Unwillingness for Absolute War...

[DarkKnight69]

Are you fvcking serious, you honesly think you can roll in and wipe the entire chinese navy and ship yards in 1 week with minimal losses????

OMG!!

 

[Starbuck1975]

The PLAN is not yet a significant naval power, even when viewed solely in a regional context. PLAN surface ships, submarines, and aircraft continue to lack the sophisticated weapons and sensor systems which characterize modern first-line naval units. These shortfalls limit the PLAN's present warfighting capabilities, and Chinese naval units are not yet up to the standard attained by the navies of Japan, the Republic of Korea, or even Taiwan. There also are significant tactical and doctrinal shortfalls that the PLAN has not adequately addressed. At-sea sustainability is modest, and the PLAN has not yet demonstrated the ability to conduct complex coordinated air and surface operations. The training of individual sailors remains basic by Western standards, and the PLAN lacks a corps of experienced noncommissioned officers. From the highest echelons of the service to individual commands, control is highly centralized, with little flexibility and creativity in subordinate ranks. These shortfalls will limit the ability of the PLAN to assert a significant regional naval presence for perhaps five to ten years, and the Navy is not likely to possess the longer reach associated with a maritime power-projection capability until well into the 21st century.

The Chinese fleet's evolution in the coming years suggests that P.L.A.N. will be essentially concerned with protecting sea trade with the aim of assuring an uninterrupted flow of energy resources to satisfy the needs most dependent on overseas resources and to safeguard sea lines of communication. The enlargement and modernization of the Chinese fleet will inevitably alarm the surrounding countries and other regional powers (such as India and Australia) and will oblige other states to renew their surface and submarine forces. However, it appears unlikely that P.L.A.N. can, or will, become a force with global projection (notably far behind the U.S. Navy's capabilities, or those of the Soviet Navy during the 1980s) in the next decade.

The chief missions that P.L.A.N. will be called upon to perform are eminently regional, such as power projection to support claims to areas of dubious sovereignty, but with rich subsoil resources (such as the Spratley Islands), to achieve the same operative capability as the more powerful Asian fleets, and ability to engage such a demanding adversary as the Taiwanese fleet (able to perform at high levels due to continuous acquisition of American equipment). In relation to U.S. Navy battle groups, P.L.A.N. can, at most, aim for the possibility of exerting some form of deterrence (especially through the use of submarine forces), thus refuting all those who, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, have imagined American and Chinese battle groups confronting one another to decide which state will rule over the Pacific Ocean.

From two independent studies on the Chinese Navy's capabilities. To summarize, even with current efforts to modernize their Navy, the Chinese Navy of the next decade would essentially be comperable to the Soviet and American Navy's of the 1980s.

A scenario of a modern American Navy and Carrier fleet against the P.L.A.N. would be a turkey shoot.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
I understand that, My comments were that you would not simply be able to pull up, blow up some Chinese warships and have them back off and beg forgiveness. Would not happen. In fact, I am willing to be that if american warship attackted Chinese warshipe they would find themselves under attack from surface to surface missles as well as air to surface missles. As well, I dont believe the majority of american ships are sitting off the coast of asia so I am thinking there would be some american war ship losses.

Dont get me wrong, I think the american military is amazing, and I am happy we are allies and are protected by you, but it would not be as simple as sinking sone Chinese ships. If you think that then you are ignorant and stupid!

Why do so many people resort to unfounded assumptions and personal attacks like this? A simple "If you think that then you and I are in disagreement." would have sufficed. This kind of statement (as quoted/bolded above) is just inflamatory and is exactly the kind of thinking that starts wars in the first place. Pride is an ugly thing.

[EDIT] Yes,I know the post was not directed at me but it always irks me when I see people say stuff like this. Chances are you would never talk to somebody like this face to face. Just because you are protected behind a computer screen is no excuse to be rude to people with whom you disagree. If you will pardon my saying so, it seems rather cowardly when you think about it.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
Are you fvcking serious, you honesly think you can roll in and wipe the entire chinese navy and ship yards in 1 week with minimal losses????

OMG!!

Yes. The US navy as it currently stands was built to counter the Soviets at the height of their power (or thought to be at as of this time). China is nowhere even close to that level.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: rahvin
If the powel doctirne had been followed from the start Iraq would not be the situation it is now. Vietnam was always about a half-assed attempt at real reform. Had the real political reforms been actually attemped that were called for in the original doctrine Vietnam would have turned out much more like Korea. The difference is in the commitment, when you half ass it and aren't willing to commit fully you end up with a strong insurgency.

Put simply, had Bush followed the Powell doctrine and used overwhelming force, including occupying the country with .5million troops and searching and disarming every single household in Iraq to remove the weapons it would be a completely different country.

A lousy half million troops? You have no idea of military history. To neutralize post-WWII Germany took millions (including logistics and non-combat support toops) of American and Soviet troops - and that was AFTER 5 years of warfare that had seriously depleted the population of men at war-making age.

To neutralize Iraq would have required an in-country force of at least 2-3 million men - because the logistics alone would have required a significant number of them to be in non-combat roles. And it would take YEARS..well, screw that, it IS taking years, which we can barely afford even with a smaller force now.

