Chinese Regime Developing Military to Defeat US, Report

[below_freezing]

That is a ridiculous argument because it presume there are countries the US could not militarily defeat. You think China could take on Iraq? If not, then if the US could defeat Iraq, then odds are good that the US could defeat China. But it is good to note that you tap-danced around the Yugoslavia and Iraq nonsense.

Yes. Iraq was always a weak country. The US just pumps iraq's status up in the 80's to make it seem like they defeated a strong power. "Strong nations" in other parts of the world are terribly weak compared to countries in East Asia. If you put Vietnam or South Korea in Europe it would be one of the biggest countries there yet in East Asia it's a tiny bug. Put Iraq in East Asia and even Singapore could defeat it. Don't even talk about "can China take on Iraq" I'm talking maybe Guangzhou military district vs. 2 Iraqs would be unfair.

 

[CardSharp]

But that does not negate the fact that war is largely a military versus military affair and in that, the US military did its job: Beat the crap out of the feared Iraqi military.

hahahaha so you are saying that the US military had nothing to do with the occupation afterward. You can just wash your hands of that mess and say it wasn't a military thing anymore.

 

[Aramsogo]

One primitive nuclear weapon is enough of a deterrence. North Korea is the best example.

If you think the US didn't make horrible strategic mistakes in Iraq, then there's no point debating it.

I don't think China even now could have defeated Iraq in Gulf War I. Iraq 2 was a cake walk for any military because they had been starved for spare parts by 10+ years of sanctions.

 

[below_freezing]

One primitive nuclear weapon is enough of a deterrence. North Korea is the best example.

If you think the US didn't make horrible strategic mistakes in Iraq, then there's no point debating it.

I don't think China even now could have defeated Iraq in Gulf War I. Iraq 2 was a cake walk for any military because they had been starved for spare parts by 10+ years of sanctions.

You kidding? Iraq in Gulf War 1 was terribly weak. It used Mig deathtraps as its primary fighters, couldn't manufacture even a ball bearing and the training of the pilots was horrendous. They were soundly defeated by Iranian F-4s, the same F-4s that were slaughtered in Vietnam. It is an insult to compare the Iraqi air force to that of even Singapore, much less China.

 

[Aramsogo]

You kidding? Iraq in Gulf War 1 was terribly weak. It used Mig deathtraps as its primary fighters, couldn't manufacture even a ball bearing and the training of the pilots was horrendous. They were soundly defeated by Iranian F-4s, the same F-4s that were slaughtered in Vietnam. It is an insult to compare the Iraqi air force to that of even Singapore, much less China.

China, even today, does not have the power projection of the US.
Can China move 600,000 troops and gear to the middle east today?
Ten years from now yes, but probably not today. China can fight Iraq 2 today, but not Iraq 1.

 

[below_freezing]

China, even today, does not have the power projection of the US.
Can China move 600,000 troops and gear to the middle east today?
Ten years from now yes, but probably not today. China can fight Iraq 2 today, but not Iraq 1.

Your implication seemed to be that Iraq in 1991 was militarily stronger than China is today. In terms of straight military strength, Iraq is even weaker than Singapore. China cannot move significant ground troops into Iraq. With additional tankers and flyover rights though, even Singapore could defeat Iraq's air force in 1991 and bomb them.

 

[gambit]

Yes. Iraq was always a weak country. The US just pumps iraq's status up in the 80's to make it seem like they defeated a strong power. "Strong nations" in other parts of the world are terribly weak compared to countries in East Asia. If you put Vietnam or South Korea in Europe it would be one of the biggest countries there yet in East Asia it's a tiny bug. Put Iraq in East Asia and even Singapore could defeat it. Don't even talk about "can China take on Iraq" I'm talking maybe Guangzhou military district vs. 2 Iraqs would be unfair.

It is funny that while you repeatedly said you never made any claims about the Chinese military, you see nothing wrong with downplaying the Iraqi military here to puff up the inexperience Chinese military. It is making ridiculous claims indirectly. Nice. I guess for someone who has no military experience and is still in school, you have no choice but to substitute BS and rhetorics for genuine knowledge and understanding. By the time of Desert Storm, the Iraqi Air Force was the among the top ten, numbers wise, in the world. More like around 7th or 6th. Combat experienced against Iran for 10 yrs, unlike China who has none to this day.

