantage of going forward if Western economies ever recover.

This advantage will actually become more pronounced the more developed China gets. The education system around east Asia cranks out students much more suited to an information-age economy than America's. We already see this trend with companies like Foxconn, which is Taiwanese, and Samsung, which is Korean. They may not lead in design and development, but why would they have to, when most of the high-tech manufacturing capacity of the world is located in east Asia? How easy would it be to steal design schematics, or to make copy-cat products via reverse engineering?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 9:01:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's also my main critique of GDP measurements/productivity currently, in that (extreme example) a Prada handbag that sells for several hundred times the competition inflates GDP for countries that have such strong brands. At a certain point, that branding becomes more valuable than actual production, and companies like Prada, Gucci, Benz, and even Proctor and Gamble and Coca Cola have crossed that point a long, long time ago.

That branding is "intangible", it's based upon things like reputation and perceptions of quality. Once those perceptions change (like, say, due to a prolonged economic crisis that displays dramatic incompetencies in economic matters) then those "intangible" components of GDP and productivity will decline, even if "production" of those handbags remains constant.

IMHO this is the largest risk to Western companies and thus Western economies, that so much of their profitability is not based upon cost considerations, but on branding and reputation. I don't understand how studies that cite the West as being the "most productive" fail to take this into consideration. I can only attribute it to hubris.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 10:38:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 8:49:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 7:20:15 AM, DeFool wrote:

The US and China are not "weak." Either of these states can kill billions of human lives within hours of deciding to do so. If we want an honest evaluation of conflict between them, we must re-define what a "pitched battle" between them would look like. It would not be a massed-army attack, or a doomsday nuclear holocaust. It might not even involve bullets. I would look to our main vulnerabilities within our campaign finance system. Why would China spend billions on aircraft carriers when bribing their way into our congress is so much cheaper?

I think this is getting close to the nature of the current conflict, but I also see it departing from the intentions of the OP.

Another "vulnerability" is labor competitiveness, which IMHO is China's main advantage, one they have fully taken advantage of during the Bush years, and one they will continue to take advantage of going forward if Western economies ever recover.

This advantage will actually become more pronounced the more developed China gets. The education system around east Asia cranks out students much more suited to an information-age economy than America's. We already see this trend with companies like Foxconn, which is Taiwanese, and Samsung, which is Korean. They may not lead in design and development, but why would they have to, when most of the high-tech manufacturing capacity of the world is located in east Asia? How easy would it be to steal design schematics, or to make copy-cat products via reverse engineering?

I see campaign finance, education, economic strength and social adaptability as critical national security issues - relevant to the thread because every war that is won or lost is decided on these grounds. No war in history has ever begun or ended on a battlefield; peace has vanquished every war and every war has destroyed every peace.

I can never separate war from politics; the political component is what separates the satanism of war from fistfights. War is the clash of competing political systems - not men or armies or civilizations or ideologies, despite what we are told.

The American superiority in this area ensures a martial victory over China, because it allows our industry, diplomacy and lifestyles to commit and endure greater degrees of political killings than the Chinese are capable of.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 10:47:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 10:38:56 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/20/2013 8:49:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/20/2013 7:20:15 AM, DeFool wrote:

The US and China are not "weak." Either of these states can kill billions of human lives within hours of deciding to do so. If we want an honest evaluation of conflict between them, we must re-define what a "pitched battle" between them would look like. It would not be a massed-army attack, or a doomsday nuclear holocaust. It might not even involve bullets. I would look to our main vulnerabilities within our campaign finance system. Why would China spend billions on aircraft carriers when bribing their way into our congress is so much cheaper?

I think this is getting close to the nature of the current conflict, but I also see it departing from the intentions of the OP.

Another "vulnerability" is labor competitiveness, which IMHO is China's main advantage, one they have fully taken advantage of during the Bush years, and one they will continue to take advantage of going forward if Western economies ever recover.

This advantage will actually become more pronounced the more developed China gets. The education system around east Asia cranks out students much more suited to an information-age economy than America's. We already see this trend with companies like Foxconn, which is Taiwanese, and Samsung, which is Korean. They may not lead in design and development, but why would they have to, when most of the high-tech manufacturing capacity of the world is located in east Asia? How easy would it be to steal design schematics, or to make copy-cat products via reverse engineering?

I see campaign finance, education, economic strength and social adaptability as critical national security issues - relevant to the thread because every war that is won or lost is decided on these grounds. No war in history has ever begun or ended on a battlefield; peace has vanquished every war and every war has destroyed every peace.

I can never separate war from politics; the political component is what separates the satanism of war from fistfights. War is the clash of competing political systems - not men or armies or civilizations or ideologies, despite what we are told.

The American superiority in this area ensures a martial victory over China, because it allows our industry, diplomacy and lifestyles to commit and endure greater degrees of political killings than the Chinese are capable of.

