China Flexes Growing Military Power - Armor Games Community

38	5729

offline

Maverick4

6,800 posts

Peasant

Posted January 8, '11 5:14am UTC

With China so large, they do need a large military

Doesn't matter how big the dog is, if it has no bite.

Also, since the US tends to send their carriers into Asian waters to project their power, the missiles are a good move.

So now China's projecting their power, what happens when the US makes their move?

Carriers are the big guns in the navy, take them out first, and it's easier to take out the rest.quote]

Carriers are vital to the USN's strength. However, its the same general problem faced with nuclear weapons: how to remove all chances that your opponent can retalliate. If half the USN's carriers were taken out of the picture, the Navy, and most like the American People, would become INFLAMED. They would DEMAND a retalitory strike. So China can deal with the Navies ships. What about the airforce? ICBMs? Subs? You would have to cover so much that it would be best if China never used them to begin with, to save their own skin.

And China currently lacks the databas of UAVs and Satelites needed to garner targets for the DG-21s. So the missiles aren't even at full operating capabilities. The US just has to take out a few satalites, and the missiles quickly become relatively useless.

[quote]Plus, don't you think China has it's own systems to destroy any land based missile attack by the US Navy?

First, I don't think that the USN will be launching an attack from the land anytime soon.

ICBM launches are relatively easy to detect. However, growing technology to counter ICBM's has only prompted other delivery meathods. It would only be too easy to simply overwealm Chinese Missile Defenses with a multitude of ICBMs, Cruise Missiles, STS, ATS, etc. The Chinese Missile Defense simply wouldn't be able to keep up with all the threats, or which targets to protect or abandon.

[quote]With China so large, they do need a large military[/quote]\r\n\r\nDoesn't matter how big the dog is, if it has no bite.\r\n\r\n [quote]Also, since the US tends to send their carriers into Asian waters to project their power, the missiles are a good move.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo now China's projecting [i]their[/i] power, what happens when the US makes their move?\r\n\r\n[quote]Carriers are the big guns in the navy, take them out first, and it's easier to take out the rest.quote]\r\n\r\nCarriers are vital to the USN's strength. However, its the same general problem faced with nuclear weapons: how to remove all chances that your opponent can retalliate. If half the USN's carriers were taken out of the picture, the Navy, and most like the American People, would become INFLAMED. They would DEMAND a retalitory strike. So China can deal with the Navies ships. What about the airforce? ICBMs? Subs? You would have to cover so much that it would be best if China never used them to begin with, to save their own skin.\r\n\r\nAnd China currently lacks the databas of UAVs and Satelites needed to garner targets for the DG-21s. So the missiles aren't even at full operating capabilities. The US just has to take out a few satalites, and the missiles quickly become relatively useless.\r\n\r\n[quote]Plus, don't you think China has it's own systems to destroy any land based missile attack by the US Navy?[/quote]\r\n\r\nFirst, I don't think that the USN will be launching an attack from the land anytime soon.\r\n\r\nICBM launches are relatively easy to detect. However, growing technology to counter ICBM's has only prompted other delivery meathods. It would only be too easy to simply overwealm Chinese Missile Defenses with a multitude of ICBMs, Cruise Missiles, STS, ATS, etc. The Chinese Missile Defense simply wouldn't be able to keep up with all the threats, or which targets to protect or abandon.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted January 8, '11 5:33am UTC

ICBM launches are relatively easy to detect. However, growing technology to counter ICBM's has only prompted other delivery meathods. It would only be too easy to simply overwealm Chinese Missile Defenses with a multitude of ICBMs, Cruise Missiles, STS, ATS, etc. The Chinese Missile Defense simply wouldn't be able to keep up with all the threats, or which targets to protect or abandon.

If the US wanted to provoke a nuclear war, sure.

Doesn't matter how big the dog is, if it has no bite.

Their military is suited to fend off attacks by neighbouring countries. Plus, to patrol the large areas of China. Unlike the US, China shares borders with generally hostile states. Russia, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, Korea. Hence more manpower is neeeded

S

o now China's projecting their power, what happens when the US makes their move?