---------- Post added at 11:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------

Your implication seemed to be that Iraq in 1991 was militarily stronger than China is today. In terms of straight military strength, Iraq is even weaker than Singapore. China cannot move significant ground troops into Iraq. With additional tankers and flyover rights though, even Singapore could defeat Iraq's air force in 1991 and bomb them.

Back it up.

 

[gambit]

One primitive nuclear weapon is enough of a deterrence. North Korea is the best example.

No...It is not. The reason the US pretty much leave NKR alone is simply because for now, NKR is not much of a threat to US, but more to the Asian region. What you failed to understand is that given such a low nuclear stockpile, it is actually worse to make such a nuclear laden threat because the US and others might just take that threat seriously and attack. That attack may be serious enough to weaken the country to the point of collapse. A threat is only as good as the ability to deliver.

If you think the US didn't make horrible strategic mistakes in Iraq, then there's no point debating it.

And that has nothing to do with the execution of the war. We are not talking about the 'nation rebuilding'. So yes, no point in debating.

I don't think China even now could have defeated Iraq in Gulf War I. Iraq 2 was a cake walk for any military because they had been starved for spare parts by 10+ years of sanctions.

Operation Iraqi Freedom would not have been a cakewalk for China. For US? Yes, because the Iraqi already had a taste of defeat by US once. But if the PLA somehow could land in Iraq with the intention of taking over the country like the US did, then China will have a bloody fight that would knock the PLA back to the seas.

 

[Aramsogo]

The reason North Korea has a credible deterrence is because one primitive nuclear device is enough to nuke Seoul. That alone is enough to stop the US.

Militarily China could definitely win Iraq 2. With no Iraqi navy or airforce or working parts, it was a complete joke. China would not have gone there for nation building. They would have defeated Saddam in 3 weeks and left.

 

[casual]

No...It is not. The reason the US pretty much leave NKR alone is simply because for now, NKR is not much of a threat to US, but more to the Asian region. What you failed to understand is that given such a low nuclear stockpile, it is actually worse to make such a nuclear laden threat because the US and others might just take that threat seriously and attack. That attack may be serious enough to weaken the country to the point of collapse. A threat is only as good as the ability to deliver.


And that has nothing to do with the execution of the war. We are not talking about the 'nation rebuilding'. So yes, no point in debating.


Operation Iraqi Freedom would not have been a cakewalk for China. For US? Yes, because the Iraqi already had a taste of defeat by US once. But if the PLA somehow could land in Iraq with the intention of taking over the country like the US did, then China will have a bloody fight that would knock the PLA back to the seas.

ok basement general.

 

[below_freezing]

It is funny that while you repeatedly said you never made any claims about the Chinese military, you see nothing wrong with downplaying the Iraqi military here to puff up the inexperience Chinese military. It is making ridiculous claims indirectly. Nice. I guess for someone who has no military experience and is still in school, you have no choice but to substitute BS and rhetorics for genuine knowledge and understanding. By the time of Desert Storm, the Iraqi Air Force was the among the top ten, numbers wise, in the world. More like around 7th or 6th. Combat experienced against Iran for 10 yrs, unlike China who has none to this day.

---------- Post added at 11:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 AM ----------


Back it up.

Large is meaningless by itself, especially in the case of Iraq. It can't even manufacture the wheels of the planes or even maintain their Mig-21 Deathtraps without soviet help. Granted, Singapore can't do it either. But in terms of quality and quantity? Singapore has 24 F-15s and 52 F-16C/D in 4th gen, along with 4 E-2 AWAC and 4 Phalcon AWAC. Iraq had 0 AWAC and only 37 Mig-29 in 4th gen. In a war, Iraq would lose to Singapore easily. On the other hand, Singapore and PLAAF is an obvious mismatch, with 5 KJ-2000, 4 KJ-200 for our AWAC and over 700 4th gen planes that we can maintain and manufacture ourselves with 5th gen soon to join.

