China vs USA who would actually win in a war

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

America. China might have 3 million soldiers, but american troops are so well trained, so many and so much stuff that USA would win, if anyone won. I doubt USA would ever get to China. Both would just bomb each other.

Uh, no.

China has 20 million troops. Renew your facts.

Russia has 20 million troops. Mostly in reserve.

China has around 4-7 million personnel; with the potential, to draw much more from her population.

[Arkinesia]

Uh, no.

China has 20 million troops. Renew your facts.

Russia has 20 million troops. Mostly in reserve.

China has around 4-7 million personnel; with the potential, to draw much more from her population.

But China wouldn't be able to sustain its level of troops in a long war. While the number of males are increasing, the number is projected to drop off within the next ten years, according to the UN.

And generally I trust the UN with this kind of thing.

[Minnysota]

I don't think you understand the monumental diference between stoping a theater ranged BM and a ICBM, all systems that can stop a ICBM are either not contructed yet or there arn't enough of them to reliably stop a single missile.

I don't think you understand that the part of the article that I quoted specifically states that the final goal of the SM-3 program is to make a ship-launched ABM that can take down an ICBM in it's boost phase. That's probably why ships in the Far Pacific and the JMSDF are getting the SM-3.

[Mike the Progressive]

I REALLY don't mean to sound racist, i'm trying not to but...what exactly would Canada provide in this "war" which would never happen due to China's views on Nuclear arms.

Canada isn't exactly a global power with an army like the USA's.

What do you mean by you people?

[Almire]

I am appalled by the bias here.

Lets see-

people on this thread seem to stereotype Chinese people for making the worst quality stuff. "herpish derpish well jus run all o zem ovar wiz teh abrams derrrrrrrrrp" Guess wut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99

^Just as good as the Abrams, along with their smaller cousins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96

Mmm-hmm. That's just the land power. For all those out there who say "herpish derpish we haz moar carriers"

Note China's massive advancements in ballistic missile technology, along with their numerous strike submarines.

"herpish derpish we'll use f-22z"

F-22 was canceled. Plus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

What I also find sad is that most people think Chinese soldiers are still armed like this:

(Russian soldier, btw)

...when in reality they are armed like this:

[Parti Ouvrier]

Militarily, of course the US would win. In the long term, both would lose because they need each other.

[Inky Noodles]

I am appalled by the bias here.

Lets see-

people on this thread seem to stereotype Chinese people for making the worst quality stuff. "herpish derpish well jus run all o zem ovar wiz teh abrams derrrrrrrrrp" Guess wut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99

^Just as good as the Abrams, along with their smaller cousins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96

Mmm-hmm. That's just the land power. For all those out there who say "herpish derpish we haz moar carriers"

Note China's massive advancements in ballistic missile technology, along with their numerous strike submarines.

"herpish derpish we'll use f-22z"

F-22 was canceled. Plus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

What I also find sad is that most people think Chinese soldiers are still armed like this:

(Russian soldier, btw) (Image)

...when in reality they are armed like this:

(Image)

No missiles they launch at an aircraft carrier could reach 400 miles off shore to sink a carrier.
While the Super Hornet has a range over 400 miles to strike different targets.

[Almire]

I am appalled by the bias here.

Lets see-

people on this thread seem to stereotype Chinese people for making the worst quality stuff. "herpish derpish well jus run all o zem ovar wiz teh abrams derrrrrrrrrp" Guess wut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99

^Just as good as the Abrams, along with their smaller cousins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96

Mmm-hmm. That's just the land power. For all those out there who say "herpish derpish we haz moar carriers"

Note China's massive advancements in ballistic missile technology, along with their numerous strike submarines.

"herpish derpish we'll use f-22z"

F-22 was canceled. Plus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

What I also find sad is that most people think Chinese soldiers are still armed like this:

(Russian soldier, btw) (Image)

...when in reality they are armed like this:

(Image)

No missiles they launch at an aircraft carrier could reach 400 miles off shore to sink a carrier.
While the Super Hornet has a range over 400 miles to strike different targets.

squad of cheaper J-11s > more expensive Super Hornet

[Caninope]

I am appalled by the bias here.

Lets see-

people on this thread seem to stereotype Chinese people for making the worst quality stuff. "herpish derpish well jus run all o zem ovar wiz teh abrams derrrrrrrrrp" Guess wut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99

^Just as good as the Abrams, along with their smaller cousins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96

Mmm-hmm. That's just the land power. For all those out there who say "herpish derpish we haz moar carriers"

The Type 99 is not projected to be as good as the M1A2 Abrams. Only two or three tanks hold that distinction, to my knowledge, the Leopard 2 later models, Chally 2, and K2.

