Thread: Shit hits the fan in Korea

Originally Posted by Spartiate

What I'm trying to say is that Chinese military technology is way more advanced than you think it is. The US does have an edge, but it's not as decisive as you make it sound. Hell, China even has ICBMs that can reach the continental US.

How do you know how advanced I think that the Chinese military is?

Sure they have ICBMs. And ours could reach China faster than theirs could reach us. No-one would going to launch nukes.

What advantages does China have? More people? In a modern war the likes of which we are hypothetically going through, air force/navy will be more important than infantry. And we are a whole decade beyond China as far as aircraft tech goes.

Navy wise The People's Republic of China's Navy has barely over a hundred combat ships, (counting frigates, destroyers, and missile craft.) We have more frigates, over ten times the number of destroyers, nearly fifty times the number of subs, more amphibous crafts, over five times the support ships... (Oh, and of those Chinese vessles mentioned, we have built/designed nearly a third of them. It's not as if we have more numbers but they have stronger forces. They are just far, far, far below us Navy wise.)

The PLA isn't too much better. Even combining the PLA with the People's Republic army, we have more aircraft carriers by far, we still have more destroyers, submarines, etc...

And we would just bomb their ships anyway since we have an air force nearly four times the size of theirs. (That is not counting our navy's air force or theirs.) AND our planes are better, too. When you outnumber the enemy AND outclass them there isn't much that they can do.

Honestly, it wouldn't be that close.

We would destroy China.

Wait until you see the new satellite weaponry we could use on china.

Originally Posted by spockman

How do you know how advanced I think that the Chinese military is?

Sure they have ICBMs. And ours could reach China faster than theirs could reach us. No-one would going to launch nukes.

What advantages does China have? More people? In a modern war the likes of which we are hypothetically going through, air force/navy will be more important than infantry. And we are a whole decade beyond China as far as aircraft tech goes.

Navy wise The People's Republic of China's Navy has barely over a hundred combat ships, (counting frigates, destroyers, and missile craft.) We have more frigates, over ten times the number of destroyers, nearly fifty times the number of subs, more amphibous crafts, over five times the support ships... (Oh, and of those Chinese vessles mentioned, we have built/designed nearly a third of them. It's not as if we have more numbers but they have stronger forces. They are just far, far, far below us Navy wise.)

The PLA isn't too much better. Even combining the PLA with the People's Republic army, we have more aircraft carriers by far, we still have more destroyers, submarines, etc...

And we would just bomb their ships anyway since we have an air force nearly four times the size of theirs. (That is not counting our navy's air force or theirs.) AND our planes are better, too. When you outnumber the enemy AND outclass them there isn't much that they can do.

Honestly, it wouldn't be that close.

We would destroy China.

Lol this is starting to get really off-topic and pointless, but it's kinda fun... First of all, in a war with China, I can't foresee any scenario where China would take the fight to the US mainland, the fighting would surely be done in or around China. This means that China can commit 100% of its forces + reserves for home defense, whereas the US surely won't send the entirety of its forces to Asia (also, in this hypothetical scenario, would half the US military still be tied up in the Middle-East?) China would also have the advantage of fighting on home turf, in a familiar environment with well planned defenses.

Secondly, in the case of nuclear war, it doesn't take thousands of warheads to assure MAD. I believe China has a couple dozen nukes capable of reaching the US. Imagine what would happen if the 20 largest cities in the US got nuked, I think that'd pretty much be the end of the country as we know it. Yes China would likewise be obliterated, but it doesn't really matter when your home is ruined. There aren't really any winners in nuclear war.

Now for conventional warfare, on the ground, numbers always win. Technology only lets you take on larger numbers at a time. Even the US knows this. In Europe during WW2, Americans were using the inferior Sherman tank against the then top-of-the line German Tiger tank. The US would end up winning most tank battles against the Germans. How? They would team up 4 Shermans against 1 tiger. The idea was that by the time a Tiger would take out the first 2 Shermans, the others would have outmaneuvered the Tiger and gotten in close where their gun was more effective. Now keep in mind that in times of war, China could easily draft from its population of 500 MILLION that are fit for service.

In the air, it's not like the whole US air force is made of B-2s and F-22s. You say US aircraft technology is a decade ahead of the Chinese, but most US planes are 10+ years old, comparable to some of the equipment that China has. Even stealth technology isn't foolproof, remember that F-117 that got shot down in Kosovo? The US only has around 20 active B-2s, if one or two get shot down, they'll stop using them. Also, like all Soviet-based militaries, China has MASSIVE amounts of air defenses, making US air superiority unlikely. The US lost hundreds of planes against some pretty basic SAM and AAA in Vietnam.