Again, I totally agree with your logic here, just that I see the OP as asking about a grudge match NOW between the US and China. I did a debate on this subject the resolution of which was actually more relevant to your line of thinking, but my opponent continually insisted upon putting "long term" considerations into the framework of a conflict NOW between the two. I think I lost that debate because I didn't PM people on my list about the debate, whereas my opponent did. Otherwise, IMHO it wasn't close, but c'est la vie. I'll give credit to my opponent that he "won" fair and square given how this website currently works.
http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:08:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
BTW defool, if you want another example of a debate that wasn't close but yet somehow still lost by the "better" side, look at this one - I'm telling you this because of the recent threads we've been having over Iraq:
http://www.debate.org...

I mean, hitch is a nice guy and makes interesting points, but IMHO Cody totally outclassed him...yet Cody still lost, lol.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 9:40:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 11:08:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
BTW defool, if you want another example of a debate that wasn't close but yet somehow still lost by the "better" side, look at this one - I'm telling you this because of the recent threads we've been having over Iraq:
http://www.debate.org...

I mean, hitch is a nice guy and makes interesting points, but IMHO Cody totally outclassed him...yet Cody still lost, lol.

I am surprised that I didn't vote in that debate. I know that I began reading it.

After having looked it over just now, I am fairly confident that I would have voted for CON. PROs argument was essentially polemic; he argues strongly that the US was compelled to take some meaningful action, but he fails to cross the finish line and require us to also agree that we must have gone to war. Either full scale war or nothing - this is a false choice.

This is the same false choice that we encountered in Vietnam - which can be viewed as a proxy war with China. This gives us an idea of what such a Sino/US war would look like today. China would want to limit the conflict, as the famous "300" Spartans might do, to a defensible bottleneck where our soldiers can be slaughtered. Such a bottleneck exists today, and should be included in the discussion: Taiwan.

Currently, Taiwan is considered a renegade province by the mainland. There is no possibility that the Taiwanese will return to the maternal bed with China - therefore, war or change. I fear that Chinese financial political involvement in Taiwanese affairs will lead to "Pro-China" politicians on the island, which will set up the change that I expect.

If this evolution fails, or if the mainland grows impatient, a China/America war becomes hard to avoid.

It should be noted that China has a proxy by which nuclear weapons can be delivered to the US: Pakistan. It should also be noted that China can field drones, has a larger army than America, and can destroy any American warship with its advanced missiles: we do not dare to approach with an aircraft carrier.

We all agree, however, that America would win; the "victory" would not be celebrated.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 10:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 9:40:23 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/20/2013 11:08:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
BTW defool, if you want another example of a debate that wasn't close but yet somehow still lost by the "better" side, look at this one - I'm telling you this because of the recent threads we've been having over Iraq:
http://www.debate.org...

I mean, hitch is a nice guy and makes interesting points, but IMHO Cody totally outclassed him...yet Cody still lost, lol.

I am surprised that I didn't vote in that debate. I know that I began reading it.

After having looked it over just now, I am fairly confident that I would have voted for CON. PROs argument was essentially polemic; he argues strongly that the US was compelled to take some meaningful action, but he fails to cross the finish line and require us to also agree that we must have gone to war. Either full scale war or nothing - this is a false choice.

This is the same false choice that we encountered in Vietnam - which can be viewed as a proxy war with China. This gives us an idea of what such a Sino/US war would look like today. China would want to limit the conflict, as the famous "300" Spartans might do, to a defensible bottleneck where our soldiers can be slaughtered. Such a bottleneck exists today, and should be included in the discussion: Taiwan.

It's possible to view Vietnam like that, or it's possible to view it through the Domino theory, in which case the US successfully prosecuted that war. Agree though that the Vietnamese national boundaries made high US casualties unavoidable, and that pitting a war in that nation led to maximal US casualties in that theater (even though the actual body counts far and away favored the US anyway).

I wholly disagree that Taiwan is a viable proxy theater for a similar style engagement:

1) There is no "proxy" for China - the Vietcong were the proxies in Vietnam. The Chinese would have to get directly involved in any prosecution of a conflict in Taiwan, like Russia in Afghanistan.
2) Our security relationship with Taiwan is about as rock-solid as the one we have with Japan and South Korea. It would not be a proxy war...escalation would be swift and possibly uncontrollable. Depending on when such an engagement occurs, it is entirely conceivable that Japan and South Korea would come to the defense of Taiwan. Regardless, such a war is extremely unlikely...a war on the Korean peninsula is far more likely, and the possibilities of that one are also ridiculously remote, even though proxies are already available for both sides of the conflict.

Currently, Taiwan is considered a renegade province by the mainland. There is no possibility that the Taiwanese will return to the maternal bed with China - therefore, war or change. I fear that Chinese financial political involvement in Taiwanese affairs will lead to "Pro-China" politicians on the island, which will set up the change that I expect.

Again, I disagree. There is IMHO a high likelihood that Taiwan will eventually return to the mainland. There are cultural and political ties present that are absent in Korea and Japan. If Taiwan does not become a direct province of China, it could still become a satellite of some sort.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but your "change" scenario is very similar to what I just described. I don't understand how you can view PROC and ROC relations as antagonistic long term.

If this evolution fails, or if the mainland grows impatient, a China/America war becomes hard to avoid.

Agree.

