Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Could America successfully invade/siege China?
  • Subject: Could America successfully invade/siege China?
Subject: Could America successfully invade/siege China?

BTW Elites rule!

And I am probably just trolling you right now....especially if it is a controversial thread

If the US disregards civilian casualties, then it might be possible.

  • 12.05.2012 6:11 PM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.

America could successfully perform a naval blockade.

  • 12.05.2012 6:11 PM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
Not really. Your mom is over quite enough to make my fears mute.
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Duardo
Being alone.
You're a mod, you should be used to that.


Posted by: Buckysaurus
If the US disregards civilian casualties, then it might be possible.
Possible? Their air force and navy would be wiped out in a few weeks, if not days. If we disregarded civilian casualties, there would be nothing in between us and the destruction of every structure in China and effectively knocking them back to the stone ages.

  • 12.05.2012 6:13 PM PDT

If only there was someone as egotistical and funny as my clone.


oh wait.

It's not really a problem that the U.S percentage is that low. Our economy is so much larger, it takes much longer to move our needle.


Posted by: Alpha Prime
Posted by: Viper Skills
All true, but that's going off a lot of "what ifs" and assumptions.

I don't contend that America will remain top dog forever I only argue it probably won't happen in my lifetime. A lot can happen, though.
If China stays at the 7% it is currently at a time when the global economy is depressed and the US has a growth rate of 3% then the gap will be closed in about 19 years based on a rough calculation.

  • 12.05.2012 6:14 PM PDT

Good old hypocrisy, what humanity does best.

Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Buckysaurus
If the US disregards civilian casualties, then it might be possible.
Possible? Their air force and navy would be wiped out in a few weeks, if not days. If we disregarded civilian casualties, there would be nothing in between us and the destruction of every structure in China and effectively knocking them back to the stone ages.
Because clearly China doesn't have ICBM's and nuclear weapons.

  • 12.05.2012 6:14 PM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
Not really. Your mom is over quite enough to make my fears mute.
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Duardo
Being alone.
You're a mod, you should be used to that.

Posted by: Alpha Prime
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Buckysaurus
If the US disregards civilian casualties, then it might be possible.
Possible? Their air force and navy would be wiped out in a few weeks, if not days. If we disregarded civilian casualties, there would be nothing in between us and the destruction of every structure in China and effectively knocking them back to the stone ages.
Because clearly China doesn't have ICBM's and nuclear weapons.
Considering, if you actually knew what you're talking about (which you don't), Chinese leaders have CLEARLY stated they would NEVER be the first to use nuclear warheads in a war. Even then, they barely have over 100 operational nuclear warheads, and then you are implying they are efficient enough to get all the way to the US without being tracked and shot down and hit where they wanted them to hit. Your lack of knowledge humors me.
On top of that , you're implying that we don't know where , at least, half of these warheads are. So the only efficient way for China to use them would be to launch them at the beginning of the war.....

[Edited on 12.05.2012 6:20 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 6:19 PM PDT

"You get what you put into it."

When Legendary is too mainstream, you have Heroic. When you're the leader of the church of MLGeezus, have Epic in your username, and can't write 'About Me's' to save your life, what do you get?

This guy. And now, an side note: Most things I post contain lethal doses of sarcasm, so be warned, and try not to take me seriously.

Finally, a message to Bungie trolls everywhere.


Posted by: Raptorx7
No, the logistics would be a nightmare and they would win in a war of attrition.

  • 12.05.2012 6:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

GrownPrism is NOT my gt. Happened when signing into my xbox live account. My real gt is here:

http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Reach/Default.aspx?player=SYNTHES lS&sg=0


Posted by: spartanfornow
Absolutely. The only real advantage they have is numbers. With better technology and logistics, the US forces would reign supreme wherever there is naval or air superiority. In a toe-to-toe fight against another large military, the US has a chance to be much more cost effective than it has been over the last 40 years.

  • 12.05.2012 6:20 PM PDT

Es ist Zeit für einige Gefahr-pay

Yes. It would not be pretty, in China or at home- but yes.

  • 12.05.2012 6:22 PM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
Not really. Your mom is over quite enough to make my fears mute.
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Duardo
Being alone.
You're a mod, you should be used to that.

Posted by: Sgt Drifter
Yes. It would not be pretty, in China or at home- but yes.
Air superiority.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 6:25 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 6:25 PM PDT

Es ist Zeit für einige Gefahr-pay


Posted by: colbyrules8
Considering, if you actually knew what you're talking about (which you don't), Chinese leaders have CLEARLY stated they would NEVER be the first to use nuclear warheads in a war.


Hitler also said he wouldn't invade Poland...

  • 12.05.2012 6:26 PM PDT

Good old hypocrisy, what humanity does best.

Posted by: colbyrules8
Considering, if you actually knew what you're talking about (which you don't), Chinese leaders have CLEARLY stated they would NEVER be the first to use nuclear warheads in a war.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh god, because clearly the Chinese will willingly restrain themselves in the event of China getting invaded.