On the seas, I wouldn't expect China to put up a huge fight. Except for their coastline, China has no reason to fight on the seas, it's not like it has any overseas bases or possessions. They do have some pretty advanced cruise missiles and subs that could keep American ships from coming too close to the mainland. Again, it's not like the US can afford to lose a third of its fleet, even if it destroys the whole Chinese navy. Imagine the fallout back home if the US lost an aircraft carrier or two.

The last time the US faced off against China ended in a draw. It also lost against Vietnam which was a much weaker opponent than China. Since then it's only fought against people that live in caves and mud huts.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Lol this is starting to get really off-topic and pointless, but it's kinda fun... First of all, in a war with China, I can't foresee any scenario where China would take the fight to the US mainland, the fighting would surely be done in or around China. This means that China can commit 100% of its forces + reserves for home defense, whereas the US surely won't send the entirety of its forces to Asia (also, in this hypothetical scenario, would half the US military still be tied up in the Middle-East?) China would also have the advantage of fighting on home turf, in a familiar environment with well planned defenses.

Secondly, in the case of nuclear war, it doesn't take thousands of warheads to assure MAD. I believe China has a couple dozen nukes capable of reaching the US. Imagine what would happen if the 20 largest cities in the US got nuked, I think that'd pretty much be the end of the country as we know it. Yes China would likewise be obliterated, but it doesn't really matter when your home is ruined. There aren't really any winners in nuclear war.

Now for conventional warfare, on the ground, numbers always win. Technology only lets you take on larger numbers at a time. Even the US knows this. In Europe during WW2, Americans were using the inferior Sherman tank against the then top-of-the line German Tiger tank. The US would end up winning most tank battles against the Germans. How? They would team up 4 Shermans against 1 tiger. The idea was that by the time a Tiger would take out the first 2 Shermans, the others would have outmaneuvered the Tiger and gotten in close where their gun was more effective. Now keep in mind that in times of war, China could easily draft from its population of 500 MILLION that are fit for service.

In the air, it's not like the whole US air force is made of B-2s and F-22s. You say US aircraft technology is a decade ahead of the Chinese, but most US planes are 10+ years old, comparable to some of the equipment that China has. Even stealth technology isn't foolproof, remember that F-117 that got shot down in Kosovo? The US only has around 20 active B-2s, if one or two get shot down, they'll stop using them. Also, like all Soviet-based militaries, China has MASSIVE amounts of air defenses, making US air superiority unlikely. The US lost hundreds of planes against some pretty basic SAM and AAA in Vietnam.

On the seas, I wouldn't expect China to put up a huge fight. Except for their coastline, China has no reason to fight on the seas, it's not like it has any overseas bases or possessions. They do have some pretty advanced cruise missiles and subs that could keep American ships from coming too close to the mainland. Again, it's not like the US can afford to lose a third of its fleet, even if it destroys the whole Chinese navy. Imagine the fallout back home if the US lost an aircraft carrier or two.

The last time the US faced off against China ended in a draw. It also lost against Vietnam which was a much weaker opponent than China. Since then it's only fought against people that live in caves and mud huts.

Haha, yeah, a hypothetical war like this is fun to draw up. Not fun in real life of course, but fun to toss around.

Sure, nukes would screw us both. That is a given.

Anyway, you concede that America has a superior Navy. And we have a kickin' Air Force to support it.

And yeah, we aren't stocked up on B-2s, but we are on F-22 raptors. Congress recently stopped production of them not because they aren't good planes. (They are a highly superior aircraft, despite being about 10 years old.) But because we have more than is neccessary when considering the cost. 182 is a pretty big number, considering how much damage those stealth fighters could do if they could fly over the Chinese mainland.

And although the Chinese have quite a few planes at their disposal, many of them are from the 60s. (Including the vast majority of their "dogfighting" planes and all but a few bombers that I can count on my fingers and toes.) Although we may only be 10 years ahead of China when comparing both of our best fighters, (which is still a sizeable difference,) the backbone of China's airforce is is a good 20 years behind the backbone of ours. Plus, ours has more sheer numbers.

I think it is pretty well established that we would mop the floor with China both in the air and on the sea. Maybe we wouldn't do so hot if we got involved in a land war in Asia. One could argue it would be even dumber than facing a Sicilian when death is on the line. But we could surround China's coasts and beat the crap out of their coastal defenses because their navy would be dead if they tried to fight back before we got there, and if we did get to the coast we could bomb the whole thing with enough aircraft that their coastal anti-aircraft couldn't repel it. Especially when guns aboard tons of ships are bombing it simultaneously. If, as our navy/air force approached China, they engaged us on the open sea with both their Navy and their Air Force, their navy is so much weaker than ours that both their Air Force and Navy would be destroyed almost from our Navy alone. If they waited until we got to the coast to engage us, we are in a position to take full advantage of all of our bombers, F-22s, and assault ships. (Plus, we have more subs than China.) Everything about our navy and airforce outclasses everything the Chinese would have to try and stop it.

