second most powerful country

[Nazis in Space]

The last time American forces came up against Chinese soldiers was in Korea. There, the ratio of casualties was approximately 3 Chinese to every 1 American. On the frontline, the Americans had complete air superiority, and superior technology in every way. Did they 'steamroll' the Chinese? No, you couldn't even get past the 38th parallel. And since then, the gap in training and technology has been closing.

I don't particularly disagree with the other stuff, but this isn't entirely correct - the United States were fighting Korea with a lot of cold war holdover kit, just like the Chinese - which basically meant that, for example, American Shermans had to duke it out with Chinese T-34s. In some areas, such as this one, the Chinese had technological superiority - the odd, rare Pershing here and there didn't change all that much in the equation.

The American air superiority was also partially negated by way of the Chinese tendency to fight during the night, something that simply doesn't carry the same protective factor today that it did back then. And the American ability to screw with the Chinese supply lines was dramatically reduced by a whole lot of Russian-piloted MiGs - enjoying technological superiority over the B 29 fleet - forcing said B 29 fleet to operate at nighttime. Not to mention that the Chinese had vastly more recent experience than the UN forces, particularly when it came to fight under just the conditions they were forced to fight under in Korea - which were rather similar to the conditions under which they'd fought the Kuomintang a few years previously.

Korea is by no means an example of a low-tech opponent defeating a hightech one, and it's IMHO not invalid to suggest that the techgap has actually increased since then. Sure, the Chinese can produce a lot more shiny kit domestically than they could back then, but their Russian support has been reduced quite considerably. I'd certainly rank the advantages of current American tanks and planes way ahead of what was the case during the Korean war.

The Chinese remain a highly professional army, and aren't a pushover by any means - the sheer ability to saturate any staging area for a possible invasion force with ordnance, while their own hinterland remains relatively safe helps a lot with holding their position -, but the situation today is a great deal different from the situation in 1950.

[Airstrip 100]

I don't particularly disagree with the other stuff, but this isn't entirely correct - the United States were fighting Korea with a lot of cold war holdover kit, just like the Chinese - which basically meant that, for example, American Shermans had to duke it out with Chinese T-34s. In some areas, such as this one, the Chinese had technological superiority - the odd, rare Pershing here and there didn't change all that much in the equation.

The M4 Sherman was in fact superior to the T-34 (which in any case China had very few of), with a heavier weight, thicker armour, and a better cannon.

The rest of China's equipment was much worse, mostly consisting of weaponry that the Japanese had left behind at the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Really, the only area where they had technological superiority was in their MiG-15s, and they were hampered by the fact that they weren't allowed to operate at the frontlines.

The American air superiority was also partially negated by way of the Chinese tendency to fight during the night, something that simply doesn't carry the same protective factor today that it did back then. And the American ability to screw with the Chinese supply lines was dramatically reduced by a whole lot of Russian-piloted MiGs - enjoying technological superiority over the B 29 fleet - forcing said B 29 fleet to operate at nighttime. Not to mention that the Chinese had vastly more recent experience than the UN forces, particularly when it came to fight under just the conditions they were forced to fight under in Korea - which were rather similar to the conditions under which they'd fought the Kuomintang a few years previously.

The MiGs didn't operate anywhere near the frontlines. There was not ONE airbase in Korea that had MiG-15s in it. All of them were based across the Yalu River. All they did was protect the top of North Korea.

Also, the war with the KMT was nothing like the war in Korea. The KMT was poorly trained and equipped, and was riddled by constant defections.

Korea is by no means an example of a low-tech opponent defeating a hightech one, and it's IMHO not invalid to suggest that the techgap has actually increased since then. Sure, the Chinese can produce a lot more shiny kit domestically than they could back then, but their Russian support has been reduced quite considerably. I'd certainly rank the advantages of current American tanks and planes way ahead of what was the case during the Korean war.