Even then, they barely have over 100 operational nuclear warheads, and then you are implying they are efficient enough to get all the way to the US without being tracked and shot down and hit where they wanted them to hit. Your lack of knowledge humors me.So American military technology is so advanced that no nuclear weapons could hit the US? Missle defence is like hitting one bullet with another bullet. You might get one missle or two but it is massively ineffective in general.

  • 12.05.2012 6:26 PM PDT

Es ist Zeit für einige Gefahr-pay


Posted by: Alpha Prime
So American military technology is so advanced that no nuclear weapons could hit the US? Missle defence is like hitting one bullet with another bullet. You might get one missle or two but it is massively ineffective in general.


Not at all true.

I'm not saying an ICBM could not hit the US- I'm saying it would have a hell of a time doing so.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 6:28 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 6:28 PM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
Not really. Your mom is over quite enough to make my fears mute.
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Duardo
Being alone.
You're a mod, you should be used to that.


Posted by: Sgt Drifter

Posted by: colbyrules8
Considering, if you actually knew what you're talking about (which you don't), Chinese leaders have CLEARLY stated they would NEVER be the first to use nuclear warheads in a war.


Hitler also said he wouldn't invade Poland...
Are you people that moronic to actually believe that any established, and sane, nation would launch nuclear warheads as a last line of defense? Especially against the US , that would just ensure the destruction of your entire nation with no hope of freedom for centuries. When it comes down to it , they are MUCH more intelligent than you and the decision would lie between 1. " Do we surrender and let the US control us for a while, most likely resulting in nothing bad happening to our civilians (Japan, Germany, etc)" or 2." Do we go out guns a blazing and ensure the slaughter of almost all of our civilians and rendering our land useless and rendering our nation useless for centuries?"

Which one do you think a political leader would pick?

  • 12.05.2012 6:29 PM PDT

Marine Corps.
Semper Fi.

Posted by: Wikked Navajoe
My problems [with Reach] are basically just full parties, mlg, and people who go out of their way not to get killed.


Posted by: colbyrules8
Which one do you think a political leader would pick?


You are going off the basis that many political leaders follow this Western ideology and philosophy. If you want examples of leaders who WOULD sacrifice their entire populations look no further than North Korea or Iran.

China? Who knows what they'd do backed in a corner. Who knows what ANY nation would do in that situation.

  • 12.05.2012 6:31 PM PDT

Es ist Zeit für einige Gefahr-pay


Posted by: colbyrules8

Posted by: Sgt Drifter

Posted by: colbyrules8
Considering, if you actually knew what you're talking about (which you don't), Chinese leaders have CLEARLY stated they would NEVER be the first to use nuclear warheads in a war.


Hitler also said he wouldn't invade Poland...
Are you people that moronic to actually believe that any established, and sane, nation would launch nuclear warheads as a last line of defense? Especially against the US , that would just ensure the destruction of your entire nation with no hope of freedom for centuries. When it comes down to it , they are MUCH more intelligent than you and the decision would lie between 1. " Do we surrender and let the US control us for a while, most likely resulting in nothing bad happening to our civilians (Japan, Germany, etc)" or 2." Do we go out guns a blazing and ensure the slaughter of almost all of our civilians and rendering our land useless and rendering our nation useless for centuries?"

Which one do you think a political leader would pick?


Well, a quick look at history would be appropriate- and you would see that most like to go out guns blazing.

Of course China would not NORMALLY strike first with a ICBM- because the entire world would roflstomp China.

Also keep in mind- It's China's military- not political leaders that will be the one's making the calls.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 6:33 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 6:32 PM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
Not really. Your mom is over quite enough to make my fears mute.
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Duardo
Being alone.
You're a mod, you should be used to that.

Posted by: Alpha Prime
Posted by: colbyrules8
Considering, if you actually knew what you're talking about (which you don't), Chinese leaders have CLEARLY stated they would NEVER be the first to use nuclear warheads in a war.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh god, because clearly the Chinese will willingly restrain themselves in the event of China getting invaded.

Even then, they barely have over 100 operational nuclear warheads, and then you are implying they are efficient enough to get all the way to the US without being tracked and shot down and hit where they wanted them to hit. Your lack of knowledge humors me.So American military technology is so advanced that no nuclear weapons could hit the US? Missle defence is like hitting one bullet with another bullet. You might get one missle or two but it is massively ineffective in general.


In the end you're just making assumptions against what their leaders have said. I'm taking their word for it, it's idiotic to use nuclear weapons against another nation that has more than you. Your minds too deep in the gaming world.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 6:35 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 6:33 PM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
Not really. Your mom is over quite enough to make my fears mute.
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Duardo
Being alone.
You're a mod, you should be used to that.


Posted by: Viper Skills

Posted by: colbyrules8
Which one do you think a political leader would pick?


You are going off the basis that many political leaders follow this Western ideology and philosophy. If you want examples of leaders who WOULD sacrifice their entire populations look no further than North Korea or Iran.