As far as the numbers argument, well... Infantry can't do much against an assault plane. Or a destroyer. The thing is, we actually outnumber the Chinese in military force. Quite handedly, so, actually. We have more vehicles. The large scale land wars of the world wars are dead.

Granted, the fallout would be bad in this scenario. If we attacked China on their mainland, which is giving as much an upper hand to them as possible, the losses wouldn't be minimal. We would probably lose a good amount of our air force breaking their coast. (Even though the Chinese Coast Guard is part of the police force and would be fairly inneffective against such a large scale invasion.) But if we were at a full scale war with China, the American people would be too terrified about the whole ordeal to do anything significant to stop the conflict or slow the military down significantly. In the end, the outcome would not ever be in doubt.

Sure, we lost Vietnam. Just like we are losing Iraq/Afghanistan. But both of those were/are not direct wars where the U.S. faced off against a forward enemy. In one, we were fighting communism. In the other terrorism. If the goal in Vietnam was simply, 'destroy all of Northern Vietnam' and north Vietnam didn't have big allies it would have been fairly easy. Just like destroying the Iraqi government was nothing.

Your turn. (:

So funny!

*throws a wild card from his Pokemon deck*

A massive solar storm from the sun wipes out most, if not all satellites.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...lar-superstorm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...vastation.html



What effects would that have on a war between China and the U.S.?

Lets see, China has a male to female ratio of something like three to one. The decision on reducing China's birthrate may not have just been for overpopulation. It could very well have been foresight to amass a massive military head count for a future world war. China's weakness is that it lacks logistics for transporting infantry, so if it wanted to occupy the U.S., it would have major difficulties in doing so. Also, as has already been stated, both countries would nuke each other if either one were about to lose the war.

Well, what China is doing is that it is building a massive navy that will rival the U.S.'s navy within five years. Take into account our estimates could be off, which it could be less than five years. As far as logistics go, look at how many goods China ships to the U.S.. They have the logistics for transporting goods, such as ammo, equipment, clothes etc.. Logistically transporting troops is more tricky, which a navy that rivals the U.S. will start to give them this capability. Also, if they are secretly investing in major air crafts for transporting personnel, that may increase their logistical capabilities of transporting troops.

The reason I threw the wild card in there is because there is an ironic possibility that a crap load of satellites could be wiped out in 2012-2013. This would be prime time for China to launch an assault on the U.S. with the highest probability of it ever occupying the U.S. without either one turning into radioactive craters. If most or all of the satellites have gone dead from a massive solar storm, nukes aren't usable because they won't have any navigation capabilities. On top of that, the most technologically advanced country is severely hindered because it is highly reliant on satellites. GPS technology etc. requires satellites. Additionally, communication among allies would be crippled.

Lets say China acted on the opportunity. It would move in with its Navy, possibly Air too, while our defenses are essentially down. Most likely, it would bring along its Air capabilities on massive aircraft carries that they are currently buying, building, and revamping massive vessels they are gutting to convert into air craft carriers. The main concern would be to secure a perimeter in North America with a secure passage for transporting troops and supplies. The catch is that just transporting troops isn't their only problem, what about mobilizing and transporting them once inside in the U.S.? They aren't going to walk by foot, which four lane highways won't suffice for their numbers. Likewise, they have to advance with haste.

Would a sixteen lane super highway with sixteen lanes on each side with four plus high speed rails on each side work? Yes.





This means if China launched an assault on the U.S., it would secure the deep-sea ports in Mexico first, then come up through Mexico. It completely solves China's logistics problem. The question is how fast can the U.S. get blimps up that act as artificial satellites and/or launch satellites into the space? After China secured the ports, it would utilize the NAFTA Super Highway to move through the heart of Mexico, the U.S., and Canada. The NAFTA Super Highway cuts through the heart of the U.S., which it branches out with all the other major highways in the U.S. connected to all the major cities. Ironically, consumerism could truly be the death of us, which China might be able to take over Mexico, the U.S., and Canada all at the same time. The whole point of the NAFTA Super Highways is the logistics of goods for economic reasons, but it can be used in a different way as I've presented.