The usefullness of a tank in urban warfare is reduced considerably. If America invades China, it'll be much harder on them than the Korea War. Compared to China, Korea had many more open spaces and room for maneuver. And the technology gap has definitely not increased since then. China had almost weapons of its own in the Korean War. The weapons provided by the Soviet Union were few and far in between. The rest of their million-soldier army was provided with significantly worse weaponry, much of which could be dated back to the First World War.

[Nazis in Space]

The M4 Sherman was superior to the T-34 (which in any case China had very few of), with a heavier weight, thicker armour, and a better cannon.

lulz.

The MiGs didn't operate anywhere near the frontlines. There was not ONE airbase in Korea that had MiG-15s in it. All of them were based across the Yalu River. All they did was protect the top of North Korea.

Hence... Supply lines.

The usefullness of a tank in urban warfare is reduced considerably. And the technology gap has definitely not increased since then. China had very few weapons of its own in the Korean War. The weapons provided by the Soviet Union were few and far in between.

Available in sufficient quantity to force the USAF (Still USAAF then? Dunno) to give up on strategic bombing during daytime. And I'm pretty sure China's not a single, huge city. Nevermind that tanks are happily mentioned as a key tool in urban warfare in the US army manuals.

[Airstrip 100]

The M4 Sherman was superior to the T-34 (which in any case China had very few of), with a heavier weight, thicker armour, and a better cannon.

lulz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Korea ... 50-1951.29

In any case, the Chinese had far fewer tanks than the US.

Hence... Supply lines.

If America attempts to invade China, supply lines are going to be nowhere near as important to the PLA as they were in Korea.

Available in sufficient quantity to force the USAF (Still USAAF then? Dunno) to give up on strategic bombing during daytime. And I'm pretty sure China's not a single, huge city. Nevermind that tanks are happily mentioned as a key tool in urban warfare in the US army manuals.

It doesn't matter. All the crucial locations are cities. No army in the world can handle the type of urban warfare that they would encounter in an attempt to invade China.

[Minnysota]

So much blind arrogance in one post...

And no. You're wrong. It's as simple as that.

The last time American forces came up against Chinese soldiers was in Korea. There, the ratio of casualties was approximately 3 Chinese to every 1 American. On the frontline, the Americans had complete air superiority, and superior technology in every way. Did they 'steamroll' the Chinese? No, you couldn't even get past the 38th parallel. And since then, the gap in training and technology has been closing.

In other words, you won't win. I'm sorry, but the 'American spirit' and blind patriotism and arrogance will only carry you so far.

I just have to point out that the first "modern" war that was debuted technology's supremacy over numbers was Vietnam. Korea was not a modern war. That is pretty much like saying the Germans had technological advantages over the USSR and lost. It was still in a time period while technology was maturing and not yet able to overtake numbers.

[Minnysota]

1.) The combined forces of NATO could certainly conquer Russia. Then again, IDK why they would want to.

2.) Total air and naval superiority? If the US wanted, they could take out almost all of China's industry just by bombing the coast to smithereens.

The combined forces of NATO are a joke. You think Slovakia, Greece or the Netherlands would stand a chance against Russia ? NATO equipment isn't that superiour to that of Russia, not to mention that most NATO members have their militaries organized for territorial defense and have no power projection capabilities.

Surgical strikes with bombers, aerial and naval superiority cannot win a land war against 20,000,000 Chinamen with AKs. Period.

1.) NATO is a joke? Lol, I would think that is a joke. Also, yes, NATO has a pretty big advantage over Russia. Not just in numbers, but in technology. Nothing, and I mean nothing, that Russia has in its tank arsenal could match the Leclerc, Challenger II, Leopard 2(A6), or M1A2. Their air force has less training for the pilots, and currently their best aircraft is matched by the Rafale. The PAK FA is a blatant copy of the F-22, and will more than likely have many disadvantages while facing it.