The US is already projecting it's power there.

Carriers are vital to the USN's strength. However, its the same general problem faced with nuclear weapons: how to remove all chances that your opponent can retalliate. If half the USN's carriers were taken out of the picture, the Navy, and most like the American People, would become INFLAMED. They would DEMAND a retalitory strike. So China can deal with the Navies ships. What about the airforce? ICBMs? Subs? You would have to cover so much that it would be best if China never used them to begin with, to save their own skin.

I would think the US would strike first. China's 2006 published deterrence policy states that they will "uphold the principles of counterattack in self-defense and limited development of nuclear weapons", but "has never entered, and will never enter into a nuclear arms race with any country". It goes on to describe that China will never undertake a first strike, or use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state or zone.

An airforce would be easier to take out, seeing that you would have a much longer warning time.

Satellites: The PLA has deployed a number of space-based systems for military purposes, including the imagery intelligence satellite systems like the ZiYan series, and the militarily designated JianBing series, synthetic aperture satellites (SAR) such as JianBing-5, BeiDou satellite navigation network, and secured communication satellites with FENGHUO-1.

Anti Missile Defenses: The PLA has started the development of an anti-ballistic and anti-satellite system in the 1960s, code named Project 640, including ground based lasers, and anti-satellite missiles. On 11 January 2007 China conducted a successful test of an anti-satellite missile, with an SC-19 class KKV.

Technology: According to the Pentagon, China is currently developing kinetic-energy weapons, high-powered lasers, high-powered microwave weapons, particle-beam weapons, and electromagnetic pulse weapons with its increase of military fundings.

The Chinese Missile Defense simply wouldn't be able to keep up with all the threats, or which targets to protect or abandon.

That's also a question the US has to answer.

[quote]ICBM launches are relatively easy to detect. However, growing technology to counter ICBM's has only prompted other delivery meathods. It would only be too easy to simply overwealm Chinese Missile Defenses with a multitude of ICBMs, Cruise Missiles, STS, ATS, etc. The Chinese Missile Defense simply wouldn't be able to keep up with all the threats, or which targets to protect or abandon.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf the US wanted to provoke a nuclear war, sure. \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Doesn't matter how big the dog is, if it has no bite.[/quote]\r\n\r\nTheir military is suited to fend off attacks by neighbouring countries. Plus, to patrol the large areas of China. Unlike the US, China shares borders with generally hostile states. Russia, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, Korea. Hence more manpower is neeeded \r\n\r\n\r\nS[quote]o now China's projecting their power, what happens when the US makes their move?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe US is already projecting it's power there. \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Carriers are vital to the USN's strength. However, its the same general problem faced with nuclear weapons: how to remove all chances that your opponent can retalliate. If half the USN's carriers were taken out of the picture, the Navy, and most like the American People, would become INFLAMED. They would DEMAND a retalitory strike. So China can deal with the Navies ships. What about the airforce? ICBMs? Subs? You would have to cover so much that it would be best if China never used them to begin with, to save their own skin.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI would think the US would strike first. China's 2006 published deterrence policy states that they will "uphold the principles of counterattack in self-defense and limited development of nuclear weapons", but "has never entered, and will never enter into a nuclear arms race with any country". It goes on to describe that China will never undertake a first strike, or use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state or zone.\r\n\r\nAn airforce would be easier to take out, seeing that you would have a much longer warning time.\r\n\r\nSatellites: The PLA has deployed a number of space-based systems for military purposes, including the imagery intelligence satellite systems like the ZiYan series, and the militarily designated JianBing series, synthetic aperture satellites (SAR) such as JianBing-5, BeiDou satellite navigation network, and secured communication satellites with FENGHUO-1.\r\n\r\nAnti Missile Defenses: The PLA has started the development of an anti-ballistic and anti-satellite system in the 1960s, code named Project 640, including ground based lasers, and anti-satellite missiles. On 11 January 2007 China conducted a successful test of an anti-satellite missile, with an SC-19 class KKV.\r\n\r\nTechnology: According to the Pentagon, China is currently developing kinetic-energy weapons, high-powered lasers, high-powered microwave weapons, particle-beam weapons, and electromagnetic pulse weapons with its increase of military fundings. \r\n\r\n[quote]The Chinese Missile Defense simply wouldn't be able to keep up with all the threats, or which targets to protect or abandon.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's also a question the US has to answer.

