Can China get defeated ?

[ChineseTiger1986]

Nuclear exchange is not just destruction by vaporisation and extreme heat waves, the after effect is going to eliminate all lives by toxic radiation and climate changes, and disappearing of food source from ocean, crops and domestic animals.

Radiation cloud will cover out atmosphere, survivors will get cancers, their childrens will be born deformed. Ultimately, all lives we known will be all gone. You put a couple nuke bombs in Beijing, Koreans and Japanese will be breathing toxic airs in no time, and Americans in Haiwaii and west coast states will get it weeks later.

Nuclear war means end of all human lives. Only mad and uninformed fan boys want nuke war.

USA has the biggest population of warmongers.

 

[fallstuff]

The thread is heading to the distinct study and comparison of human anatomies.

 

[Developereo]

The only way anyone will directly challenge a nuclear capable nation is if they develop a radically new technology that is a game changer.

A directed EMP ray that fries the circuits on a missile, for example, might render an incoming nuke relatively harmless by disabling the trigger explosion, assuming there is such a thing. Admittedly, I don't know how nukes work.

 

[below_freezing]

The only way anyone will directly challenge a nuclear capable nation is if they develop a radically new technology that is a game changer.

A directed EMP ray that fries the circuits on a missile, for example, might render an incoming nuke relatively harmless by disabling the trigger.

Easily defeated by simply putting nukes into orbit, shielding or launching them at low angles from close by.

Lasers are easily beaten with either a rotating warhead or reflective tiles.

 

[ZhengHe]

The only way anyone will directly challenge a nuclear capable nation is if they develop a radically new technology that is a game changer.

A directed EMP ray that fries the circuits on a missile, for example, might render an incoming nuke relatively harmless by disabling the trigger explosion, assuming there is such a thing. Admittedly, I don't know how nukes work.

Very true.

I believe nuclear weapons are a thing of the past. Bio weapons are the new "weapons off mass destruction".

Weapons that could target your enemies DNA.

http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/nanotechnology.htm
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=8048.php

 

[below_freezing]

Very true.

I believe nuclear weapons are a thing of the past. Bio weapons are the new "weapons off mass destruction".

Weapons that could target your enemies DNA.

TonyRogers.com | Nanotechnology and China’s Post-Nuclear Super-Weapons
The gripping potential of DNA nanotechnology

Bio weapons are a joke. They can be defeated by a quarantine and any changes in DNA will take at least days to take effect, giving the enemy the chance to launch nuclear weapons and still resulting in MAD. Not to mention the problems with spreading the aerosol evenly enough.

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

You have already shown enough low IQ, EQ and diathesis.

Ha you got banned


Bye, no one will miss you. Oh, BTW, see my IQ is pretty high isnt it?

Told you, you get banned way before me.

 

[Chogy]

xixi was a bit irritating, wasn't he? I'm not sure which post got him banned, but it didn't take long.

Are you graduated from Stanford yet?

 

[Water Car Engineer]

If you are becoming better than Yankees, then they won't bully you anymore since history has proven that Yankees only attacked weaker opponents.

Not until you directly **** with USA.

Work force peace. Lets find rare minerals in space or something, not kill each other. If not lets kill each other when we go to space.

 

[aakash_2410]

Yet for some reason, the USA still can't beat tiny countries like Vietnam, North Korea and Afghanistan?

To answer the topic: Of course any country can be defeated if the circumstances are right. No country is invincible.

Yeah but these countries haven't gone on one on one 'WAR' with united states? They fight from inside. For example, How would you distinguish talibans from normal citizens unless they attack you? So these kind of conflicts can never be won.

Bruv, didn't expect something like this from you. Your quiality posts is alarming low. :\

 

[below_freezing]

Yeah but these countries haven't gone on one on one 'WAR' with united states? They fight from inside. For example, How would you distinguish talibans from normal citizens unless they attack you? So these kind of conflicts can never be won.

Bruv, didn't expect something like this from you. Your quiality posts is alarming low. :\

Vietnam actually went head to head with the US, although with Chinese and Russian help. 150,000 "advisers" from China served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The result was the end of the South Vietnamese regime and the liberation of all of Vietnam, after the US had been completely defeated despite the use of strategic bombers and chemical weapons.

 

[AUz]

again i say china can get defeated. its difficult but not impossible. USA has such cutting edge weapons that china cant even dream of. if USA provides them to India if (as it wants to contain china) , difference between Chinese and Indian might will negligible. then mighty India will defeat china. this way USA will not have to fight china directly.

OMG..bhartis don't you have any self respect?????? Mighty India ?? Yeah right my A$$..Mighty india couldn't even launch a 'surgical strike' on country 8 times lesser in size and 3 times in force size.Dude wake up and smell the coffee.

Huh..brainwashed kid

 

[aakash_2410]

Vietnam actually went head to head with the US, although with Chinese and Russian help. 150,000 "advisers" from China served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The result was the end of the South Vietnamese regime and the liberation of all of Vietnam, after the US had been completely defeated despite the use of strategic bombers and chemical weapons.

I know that. That's why I said ONE ON ONE war. Vietnam war was backed by china and USSR [at that time russia was quite a power, as much as usa]. SO it was more of war of democratic vc communists rather than usa vs vietnam?

 

[below_freezing]

I know that. That's why I said ONE ON ONE war. Vietnam war was backed by china and USSR [at that time russia was quite a power, as much as usa]. SO it was more of war of democratic vc communists rather than usa vs vietnam?

Well, 150,000 South Koreans also served in Vietnam, so it wasn't like the US was fighting alone either. The US has never fought a country of similar size alone before.

 

[aakash_2410]

Well, 150,000 South Koreans also served in Vietnam, so it wasn't like the US was fighting alone either. The US has never fought a country of similar size alone before.

That's exactly my point. It wasn't a us vs vietnam war. So you, can't say america lost to vietnam. And america hasn't fought with any country of similar size maybe because no country wants to go on war with america? Soviet union was going to but it would have been third world war if they did and USSR collapsed before they can even use any of the cold war era equipments?

Anyways as I've said before my point is military prowess according to me is.

USA - No. 1 [Can destroy any country it wants to]
China - No. 2 [Modernising its' military really fast but still a long way to catch up with america]
Russia - No. 3 [They still can't accept that their soviet era legacy is long dead]
India - No. 4 [Strong army and modernising as well but wastes too much energy on its' west border]
UK - No. 5 [Used to be world's best military at the time of british empire but still pretty modernised]

Rest of the countries don't count. I mean they do but these nations are their own different league. Specially Top 2-3.