China? Who knows what they'd do backed in a corner. Who knows what ANY nation would do in that situation.
"Backed into a corner"- that is referring to the point where they are in a heap of trouble and they know it. By this time I'm more than sure that the US would have taken out their nuclear arsenal. That was one of the points I was trying to make, they would have to use them as an opener or not at all, our technology is too great for them to maintain them all and even then they don't have many.

  • 12.05.2012 6:35 PM PDT

Web Representative for clothing sites: Karmaloop, Plndr & BrickHarbor.com Use RepCode; FlyerLee, for 20% off at Karmaloop.com & 10% at PLNDR.com & BrickHarbor.com

stupid post

  • 12.05.2012 6:35 PM PDT

Es ist Zeit für einige Gefahr-pay


Posted by: colbyrules8

Posted by: Alpha Prime
Posted by: colbyrules8
Considering, if you actually knew what you're talking about (which you don't), Chinese leaders have CLEARLY stated they would NEVER be the first to use nuclear warheads in a war.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh god, because clearly the Chinese will willingly restrain themselves in the event of China getting invaded.

Even then, they barely have over 100 operational nuclear warheads, and then you are implying they are efficient enough to get all the way to the US without being tracked and shot down and hit where they wanted them to hit. Your lack of knowledge humors me.So American military technology is so advanced that no nuclear weapons could hit the US? Missle defence is like hitting one bullet with another bullet. You might get one missle or two but it is massively ineffective in general.


In the end you're just making assumptions against what their leaders have said. I'm taking their word for it, it's idiotic to use nuclear weapons against another nation that has more than you. You're minds too deep in the gaming world.


I think it's funny as hell that you are convinced that these people will 'stick to their word'.

As said earlier, the only thing stopping first use is the entire world would stomp that country into non-existence.

However, if you get a unstable moron into power, or a few countries who are well coordinated- you can bet that they will us nuclear arms.

  • 12.05.2012 6:36 PM PDT

心の中に弱い風が吹いています。

We're America, -blam!- yeah we could!

  • 12.05.2012 6:36 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member
  • gamertag: AJF117
  • user homepage:

"Usually, the good Lord works in mysterious ways. But not today! This here is 66 tons of straight-up, H.E-spewing dee-vine intervention! If God is love, then you can call me Cupid!"

-Sgt. Johnson, Halo 2


Posted by: Alpha Prime

Even then, they barely have over 100 operational nuclear warheads, and then you are implying they are efficient enough to get all the way to the US without being tracked and shot down and hit where they wanted them to hit. Your lack of knowledge humors me.So American military technology is so advanced that no nuclear weapons could hit the US? Missle defence is like hitting one bullet with another bullet. You might get one missle or two but it is massively ineffective in general.
Missile shield my friend. The only threat is from a mass launch of hundreds or thousands of missiles.

  • 12.05.2012 6:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Tom
USNSCC, E-3

The Line of Steel
Basically, it's a blog of mine that focuses on military and policy related issues. Feel free to bookmark it and PM me any ideas you have to improve its quality. I hope you enjoy it!


Posted by: colbyrules8
Chinese leaders have CLEARLY stated they would NEVER be the first to use nuclear warheads in a war.


Being invaded changes things.

Even then, they barely have over 100 operational nuclear warheads,

They have more than 100

and then you are implying they are efficient enough to get all the way to the US without being tracked and shot down and hit where they wanted them to hit.

Eh, sorta fair point.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 6:37 PM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 6:37 PM PDT

Posted by: Duardo
Not really. Your mom is over quite enough to make my fears mute.
Posted by: colbyrules8
Posted by: Duardo
Being alone.
You're a mod, you should be used to that.


Posted by: Sgt Drifter

Posted by: colbyrules8

Posted by: Alpha Prime
Posted by: colbyrules8
Considering, if you actually knew what you're talking about (which you don't), Chinese leaders have CLEARLY stated they would NEVER be the first to use nuclear warheads in a war.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh god, because clearly the Chinese will willingly restrain themselves in the event of China getting invaded.

Even then, they barely have over 100 operational nuclear warheads, and then you are implying they are efficient enough to get all the way to the US without being tracked and shot down and hit where they wanted them to hit. Your lack of knowledge humors me.So American military technology is so advanced that no nuclear weapons could hit the US? Missle defence is like hitting one bullet with another bullet. You might get one missle or two but it is massively ineffective in general.


In the end you're just making assumptions against what their leaders have said. I'm taking their word for it, it's idiotic to use nuclear weapons against another nation that has more than you. You're minds too deep in the gaming world.


I think it's funny as hell that you are convinced that these people will 'stick to their word'.

As said earlier, the only thing stopping first use is the entire world would stomp that country into non-existence.

However, if you get a unstable moron into power, or a few countries who are well coordinated- you can bet that they will us nuclear arms.
Read my other reply. I said ," They would have to open up with them or not use them at all". I am more than willing to bet that we have intel on where each nation is keeping their warheads right now, even though we aren't even at war. Their nuclear arsenal would probably be a first major target for the US.

  • 12.05.2012 6:37 PM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.

Of course, granting that no other countries got directly involved.

  • 12.05.2012 6:38 PM PDT