Future Shock

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

No, the cowardly left would be trying to get us to meet Chinese demands in hopes it would help. Thousands of Jews sold their neighbors out in WWII in hope that the Germans would spare them. They kind of did. Those were the last to the chambers.

Condor,

Are you in-country in Iraq or Afghanistan right now? Are you even in the service?

FS

 

[Starbuck1975]

To neutralize Iraq would have required an in-country force of at least 2-3 million men - because the logistics alone would have required a significant number of them to be in non-combat roles. And it would take YEARS..well, screw that, it IS taking years, which we can barely afford even with a smaller force now.

The common thinking is that due to advances in technology, lethality and survivability...the combat effectiveness of the modern American soldier is multiplied several times from his WW2 counterpart.

That being said, we still dont have enough boots on the ground in Iraq to achieve the mission.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

I really doubt such a scenario would go that far.

Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.

You are in a dream world. Look at the size of China. They have never been weak.

China was dominated by Western influence for several centuries, at one point being reduced from one of the most advanced civilizations in history to being basically made a bitch for Western companies and governments. China was carved up into "spheres of influence" by the major Western civilizations (which is one reason that Chinese leaders are still so fearful of the West to this day). This led to the Boxer Rebellion around the turn of the 20th century, which actually made the situation worse for the Chinese. They did not get true independance for many years, finally culminating with the victory of the Communists over the Nationalists (who fled to Taiwan).

Try http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/BOXER.HTM for more details...

Do you actually know ANY history Condor??? Or do you just spout pablum unedited and unadulterated to emulate your hero Rush? And if you DID know any military history, then you would know WHY the American Flying Tigers were in China in the 1930s and 40s...along with a few contingents of US Marines that quickly evacuated. HINT: The Flying Tigers and Marines were there to safeguard US interests in China...as well as prop up Chang against the Commies.

N.B. - And speaking of Flying Tigers, know what the Japanese estimated their strength as? "Fewer than 500 planes" as broadcast by Tokyo Rose. At the time, they only had 20 or so flying P40s...but were wreaking so much havoc (and winning so consistently) that Japs couldn't figure it out. Now THAT'S military strength. Rumsfeld take note please...

So endeth the lesson...

Future Shock

 

[Future Shock]

Wow - all this talk of "Total War", and no one here is old enough to remember the "Porcupine Theory" that was first advanced in the Cold War? Porcupine Theory (so named because two porcupines are so prickly they actually CAN'T fight each other without getting injured terribly) states that two well-armed nuclear states WILL NOT go to direct war as long as both are governed by some form of rationalism. Period. It doesn't matter your political dogma, it doesn't matter the color of your flag...the ruling classes of BOTH sides have way too much to lose to endorse such a war. Thus, nuclear arms are predominatly for threatening smaller, non-nuclear countries. So "total war" really should never occur again between world-leading countries, such as the examples given previously as the US and China going to war.

Of course, the key is having rational governments on both sides. What worried many US strategists is the lack of a "firebreak" in published USSR military dogma - they pretended that to their military there was no difference between conventional and nuclear war, that one merely flowed from the other. As we saw in their defeat in Afghanistan, that is obviously NOT the case - the USSR military did not deploy a single nuke during that conflict. So they pretended to be irrational, but indeed were rational in actuality.

What concerns the US right now is non-rational governments (Iran, N. Korea) getting the bomb. For them, the Porcupine Theory may not hold...as stated, both sides have to be rational. Religion and ego alike are terrible foes of rationality...

Sleep tight now.

Future Shock

 

[Starbuck1975]

Wow - all this talk of "Total War", and no one here is old enough to remember the "Porcupine Theory" that was first advanced in the Cold War? Porcupine Theory (so named because two porcupines are so prickly they actually CAN'T fight each other without getting injured terribly) states that two well-armed nuclear states WILL NOT go to direct war as long as both are governed by some form of rationalism.

aka Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Theory

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
I understand that, My comments were that you would not simply be able to pull up, blow up some Chinese warships and have them back off and beg forgiveness. Would not happen. In fact, I am willing to be that if american warship attackted Chinese warshipe they would find themselves under attack from surface to surface missles as well as air to surface missles. As well, I dont believe the majority of american ships are sitting off the coast of asia so I am thinking there would be some american war ship losses.

Dont get me wrong, I think the american military is amazing, and I am happy we are allies and are protected by you, but it would not be as simple as sinking sone Chinese ships. If you think that then you are ignorant and stupid!

Why do so many people resort to unfounded assumptions and personal attacks like this? A simple "If you think that then you and I are in disagreement." would have sufficed. This kind of statement (as quoted/bolded above) is just inflamatory and is exactly the kind of thinking that starts wars in the first place. Pride is an ugly thing.

[EDIT] Yes,I know the post was not directed at me but it always irks me when I see people say stuff like this. Chances are you would never talk to somebody like this face to face. Just because you are protected behind a computer screen is no excuse to be rude to people with whom you disagree. If you will pardon my saying so, it seems rather cowardly when you think about it.

Exactly right.