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 8, '11 5:37am UTC

Nichodemus, you really need to be citing sources when you are quoting verbatim. Not doing so is plagiarism, and this isn't the first time I've mentioned it to you. If you need more information check out the sticky on plagiarism and reliable sources.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted January 8, '11 5:49am UTC

Nichodemus, you really need to be citing sources when you are quoting verbatim. Not doing so is plagiarism, and this isn't the first time I've mentioned it to you. If you need more information check out the sticky on plagiarism and reliable sources.

It's the first :/ But yeah, I'll put quotations on. ><

offline

Sonatavarius

1,322 posts

Farmer

Posted January 8, '11 5:55am UTC

in the world government thread he did so... u may not have seen it

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted January 8, '11 6:19am UTC

in the world government thread he did so... u may not have seen it

Yes fine! No need to add more salt.

offline

Zydrate

383 posts

Farmer

Posted January 9, '11 12:08am UTC

They have way too many **** people. I really hope we don't go to war with them.

offline

Maverick4

6,800 posts

Peasant

Posted January 9, '11 4:34am UTC

If the US wanted to provoke a nuclear war, sure.

And if China wanted to put MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Theory to the test, sure.

Their military is suited to fend off attacks by neighbouring countries

Keyword: *neighbouring*. Russia, Vietnam, and North Korea all fight with Soviet Weapons. Infact, most of China's older Tech is copied/influenced by/modified from Russian Tech. Japain and South Korea both use US Tech, as well as falling under the US Nuclear Umbrella. China may be able to protect itself from its neighbors, but against the US? That would be harder, if not impossible, to give a definative answer in either affirmative or negative.

The US is already projecting it's power there.

Never said they weren't. China is developing all this Technology for several reasons. One of which is to flex their own muscles in the region. So, if the US feels threatned by China's moves, they will react. And its a viscious cycle.

I would think the US would strike first. China's 2006 published deterrence policy states that they will "uphold the principles of counterattack in self-defense and limited development of nuclear weapons", but "has never entered, and will never enter into a nuclear arms race with any country".

Hah! And isn't this the same China that says there a Republic?

or use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state or zone

Last time I checked, the US is a nuclear state.

An airforce would be easier to take out, seeing that you would have a much longer warning time.

IN theory, yes. And China is using Soviet-influenced technology. A good case study would be Saddam Hussein and the Gulf War. Hussein had one of the largest anti-aircraft systems in the world, and a few stealth aircraft and low-level aircraft took it out fairly easy. And the US has Wildweasel Units, whos sole purpose is to take out air defenses. The F-22, the most advanced fighter in the world, is fairly invisible to radar. So you have stealth aircraft which would blow gaps in the defense, which would be exploited by Wildweasle usits.

And if the Planes were launched by carrier, or from neighboring countries like South Korea or Japan, the warning time would be much, much less.

China is currently developing kinetic-energy weapons, high-powered lasers, high-powered microwave weapons, particle-beam weapons, and electromagnetic pulse weapons with its increase of military fundings.

As is the US, which is also developing DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons).

That's also a question the US has to answer.

Indeed. However, the US has military forces stationed all across the globe. *If* China were to attack, it would be unable to eliminate all US Forces. Again, its rather hard to take out a Sub if you don't even know its there. The US would still have second strike capabilities.

