US Seeks Vietnamese Base to Counter China

[LeGenD]

Was there a security pact between USA and Georgia ? that we are missing

These members have no clue of what they are talking about.

They want to perceive this world through the lens of Anti-US propaganda. It is OK to be Anti-US but it not OK to be blind to the ground realities of the world.

Just look at this:

Trust me, not even Russian military experts have illusions regarding military capabilities of USA. Russian experts claim that Russia has no option but to maintain enormous nuclear arsenal just to keep USA at bay.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

These members have no clue of what they are talking about.

They want to perceive this world through the lens of Anti-US propaganda. It is OK to be Anti-US but it not OK to be blind to the ground realities of the world.

Some people prefer a false sense of reality rather than learning from their perceived foes.

 

[NiceGuy]

You need to understand the role of terrain on military conflicts. Technological superiority does not helps in every scenario. In case of Vietnam, this fight will get reduced to person-to-person clash on the ground. And Vietnamese are expert in guerilla fighting. Vietnamese can inflict massive casualties on Chinese infantry and significantly slow down their advances on the ground. Do some digging in this aspect.

poor Martian2 never learn anything from Sino-Vn conflict.

Evening of 4 July 1984 23 am, the Vietnamese troops of 406 battalion 821 Secret Mission 7 with a row of elevation points from the 1134 side saddle sneaked into my territory and then, point by point to observation point by point the way forward on the road before dawn on the 5th to the scheduled meeting place – a cave hidden white pyroxenite. 5, hostile white Shiyan, various positions in a close observation of the arrival day and night. At 0:30 on the 6th or so, in addition to a group of white remain as alert and take place inside the cave, Shiyan task, I compiled four group secret enemy approach the target area, were a group of 160 mortar attack on army positions and 41 Teachers 122 Group 9 with three rows. The other two groups from the left-right attack on Kunming Military Region I (now incorporated into the Chengdu Military Region) artillery battalion reconnaissance apparatus, “Xin Bolin” radar position. 2:30, the enemy opened fire at the same time, 2:40 end of the operation, killed 10 people(PLA) and injured 49 people, the enemy killed 1 person and injured 10 people.

After the completion of the enemy attack, the attack group retreated to the white line along the original cave, Shiyan, slight casualties treated on the same day before 6 pm outside the original infiltration routes withdrawn. Later identified as the battlefield with poor management and night of the incident, the guard changing of the guard soldiers after the wake of the posts went to sleep, but the appointment of the soldiers agreed to sleep soon as it passed, it is an enemy agent teams can smoothly slip important reason for coming.

The enemy’s sabotage operations in terms of combat readiness, tactical use of weapons or the means to view, be termed the classic special operations, sabotage the enemy when using only grenades, directional mines, rockets and plastic explosives man other blast weapons, not only to me and cause greater damage technical equipment, but also an attempt to cover the war, our military personnel positions until the day 6 had thought only the enemy’s artillery explosions.
.........
The fighting, the military high evaded. Deng position: their agents can come in, why can not our scouts in the past? Thus, there is a more than five years on a secret reconnaissance round of fighting.
Place of military knowledge and amusing stories of automobile » Vietnam

Chinese link
????????
The real kill ration between PLA and Regular Vn army is 10:1
Even until now, PLA still can't understand how our mud-men could sneak into China's territories and destroyed it's costly radar when poor and useless PLA couldn't do the same

 

[LeGenD]

poor Martian2 never learn anything from Sino-Vn conflict.
Chinese link
????????
The real kill ration between PLA and Regular Vn army is 10:1
Even until now, PLA still can't understand how our mud-men could sneak into China's territories and destroyed it's costly radar when poor and useless PLA couldn't do the same

To be honest, I do not under-rate Chinese military capabilities in this age.

However, it is foolish to assume that Vietnam can be easily occupied.

Yes, both China and USA have learned valuable lessons from Vietnamese conflict. US went as far as to totally revolutionize its military structure after the Vietnam debacle.

Alone, Vietnam may not stand a chance against China but with US assistance Chinese invasion can be handled in this region.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

These members have no clue of what they are talking about.

They want to perceive this world through the lens of Anti-US propaganda. It is OK to be Anti-US but it not OK to be blind to the ground realities of the world.

Just look at this:

Trust me, not even Russian military experts have illusions regarding military capabilities of USA. Russian experts claim that Russia has no option but to maintain enormous nuclear arsenal just to keep USA at bay.

