Could China Beat The USA In A War?

[deltex1]

The US owes a large amount of money to China and it seems that we can't live our daily lives without borrowing money from them. The population of China allows the country an almost unlimited source of soldiers and resources. Moreover, Chinese are extremely patriotic. The American soldiers are mostly illegal immigrants who have join the army to obtain their legal documents. So...how about my question?

Other than you being an ahole...the chinks could only beat us if we fight at their level of incompetence...and have a weak leader. So wait until 2017 before we fight.

Can't join the discussion without resorting to the use of racial slurs? Too difficult for you?

Need a tissue, unk?

 

[waltky]

Tit for tat for China cruisin' the Aleutian Islands during his visit to Alaska...

US Warships Haven’t Entered Waters Near China-Claimed Islands Since 2012
September 17, 2015 | The United States should make clear to China that it does not recognize its sovereignty claims in the South China Sea by sailing warships within 12 nautical miles of artificial islands Beijing has constructed, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Thursday.

Not doing so, he said during a committee hearing on maritime security strategy in the Asia-Pacific, was “a dangerous mistake that grants de-facto recognition of China’s man-made sovereignty claims.” Pressed as to the last time U.S. Navy ships did enter the waters within 12 miles of the artificial islands, assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs David Shear told McCain that had happened in 2012. Elsewhere in the South China Sea, he said, the U.S. had conducted “freedom of navigation operations” most recently last April. (Freedom of navigation operations are those that assert the navy’s rights to sail both within 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones and 12 nautical mile territorial waters recognized under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.)

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Mustin on patrol in the South China Sea

Shear stressed that carrying out such operations was just one tool available to the military “in fixing this issue.” “As we move forward we are going to consider freedom of navigation operations along with a variety of other options to ensure that both the Chinese and the region understands that we can operate, and we do operate, anywhere we can.” McCain retorted, “The best sign of respecting freedom of the seas is not to de-facto recognize a 12-mile limit, and the best way you can make sure that is not recognized is to sail your ships in international waters – which it clearly is, these are artificial islands – and pass right on by.” “We haven’t done that since 2012,” he said. “I don’t find that acceptable, Mr. Secretary, and with all the other tools you have in the toolbox, the most visible assertion of freedom of the seas is to peacefully sail inside the 12-mile limit of artificial islands.”

The littoral combat ship USS Fort Worth transits the South China Sea

McCain recalled that China had recently sailed navy vessels in U.S. territorial waters near Alaska – within 12 miles of the Aleutian Islands – as President Obama ended a visit to the state. Under the Law of the Sea, ships have the right of “innocent passage” through the territorial seas of a coastal state, so China’s actions were deemed not to have violated international law. McCain acknowledged that, but added “we have not been asserting our rights just as forcefully.”

‘The South China Sea is no more China’s than the Gulf of Mexico is Mexico’s’

China is embroiled in territorial disputes with a handful of South-East Asia countries including Vietnam and the Philippines over resource-rich areas of the South China Sea, an area that includes some of the world’s most crucial shipping trade corridors. Chinese “land reclamation” projects in the area have expanded rocky outcrops into sizeable artificial islands. Early this week a Chinese admiral said in London that “the South China Sea, as the name indicates, is a sea that belongs to China.” Shear said he agreed with McCain that “the South China Sea doesn’t belong to China” and added that carrying out future freedom of navigation missions was “one of the array of options we’re considering –” “Well it’s an option that hasn’t been exercised in three years,” McCain interjected.

MORE

 

[waltky]

Another Gulf of Tonkin type incident will get us into another crazy Asian war...

U.S. mulls sailing near disputed South China Sea islands: Pentagon official
Thu Oct 8, 2015 - The United States is considering sailing warships close to China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea to signal it does not recognize Chinese territorial claims over the area, a U.S. defense official said on Thursday.

