פº«ÃÀ¾üǰ˾ÁÖйúÔÙ²ÎÕ½½«±»´ò»Ø°ÙÄêÇ° - »·Çò·çÔÆ - ÌúѪÉçÇø
translate.google.com
According to Yonhap News on December 5, Bell, former commander of U.S. forces in Korea 3, said, "measures to deal with North Korea's provocation, in addition to force, there is no other choice," and stressed that if China took part in the Peninsular War, back to the Chinese economy 100 years ago.
Bell, in Seoul the same day as "the development direction of Korea-US alliance" as the theme of speech. Turning to the issue of North Korea, stressed that Korea and the U.S. said North Korea should be "strong" and "clear" message. He said: "North Korea may be taken for a new challenge, we should immediately adopt a non-symmetrical revenge attacks. U.S. helicopters attacking team should return to the South Korean deployment, forward deployed combat brigade, and sent an aircraft carrier to conduct joint military exercises." He also said South Korea also need to have a strong missile defense system immediately to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction exercises, for North Korea's "new act of provocation, retaliation immediately." He said: "The faith of the DPRK contrary to honest and provocative act, in addition to force feedback no other options."
"In the overall war, China will war" of the question, Bell believes that no country would like to see a comprehensive war on the Korean Peninsula and China's entry into the war. Very clear is that once the war if China's economy will be back to 100 years ago. He expressed: "We should note China's provocative military action in response to the need for North Korea, and China's entry into the war will damage all relationships. The United States and China needs outside the framework of the six-party talks agreement in this regard, in the process on The South Korean government should be responsible for mediation and cooperation. "
Looking for the reunification of the Korean Peninsula, he said: "Han Meian security alliance is a defensive alliance, rather than pre-emptive alliance. But I argue that the military response to provocation by military means should be non-symmetrical way back." He added "We should remember that only a unified peninsula, the determination in the fight at the next round in order to succeed in.
+22
Walther von Oldenburg
Airbornewolf
George1
max steel
type055
Mike E
RTN
magnumcromagnon
Flyingdutchman
higurashihougi
Hannibal Barca
nemrod
ricky123
Werewolf
TR1
chenzhao
NationalRus
GarryB
Pervius
Admin
IronsightSniper
nightcrawler
26 posters
US - China potential military confrontation
nightcrawler- Posts : 522
Points : 634
Join date : 2010-08-20
Age : 35
Location : Pakistan
GarryB- Posts : 40675
Points : 41177
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
China definitely does not want war with the US, but then I think it also does not want to share a border with a unified Korea with US bases on its border either. That is the main reason it intervened in the 1950s and would be the main reason it would intervene now... and lets face it... this is like China supporting Cuba against a US attempt to bring democracy to Cuba... Americas back yard and only ideology bringing China into the conflict it otherwise has no business getting involved in.
The fact that China wouldn't get involved yet the US is say something about the US.
The irony is that if you ask an American they will generally call communist countries militaristic and aggressive yet all evidence shows the contrary with the US being the most militaristic and aggressive country on the planet.
The fact that China wouldn't get involved yet the US is say something about the US.
The irony is that if you ask an American they will generally call communist countries militaristic and aggressive yet all evidence shows the contrary with the US being the most militaristic and aggressive country on the planet.
IronsightSniper- Posts : 414
Points : 418
Join date : 2010-09-25
Location : California, USA
Their middle class is the most unsatisfied "class" so there would be no shortage of Democratic support if the U.S. does try to blow our wind of influence at them.
nightcrawler- Posts : 522
Points : 634
Join date : 2010-08-20
Age : 35
Location : Pakistan
The same can be said about Sino Russian relations. Us China & Russia can never find a common peace;;a giant can't stay with a giantGarryB wrote:China definitely does not want war with the US, but then I think it also does not want to share a border with a unified Korea with US bases on its border either. That is the main reason it intervened in the 1950s and would be the main reason it would intervene now... and lets face it... this is like China supporting Cuba against a US attempt to bring democracy to Cuba... Americas back yard and only ideology bringing China into the conflict it otherwise has no business getting involved in.
The fact that China wouldn't get involved yet the US is say something about the US.
The irony is that if you ask an American they will generally call communist countries militaristic and aggressive yet all evidence shows the contrary with the US being the most militaristic and aggressive country on the planet.
Admin- Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10
The US certainly isn't going to initiate an invasion of DPRK. It would be up to ROK to do it and the US would keep an eye on China letting them know getting involved is not the best idea. Liberalising the North Korean economy would actually be an economic boon for China. It is a market they can easily dominate even if it is run from the South. A unified Korea could become a powerhouse as large as Germany.
GarryB- Posts : 40675
Points : 41177
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
A unified Korea would see the North Korean region become an enormous economic drain on South Korea just like East Germany was to West Germany. Enormous migration of poor uneducated people from the north to the south will cause lots of problems too.