If China has a secret Navy and the lights turn out, this is the most likely war scenario China would pursue if it had plans of ever taking over the U.S.. The only question is how fast can the U.S. resolve communication issues. Artificial blimp satellites would allow communication, but I doubt it would resolve the navigation for nukes since I don't think they would be that high up in the atmosphere to pin-point a location half way across the world. Real satellites in space are probably the only thing that could resolve the issue with utilization of nukes as a deterrent. If our missiles lose navigation capabilities, then would lose the upper hand that allows us to cause massive collateral damage against China's infantry etc..

It will be many years before the superhighway is complete, though China would still most likely have the logistical capabilities if it got a foot-hold in North America, it just wouldn't be able to move as fast when time would be critical. (Speaking of which, if China really wanted to be diabolical, they could come in with the appearance of being U.N. peacekeepers, though it would be odd that all the peacekeepers looked Asian . A crisis, such as most or all satellites being wiped out, would be a good temporary front for buying some time.)

Playing what if is fun.

We can use nukes without using satellites. That is what we did in World War II. We also have an air force that China does not want to screw with, even if China ever figures out how to organize their army better than ours and can build a navy that can outdo ours. Then we have the Marines and special forces. Plus... we have an armed citizenry. It's not a game China would want to play.

Universal Mind, you are wrong about nukes.

We dropped an atomic bomb, yes, a nuclear bomb, but not the nuclear warheads we have now.

Nuclear warheads are many hundred times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan in world war II. They required plans to fly and drop them. That said, China has amazing SAM defences and other anti-air. They even demonstrated they can shoot down satellites in space with their missiles. Our air force would have trouble doing that, unless we could load a stealth bomber with a bomb.

There are none of those in existance anymore either. Three were made, one was tested, two were dropped. Now we have moved on to nuclear warheads. The blast radius is about 40-70 miles depending on the warhead and the radiation can literally be spread worldwide. If we were to nuke China, winds could carry them over into other countries.

These warheads need satellite navigation.

Though I agree, China does not want to try us. We have never lost a war for a reason.. we're just damn good.

Our current nukes have to fly by themselves to explode? I am sure we could use our air force with all of its tricks and gadgets to drop nukes on China.

Again, I don't want that to ever happen. We are just talking about coulds, not shoulds.

We have airplane technology far beyond what the public knows about. I have been near military bases late at night and seen stuff that was either secret military stuff that is jaw dropping or else extraterrestrial. I think it was military.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Our current nukes have to fly by themselves to explode? I am sure we could use our air force with all of its tricks and gadgets to drop nukes on China.

Again, I don't want that to ever happen. We are just talking about coulds, not shoulds.

We have airplane technology far beyond what the public knows about. I have been near military bases late at night and seen stuff that was either secret military stuff that is jaw dropping or else extraterrestrial. I think it was military.

Ditto, it is highly probable though that we aren't the only ones that have that technology, which means nukes may already be obsolete. We won't know unless a full blown World War broke out, because that is when everyone will bring out their toys.

Something interesting is that that there was an article about a month ago by the AF where a new technique for dropping cargo was supposedly created. Basically, the technique was about flying a plane super low to the ground, then dropping the cargo. The funny thing is that many retirees pointed out that the technique isn't new, because it was first used in Vietnam. This means good war strategies are being forgotten and rediscovered. Makes me wonder how many good war strategies were forgotten and never rediscovered.

Originally Posted by spockman

Haha, yeah, a hypothetical war like this is fun to draw up. Not fun in real life of course, but fun to toss around.

Sure, nukes would screw us both. That is a given.

Anyway, you concede that America has a superior Navy. And we have a kickin' Air Force to support it.

And yeah, we aren't stocked up on B-2s, but we are on F-22 raptors. Congress recently stopped production of them not because they aren't good planes. (They are a highly superior aircraft, despite being about 10 years old.) But because we have more than is neccessary when considering the cost. 182 is a pretty big number, considering how much damage those stealth fighters could do if they could fly over the Chinese mainland.

And although the Chinese have quite a few planes at their disposal, many of them are from the 60s. (Including the vast majority of their "dogfighting" planes and all but a few bombers that I can count on my fingers and toes.) Although we may only be 10 years ahead of China when comparing both of our best fighters, (which is still a sizeable difference,) the backbone of China's airforce is is a good 20 years behind the backbone of ours. Plus, ours has more sheer numbers.

I think it is pretty well established that we would mop the floor with China both in the air and on the sea. Maybe we wouldn't do so hot if we got involved in a land war in Asia. One could argue it would be even dumber than facing a Sicilian when death is on the line. But we could surround China's coasts and beat the crap out of their coastal defenses because their navy would be dead if they tried to fight back before we got there, and if we did get to the coast we could bomb the whole thing with enough aircraft that their coastal anti-aircraft couldn't repel it. Especially when guns aboard tons of ships are bombing it simultaneously. If, as our navy/air force approached China, they engaged us on the open sea with both their Navy and their Air Force, their navy is so much weaker than ours that both their Air Force and Navy would be destroyed almost from our Navy alone. If they waited until we got to the coast to engage us, we are in a position to take full advantage of all of our bombers, F-22s, and assault ships. (Plus, we have more subs than China.) Everything about our navy and airforce outclasses everything the Chinese would have to try and stop it.