Experience? All I gotta say is, the US got plenty of experience losing 3000 planes to backwards 3rd world 100th place air force Vietnam. The US is great at losing horrendous amounts of planes and trading 75 planes for 3 to terrible backwards air forces while, ahem, "beating" the "strong" ones.

 

[gambit]

Large is meaningless by itself, especially in the case of Iraq.

And China.

It can't even manufacture the wheels of the planes or even maintain their Mig-21 Deathtraps without soviet help. Granted, Singapore can't do it either. But in terms of quality and quantity? Singapore has 24 F-15s and 52 F-16C/D in 4th gen, along with 4 E-2 AWAC and 4 Phalcon AWAC. Iraq had 0 AWAC and only 37 Mig-29 in 4th gen. In a war, Iraq would lose to Singapore easily. On the other hand, Singapore and PLAAF is an obvious mismatch, with 5 KJ-2000, 4 KJ-200 for our AWAC and over 700 4th gen planes that we can maintain and manufacture ourselves with 5th gen soon to join.

By that argument, if there is a shooting war between the US and China, the technological superiority enjoys by the US will obliterate the PLA.

Experience? All I gotta say is, the US got plenty of experience losing 3000 planes to backwards 3rd world 100th place air force Vietnam. The US is great at losing horrendous amounts of planes and trading 75 planes for 3 to terrible backwards air forces while, ahem, "beating" the "strong" ones.

The majority of air combat losses were to ground air defense, not air-air combat. But if we are talking about air-air combat...

Operation Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the North Vietnamese (and their Soviet allies who supplied the MiG-21 aircraft and helped set up the integrated air defense network), the two reverses forced them to husband their assets by grounding the MiGs for several months for retraining and devising of new tactics.

After one engagement, the MIG-21s and their Chinese trained pilots went to ground.

Today...Probably the only PLA unit that has any meaningful 'combat' experience would the the Photochop Battalion where each man fight to see who can create the best graphics for Chinese military propaganda.

 

[below_freezing]

And China.


By that argument, if there is a shooting war between the US and China, the technological superiority enjoys by the US will obliterate the PLA.


The majority of air combat losses were to ground air defense, not air-air combat. But if we are talking about air-air combat...

Operation Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After one engagement, the MIG-21s and their Chinese trained pilots went to ground.

Today...Probably the only PLA unit that has any meaningful 'combat' experience would the the Photochop Battalion where each man fight to see who can create the best graphics for Chinese military propaganda.

Technological superiority of the US? Try to even concentrate your forces. The largest air defense network in the world along with the ability to strike US airfields and carriers is invisible? Sorry, 3000 downed by ground to air is still a downed plane, only proves that US forces were terribly unprepared to deal with anti-air.

Maybe when you graduate high school and gain something beyond a technician level understanding of technology, you can become something better than a janitor.

 

[gambit]

Technological superiority of the US? Try to even concentrate your forces. The largest air defense network in the world along with the ability to strike US airfields and carriers is invisible? Sorry, 3000 downed by ground to air is still a downed plane, only proves that US forces were terribly unprepared to deal with anti-air.

Maybe when you graduate high school and gain something beyond a technician level understanding of technology, you can become something better than a janitor.

I have proven I understand technology and have more experience in it than you do, particularly in military technology. When you finally got out of that university sandbox and have a real job in technology may be you will wise up and realize how absurd your claims here really are.

 

[marshall]

Iraq? How long did the Saddam regime stayed in power before it was deposed? How about through three US Presidents? So there goes your 'without hesitation' nonsense.

I think he was saying that this applied to countries that were not already under the thumb of the USA. Iraq was a reliable US client state until Kuwait was invaded. Then the US came in to put Saddam Hussein back into his place without deposing him because the US didn't think it was worth the few hundred American deaths that would result and Saddam was also a known anti-Islam supporter. It wasn't until 2000 when Iraq stopped using the US Dollar for its oil trade in favor of the Euro when the US invaded Iraq to dispose of Saddam Hussein permanently, on the pretense of 9/11.