The Financial Times newspaper cited a senior U.S. official as saying U.S. ships would sail within 12-nautical-mile zones that China claims as territory around islands it has built in the Spratly chain, within the next two weeks. The Navy Times quoted U.S. officials as saying the action could take place "within days," but awaited final approval from the Obama administration. A U.S. defense official declined to confirm that any decision had been made, but referred to remarks in congressional testimony last month by U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense David Shear, that "all options are on the table." "We are looking at this," the official said, on condition of anonymity. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said he was aware of the media reports but did not have any comment on future policy decisions.

Chinese dredging vessels are purportedly seen in the waters around Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in this still image from video taken by a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft provided by the United States Navy​

Earnest told a regular news briefing that any such move "should not provoke significant reaction from the Chinese." "This is something the United States has done on several other occasions because the president is committed to the principle of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea." Shear, the U.S. assistant secretary of defense, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month there had been no U.S. patrols within 12 miles of the Chinese-claimed islands since 2012.

In May, the Chinese navy issued eight warnings to the crew of a U.S. P8-A Poseidon surveillance aircraft when they conducted flights near China's artificial islands, according to CNN, which was aboard the U.S. aircraft. China claims most of the South China Sea, where the Spratly islands are located and $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have overlapping claims.

CHINA WATCHING CLOSELY

 

[waltky]

Obama challengin' China's island reclamation...

U.S. Patrols to Test China’s Pledge on South China Sea Islands
Oct. 12, 2015 - ‘A matter of time’ when operations will start despite Xi Jinping’s surprise commitment in Washington

The U.S. determination to challenge China with patrols near Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea will test Xi Jinping’s recent pledge that Beijing doesn’t intend to “militarize” the islands, an announcement that took U.S. officials by surprise. The Chinese leader made the commitment during a news conference with President Barack Obama at the White House late last month, though he left it unclear how the pledge would affect China’s activities in the disputed area of the South China Sea. If Mr. Xi’s goal was to discourage the U.S. from conducting patrols near the artificial islands, he doesn’t appear to have succeeded. After months of debate in the U.S. government, there is now a consensus that the U.S. Navy should send ships or aircraft within 12 nautical miles of the artificial islands to challenge China’s territorial claims there, according to people familiar with internal discussions.

An April photo released by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank shows a satellite image of what is claimed to be an airstrip under construction at Fiery Cross Reef in the disputed South China Sea.​

A U.S. official confirmed Sunday that a decision had been made to conduct such patrols but said it was unclear when that might happen or where exactly. “It’s just a matter of time when it happens,” the official said. Another U.S. official indicated that the operation could come within days. The question now is whether China will respond to such operations by reining in its plans to develop the islands or backing away from the commitment not to militarize them, pointing to the U.S. patrols as a provocation. The Pacific Fleet has been ready to conduct “freedom of navigation operations,” or Fonops, around China’s artificial islands for months after being asked to draw up options by U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter earlier this year. The decision to begin the patrols appears to have been delayed to avoid disrupting the summit, people familiar with internal discussions say. “A U.S. Fonop gives China an opportunity to assert that the United States is the country ‘militarizing’ the South China Sea and, if China chooses, such a Fonop provides a rationale for China to further militarize or develop the features it occupies,” said Taylor Fravel, an expert on the Chinese military at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mr. Xi issued no such pledge about not intending to militarize the islands in his private discussions with Mr. Obama, according to people briefed on the talks, and U.S. officials had no time immediately after the news conference to clarify with their Chinese counterparts what was meant by “militarize.” U.S. officials, who have been seeking clarification from their Beijing counterparts since, don’t think Mr. Xi misspoke. But the unexpected remarks on one of the most sensitive issues in China-U.S. relations suggested how Mr. Xi’s top-down leadership style can cause confusion. A White House spokesman declined to comment on Mr. Xi’s remarks but referred to President Obama’s statement at the joint news conference that “The United States will continue to sail, fly and operate anywhere that international law allows.”

MORE

 

[westwall]

The US owes a large amount of money to China and it seems that we can't live our daily lives without borrowing money from them. The population of China allows the country an almost unlimited source of soldiers and resources. Moreover, Chinese are extremely patriotic. The American soldiers are mostly illegal immigrants who have join the army to obtain their legal documents. So...how about my question?