[quote]If the US wanted to provoke a nuclear war, sure. [/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd if China wanted to put MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Theory to the test, sure.\r\n\r\n[quote]Their military is suited to fend off attacks by neighbouring countries[/quote]\r\n\r\nKeyword: *neighbouring*. Russia, Vietnam, and North Korea all fight with Soviet Weapons. Infact, most of China's older Tech is copied/influenced by/modified from Russian Tech. Japain and South Korea both use US Tech, as well as falling under the US Nuclear Umbrella. China may be able to protect itself from its neighbors, but against the US? That would be harder, if not impossible, to give a definative answer in either affirmative or negative.\r\n\r\n[quote]The US is already projecting it's power there.[/quote] \r\n\r\nNever said they weren't. China is developing all this Technology for several reasons. One of which is to flex their own muscles in the region. So, if the US feels threatned by China's moves, they will react. And its a viscious cycle.\r\n\r\n[quote]I would think the US would strike first. China's 2006 published deterrence policy states that they will "uphold the principles of counterattack in self-defense and limited development of nuclear weapons", but "has never entered, and will never enter into a nuclear arms race with any country".[/quote] \r\n\r\nHah! And isn't this the same China that says there a Republic?\r\n\r\n[quote]or use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state or zone[/quote]\r\n\r\nLast time I checked, the US is a nuclear state.\r\n\r\n[quote]An airforce would be easier to take out, seeing that you would have a much longer warning time.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIN theory, yes. And China is using Soviet-influenced technology. A good case study would be Saddam Hussein and the Gulf War. Hussein had one of the largest anti-aircraft systems in the world, and a few stealth aircraft and low-level aircraft took it out fairly easy. And the US has Wildweasel Units, whos sole purpose is to take out air defenses. The F-22, the most advanced fighter in the world, is fairly invisible to radar. So you have stealth aircraft which would blow gaps in the defense, which would be exploited by Wildweasle usits.\r\n\r\nAnd if the Planes were launched by carrier, or from neighboring countries like South Korea or Japan, the warning time would be much, much less.\r\n\r\n[quote]China is currently developing kinetic-energy weapons, high-powered lasers, high-powered microwave weapons, particle-beam weapons, and electromagnetic pulse weapons with its increase of military fundings. [/quote]\r\n\r\nAs is the US, which is also developing DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons).\r\n\r\n[quote]That's also a question the US has to answer.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIndeed. However, the US has military forces stationed all across the globe. *If* China were to attack, it would be unable to eliminate all US Forces. Again, its rather hard to take out a Sub if you don't even know its there. The US would still have second strike capabilities.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted January 9, '11 4:59am UTC

Hah! And isn't this the same China that says there a Republic?

And the same US who claims to stand for peace but has 20 major wars in its 200 year history.

Keyword: *neighbouring*. Russia, Vietnam, and North Korea all fight with Soviet Weapons. Infact, most of China's older Tech is copied/influenced by/modified from Russian Tech. Japain and South Korea both use US Tech, as well as falling under the US Nuclear Umbrella. China may be able to protect itself from its neighbors, but against the US? That would be harder, if not impossible, to give a definative answer in either affirmative or negative.

I was justifying their need for a large army over a high tech one. Hence your whole point was not needed.

Hussein had one of the largest anti-aircraft systems in the world,

As stated before, China is developing much more high tech equipment.

And if the Planes were launched by carrier, or from neighboring countries like South Korea or Japan, the warning time would be much, much less.

Which is why China feels threatened in its own backyard. How would you like if there was an enemy naval/air base near New York?

Indeed. However, the US has military forces stationed all across the globe. *If* China were to attack, it would be unable to eliminate all US Forces. Again, its rather hard to take out a Sub if you don't even know its there. The US would still have second strike capabilities.

Not doubting that, but again more grievances for China.

China does not need to rely on its military power, which is after all much weaker than the US. The US is already under their thumb.

Wiki:

In May 2009, the US owed China $772 billion.

China wants to flex its muscles in a region that it was historically dominant in. After centuries of being bullied into concessions after concessions by the West and its neighbours, think Opium War, Sino-Jap Wars, isolation after the Civil War of 1949 and I think you can understand why the Chinese,( Even as a member of the Chinese Diaspora), we would feel the need to get more guns.