:palm: F-22 was canceled. Plus:

It's in production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

In testing phase.

[The Cookish States]

No missiles they launch at an aircraft carrier could reach 400 miles off shore to sink a carrier.
While the Super Hornet has a range over 400 miles to strike different targets.

squad of cheaper J-11s > more expensive Super Hornet

You get what you pay for, especially with crafts moving multiple times the speed of sound...

Their navy is hilarious, our navy would toy with them until China was trapped within its own borders. As far as not being able to take over China sovereign...they said the same thing about Fortress Europe. They said the same about Iraq. Though the latter resulted in an insurgency, it is undeniable that we held 100% of Iraq, albeit with difficulty. Iraq at the beginning of the war had the second largest military on the planet continent of Asia, and we brought them down entirely within two months.

Now, none of this is saying China wouldn't be the most formidable enemy the States have ever faced. Here is my idea of what would happen

First, China"s Navy is destroyed within two to three weeks. Scattered within one to two days.

The Chinese draft up massive amounts of (largely untrained) troops. The U.S gets a massive recruiting drive as well. But since they have a better training program, they won't actually have reinforcements until after China gets theirs.

America camps the coast with carriers and missile cruisers bombarding every coastal city to bits while South Korea conquers North Korea with limited U.S help. (Honestly, we like to pretend North Korea is a threatening power, but just do me a favor and contrast them with their southern cousins.)

US wouldn't risk a landing until...

A:The coastal defenses were scattered, or otherwise weak enough to send the marines in.

B:There was a second avenue to attack from (i.e Afghanistan, or perhaps even one of the many 'stans' which would have no choice but to allow our safe passage to China.) In this situation, China is worst off, since it leads to A becoming possible as well.

C:Russia decides to join the land grab, and moves on China's north. India will likely invade as soon as the Americans begin, along with Tibet and Taiwan offending against China.

PROBLEM:Depending on how China is feeling that day one of two things will happen...

1:They attempt to launch missile(s), and America, India, and Russia retaliate, damning most of Asia into becoming a nuclear wasteland (Not the whole world, believe it or not the world is a big place, and we're being very assuming by thinking we have the ability to destroy it with a few nuclear weapons. An entire arsenal, maybe, but at no point would any side point a whole arsenal).

2:They decide to sue for peace with the U.S, who will assure the independence of Taiwan, the absolution of North Korea into South Korea, and the Japanese requisition of any islands China possesses. A large number of Chinese cities will be owned by the U.S or its allies (mostly U.S). Now, 2 can branch off in two ways...

a:China is peaceful and goes about the occupation willingly..

b:They don't..

[New England and The Maritimes]

I am appalled by the bias here.

Lets see-

people on this thread seem to stereotype Chinese people for making the worst quality stuff. "herpish derpish well jus run all o zem ovar wiz teh abrams derrrrrrrrrp" Guess wut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99

^Just as good as the Abrams, along with their smaller cousins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96

Mmm-hmm. That's just the land power. For all those out there who say "herpish derpish we haz moar carriers"

Note China's massive advancements in ballistic missile technology, along with their numerous strike submarines.

"herpish derpish we'll use f-22z"

F-22 was canceled. Plus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

What I also find sad is that most people think Chinese soldiers are still armed like this:

(Russian soldier, btw) (Image)

...when in reality they are armed like this:

(Image)

China's advanced equipment is still very limited in deployment. The propaganda images are just that- propaganda. The QBZ-95 still isn't fully deployed, I believe.

The type 99 isn't actually as capable as the Abrams, which itself is going to need an upgrade sooner than later, as it's a massive fuel guzzler and its performance is lacklustre compared with NATO and allied MBTs, especially those developed off of the Leopard II.

There is no evidence that the J-22 is going to be of any relevance whatsoever, and as has been said, US Naval power is supreme. The Chinese have nothing on us, and they won't be able to keep any major armed conflict going for very long.

[Minnysota]

I am appalled by the bias here.

Lets see-

people on this thread seem to stereotype Chinese people for making the worst quality stuff. "herpish derpish well jus run all o zem ovar wiz teh abrams derrrrrrrrrp" Guess wut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99

^Just as good as the Abrams, along with their smaller cousins (insert Type 96 link here)

Lawl

EDIT1: I assume you're referring to the Type 99KM if anything? Cause if you are, well, it doesn't exist.

Mmm-hmm. That's just the land power. For all those out there who say "herpish derpish we haz moar carriers"

Note China's massive advancements in ballistic missile technology, along with their numerous strike submarines.