As far as the numbers argument, well... Infantry can't do much against an assault plane. Or a destroyer. The thing is, we actually outnumber the Chinese in military force. Quite handedly, so, actually. We have more vehicles. The large scale land wars of the world wars are dead.

Granted, the fallout would be bad in this scenario. If we attacked China on their mainland, which is giving as much an upper hand to them as possible, the losses wouldn't be minimal. We would probably lose a good amount of our air force breaking their coast. (Even though the Chinese Coast Guard is part of the police force and would be fairly inneffective against such a large scale invasion.) But if we were at a full scale war with China, the American people would be too terrified about the whole ordeal to do anything significant to stop the conflict or slow the military down significantly. In the end, the outcome would not ever be in doubt.

Sure, we lost Vietnam. Just like we are losing Iraq/Afghanistan. But both of those were/are not direct wars where the U.S. faced off against a forward enemy. In one, we were fighting communism. In the other terrorism. If the goal in Vietnam was simply, 'destroy all of Northern Vietnam' and north Vietnam didn't have big allies it would have been fairly easy. Just like destroying the Iraqi government was nothing.

Your turn. (:

China wouldn't engage the US in a large scale sea battle far from the coast. They'd probably rely a lot on small, somewhat expendable missile boats that can operate in a defensive roll near the safety of the coast. I don't think the US could make a seaborne invasion of China without suffering an unacceptable level of casualties, limiting the navy to a support role using cruise missiles and aircraft carriers. Considering the somewhat large air force China possesses and its considerable air defenses, the US wouldn't be able to work under air superiority for a very long time, if ever, making the numbers game on the ground even more important. And a simple infantryman CAN take out tactical aircraft, just ask the Soviet pilots that served in Afghanistan.

The real issue would be on the ground, if the US gets into a full scale war with China, it's probably to achieve some kind of ground objective. It's not like the US can just sit back and rely on long range air strikes for too long without making a push on the ground. That would just allow the Chinese more time to dig in and fortify their positions further inland. The easiest land route to China would probably be through North Korea, if the US and China are fighting, North Korea is probably involved anyways. Without air superiority and facing the shear numbers of the Chinese land forces, I honestly don't think that the US could win a war in China. Forget about an occupation, how do you occupy over a billion people? Nobody can do that...

A big factor in a hypothetical war would be allies. Where does NATO stand, where does the UN stand? How about Russia, India?

Originally Posted by jarrhead

We have never lost a war for a reason.. we're just damn good.

Lol, what about Vietnam. Not to mention a few others that ended in stalemate...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We can use nukes without using satellites. That is what we did in World War II. We also have an air force that China does not want to screw with, even if China ever figures out how to organize their army better than ours and can build a navy that can outdo ours. Then we have the Marines and special forces. Plus... we have an armed citizenry. It's not a game China would want to play.

Actually, the primary point I was making is where China would go if it were to take on the U.S. with intent to occupy. It would come up through Mexico. Anyhow, we won't have an armed citizenry if the 2nd amendment is ever tossed out the window as obsolete. Though naive to get rid of the 2nd amendment, it's demise is foreseeable in the near future.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Lol, what about Vietnam. Not to mention a few others that ended in stalemate...

We were not outpowered in Vietnam. We just pulled out without their surrender. Internal political pressure can cause that. The number of American casualties in the war was about 58 thousand. The number of Vietnamese casualties was around 2 million. That's losing? Don't forget that we could have made North Vietnam a black spot on the map if we had gone all out.

What stalemates are you talking about?

I live right next to the world's largest military base and I can tell you, some of the stuff they have is mind-blowing.

Ever seen molten metal fall from the sky? I have.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We were not outpowered in Vietnam. We just pulled out without their surrender. Internal political pressure can cause that. The number of American casualties in the war was about 58 thousand. The number of Vietnamese casualties was around 2 million. That's losing? Don't forget that we could have made North Vietnam a black spot on the map if we had gone all out.

Doesn't matter how it was won (or at what cost), the end result was that the North controlled all of Vietnam (and still does) and the US withdrew.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda .

What stalemates are you talking about?

I was thinking of the War of 1812 and the Korean War.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Doesn't matter how it was won (or at what cost), the end result was that the North controlled all of Vietnam (and still does) and the US withdrew.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda .

The point you responded to earlier was about military power and how we have never been outpowered. Your point about what amounts to withdrawal after killing a ridiculous number of people does not counter that key element.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I was thinking of the War of 1812 and the Korean War.

Woes, this is pretty ironic. Both of those are examples of us doing what North Vietnam did. We preserved. We prevented Britain from taking us back over in the War of 1812 and prevented North Korea from taking over South Korea. According to what you said above, those are victories. The difference in those wars is that our military power allowed the desired preservations, not political pressure concerning the biggest ass whipping of all time.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The point you responded to earlier was about military power and how we have never been outpowered. Your point about what amounts to withdrawal after killing a ridiculous number of people does not counter that key element.

I responded to "we have never lost a war for a reason".

Woes, this is pretty ironic. Both of those are examples of us doing what North Vietnam did. We preserved. We prevented Britain from taking us back over in the War of 1812 and prevented North Korea from taking over South Korea. According to what you said above, those are victories. The difference in those wars is that our military power allowed the desired preservations, not political pressure concerning the biggest ass whipping of all time.

Gah, it was the US who declared war on Britain in 1812 and who invaded Canada first. The American invasion failed and the British subsequently launched an attack on the US, which also failed. The lines at the end of the war were basically identical to what they were before, stalemate. In Korea, the American-led UN forces successfully defended the South from the initial North invasion, but they then failed in their own invasion of the North, stalemate.

Also North Vietnam didn't defend itself, it successfully invaded and annexed South Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We were not outpowered in Vietnam. We just pulled out without their surrender. Internal political pressure can cause that. The number of American casualties in the war was about 58 thousand. The number of Vietnamese casualties was around 2 million. That's losing? Don't forget that we could have made North Vietnam a black spot on the map if we had gone all out.

What stalemates are you talking about?

The goal was not a war of attrition. It never was. Why would we have cared whether or not the North Vietnamese had more casualties than us?
The goal was to stop the spread of communism in Asia. To make the South Vietnamese win. We failed at that. So we lost the war, as clearly as any loss.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I responded to "we have never lost a war for a reason".

Again... I think the point was that we have never been militarily outpowered overall in a war. This discussion is about military power.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Gah, it was the US who declared war on Britain in 1812 and who invaded Canada first[/URL]. The American invasion failed and the British subsequently launched an attack on the US, which also failed. The lines at the end of the war were basically identical to what they were before, stalemate.

Gah, the British were fucking with us and trying to take our land. We went to war with them and kept our land. Yes, the lines were identical to what they had been previously. Victory for the U.S.! Trying to take Canadian land was a side event and not the major point of the war. If you think failing one minor objective in a war means loss or stalemate, then you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I In Korea, the American-led UN forces successfully defended the South from the initial North invasion, but they then failed in their own invasion of the North, stalemate.

Another objective of lesser importance. Our big goal was to keep South Korea from being taken by the North. We did it.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Also North Vietnam didn't defend itself, it successfully invaded and annexed South Vietnam.

I didn't say they defended themselves. I said they preserved their presence.

Originally Posted by spockman

The goal was not a war of attrition. It never was. Why would we have cared whether or not the North Vietnamese had more casualties than us?
The goal was to stop the spread of communism in Asia. To make the South Vietnamese win. We failed at that. So we lost the war, as clearly as any loss.

We failed at our stated goal, but we were not outpowered. This conversation is about military power. The point was made earlier that we have never lost a war, but I think the point made was that we have never been militarily outpowered overall in a war.

Also, I think the point of the Vietnam War was not even to liberate South Vietnam. I think the point was to have a severely atrocious war that lasted many years and involved a lot of casualties to show the Soviet Union what we were willing to go through to stop the spread of communism. We let them know that we were willing to go through the abyss of Hell to oppose their plan of world domination. North Vietnam was a puppet of the Soviet Union, who had 3,000 troops fighting for North Vietnam. The Vietnam War was really just a long battle in the Cold War, which we won.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Again... I think the point was that we have never been militarily outpowered overall in a war. This discussion is about military power.


Gah, the British were fucking with us and trying to take our land. We went to war with them and kept our land. Yes, the lines were identical to what they had been previously. Victory for the U.S.! Invading Canada was a side event and not the major point of the war. If you think failing one minor objective in a war means loss or stalemate, then you are wrong.




Another objective of lesser importance. Our big goal was to keep South Korea from being taken by the North. We did it.



I didn't say they defended themselves. I said they preserved their occupation.



We failed at our stated goal, but we were not outpowered. This conversation is about military power. The point was made earlier that we have never lost a war, but I think the point made was that we have never been militarily outpowered overall in a war.