[quote]Hah! And isn't this the same China that says there a Republic?[/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd the same US who claims to stand for peace but has 20 major wars in its 200 year history. \r\n\r\n[quote]Keyword: *neighbouring*. Russia, Vietnam, and North Korea all fight with Soviet Weapons. Infact, most of China's older Tech is copied/influenced by/modified from Russian Tech. Japain and South Korea both use US Tech, as well as falling under the US Nuclear Umbrella. China may be able to protect itself from its neighbors, but against the US? That would be harder, if not impossible, to give a definative answer in either affirmative or negative.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI was justifying their need for a large army over a high tech one. Hence your whole point was not needed. \r\n\r\n[quote]Hussein had one of the largest anti-aircraft systems in the world, [/quote]\r\n\r\nAs stated before, China is developing much more high tech equipment.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]And if the Planes were launched by carrier, or from neighboring countries like South Korea or Japan, the warning time would be much, much less. [/quote]\r\n\r\nWhich is why China feels threatened in its own backyard. How would you like if there was an enemy naval/air base near New York? \r\n\r\n[quote]Indeed. However, the US has military forces stationed all across the globe. *If* China were to attack, it would be unable to eliminate all US Forces. Again, its rather hard to take out a Sub if you don't even know its there. The US would still have second strike capabilities.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNot doubting that, but again more grievances for China. \r\n\r\nChina [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-4864398-503983.html]does not need[/url] to rely on its military power, which is after all much weaker than the US. The US is already under their thumb. \r\n\r\n[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt]Wiki:[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]In May 2009, the US owed China $772 billion.[/quote]\r\n\r\n\r\nChina wants to flex its muscles in a region that it was historically dominant in. After centuries of being bullied into concessions after concessions by the West and its neighbours, think Opium War, Sino-Jap Wars, isolation after the Civil War of 1949 and I think you can understand why the Chinese,( Even as a member of the Chinese Diaspora), we would feel the need to get more guns.

offline

CommanderDude7

4,689 posts

Nomad

Posted January 9, '11 5:13am UTC

The US is already under their thumb.

*eye-roll* As your own link stated the US and China are interconnected economically. Neither is under the other's thumb.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted January 9, '11 6:16am UTC

*eye-roll* As your own link stated the US and China are interconnected economically. Neither is under the other's thumb.

Word phrased wrongly.

offline

Maverick4

6,800 posts

Peasant

Posted January 10, '11 3:47am UTC

And the same US who claims to stand for peace but has 20 major wars in its 200 year history

'Whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war'

-Vegetius

As stated before, China is developing much more high tech equipment.

As stated before, at the current ammount China is spending, either there wouldn't be enough tech, or the quality would be poor.

Which is why China feels threatened in its own backyard. How would you like if there was an enemy naval/air base near New York?

I believe the word your looking for is 'foreign'. If it were an 'enemy' base, I doubt it'd be around much longer. The US is the strongest Military Power on the planet. Until that changes, I doubt that any nation would have a military base on US Soil.

[quote]The US is already under their thumb.

As your own link stated the US and China are interconnected economically[/quote]

If the US were to stop buying goods from China, their market would take a substantial dip. On the plus side, the US would be forced to make the goods themselves, creating many, many jobs.

[quote]And the same US who claims to stand for peace but has 20 major wars in its 200 year history[/quote]\r\n\r\n'Whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war'\r\n\r\n-Vegetius\r\n\r\n[quote]As stated before, China is developing much more high tech equipment.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAs stated before, at the current ammount China is spending, either there wouldn't be enough tech, or the quality would be poor.\r\n\r\n[quote]Which is why China feels threatened in its own backyard. How would you like if there was an enemy naval/air base near New York? [/quote]\r\n\r\nI believe the word your looking for is 'foreign'. If it were an 'enemy' base, I doubt it'd be around much longer. The US is the strongest Military Power on the planet. Until that changes, I doubt that any nation would have a military base on US Soil.\r\n\r\n[quote][quote]The US is already under their thumb.[/quote] \r\n\r\nAs your own link stated the US and China are interconnected economically[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf the US were to stop buying goods from China, their market would take a substantial dip. On the plus side, the US would be forced to make the goods themselves, creating many, many jobs. :)

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted January 10, '11 10:40am UTC

Vegetius

Quoting one dude does not justify an argument. There's still bloodshed, and face it many of the conflicts perpatuated needed much effort to finally close.