2.) Surgical strikes? No, I mean flattening the cities, which the USN can do quite easily. You think that damaging China's population will do much? No, it won't. If damaging their population meant winning the war, Japan would have won. China's economy would be obliterated and would take decades if not longer to recover. The US would suffer some economic backlashes, but it would at least have all of its industries in tact.

[Minnysota]

-snip-

orly?

So, you don't think that devastating China's economy is enough? Because really, the US could do just that and then leave. What would China have? Literally nothing but a hundred million people that are starving to death. Don't even expect ground forces to do much in stopping that, because they won't.

And lol and you thinking the PLAN can actually do something against the USN. They have a grey-water fleet with lesser technology than US vessels. Have you heard of the ArcLight? It is an AShM being developed for the US. It is hypersonic, and boy, it is really fucking hard to stop a hypersonic missile with ship defenses. Oh, and I should mention that it has a range of well over 2,000 miles.

So, if you really think that the PLAAF or PLAN will do anything in ultimately stopping the destruction of China's coastal cities and economic centers, you are oh so wrong.

e: @that sub article: Yeah, detecting submarines is pretty hard. ASW warfare isn't advanced enough to completely rule out submarines. But you do remember that the US has the most submarines in the world, right? (I usually hate referencing globalfirepower, but they at least have those numbers correct). Out of those 75 submarines, only 14 of them are SSBNs. The rest are optimized for attack roles, meaning they can engage surface combatants, merchant ships, or, you guessed it, submarines.

[Minnysota]

This is also assuming that China's bubble doesn't pop before a war with the US, and is also assuming the civil unrest and displeasure with the government doesn't rattle the nation during war. Both countries will go through some harsh economic times, but as I have said oh so many times, the US will at least have industries in tact. Economic hardships under an authoritarian state where people are already getting restless with the government doesn't bode well for China in the end.

Also, the guy is right in saying that the Sherman (at least some variants of it) were superior to the T-34.

[Hypparchia]

I just have to point out that the first "modern" war that was debuted technology's supremacy over numbers was Vietnam. Korea was not a modern war. That is pretty much like saying the Germans had technological advantages over the USSR and lost. It was still in a time period while technology was maturing and not yet able to overtake numbers.

Great example. In Vietnam the U.S. demonstrated that you can have a 10:1 kill ratio, technological supremacy and the political will to keep a conflict alive for 10 years, and still lose the said conflict. If the U.S. failed that bad in Vietnam, I don't want to imagine the bloodbath they'd suffer in a war against China or Russia.

And don't be ridiculous, the U.S. will never raze Chinese cities. Not to mention that they can't do it completely even with nuclear weapons, and it will also be a massive waste of resources with no real tactical value. And if you think that the Chinese will prefer invading American troops to their own state - you have no idea how far from the reality of an Asian's mentality you are.

[North Suran]

I don't. I know it measures power projection, but it's bullshit to me. A powerful country should have the power to ensure a high standard of living and various freedoms to it's population. So Russia, China and India have no business being on that list.

Power has nothing to do with quality of life. The Roman Empire was a continental hegemony, yet a majority of its population lived in abject poverty and political influence was restricted to literally a roomful of people. In fact, as recent events have shown, political freedom often undermines power; the United States would be in a much better position to face the new geopolitical situation if it wasn't being internally polarised by confrontational democracy.

As for the question posed by the OP, I would consider the United Kingdom to be - along with the USA, France, Russia and the PRC - a great power. The second-most powerful country in the world? Yes, when acting with the United States. Individually, I would place it higher than France and Russia but lower than China.

[Tavalu]

I just have to point out that the first "modern" war that was debuted technology's supremacy over numbers was Vietnam. Korea was not a modern war. That is pretty much like saying the Germans had technological advantages over the USSR and lost. It was still in a time period while technology was maturing and not yet able to overtake numbers.

Great example. In Vietnam the U.S. demonstrated that you can have a 10:1 kill ratio, technological supremacy and the political will to keep a conflict alive for 10 years, and still lose the said conflict. If the U.S. failed that bad in Vietnam, I don't want to imagine the bloodbath they'd suffer in a war against China or Russia.