Also, I think the point of the Vietnam War was not even to liberate South Vietnam. I think the point was to have a severely atrocious war that lasted many years and involved a lot of casualties to show the Soviet Union what we were willing to go through to stop the spread of communism. We let them know that we were willing to go through the abyss of Hell to oppose their plan of world domination. North Vietnam was a puppet of the Soviet Union, who had 3,000 troops fighting for North Vietnam. The Vietnam War was really just a long battle in the Cold War, which we won.

We won the Cold War. Vietnam was just a battle within the Cold War. I can go with that. But the North didn't win the battle of Bull Run just because they won the whole war. They still lost nearly half the battles. But yeah, if your point is just that we have never been militarily outclassed in a war that we lost, then you are right.

Originally Posted by spockman

We won the Cold War. Vietnam was just a battle within the Cold War. I can go with that. But the North didn't win the battle of Bull Run just because they won the whole war. They still lost nearly half the battles. But yeah, if your point is just that we have never been militarily outclassed in a war that we lost, then you are right.

I think we are on the same page pretty much. However, I am pointing out the ambiguity of the word "lost". We have failed to reach objectives in war, even number one objectives, but we have never been militarily outclassed overall in a war. When people say we "lost" the Vietnam War, they often seem to be trying to make it sound like we were militarily outpowered, which is extremely far from being the case.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think we are on the same page pretty much. However, I am pointing out the ambiguity of the word "lost". We have failed to reach objectives in war, even number one objectives, but we have never been militarily outclassed overall in a war. When people say we "lost" the Vietnam War, they often seem to be trying to make it sound like we were militarily outpowered, which is extremely far from being the case.

Yeah, we lost the Vietnam War politically, because our goals were unnatainable and our methods were limited. But we didn't lose militarily, sure.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Again... I think the point was that we have never been militarily outpowered overall in a war. This discussion is about military power.

Jarrhead's exact quote was "We have never lost a war for a reason". The Soviets won the war on the Eastern Front during WW2 against the Nazis even though they lost twice as many men. The French lost the First Indochina War even though their military was way superior, just like the US did 20 years later.

Gah, the British were fucking with us and trying to take our land. We went to war with them and kept our land. Yes, the lines were identical to what they had been previously. Victory for the U.S.! Trying to take Canadian land was a side event and not the major point of the war. If you think failing one minor objective in a war means loss or stalemate, then you are wrong.

The British weren't trying to take anything, they were just severely restricting trade and harassing US ships. The US declared war to stick it to the British and try to take their land! Invading Canada was the whole point of the war, the US wanted to annex it to oust the British from North America. They failed, and the British counterattacked on US soil, which also failed. Thus, none of the territorial objectives of either party were successful, stalemate.

Another objective of lesser importance. Our big goal was to keep South Korea from being taken by the North. We did it.

It wasn't an objective of lesser importance, the US led invasion of North Korea lasted two and a half years. The US had every intention of unifying all of Korea under the southern banner, and it would've if it hadn't faced so much resistance. Here, look at this map, is shows how both sides had the upper hand numerous times until the war degenerated into a stalemate.

Spoiler for Korean War:

I didn't say they defended themselves. I said they preserved their presence.

They did more than just that, they extended it and erased another country from the map.

We failed at our stated goal, but we were not outpowered. This conversation is about military power. The point was made earlier that we have never lost a war, but I think the point made was that we have never been militarily outpowered overall in a war.

Then he should've worded it that way, the two are very different things. Do you think the US government was content with the result of the Vietnam War? Does it really matter if they outclassed North Vietnam most of the time, the whole country belongs to them now.

Also, I think the point of the Vietnam War was not even to liberate South Vietnam. I think the point was to have a severely atrocious war that lasted many years and involved a lot of casualties to show the Soviet Union what we were willing to go through to stop the spread of communism. We let them know that we were willing to go through the abyss of Hell to oppose their plan of world domination. North Vietnam was a puppet of the Soviet Union, who had 3,000 troops fighting for North Vietnam. The Vietnam War was really just a long battle in the Cold War, which we won.

South Vietnam was already a free country, it didn't have to be liberated, it had to be defended. Losing South Vietnam was the worst case scenario for Americans. Also I really doubt that the US was hoping for a long, drawn-out war just to "prove their resolve" to the Soviets. If so, it was an incredible failure. All they proved was that they would give up under enough pressure and that the people back home would not support the government in a long, bloody war. The Soviets didn't care how many men they'd lose so long as they won in the end, just look at what they did to the Germans. Also you say that Vietnam wasn't a loss because you won the Cold War, but the North's flag still flies over all of Vietnam today.