It should be noted that China has a proxy by which nuclear weapons can be delivered to the US: Pakistan. It should also be noted that China can field drones, has a larger army than America, and can destroy any American warship with its advanced missiles: we do not dare to approach with an aircraft carrier.

I'm not aware of this Pakistan connection, and I'm not certain that those missiles could impact a carrier fleet, especially given the ranges in which a US fleet could viably operate against a mainland target. If you have something on either of these scenarios, I'd be interested in reading about it.

We all agree, however, that America would win; the "victory" would not be celebrated.

Not in America or China...perhaps in Europe and the Middle East.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:18:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It should be noted that China has a proxy by which nuclear weapons can be delivered to the US: Pakistan. It should also be noted that China can field drones, has a larger army than America, and can destroy any American warship with its advanced missiles: we do not dare to approach with an aircraft carrier.

We all agree, however, that America would win; the "victory" would not be celebrated.

I have to severely disagree with this. First off Chinas "advanced" missiles are extremely overrated, and you forget that we also have advanced middle systems. Yet unlike the Chinese we have them set up practicaly next dire to them. Japan and Korea. Possibly even in Austrailia soon as well. We have the sibgle largest abd most advanced Air Force and Navy on the entire planet and by utilizing these it would not be unlikely that we could win the war with China with out ever stepping a single boot within its borders. Yes china has drones. Not as many and not as effective as ours though. And the larger army argument is terrible. Just terrible. Only a fool would bet military victory on numbers. Not to mention the fact that their vast numbers will actually be a hindrance and possibly a major downfall for them.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:23:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My only contention here is with the word "victory". The only way the US would decisively "win" such a war is to whittle down the population to something far less than the US, either through carpet bombing or nuclear warfare. If they do not, the insurgency will destroy any attempt at a US occupation. It would make Iraq look like a picnic.

I understand that your main fear the is a US occupation of China but that's based only on IF the US actually occupied china. We could easily blow the living hell out of them from afar, and that's not with nukes, and force them to surrender and meet terms without ever stepping foot in mainland china. Even if we did send in the troops whose to say we wouldn't just sweep through and a destroy practicaly everything in sight. And then leave? Which on a war with china I see as highly likely.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:38:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/20/2013 11:23:25 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
My only contention here is with the word "victory". The only way the US would decisively "win" such a war is to whittle down the population to something far less than the US, either through carpet bombing or nuclear warfare. If they do not, the insurgency will destroy any attempt at a US occupation. It would make Iraq look like a picnic.

I understand that your main fear the is a US occupation of China but that's based only on IF the US actually occupied china. We could easily blow the living hell out of them from afar, and that's not with nukes, and force them to surrender and meet terms without ever stepping foot in mainland china. Even if we did send in the troops whose to say we wouldn't just sweep through and a destroy practicaly everything in sight. And then leave? Which on a war with china I see as highly likely.

This goes back to what it means to "win" a war. I think neither Iraq nor America "won" the Iraq War...I was fully serious in my reply to FREEDO that Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China "won" that war.

We "won" the USSR-Afghanistan conflict in the late 70s. We benefited the most from that conflict.

When two boxers fight in the ring and knock the sh!t out of each other so that both of them develop permanent brain damage, who really wins? Is it one of the boxers, or the guy that makes the correct bet on the match? Or is it the guy that fixes the match? Or is it the guy that set up the whole extravaganza?

So, back to who would win a US/China conflict, IMHO it would be parties that would be able to take advantage of the results. If 800 million people die in China and the US wrecks its own economy bombing the sh!t out of that country, that all of a sudden makes labor in other countries competitive again, so Europe, India, SE Asia and the Middle East directly benefit. America would have to take up massive debt to effectively wage a war against China, so it would more than likely experience some sort of financial catastrophe and become beholden to debtholders all around the world. The US would gain absolutely nothing from that war if it didn't occupy China and annex the territory, so the US would clearly NOT be a winner in such a conflict, no matter how lop-sided the body count became.

The problem with such an analysis is that it doesn't take the actions of other parties into consideration. China has a pretty rock-solid alliance with Russia currently, so if the US started to behave badly against either of them, then the other party of that alliance would voice its displeasure. Russia has a sizable deterrent against anything America does, conventional or nuclear. This alone makes a US/China conflict EXTREMELY unlikely.

Besides that, like I've outlined, China trades more with Asia than the US/Europe COMBINED, so all of those countries, who guess what...EXPORT TO CHINA, would become extremely pissed at the US for destroying its cash cow. The US would make enemies out of nearly every single country in that region.

The scenario you're proposing is not serious. It's simply not a political possibility, unless you think the Moon crashing into the Earth tomorrow is a possibility.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2013 11:54:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In case you missed this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Taiwan and South Korea export more to China than what all of Europe exports to China.

ASEAN and Japan export more to China than what the US and Europe COMBINED export to China.

ASEAN, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea exports to China about as much as what China exports to US/Europe. So, you think that trade relationship is sh!tty for us? Guess what? ASEAN, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea LOVE that trade relationship. Our greed and profligacy FUELS THEIR ECONOMIES. China is just the middleman here.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?