And don't be ridiculous, the U.S. will never raze Chinese cities. Not to mention that they can't do it completely even with nuclear weapons, and it will also be a massive waste of resources with no real tactical value. And if you think that the Chinese will prefer invading American troops to their own state - you have no idea how far from the reality of an Asian's mentality you are.

I love when people think the US lost Vietnam LOL. We didn't lose, as any historian can tell you we "lost" because we left. AT THE TIME WE PULLED OUT we were winning the war, and expected a victory, public dis-continent came about here at home and we left the South Vietnam forces to fight alone, they couldn't and so they lost. We were winning until after we left.

http://www.vhfcn.org/stats.htm It tells it here that we did not lose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

So as we can see the US military did not lose the war, as they were not there to fight the whole war. We did not see the wars end. So, sorry, but I disagree when people say "our military couldn't even fight in Vietnam because we lost", people who said that need to read up on history, our military did a fine job for the time they were there, and if they stayed it was almost certain we would have came out victorious.

I love when average people come on here saying our military is weak and that we can't fight. I always hate to act like the United States is the best of the best BUT I will say our military is not regarded as #1, if we could not fight. We are #1 for a reason, and average citizens disputing that fact, well, does not change a fact...

[North Suran]

I love when people think the US lost Vietnam LOL.

Well, not just "people", but "historians, politicians, analysts and the population of the world".

We were winning until after we left.

So you were winning...until you weren't?

A retreat is a retreat.

[Newtamander]

Hm I was thinking UK was #2 too! Weird, I totally called it! Japan has taken a heavy hit with its earthquakes, but it's still very prominent among the world's nations as being "huge" in its own way. South Korea is kind of underestimated. It churns out a lot of the same things Japan does, from its own manwha, or manhua, and its broadband and high-connectivity to the internet. Like nearly every single person in South Korea, nearly every SINGLE person, can connect to the internet. That's amazing.

[Imperial Shogun Japan]

I think China should be number one, for the fact that their army is 4,585,000 Soldiers.

[Chrobalta]

I think China should be number one, for the fact that their army is 4,585,000 Soldiers.

What do they get for it? Certainly not the kind of influence the United States has.

[North Suran]

I think China should be number one, for the fact that their army is 4,585,000 Soldiers.

Power isn't measured in military strength alone. Otherwise, the DPRK - which has an army of 1,106,000 people, with 8,200,000 in reserves - would be a global superpower.

[Nazis in Space]

I think China should be number one, for the fact that their army is 4,585,000 Soldiers.

Power isn't measured in military strength alone. Otherwise, the DPRK - which has an army of 1,106,000 people, with 8,200,000 in reserves - would be a global superpower.

>Implying Best Korea isn't a superpower

[Tavalu]

I love when people think the US lost Vietnam LOL.

Well, not just "people", but "historians, politicians, analysts and the population of the world".

We were winning until after we left.

So you were winning...until you weren't?

A retreat is a retreat.

In red- Source? I could say the complete opposite of that...

A retreat is a retreat, yes we retreated, but we did not lose BECAUSE of the enemy. We were beating the Vietnam forces, yes the war was tough but we were winning.

I am not saying we did not "lose" in the sense that we failed our objective of helping the South Win, so yes we lost in the sense that we failed our objective. BUT what I am saying is that it is not because our military lacked the ability to win, we were winning. The military was doing fine. We lost not because of the enemy BUT because people at home demanded the military to come home. It was not a retreat because we could not win, or because we were losing, or heck couldn't even fund the war. All those were not a reason for our "retreat", but it was because we ELECTED politicians and people who we knew would end the war and bring the troops home. The US did not "retreat" because of the military, but because of the people at home.

My complaint is people "think" our military was destroyed and beaten, when in fact, it was not. People "think" that the United States could not have won, when we were and could have. People "think" we were still in Vietnam when the South fell, we were not. People "think" we were in the capital of the South when they lost, we were not. Our Military was long gone by the time the South Lost. Our involvement ended in 1973, Saigon fell in 1975, about 2 years later.