Regarding North Korea becoming a Chinese market... there is no money there, so while they will certainly dominate it it will not bring them very much money, though it would offer them labour even cheaper than their own.
If the US had a way of stopping China from interfering in a conflict there the South would have attacked long ago... the reality is that the US is as dependant on China as China is dependant on the US and war would be good for no one except the north korean people... and that is pretty much only if they lose.
The real solution is for the US to back off and release its grip on the north korean economy and for more countries to start trade with north korea. Initially they can take advantage of very low labour work rates and improve their precious profit margins even further than they do by shifting factories to China.
Eventually when the North Korean economy has grown some sort of unification can be looked at where both sides are equal partners and one side is not swallowed up by the other in a feeding frenzy.
It will never happen however because the US holds a grudge.
Ask Cuba.
Regarding North Korea becoming a Chinese market... there is no money there, so while they will certainly dominate it it will not bring them very much money, though it would offer them labour even cheaper than their own.
If the US had a way of stopping China from interfering in a conflict there the South would have attacked long ago... the reality is that the US is as dependant on China as China is dependant on the US and war would be good for no one except the north korean people... and that is pretty much only if they lose.
The real solution is for the US to back off and release its grip on the north korean economy and for more countries to start trade with north korea. Initially they can take advantage of very low labour work rates and improve their precious profit margins even further than they do by shifting factories to China.
Eventually when the North Korean economy has grown some sort of unification can be looked at where both sides are equal partners and one side is not swallowed up by the other in a feeding frenzy.
It will never happen however because the US holds a grudge.
Ask Cuba.
Pervius- Posts : 224
Points : 240
Join date : 2011-03-08
- Post n°7
"Boxer Rebellion II"
Most people in the world aren't taught that Europe, Russia, and the US toppled China at the turn of the last century. Then made China pay a massive amount of silver for "Reparations".
Is history about to repeat itself? World out of money....topple China....make them pay reparations so Russia, Europe, US has money to buy things from China?
It's amazing how cruel the world was to those Chinese...chopping their heads off....really cruel bamboo cages where the Chinese were suspended by their heads.....pretty grotesque pictures.
Why isn't that taught in schools around the world? No wonder everyone stock piled Chemical Weapons.....this world is ran by greedy mad men.
Is history about to repeat itself? World out of money....topple China....make them pay reparations so Russia, Europe, US has money to buy things from China?
It's amazing how cruel the world was to those Chinese...chopping their heads off....really cruel bamboo cages where the Chinese were suspended by their heads.....pretty grotesque pictures.
Why isn't that taught in schools around the world? No wonder everyone stock piled Chemical Weapons.....this world is ran by greedy mad men.
GarryB- Posts : 40675
Points : 41177
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Not to mention the opium trade...
NationalRus- Posts : 610
Points : 611
Join date : 2010-04-11
that was normal for that time of history, the rule of the strongest and fitest
get over it and stop whining
get over it and stop whining
GarryB- Posts : 40675
Points : 41177
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
What has changed?
The rich powerful west still thinks it has the moral right to police and judge the world on its terms, yet when it comes to its own practises with its own morals it fails as bad as those it criticises.
It was bad then and it is bad now... bad by its own definitions and morals, not by the morals of others.
An Asian might say that the west is too weak on drugs and that the death penalty is normal for such crimes.
Another person might claim that severing a limb is a good way to deal with thieves.
We don't see these people invading other countries to impose their morality on others, why should they accept such actions from the west?
The rich powerful west still thinks it has the moral right to police and judge the world on its terms, yet when it comes to its own practises with its own morals it fails as bad as those it criticises.
It was bad then and it is bad now... bad by its own definitions and morals, not by the morals of others.
An Asian might say that the west is too weak on drugs and that the death penalty is normal for such crimes.
Another person might claim that severing a limb is a good way to deal with thieves.
We don't see these people invading other countries to impose their morality on others, why should they accept such actions from the west?
chenzhao- Posts : 18
Points : 22
Join date : 2012-12-20
Location : Shanghai
I don't think trying to invade a nuclear power's homeland would be a good idea for any country. And If invader trying to conquer the land by throwing nuke bombs, certainly they can't expect to receive a large amount of reparations from such a radiation contaminated land. Even defender's nuclear counterstrike could not trigger the nuke winter, but I'm pretty sure that would be enough for burying invader's stock and futures market. So,the idea trying to get large amount of reparations by invading a nuke equipped country's homeland is very stupid.
chenzhao- Posts : 18
Points : 22
Join date : 2012-12-20
Location : Shanghai
Today, in military area, China is not a weak country as she was in the early 20th century.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
That aside, the economic ties of the world today and China's part in that make any large scale conflict extremely unlikely.
Too much at stake.
Too much at stake.
