Could the US take China as they did Iraq in a conventional war

silverharp

As Al Murray said there wouldn't be enough bullets for a start, the only way would be to get the Chinese to make them and I think they would smell a rat!

Kaiser_Sma

Theres more then enough bullets to kill everyone in the world several times over.

headzilla wrote:

It'd be the equivalent of the Germans invading Russia in WW2

Well actually it would be like the germans invading russia at the start of the war.
But the germans only really wanted the choice cuts of russia i.e. infront of the urals. If the americans only went for the fillet of china they'd have a much better chance.

purple'n'gold

Cato wrote: »

If any group would contest American occupation it would have to be the die hard communists, but in a conventional war i think America would win even without tactical nukes, American technology, intelligence gathering and surgical strikes at strategic locations would be one of the main factors in chinas defeat i would say.

Don’t forget, the Chinese have nukes too, and would use them a hell of a lot faster than the USA would.

Cato

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Theres more then enough bullets to kill everyone in the world several times over.



Well actually it would be like the germans invading russia at the start of the war.
But the germans only really wanted the choice cuts of russia i.e. infront of the urals. If the americans only went for the fillet of china they'd have a much better chance.

this post makes me hungry!

Oilrig

Would have thought this would have ended up in the Walter Mitty forum... :rolleyes:

geekGirl

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was no end of political constraints in that war. I get the feeling the military's hands would be much less tightly tied in a hypothetical against China. It wasn't a military failure, it was a political one.

NTM

Perhaps - that attitude would casue the use of nukes though...

Tabnabs

I think you're underestimating the Chinese (however, how long they could hold out...):

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the SIPRI Yearbook 1999, the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal is about 400 warheads. The Bulletin estimates that 20 nuclear-armed missiles are deployed in the intercontinental role, and another 230 nuclear weapons on deployed (or can be deployed) on aircraft, missiles, and submarines with regional capabilities. The 150 remaining nuclear warheads are believed to be reserved for "tactical" uses (short-range missiles, low yield aircraft-dropped bombs, and possibly artillery shells or demolition munitions).

The Dong Feng-5 (DF-5) liquid-fueled missile, first deployed in 1981, has a range of 13,000 km and carries a single multi-megaton warhead.

The DF-5's range gives it coverage of all of Asia and Europe, and most of the United States. The south-eastern US states are at the edge of the missile's range.

In 2000, the total estimated personnel strength of the Chinese military is 2.5 million, of which 1.8 million are in service with the PLA (ground forces).

There are also numerous reserve and paramilitary units, some of which do not fall under the direct control of the PLA. The PLA reserve component has about 1.2 million personnel divided into 50 infantry, artillery, and air-defense divisions. In addition, approximately 1.1 million personnel serve in the People's Armed Police, which includes internal security and border defense forces under the control of the Ministry of Defense.

China's tank inventory has numbered around 10,000 for three decades.

The People's Liberation Army Air Force, PLAAF, currently possesses about 4,350 aircraft, of which the majority are combat aircraft.

China embarked on a large submarine building program in the 1960s, which tapered-off in the late 1980s, which included many diesel-electric patrol submarines and some nuclear powered submarines. Many of the diesel-electric submarines from that construction period are now in reserve. Recently, construction and acquisition of new submarines has begun to intensify.

Since the 1972, the number of ships and overall tonnage of China’s surface combatants has increased at a steady rate. The increase is expected to continue for the next five years, but may decline after that if no new construction or acquisition programs are undertaken. (See Chart 4.)The most recent additions to the Chinese Navy are two Russian-built 'Sovremenny' class destroyers. These ships, the first of which was delivered in February 2000, are the largest and most powerful surface warships ever operated by the Chinese Navy. Their most formidable weapon is the SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic sea-skimming ASM, of which eight are carried. The Sovremenny is also armed with the SA-N-7 'Gadfly', which will give China a limited naval air-defense capability. Up to now, China has possessed only short-ranged SAMs of French or domestic design

However, China's military is outdated and in desperate need of modernisation.

The real question is; who else would get involved if such a conflict took place

Kaiser_Sma

Dyflin wrote: »

I think you're underestimating the Chinese (however, how long they could hold out...):

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the SIPRI Yearbook 1999, the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal is about 400 warheads. The Bulletin estimates that 20 nuclear-armed missiles are deployed in the intercontinental role, and another 230 nuclear weapons on deployed (or can be deployed) on aircraft, missiles, and submarines with regional capabilities. The 150 remaining nuclear warheads are believed to be reserved for "tactical" uses (short-range missiles, low yield aircraft-dropped bombs, and possibly artillery shells or demolition munitions).