[Tavalu]

I think China should be number one, for the fact that their army is 4,585,000 Soldiers.

Military Personal numbers are a sad indicater of military power. I am not saying can't be considered but if China went to war could in mobilize all those troops quickly, would it have a way to transport all those troops? Can it afford to send all those troops to war? Can it feed, supply, and equip those troops quickly, and for a extended amount of time? Does it even need 4+ million troops?

If this was the 1800's I would agree China would be very powerful with that many troops, heck even their population would be scary. But in the modern world population is not going to win you wars, nor is it going to give you a large advantage in wars. Mao wanted China to have a huge population to counter against Western Technology. As Technology in China goes up, China will find it can decrease its massive military power, and will find its population size is more of a disadvantage then an advantage, as it is slowly finding out now.

[Minnysota]

I just have to point out that the first "modern" war that was debuted technology's supremacy over numbers was Vietnam. Korea was not a modern war. That is pretty much like saying the Germans had technological advantages over the USSR and lost. It was still in a time period while technology was maturing and not yet able to overtake numbers.

Great example. In Vietnam the U.S. demonstrated that you can have a 10:1 kill ratio, technological supremacy and the political will to keep a conflict alive for 10 years, and still lose the said conflict. If the U.S. failed that bad in Vietnam, I don't want to imagine the bloodbath they'd suffer in a war against China or Russia.

And don't be ridiculous, the U.S. will never raze Chinese cities. Not to mention that they can't do it completely even with nuclear weapons, and it will also be a massive waste of resources with no real tactical value. And if you think that the Chinese will prefer invading American troops to their own state - you have no idea how far from the reality of an Asian's mentality you are.

Vietnam was not a military defeat, it was just a political mess on the homefront. The reasons for going into Vietnam were flawed, and the whole war was stupid. The only reason we would ever go to war with China now is for an extremely good reason. Typically, that means that the people will rally behind the military during that time.

Also, lol @ the US not being able to destroy Chinese cities. Just lol. The fact that it would destroy China's industrial capacity and the ability to make more weapons of war brings no value? Hell, it'd probably bring China onto its knees, and don't even deny it.

[Hypparchia]

I love when people think the US lost Vietnam LOL. We didn't lose, as any historian can tell you we "lost" because we left. AT THE TIME WE PULLED OUT we were winning the war, and expected a victory, public dis-continent came about here at home and we left the South Vietnam forces to fight alone, they couldn't and so they lost. We were winning until after we left.

http://www.vhfcn.org/stats.htm It tells it here that we did not lose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

So as we can see the US military did not lose the war, as they were not there to fight the whole war. We did not see the wars end. So, sorry, but I disagree when people say "our military couldn't even fight in Vietnam because we lost", people who said that need to read up on history, our military did a fine job for the time they were there, and if they stayed it was almost certain we would have came out victorious.

I love when average people come on here saying our military is weak and that we can't fight. I always hate to act like the United States is the best of the best BUT I will say our military is not regarded as #1, if we could not fight. We are #1 for a reason, and average citizens disputing that fact, well, does not change a fact...

Simple von Clausewitz says that war is a continuation of politics with different means. Goal of the U.S. in Vietnam ? Stop the spread of Communism. Final result ? South-east Asia becomes completely Communist => Vietnam was a loss. The U.S. military failed the political objective and doctrine of the state it serves, therefore it has sustained a loss. 60,000 KIA can confirm it. I don't deny the U.S. is militarily the most powerful country in the world. I simply reject the retarded notion that the U.S. can invade every single country in the world successfully or win just any war.