GarryB- Posts : 40675
Points : 41177
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
There is no chance of the US invading or attacking China unless it is cornered and forced to do so.
China owns so much US debt all China would need to do is demand immediate payment and the US economy would collapse. The problem for the US in such a scenario is obviously bad, but it is also bad for China because China has Invested in US debt in the hopes that one day they will be able to repay it.
If the US can't pay then China loses that investment.
China owns so much US debt all China would need to do is demand immediate payment and the US economy would collapse. The problem for the US in such a scenario is obviously bad, but it is also bad for China because China has Invested in US debt in the hopes that one day they will be able to repay it.
If the US can't pay then China loses that investment.
Werewolf- Posts : 5933
Points : 6122
Join date : 2012-10-24
GarryB wrote:There is no chance of the US invading or attacking China unless it is cornered and forced to do so.
China owns so much US debt all China would need to do is demand immediate payment and the US economy would collapse. The problem for the US in such a scenario is obviously bad, but it is also bad for China because China has Invested in US debt in the hopes that one day they will be able to repay it.
If the US can't pay then China loses that investment.
I am pretty sure that China could handle this lose of the investment pretty well.
Also i am pretty sure that China could just weakaning any opponent through Embargoos doesn't matter of world reactions nobody can do anything to china, they are mostly dependend to BRIC countries anyway.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
By far the majority of US debt is to US citizens or institutions.
China is the biggest foreign holder, but that doesn't mean it has the US by the balls. Too interconnected.
China is the biggest foreign holder, but that doesn't mean it has the US by the balls. Too interconnected.
ricky123- Posts : 221
Points : 325
Join date : 2012-08-20
china only holds 10% of all usa debt thats it ..TR1 wrote:By far the majority of US debt is to US citizens or institutions.
China is the biggest foreign holder, but that doesn't mean it has the US by the balls. Too interconnected.
nemrod- Posts : 839
Points : 1333
Join date : 2012-09-11
Age : 59
http://theweek.com/article/index/264032/china-thinks-it-can-defeat-america-in-battle
Hannibal Barca- Posts : 1458
Points : 1468
Join date : 2013-12-13
This is a childish article. I quit after the first paragraph.
higurashihougi- Posts : 3443
Points : 3530
Join date : 2014-08-13
Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20140902.aspx
Can China defeat U.S. forces in the Western Pacific with a surprise attack? According to the Chinese, at least in public statements, they believe they can. Developing this capability has been in the works since the 1990s, as China built up its force of ballistic missiles (with high explosive warheads) on their coast to deal with Taiwan and Japan. There are over a thousand of those missiles now, plus a dozen or so that, in theory, can hit an American carrier at sea. Chinese warplanes have been practicing attacks over water and the Chinese fleet is at sea lot more. Chinese subs are stalking American warships and China triumphantly announces “successes” when these subs sneak up on an American carrier. China is also known to have stolen a lot of American defense secrets via over a decade of Internet based espionage.
The problem here is that, in any major war, both sides do not know everything about what the other side has, nor is able to accurately predict how the known and concealed plans of each side will turn out once the fighting starts. This is an important point for the Chinese as they need to win quick because a protracted war would produce economic collapse in China. That would produce major political problems for China’s leaders. According to the Chinese military this is not a problem because the Chinese generals and admirals seem increasingly confident of a quick victory via surprises.
That’s dangerous thinking, because it rarely works out that way and the Chinese have a long history of overestimating their capabilities in the opening stages of a war. American naval planners believe the Chinese have greatly underestimated the capabilities of the dozens of American nuclear attack subs stationed in the Pacific and what this force could do to the Chinese fleet and foreign trade. If the Chinese have a secret weapon to deal with the American subs, it is one of the best kept secrets in military history.
It’s not just the United States that is nervous about Chinese military plans. Taiwan has been increasing its military capability because its arrangement with the United States requires that Taiwan be strong enough to hold off a Chinese attack long enough for American forces to arrive. This means keeping control of air bases on the island for up to a week. China is apparently building up its land, air and naval forces to the point where a surprise attack could conquer Taiwan in a few days, if the defending Taiwanese were not ready. China believes that Taiwan is vulnerable, but the Chinese have never pulled off an amphibious operation like this before and, again, a few American nuclear subs could make a mess of the Chinese attack.
Chinese plans are no secret in part because of the years of Chinese intense interest in American naval exercises and military infrastructure. China has openly discussed this situation, which is a common way for them to try and generate some original thinking from their officers. Eventually these new ideas become highly secret war plans and weapons development projects. Thus in 2006 it was obvious that Chinese anti-satellite systems tests demonstrated an ability to knock down U.S. spy satellites. China was also known to be working on micro (under half a ton) satellites for this sort of attack. If they can build an anti-satellite satellite weighing less than half a ton, they can launch several with one booster. That would give them a chance to knock down enough American satellites to temporarily "blind" the U.S. Navy in the western Pacific. At that point, Chinese anti-ship missiles and submarines would be more potent against American carriers. This is the sort of thinking China is encouraging in its military. It's also ancient Chinese strategic thinking. That is, don't go after superior enemy head on, but, rather, come at him sideways. Then again, ancient Chinese military thinkers preached winning without fighting. That worked better when it was Chinese versus Chinese. Foreigners tend to be more inscrutable and full of surprises.