This means very little as a direct measure of military power. Does this mean the GCC as a whole is stronger than Russia in military terms (as the GCC probably spends more than Russia on 'defense' but expenditures by many of those kingdoms are not transparent)? Does this mean that Australia or Canada can be said to be stronger than Iran, Pakistan, North Korea or Egypt at present, in military terms?

None of the countries that have nuclear weapons today would like to abandon them, and Russia is no exception. Ask yourself this: Why would USA or UK or France maintain operationally ready nuclear devices if their conventional superiority was as massive as "nominal exchange rate" based annual military budgets would show?

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Bro, it is true that US does not brings its full fire-power in to any theatre. US military adventures are often politically led.

The last time US opened up fully to military confrontation was during WW-II.

Wars are political affairs everywhere. Yet, to think that USA only used everything in its arsenal only during World War II alone reeks of ignorance. If it was the Germans and Japanese against the USA alone, the result would probably have been Japanese ruling the West part and the Germans ruling the East part of USA. As it turned out, both of these countries had much 'bigger fish to fry' at that time, which allowed mainland USA to be unharmed, many European scientists to flee to USA which in turn helped boost its critical weapons development programmes (like the Manhattan Project for nuclear bomb development), and these erstwhile powerful countries like UK, France etc to be relegated to second rate nations on the world stage because of the 'destruction' to their economies.

What was China doing when US attacked Libya?

Gaddafi was posing and smiling with Western leaders.

What was Russia doing when US attacked Serbia?

Serbia shot down their 'stealth' planes, no need for Russia.

What was USSR doing when US attacked Iraq?

USSR was no longer 'in business.

 

[Martian2]

You are thinking foolishly, Going by your logic America belongs to Colubus and his country Republic of Genoa. And entire China should belong to Mongols as they have ruled it.

How many times do I have to say this?

Columbus is long dead. So is the Republic of Genoa. Mongols are nobodies.

China has at least 294 megatons of thermonuclear power!

Can you understand this critical difference?

Superpower China asserts its historical territorial claims. You annoy them. They squash you. Get it?

----------

Even the U.S. has no hope of stopping the PLA in Eurasia.

Joint military drill of air and land forces held on west China's plateau area_XINHUANET

A photo taken in this Autumn shows a Jian-11 fighter taking part during a joint military drill of air and land forces held on west China's plateau area which reached an altitude of 4,500 meters above the sea level. (Xinhua/Liu Yinghua)

A photo taken in this Autumn shows a Jian-11 fighter sending infrared decoy during a joint military drill of air and land forces held on west China's plateau area which reached an altitude of 4,500 meters above the sea level. (Xinhua/Liu Yinghua)

A photo taken in this Autumn shows rocket guns taking part in a joint military drill of air and land forces held on west China's plateau area which reached an altitude of 4,500 meters above the sea level. (Xinhua/Zhao Haibo)

A photo taken in this Autumn shows cannons taking part during a joint military drill of air and land forces held on west China's plateau area which reached an altitude of 4,500 meters above the sea level. (Xinhua/Zhao Haibo)

A photo taken in this Autumn shows infantry taking part in a joint military drill of air and land forces held on west China's plateau area which reached an altitude of 4,500 meters above the sea level. (Xinhua/Liu Yinghua)

A photo taken in this Autumn shows a soldier using a portable air-defence missile during a joint military drill of air and land forces held on west China's plateau area which reached an altitude of 4,500 meters above the sea level. (Xinhua/Liu Yinghua)

A photo taken in this Autumn shows infantry with machine gun taking part in a joint military drill of air and land forces held on west China's plateau area which reached an altitude of 4,500 meters above the sea level. (Xinhua/Liu Yinghua)

A photo taken in this Autumn shows a joint military drill of air and land forces held on west China's plateau area which reached an altitude of 4,500 meters above the sea level. (Xinhua/Liu Yinghua)

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the post.]

 

[AADHAAR]

^^ Here comes "Martian2".... leader of China's "internet army".

Now see this thread getting full of his "photoshop" arsenal.

 

[NiceGuy]

To be honest, I do not under-rate Chinese military capabilities in this age.

.

We don't under-rate Chinese military too, but they're still not strong enough to fight with us. PLA still can't find out the way to defend against sabotages from our 'mud-men' .

Alone, Vietnam may not stand a chance against China but with US assistance Chinese invasion can be handled in this region.

Wrong, bro, we've standed alone since Soviet's collapse until now, and we still control the largest part of SCS(east sea). China only controll some small and unimportant parts.