The US still has quite advanced ASW and the USN would still be vastly superior to the PLAN without the carriers. Also, I assume you're talking about the DF-21. If you are, I direct you to the SM-3.

"herpish derpish we'll use f-22z"

F-22 was canceled. Plus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

Hasn't even entered production yet and is to serve the purpose of intercepting AWACs, aerial refueling aircraft, and maybe bombers. It is not designed to be able to take down a F-22, afaik.

What I also find sad is that most people think Chinese soldiers are still armed like this:

(Russian soldier, btw) (Image)

...when in reality they are armed like this:

(Image)

^Cool?

[Minnysota]

The Type 99 is not projected to be as good as the M1A2 Abrams. Only two or three tanks hold that distinction, to my knowledge, the Leopard 2 later models, Chally 2, and K2.

*cough* Leclerc *cough*

[Minnysota]

squad of cheaper J-11s > more expensive Super Hornet

So you're a stout supporter of quantity > quality?

[New England and The Maritimes]

squad of cheaper J-11s > more expensive Super Hornet

So you're a stout supporter of quantity > quality?

Iraq did overwhelm coalition forces in 1990 and again in 2003...

[Minnysota]

So you're a stout supporter of quantity > quality?

Iraq did overwhelm coalition forces in 1990 and again in 2003...

Damn right.

[Honorable Citizens]

The United States would win, pretty easily. The U.S.A spends so much more on defense than any other country, it is almost ridiculous.

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

I am appalled by the bias here.

Lets see-

people on this thread seem to stereotype Chinese people for making the worst quality stuff. "herpish derpish well jus run all o zem ovar wiz teh abrams derrrrrrrrrp" Guess wut?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99

^Just as good as the Abrams, along with their smaller cousins (insert Type 96 link here)

Lawl

EDIT1: I assume you're referring to the Type 99KM if anything? Cause if you are, well, it doesn't exist.

Hmm...the ZTZ-99KM is an interesting main battle tank from China. However, Like said here, it is still under development, just as the M1A3 Abrams, T-95, FMBT (India), Mitup Altay, happen to be.

Yes, the person whom mentioned this tank would probably be right, if it is developed in time for such a war...it is going to be an interesting fight.

In addition, there is another tank I wish to mention that I found China to be developing: the CSU-152 main battle tank.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defe ... n-mbt.html
https://militarymachine.wordpress.com/2 ... 2005-2006/ - Download link of the whole article...

[Caninope]

The Type 99 is not projected to be as good as the M1A2 Abrams. Only two or three tanks hold that distinction, to my knowledge, the Leopard 2 later models, Chally 2, and K2.

*cough* Leclerc *cough*

Eh, the Leclerc hasn't been combat tested much, to my knowledge, and is smaller than some of NATO's other MBT's.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

*cough* Leclerc *cough*

Eh, the Leclerc hasn't been combat tested much, to my knowledge, and is smaller than some of NATO's other MBT's.

The Leclerc is smaller than the Abrams yes.

It has the same level of protection, though.

8)

[Caninope]

*snipped for conciseness*

I don't know that such a variant would be produced, and would be produced before the M1A3. The Abrams has proven itself to be quite the capable tank, even if there are a few others that can rival and/or best it.

[Greater Evil Imperial Japanese Dystopia]

*cough* Leclerc *cough*

Eh, the Leclerc hasn't been combat tested much, to my knowledge, and is smaller than some of NATO's other MBT's.

The Leclerc is said to have some interesting features, however.

What I might assume from its smaller size is perhaps for better mobility, yes?

[Minnysota]

Hmm...the ZTZ-99KM is an interesting main battle tank from China. However, Like said here, it is still under development, just as the M1A3 Abrams, T-95, FMBT (India), Mitup Altay, happen to be.

I don't even know if the Type 99KM is under development, as I'm not aware of China having any of the technologies needed to make the tank a reality. A super-awesome tank that could be a reality, however, is the Leclerc 2015.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Eh, the Leclerc hasn't been combat tested much, to my knowledge, and is smaller than some of NATO's other MBT's.

The Leclerc is said to have some interesting features, however.

What I might assume from its smaller size is perhaps for better mobility, yes?

Also general efficiency, I believe. Smaller frame with more advanced features means 1. lower fuel consumption for the same performance, and 2. fewer man hours required to maintain and operate.

[Minnysota]

Eh, the Leclerc hasn't been combat tested much, to my knowledge, and is smaller than some of NATO's other MBT's.

The Leclerc is said to have some interesting features, however.

What I might assume from its smaller size is perhaps for better mobility, yes?

I think a lower profile too.