Statistics are meaningless to the outcome of war except as they relate to the political objectives. If one side accomplishes none of their objectives for entering the war and the other side accomplishes many or all of theirs, there's not a lot of ambiguity about who won. If neither side accomplishes its objectives: stalemate. Having out-brutalized your opponent may salve wounded pride, but it doesn't change the outcome.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Jarrhead's exact quote was "We have never lost a war for a reason". The Soviets won the war on the Eastern Front during WW2 against the Nazis even though they lost twice as many men. The French lost the First Indochina War even though their military was way superior, just like the US did 20 years later.

Now divide 2,000,000 by 58,000 and tell me what it says about who got bitch slapped for a decade and what it says about our military power.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The British weren't trying to take anything, they were just severely restricting trade and harassing US ships. The US declared war to stick it to the British and try to take their land! Invading Canada was the whole point of the war, the US wanted to annex it to oust the British from North America. They failed, and the British counterattacked on US soil, which also failed. Thus, none of the territorial objectives of either party were successful, stalemate.

That is false. The British were trying to take our land and create a neutral Indian zone. They were also stealing our sailors. Saying we started that war is like saying Britain and France started World War II.

http://ushistorywarof1812.tripod.com/

The War of 1812 convinced the country that it could now fend off any foreign threats and that its focus should be on growth and development at home.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

It wasn't an objective of lesser importance, the US led invasion of North Korea lasted two and a half years. The US had every intention of unifying all of Korea under the southern banner, and it would've if it hadn't faced so much resistance. Here, look at this map, is shows how both sides had the upper hand numerous times until the war degenerated into a stalemate.

Spoiler for Korean War:

When does the green disappear? I can't find it. Do you know why we sent a bunch of soldiers to fight the Korean War? It was because North Korea was trying to take over South Korea. We prevented it from happening. That was the point! Yeah, while we were there, we tried to push the border back as far as we could and didn't go all the way north, but our major objective, the one that had us there, was met.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

They did more than just that, they extended it and erased another country from the map.

I know. All they had to do was preserve their presence until we left.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Then he should've worded it that way, the two are very different things. Do you think the US government was content with the result of the Vietnam War? Does it really matter if they outclassed North Vietnam most of the time, the whole country belongs to them now.

I know. This is getting very repetetive.

It's like a scenario where some little shit goes and sits in some other little shit's chair and a huge football player kid walks over and keeps telling the little shit to get out of the chair. As he tells him that over and over, he bloodies up the kid's nose, breaks both of his arms, gives him two black eyes, and knocks the air out of him. During that time, the football player's mother is nagging her ass off about how he needs to come home. Yet he keeps beating the little shit severely and telling him to get out of the chair and breaks his jaw and knocks seven of his teeth out. The mother's nagging is getting worse and worse the whole time, and then his father tells him he has no choice but to come home. The football player walks off and the little shit is still in the chair. Then the little shit writes his name on the chair. That is like what happened with North Vietnam. What you are saying about the war is like saying to the football player, "You lost that fight." It's a pretty semantic argument, and it would be a distraction in a debate about whether the kid could handle a certain other football player who tries to take over his chair.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

South Vietnam was already a free country, it didn't have to be liberated, it had to be defended. Losing South Vietnam was the worst case scenario for Americans. Also I really doubt that the US was hoping for a long, drawn-out war just to "prove their resolve" to the Soviets. If so, it was an incredible failure. All they proved was that they would give up under enough pressure and that the people back home would not support the government in a long, bloody war. The Soviets didn't care how many men they'd lose so long as they won in the end, just look at what they did to the Germans. Also you say that Vietnam wasn't a loss because you won the Cold War, but the North's flag still flies over all of Vietnam today.

No, we proved that we would fight a war for a decade even despite major political pressure. That sends a powerful message. The Soviets cared about resources, and that is what we were threatening with such a long war. They were socialistic and had to worry their asses off about money because they struggled economically.

We did not stop North Vietnam from taking over South Vietnam, but we spanked their asses for a decade and showed the Soviet Union a style we can use in fighting a war. Then we won the Cold War by another long and drawn out contest, one that drained their pathetic socialist economy-- the arms race. Throw any label at that your disdain for my country gives you a boner for using, but that is how things went.

Now that you know the point of Jarrhead's comment, let's get back to it.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Statistics are meaningless to the outcome of war except as they relate to the political objectives. If one side accomplishes none of their objectives for entering the war and the other side accomplishes many or all of theirs, there's not a lot of ambiguity about who won. If neither side accomplishes its objectives: stalemate. Having out-brutalized your opponent may salve wounded pride, but it doesn't change the outcome.

It is completely relevant to the issue of whether the United States has enough military power to handle an invasion from China. That is where this conversation was supposed to be going.