We colaborate with US just to make sure that: both US-China will not shake hands to impose sanction and attack Vn like what both of them did from 1979 to 1988.

 

[Martian2]

China can carpet bomb any place in Vietnam that it feels like. Unlike soft Americans, there will be no pause in Chinese Rolling Thunder. Six months of non-stop bombing. Vietnam will become one giant crater. No one will be able to find Hanoi on a map.

H-6K "God of War" Bomber

H-6K bomber

H-6M Bombs Away!

Chinese Rolling Thunder!

[Note: Thank you to A.Man for the first picture and Deino for the second caption.]

 

[clmeta]

GCC ends up spending so much because they import all their weapons. Russia makes it weapons so it saves there.
If a country that has technology to manufacture weapons is spending that than money is being translated to lethal power.

This means very little as a direct measure of military power. Does this mean the GCC as a whole is stronger than Russia in military terms (as the GCC probably spends more than Russia on 'defense' but expenditures by many of those kingdoms are not transparent)? Does this mean that Australia or Canada can be said to be stronger than Iran, Pakistan, North Korea or Egypt at present, in military terms?

None of the countries that have nuclear weapons today would like to abandon them, and Russia is no exception. Ask yourself this: Why would USA or UK or France maintain operationally ready nuclear devices if their conventional superiority was as massive as "nominal exchange rate" based annual military budgets would show?

 

[LeGenD]

This means very little as a direct measure of military power.

Budget determines quality, self-sustainability, speed of progress, and capability to meet new challenges.

Does this mean the GCC as a whole is stronger than Russia in military terms (as the GCC probably spends more than Russia on 'defense' but expenditures by many of those kingdoms are not transparent)?

GCC represents alliance of several countries. Therefore, invalid example.

Does this mean that Australia or Canada can be said to be stronger than Iran, Pakistan, North Korea or Egypt at present, in military terms?

Australia and Canada do not face major military threats like the countries you mentioned. These two nations do not field large armies but they do field impressive air-power and naval capabilities. And their budget gives them greater flexibility to adapt to new challenges around them.

Pakistan remains India-centric.
Egypt remains Israeli-centric.
Iran remains Iraqi-centric. Even with Iraq out of the picture, Iranian military posture have not changed much.
NK remains SK-centric but now lags behind.

None of the countries that have nuclear weapons today would like to abandon them, and Russia is no exception. Ask yourself this: Why would USA or UK or France maintain operationally ready nuclear devices if their conventional superiority was as massive as "nominal exchange rate" based annual military budgets would show?

You need to study US military doctrine. US is improving its conventional capability to reduce its dependency on its nuclear capability to meet its objectives. UK and France have also fielded decent conventional and nuclear capabilities and are among the major NATO players.

Wars are political affairs everywhere.

Political objectives are not always feasible for military related affairs or properly co-align with them. Political objectives can even hinder military progress.

Yet, to think that USA only used everything in its arsenal only during World War II alone reeks of ignorance.

But it did. Ranging from a bullet to atomic bombs.

If it was the Germans and Japanese against the USA alone, the result would probably have been Japanese ruling the West part and the Germans ruling the East part of USA. As it turned out, both of these countries had much 'bigger fish to fry' at that time, which allowed mainland USA to be unharmed, many European scientists to flee to USA which in turn helped boost its critical weapons development programmes (like the Manhattan Project for nuclear bomb development), and these erstwhile powerful countries like UK, France etc to be relegated to second rate nations on the world stage because of the 'destruction' to their economies.

Well, US is blessed with ideal geography. However, US fought full-scale war with Japan since the Pearl Harbor incident. Japanese progress was hindered by this reason alone. And US not just demonstrated the capability to project its power much further away from its borders but fought on multiple fronts simultaneously. US populace was fully motivated to wage war during WW-II.

Gaddafi was posing and smiling with Western leaders.

Bro, Gaddafi was the main target.

Serbia shot down their 'stealth' planes, no need for Russia.

Only once. And Serbia suffered immense damage and was defeated.

USSR was no longer 'in business.

USSR existed during Persian Gulf War 1991. However, USSR had no answer against this (revolutionzed) US military might.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Budget determines quality, self-sustainability, speed of progress, and capability to meet new challenges.

Budget determines none of this.

GCC represents alliance of several countries. Therefore, invalid example.

Budget=Budget. Therefore, valid example.

Australia and Canada do not face major military threats like the countries you mentioned. These two nations do not field large armies but they do field impressive air-power and naval capabilities. And their budget gives them greater flexibility to adapt to new challenges around them.