The U.S. has also been demonstrating very visible activity on how to deal with a Chinese attack. Back in 2004 the U.S. concluded that the Chinese were very concerned about American aircraft carriers and were seeking to muster sufficient air and naval forces to deal with two American carriers operating off their coasts. So the U.S. made plans to quickly get as many as seven American carriers off the Chinese coast. This not only upset Chinese military planning, but rubs the Chinese the wrong way by pointing out Chinese military weakness.
It’s possible that all the Chinese boasting of capabilities and unbeatable war plans is really propaganda and morale building for their population and troops. There’s an element of that involved, but as American military and diplomatic officials meet more Chinese leaders it becomes clear that many Chinese generals and admirals believe the boasts and optimistic predictions. That is not a good sign for anyone.
Flyingdutchman- Posts : 535
Points : 551
Join date : 2013-07-30
Location : The Netherlands
Sounds like the japanese underestemating the US in WW2.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Flyingdutchman wrote:Sounds like the japanese underestemating the US in WW2.
All the high tech U.S. Weapon designs that the Chinese have in-depth knowledge on, the source is straight from the Pentagon:
A list of the U.S. weapons designs and technologies compromised by hackers
Weapon designs and technologies compromised
The following is reproduced from the nonpublic version of the
Defense Science Board report “Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat”:
Table 2.2 Expanded partial list of DoD system designs and technologies compromised via cyber exploitation
SYSTEM DESIGNS
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
Patriot Advanced Capability-3
Extended Area Protection and Survivability System (EAPS)
F-35
V-22
C-17
Hawklink
Advanced Harpoon Weapon Control System
Tanker Conversions
Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System
Global Hawk
Navy antenna mechanisms
Global Freight Management System
Micro Air Vehicle
Brigade Combat Team Modernization
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System
USMC Tracked Combat Vehicles
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)
T700 Family of Engines
Full Authority Digital Engine Controller (FADEC)
UH-60 Black Hawk
AMRAAM (AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile)
Affordable Weapons System
Littoral Combat Ship
Navy Standard Missile (SM-2,3,6)
P-8A/Multi-Mission Aircraft
F/A and EA-18
RC-135 Detect./Collect.
Mk54 Light Weight Torpedo
TECHNOLOGIES
Directed Energy
UAV video system
Specific Emitter identification
Nanotechnology
Dual Use Avionics
Fuze/Munitions safety and development
Electronic Intelligence Processing
Tactical Data Links
Satellite Communications
Electronic Warfare
Advanced Signal Processing Technologies for Radars
Nanostructured Metal Matrix Composite for Light Weight Ballistic Armor
Vision-aided Urban Navigation & Collision Avoidance for Class I Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV)
Space Surveillance Telescope
Materials/processing technologies
IR Search and Track systems
Electronic Warfare systems
Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch
Rail Gun
Side Scan sonar
Mode 5 IFF
Export Control, ITAR, Distribution Statement B,C,D Technical Information
CAD drawings, 3D models, schematics
Software code
Critical technology
Vendor/supply chain data
Technical manuals
PII (email addresses, SSN, credit card numbers, passwords, etc.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-list-of-the-us-weapons-designs-and-technologies-compromised-by-hackers/2013/05/27/a95b2b12-c483-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html
Flyingdutchman- Posts : 535
Points : 551
Join date : 2013-07-30
Location : The Netherlands
Thats crazy
They can't make Anything indigenous its all with technology from other countries, including the US and Russia.
They can't make Anything indigenous its all with technology from other countries, including the US and Russia.
Werewolf- Posts : 5933
Points : 6122
Join date : 2012-10-24
Hacking for technology is not always for reverse engineering or getting hands on blue prints for the sake of getting such technology, it is far more widespread to get accurate data and information of technology to verify and/or develope tactics and technologies against them to keep owns Sword bigger as the enemies shield and vice versa.
GarryB- Posts : 40675
Points : 41177
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Indeed, the ability to get 7 US carrier groups off the Taiwanese coast could simply create the issue for the Chinese as to where on those carriers to target with your ICBM Carrier killers.
Data about the different US carriers would make targeting more effective.
The Chinese certainly lack landing experience, but then so did the US at the start of WWII.
Data about the different US carriers would make targeting more effective.
The Chinese certainly lack landing experience, but then so did the US at the start of WWII.