The Dong Feng-5 (DF-5) liquid-fueled missile, first deployed in 1981, has a range of 13,000 km and carries a single multi-megaton warhead.

The DF-5's range gives it coverage of all of Asia and Europe, and most of the United States. The south-eastern US states are at the edge of the missile's range.

In 2000, the total estimated personnel strength of the Chinese military is 2.5 million, of which 1.8 million are in service with the PLA (ground forces).

There are also numerous reserve and paramilitary units, some of which do not fall under the direct control of the PLA. The PLA reserve component has about 1.2 million personnel divided into 50 infantry, artillery, and air-defense divisions. In addition, approximately 1.1 million personnel serve in the People's Armed Police, which includes internal security and border defense forces under the control of the Ministry of Defense.

China's tank inventory has numbered around 10,000 for three decades.

The People's Liberation Army Air Force, PLAAF, currently possesses about 4,350 aircraft, of which the majority are combat aircraft.

China embarked on a large submarine building program in the 1960s, which tapered-off in the late 1980s, which included many diesel-electric patrol submarines and some nuclear powered submarines. Many of the diesel-electric submarines from that construction period are now in reserve. Recently, construction and acquisition of new submarines has begun to intensify.

Since the 1972, the number of ships and overall tonnage of China’s surface combatants has increased at a steady rate. The increase is expected to continue for the next five years, but may decline after that if no new construction or acquisition programs are undertaken. (See Chart 4.)The most recent additions to the Chinese Navy are two Russian-built 'Sovremenny' class destroyers. These ships, the first of which was delivered in February 2000, are the largest and most powerful surface warships ever operated by the Chinese Navy. Their most formidable weapon is the SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic sea-skimming ASM, of which eight are carried. The Sovremenny is also armed with the SA-N-7 'Gadfly', which will give China a limited naval air-defense capability. Up to now, China has possessed only short-ranged SAMs of French or domestic design

However, China's military is outdated and in desperate need of modernisation.

The real question is; who else would get involved if such a conflict took place

well the original question was for a conventional war. So assuming the chinese and americans don't use their nuclear arsenal. In an atomic slugging match, it's safe to say that america would come out tops (although probably missing a few cities at least.)

Well any way lets compare these chinese stats to the americans

Active personel:
US - 1.4 million
China - 2.5 million

Reserves:
US - 1.4 million
China - 2.3 (including PAP)

Ground forces:
US - 0.5 million (regulars) , 0.2 million (marines, non-reserve)
China - 1.8 million

Tanks:
US - 6,000 (MBT's only)
China - 10,000

Combat Aircraft:
US - 2,500
China - 2,300

Attack Helicopters:
US - 2,300
China - 60

Navel Vessels:
US - 280
China - 100

These are all approximate values rounded off, there may be some disparity in terms of classification.

purple'n'gold

China Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 281,240,272
females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

USAManpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 54,609,050
females age 18-49: 54,696,706 (2005 est

Source, The CIA world factbook
Note that the Chinese outnumber the USA in cannon fodder big time.

Kaiser_Sma

Well i was going by a realtivly unexpected attack, you can never gaurantee drafting numbers or quality.

MooseJam

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Attack Helicopters:
US - 2,300
China - 60

wtf that really stands out lol, do they hate helicopters in China or what

Prolatarian

I would imagin the US would be able to take and hold some of the costal cities but get boged down inland. Who would help the the US would really depend on the reasons given for the war but you can asume that the UK and NATO would help in moast circumstances.My bet is a stalmate and a peace treaty that favours the West.

Oilrig

Never going to happen, they've learned the lesson from Iraq that technology is not a substitute for numbers when it comes down to holding territory.

The Chinese are not stupid, their risk assessment would include lessons learned by the US from GW2... I'm pretty sure the Pentagon/White House has learned a hard lesson too.

Its one thing knocking out an asset, its another thing taking control of a country...

Psy Ops is the US underbelly, they just don't get it.