[Minnysota]

In the event of the China war, and the scenario you were given, the US would certainly win. I'm going to go ahead and agree with you that a land invasion of China would be costly. We could win that way, but it'd take years, we'd lose a shitton of money, we'd fight a guerrilla war, and the people would be unhappy with the war. However, if we just bombed out their industrial capacity (leveling entire cities isn't necessary), China's economy is not only in the dumps but they can't support their military with equipment anymore.

[Tavalu]

I love when people think the US lost Vietnam LOL. We didn't lose, as any historian can tell you we "lost" because we left. AT THE TIME WE PULLED OUT we were winning the war, and expected a victory, public dis-continent came about here at home and we left the South Vietnam forces to fight alone, they couldn't and so they lost. We were winning until after we left.

http://www.vhfcn.org/stats.htm It tells it here that we did not lose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

So as we can see the US military did not lose the war, as they were not there to fight the whole war. We did not see the wars end. So, sorry, but I disagree when people say "our military couldn't even fight in Vietnam because we lost", people who said that need to read up on history, our military did a fine job for the time they were there, and if they stayed it was almost certain we would have came out victorious.

I love when average people come on here saying our military is weak and that we can't fight. I always hate to act like the United States is the best of the best BUT I will say our military is not regarded as #1, if we could not fight. We are #1 for a reason, and average citizens disputing that fact, well, does not change a fact...

Simple von Clausewitz says that war is a continuation of politics with different means. Goal of the U.S. in Vietnam ? Stop the spread of Communism. Final result ? South-east Asia becomes completely Communist => Vietnam was a loss. The U.S. military failed the political objective and doctrine of the state it serves, therefore it has sustained a loss. 60,000 KIA can confirm it. I don't deny the U.S. is militarily the most powerful country in the world. I simply reject the retarded notion that the U.S. can invade every single country in the world successfully or win just any war.

I agree with your statement in green. I disagree with that notion as well. My point that I disagree with is that people claim, that the US lost Vietnam because we could not fight, or our military was to weak. Like the above person said that we could not beat China because we could not even win in Vietnam. I am not saying we could or could not win a war with China, personally I think it would be impossible, but anyways they are implying that we "lost" because of the military. Even if our military was weak, or was ill-prepared was not a reason for the "lose".

My point is that those who think the military is the reason we lost Vietnam is because of our military, is lacking crucial information on the war and need to read up more. I am not one to go around saying the US is the best, blah blah blah, but when I see a lack of information I will clear it up. Saying our military is weak because of Vietnam, shows a lack of knowledge on the war. Our military was long gone before the fall of Vietnam.

Also I am not sure what KIA's have to do with proving a lose, we lost more men in WW1 and WW2 and the Union lost more troops during the Civil War and those wars were not a lose by any means.

[Minnysota]

Not so much impossible, but unlikely. It would be unlikely to even land troops in that circumstance. Hence, why I said that using the AEGIS system and stealth strike aircraft to bomb out industry and military infrastructure would/could win the war, or at least force China into agreeing to peace terms.

[New Asgariath]

Vietnam:

What is win or lose? The US objective in Vietnam was to overthrow the communists and establish a capitalist democracy in Vietnam. But after a decade of fighting, they were simply unable to keep a foothold in Vietnam. If they kept escalating, yes they might have eventually won. But the fact is that there is a hell of a lot more to war than just military operations, and politics are a part of it. In the end, the US was unable to achieve their goal in Vietnam and was forced to pull out in the end. So although they might have been able to win by sending in every reserve they had and cutting down the forest... they didn't because the public would never support it. The military is only as powerful as those who support it, and when it has no support it will not function. After the US failed its objective and withdrew, it lost the war.

US objective- Capitalism
After the war- Communism
Result- sorry, but the US lost

China:

Like I said, the military needs the support of the people, and no one- no one would support an invasion of China. Millions of US soldiers would die and in the end the US would either collapse or pull out from internal political tensions. It would be like a really big, really bad Vietnam.

Also, where the hell does the idea of carpet bombing the cities come from? So much for 'no civilian casualties'. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if the US invaded yet another country and tried to massacre the population for no reason.