If the Chinese can get to us it would be a bad thing. We can trade one for two of theirs and they still outnumber us by three to one at the end of it.

 

[Kondor3]

No.

 

[waltky]

Obama gonna tweak Xi's nose...

U.S. patrols to raise stakes with Beijing in disputed South China Sea
Sat Oct 24, 2015 - U.S. plans to send warships or military aircraft within 12 nautical miles of China's artificial islands in the disputed South China Sea, possibly within days, could open a tense new front in Sino-U.S. rivalry.

A range of security experts said Washington's so-called freedom of navigation patrols would have to be regular to be effective, given Chinese ambitions to project power deep into maritime Southeast Asia and beyond. But China would likely resist attempts to make such U.S. actions routine, some said, raising the political and military stakes. China's navy could for example try to block or attempt to surround U.S. vessels, they said, risking an escalation. Given months of debate already in Washington over the first such patrol close to the Chinese outposts since 2012, several regional security experts and former naval officers said the U.S. government might be reluctant to do them often.

Chinese dredging vessels are purportedly seen in the waters around Mischief Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea in this still image from video taken by a P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft​

U.S. allies such as Japan and Australia are unlikely to follow with their own direct challenges to China, despite their concerns over freedom of navigation along vital trade routes, they added. "This cannot be a one-off," said Ian Storey, a South China Sea expert at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. "The U.S. navy will have to conduct these kinds of patrols on a regular basis to reinforce their message." The Obama administration has said it would test China's territorial claims to the area after months of pressure from Congress and the U.S. military. It has not given a timeframe. "I think we have been very clear - that we intend to do this," State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters last Monday.

Chinese Foreign Ministry officials said this month that Beijing would "never allow any country to violate China's territorial waters and airspace in the Spratly islands in the name of protecting navigation and overflight". Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 12-nautical mile limits cannot be set around man-made islands built on previously submerged reefs. Four of the seven reefs China has reclaimed over the last two years were completely submerged at high tide before construction began, legal scholars say. China claims most of the South China Sea. Other claimants are Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.

"NO-GO ZONE"

 

[IsaacNewton]

International waters, we should be building fake islands for bases as well. See how that sits in their vase.

 

[waltky]

China givin' fair warnin'...

China warns US Navy after ship sails by Chinese-built island
Oct 27,`15 -- A U.S. Navy warship sailed past one of China's artificial islands in the South China Sea on Tuesday, in a challenge to Chinese sovereignty claims that drew an angry protest from Beijing, which said the move damaged U.S.-China relations and regional peace.

China's Foreign Ministry said authorities monitored and warned the USS Lassen as it entered what China claims as a 12-mile (21-kilometer) territorial limit around Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands archipelago, a group of reefs, islets, and atolls where the Philippines has competing claims. "The actions of the U.S. warship have threatened China's sovereignty and security interests, jeopardized the safety of personnel and facilities on the reefs, and damaged regional peace and stability," the ministry said on its website. "The Chinese side expresses its strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition," the statement said.

The USS Lassen is anchored in Yokosuka near Tokyo. The U.S. Navy is preparing to sail the USS Lassen near artificial islands built by China in the South China Sea in a long-anticipated challenge to what it considers Beijing’s "excessive claim" of sovereignty in those waters, two U.S. officials said Oct. 26. The officials said the White House approved the movement by the USS Lassen, a guided missile destroyer, around the Spratly Islands archipelago, a disputed group of hundreds of reefs, islets, atolls and islands in the South China.​

The sail-past fits a U.S. policy of pushing back against China's growing assertiveness in the South China Sea. U.S. ally the Philippines welcomed the move as a way of helping maintain "a balance of power." Since 2013, China has accelerated the creation of new outposts by piling sand atop reefs and atolls then adding buildings, ports and airstrips big enough to handle bombers and fighter jets - activities seen as an attempt to change the territorial status quo by changing the geography. Navy officials had said the sail-past was necessary to assert the U.S. position that China's manmade islands cannot be considered sovereign territory with the right to surrounding territorial waters.