The US is the strongest Military Power on the planet. Until that changes, I doubt that any nation would have a military base on US Soil.

Near, not soil.

On the plus side, the US would be forced to make the goods themselves, creating many, many jobs.

They're not able to produce everything themselves.

either there wouldn't be enough tech

They don't need much tech to fend of their Southern neighbours. And yes, the tech is still not enough.

offline

MRWalker82

4,005 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 10, '11 4:09pm UTC

And the same US who claims to stand for peace but has 20 major wars in its 200 year history.

I never knew the US stood for peace. I always heard that we stood for democracy. And as for the 20 wars, it's actually only 19 if you want to get really technical. Of those 19 only 11 were actually 'wars'. The others were police actions, US involvement in UN action, or minor skirmishes with foreign entities. Of those 11, one was the Civil War, one the war of 1812 which secured our independence from Great Britain, and one was a minor and short lived conflict with Spain which was the result of horrible publicity due to grossly misinformed media and would hardly count as a war, although it is colloquially classified as such.

Near, not soil.

This is supposed to make sense? Given the exact phrase, and the quote you were responding to, this comment seems nonsensical. Perhaps you would like to clarify/elaborate?

They're not able to produce everything themselves.

Actually we would be, without too much difficulty. The primary issue would be that costs would rise due to the requirements in wages and benefits to all workers on US soil. Which is the primary reason that US companies are outsourcing production to Asian nations. We can pay workers less for the same work which keeps production costs low and increases profit. We don't need to outsource, it's just cheaper.

[quote]And the same US who claims to stand for peace but has 20 major wars in its 200 year history.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI never knew the US stood for peace. I always heard that we stood for democracy. And as for the 20 wars, it's actually only 19 if you want to get really technical. Of those 19 only 11 were actually 'wars'. The others were police actions, US involvement in UN action, or minor skirmishes with foreign entities. Of those 11, one was the Civil War, one the war of 1812 which secured our independence from Great Britain, and one was a minor and short lived conflict with Spain which was the result of horrible publicity due to grossly misinformed media and would hardly count as a war, although it is colloquially classified as such.\r\n\r\n[quote]Near, not soil.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is supposed to make sense? Given the exact phrase, and the quote you were responding to, this comment seems nonsensical. Perhaps you would like to clarify/elaborate?\r\n\r\n[quote]They're not able to produce everything themselves.[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually we would be, without too much difficulty. The primary issue would be that costs would rise due to the requirements in wages and benefits to all workers on US soil. Which is the primary reason that US companies are outsourcing production to Asian nations. We can pay workers less for the same work which keeps production costs low and increases profit. We don't need to outsource, it's just cheaper.

offline

Maverick4

6,800 posts

Peasant

Posted January 10, '11 9:26pm UTC

Quoting one dude does not justify an argument. There's still bloodshed, and face it many of the conflicts perpatuated needed much effort to finally close.

... Then how about a case study? Look at appeasement and Hitler. Britain and France tried to keep peace in Europe without resulting with conflict. Ofcourse, we all know what happens next. So the only way to effectively keep the peace is with the threat of military action. This is how MAD works, and why there was no direct conflict between super powers during the Cold War.

Near, not soil.

As Mr. Walker said, please clarify. And if the base was *near* New York City, it would still be on US Soil...

They're not able to produce everything themselves.

Companies only outsource to Asia because its cheaper. And the US wouldn't be able to make everything itself, but then again, no country can.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → China Flexes Growing Military Power