Pakistan remains India-centric.
Egypt remains Israeli-centric.
Iran remains Iraqi-centric. Even with Iraq out of the picture, Iranian military posture have not changed much.
NK remains SK-centric but now lags behind.

Australia and Canada do not field strong militaries despite their greater budgets as measured by nominal exchange rates than Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, or NK. You are wrong about Iranian current military orientation, but the rest are fine.

Also, Canadian and Australian air power and naval power is not noteworthy. What's so 'impressive' about F-18 as the mainstay ofairforces?

So these cases also show that budgets alone do not show much, especially when measured by nominal exchange rates.

You need to study US military doctrine. US is improving its conventional capability to reduce its dependency on its nuclear capability to meet its objectives. UK and France have also fielded decent conventional and nuclear capabilities and are among the major NATO players.

So you have admitted that USA depends on nuclear weapons. Why is that if it maintains such a quantitative and/or qualitative edge against all its nearest 'competitors' as defense budget bar chart would wrongly portray? Same is the case with France and Britain. Why do they maintain nuclear capabilities if their conventional capabilities are about the same as Russian as you would think judging by defense budgets alone?

Political objectives are not always feasible for military related affairs or properly co-align with them. Political objectives can even hinder military progress.

Military only takes orders from politicians.

But it did. Ranging from a bullet to atomic bombs.

That was not the only time it did.

Well, US is blessed with ideal geography. However, US fought full-scale war with Japan since the Pearl Harbor incident. Japanese progress was hindered by this reason alone. And US not just demonstrated the capability to project its power much further away from its borders but fought on multiple fronts simultaneously. US populace was fully motivated to wage war during WW-II.

More so than ideal geography, it's the fact that no neighbour in the Americas threatens them. Japanese progress was hindered because its supply lines were stretched thin, it had captured the bulk of East Asia, and was managing those regions. If they fought USA alone with their resources secured, and if Germans also fought USA alone with their supply lines secured, they would probably be ruling the Western and Eastern parts of USA, respectively.

Bro, Gaddafi was the main target.

China was not a target.

Only once. And Serbia suffered immense damage and was defeated.

More than once. Serbia was defeated in what? It could no longer carry out genocide, but Serbia was not captured.

USSR existed during Persian Gulf War 1991. However, USSR had no answer against this (revolutionzed) US military might.

USSR was dissolved in 1991, officially.

GCC ends up spending so much because they import all their weapons. Russia makes it weapons so it saves there.
If a country that has technology to manufacture weapons is spending that than money is being translated to lethal power.

So you think that defense budget alone does not tell you how strong a military is? That's what I also said.

 

[ahfatzia]

dear chinese friends just ignore this guy's posts
the best place for his post is the ignore list as said by Aryan_b,
by the way legend you seem to be obsessed with U.S fire power just one question comes to mind
where was it during the Russia-Georgian war ?

(wrong reply)

@ Banglar Lathial Post# 178

It's not what it seems or not the way the fanboys here interpret it. Japan, the US's closest ally in this are is her true ally and went back after WWII. Japan has an innate fear of the countries in this area because of her past atrocities but their relationship is more of a protector and the protected. Korea's position is almost the same although not as tight and both have strong economical ties with the US. Because the recent economical rises with China, both, unless they are the ones who's being invaded when is unlikely, will stay neutral with leaning toward the US if conflicts breakout between the two giants. Just as antiquity they will not antagonized their big neighbor unless absolutely necessary.

Philippines relationship with the US went back to the colonial days, and had many signs of breaking up in the past decades. Aquino made a mistake by antagonize China instead of dialogues with her thinking the US would back him if skirmishes break out. The US is not a fool.

Because the return of Asia pivot policy, the US is using the SCS disputes and 'China is a Bully' campaign to draw all these smaller nations to her alignments and she is succeeding in a sense. However these nations are not fools either, and they know the US what she is. They'll try to get as much as possible from the US by promising assistance, however there's no love lost among them with the US. At the end of the day they still have to live with their big neighbor. Infact some, if not all, don't see China as an expansionist and they just want to diversify their relationships by coexisting with both giants.

It's all political games.

 

[dunhill]

To: Martian,

I belief that you are not awake yet. Due to the China Military power for at this time its still can not be compare what U.S Army used to Viet Nam during a war.

You can calculate the air fighters, bombers [B52] what U.S got shot in Viet Nam (North Viet Nam) by Vietnamese people. Let me know once you done for the calculation then we can talk more about "China's if it likes to bombs Viet nam"