International law permits military vessels the right of "innocent passage" in transiting other country's seas without notification. China's Foreign Ministry, though, labeled the ship's actions as illegal. The U.S. says it doesn't take a position on sovereignty over the South China Sea but insists on freedom of navigation and overflight. About 30 percent of global trade passes through the South China Sea, which also has rich fishing grounds and a potential wealth of undersea mineral deposits. China says it respects the right of navigation but has never specified the exact legal status of its maritime claims. China says virtually all of the South China Sea belongs to it, while Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam claim either parts or all of it.

MORE

 

[rightwinger]

International waters, we should be building fake islands for bases as well. See how that sits in their vase.

We don't need fake islands. We have bases around the world on real islands

 

[IsaacNewton]

International waters, we should be building fake islands for bases as well. See how that sits in their vase.

We don't need fake islands. We have bases around the world on real islands

Duh really?

You have to look at geography, a general statement like that means really nothing. The world is a big place.

 

[Likkmee]

Lets see here. Korean war.crap opponent LOSS. Still there
Vietnam conflict.Unequipped opponent. LOSS.
Nicaragua. FAIL. Viva Ortega ! ( Chinese rival to Panama canal under way)
Desert storm. Who's asking ?
Afghailand. Still there.Great opium.
Iraq. Still there---waiting on flowers....and reimbursement via oil for "liberating them"

I'd venture to say.....YUP ! But not to worry ! Ol' numero uno never fights an armed opponent !

 

[Unkotare]

Lets see here. Korean war...... LOSS. ...!

Wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

If the U.S. were to invade mainland China we would suffer enough casualties to not want to continue the invasion

China is totally incapable of invading mainland United States

On neutral ground, the U.S. is more prepared to conduct operations in far away lands. We are also better trained and better equipped We would wipe them out

 

[Unkotare]

....
Vietnam conflict...... LOSS. !

Wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

...
Nicaragua. FAIL.... !

Wrong.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If we don't consider the fact that Russia would help china, and Cuba would be a base of operation for China and Russia, then yes the U.S could beat China.
That being said, the U.S would lose because the liberals would demand on surgical strikes with no civilian casualties while China and Russia wiped out our population.
Fortunately Neither China or Russia would want to send ground troops into the U.S because of all the weapons held by private citizens. It would be a blood bath for them.

 

[rightwinger]

If we don't consider the fact that Russia would help china, and Cuba would be a base of operation for China and Russia, then yes the U.S could beat China.
That being said, the U.S would lose because the liberals would demand on surgical strikes with no civilian casualties while China and Russia wiped out our population.
Fortunately Neither China or Russia would want to send ground troops into the U.S because of all the weapons held by private citizens. It would be a blood bath for them.

Good god

The gun nuts "They are afraid of my guns" argument again

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If we don't consider the fact that Russia would help china, and Cuba would be a base of operation for China and Russia, then yes the U.S could beat China.
That being said, the U.S would lose because the liberals would demand on surgical strikes with no civilian casualties while China and Russia wiped out our population.
Fortunately Neither China or Russia would want to send ground troops into the U.S because of all the weapons held by private citizens. It would be a blood bath for them.

Good god

The gun nuts "They are afraid of my guns" argument again

sorry about the reality of it. Why do you think the U.N wants the U.S to disarm its citizens? any clue? can you think of anything in history that might be an example?

 

[IsaacNewton]

LOL Cuba is irrelevant in such a conflict, we would neutralize them in a week or less. Russia wont join China defacto. The US spends 600 billion dollars a year on defense, Russia and China each spend less than 80 billion a year. And this has been the case for 10-15 years. Both Russia and China know what this means.

Lastly, the world has gotten complacent re America's real war making ability. Every other country knows that if a REAL war were to break out with the US and we were to bring all our resources to bear it would be a huge shit sandwich for them. Talk is one thing but military people around the world DO know the score.