Tenger

crianp wrote: »

The U.S could so take China, they may not have the numbers but the Chinese military is ineffecient and when was the last time they fought a war? The U.S has a boat load of veterans after Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention a state of the art navy, airforce, etc... They would need to hit a couple of key cities and the Chinese would be sent back to 5000BC

In theory yes the US 'should' win but definitely at the current time.
Yes the US has a lot of veterans. However those same veterans are drained as are the resourses to replace them back home. The US military by its own admission is currently stretched very thinly. The wear and tear on their equipment is taking a huge toll on their ability to conduct combat ops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you have read any Patrick Robinson books, he is of the opinion that the Chinese are the new opponent of the US. (Nimitz Class is his first book)

Army: Chinese hugely out numbers the US but apparently the PLA still use tactics from several decades ago. The troops are conscripts and have basic equipment. Lack of combat experience is a huge negative. However the US would need a lot more troops to deal with the chinese unless some of them laid down their weapons. Yes a SEAL team may be able to fight off an chinese regiment with air support but can the ratio of troops perfom an encirclement to capture chinese army groups,as the Germans did in Russia 1941. Also the US have a small relatively elite force (compared to the armies of WWII/Cold War) There have a large logistical arm and unfortunately a problem they will face (and are now facing in Iraq) is the difficulty of defending this suppyline. Thye cannot afford to use well trained offensive troops to do this. And they do not have enough second-line units (national guard?) to adequately protect the supply line.

(I read somewhere that at one point in Korea some UN troops had to give up there position due running out of ammo to deal with the waves of chinese)


Navy: Do the Chinese have a carrier? The have a very large fleet of coastal craft while not a lot of 'Blue Water' capability. The US are currently trying to improve their coastal/inshore capability. I do know that their submarine fleet (usually the main threat to US carriers groups) is in tatters and completelyout dated compared to the US subs. The US also have the Aegis equipped cruisers to defend from missile attacks from minland. The Chinese do have the Sunburn missile (think that is the name) which was designed by USSR to kill carriers. So in theory the US should be able to dominate the seas and littoral areas of the area of operations.


Air Force: US relies heavily on air power. In terms of quality they are way ahead. The F15 and F22 should be able to cope with most PLA aircraft. (At least if the F15s stop being grounded!) I believe the 'new' chinese fighter is equal technologically to an early F15. Add in the US strength in airborne radar and long range missile and they are ahead. A problem in this sphere may be the sheer numbers of aircraft the chinese could throw up. being outnumberd over 4-1 means you may not have enough missile shots to deal with the enemy.

This is terribly uninformed opinion (Think a day spent on various military websites is needed to top up my armchair knowledge)and doesn't even take into account the nuclear options of both countries. Perhaps the US could invade and decapitate the government of China by capturing key coastal cities but the sheer scale of the country and of pacifying it would hugely overwhelm the small yet well trained (and expensive) US armed forces.

I have a book written by a US Army Lt.Col concerning the future of the US armed forces. The main point he gets across is that by producing highly trained 'battlespace combat specialists' the US is making itself unable to fight a drawn out war with casulaties. (For example the armoured cav/mechanised units are usually short on dismounted troopers,the drivers and gunners are seen as the priority for the theorised mechanised mission)The current US army has so many specialised units that getting combat ready units takes far longer than just training new recruits to move and shoot.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Militarily the US could probably bomb any other country in the world back to the stone age, so yes they could kill China dead.

But I doubt the US soldier has the fighting ability to kick sh*t off a stick, its politically weak and the US population doesn't have the belly for a fight.

Tragedy

Dont forget that India and Pakistan would likely take this as an opportunity to settle some old scores between themselves and between India & China.

Tenger

Tragedy wrote: »

Dont forget that India and Pakistan would likely take this as an opportunity to settle some old scores between themselves and between India & China.

Very good point here. In isolation the US should be able to take on and win versus the PRC. However the US would not be able to bring its entire military to bear on the situation. The US was have to maintain readiness to deal with situations that may erupt if the US is concentrating on China (Kashmir, Middle East,palestine,Russia and several neighbours)

And in the scenario of this discussion what would be the reaction from the US to Russia,India and/or Pakistan taking advantage and occupying large tracts of China. (As another aside, anyone read Clancys "The bear and the Dragon"?)

Even at present the US still have troops in Korea. Do they still have significant troops in Europe anymore? I think that their Japanese USAF squadrons are leaving soon if not already. They have 12(?) carriers but only 3-4 were ever on tour near the Gulf at any one time. They need a couple in the Pacific, one in Indian Ocean,the Atlantic and the Med plus several at home refitting.

Tragedy

India hates China and Pakistan, Pakistan hates India and has been quite friendly with China, both have nukes and I think are quite willing to use them if necessary - and then you have Afghanistan and tribal Pakistan thrown in.

I dont think the biggest can of worms from the US invading China would be in China, it would be in the Afghanistan/Pakistan/India area

RedPlanet

Despite America having a lot of experience making war, a massive military budget and state-of-the-art equipment; you can't deny that they are just plain crap at war.
They take on 3rd world countries that can't really defend themselves and militarily dominate for the most part, but it doesn't seem to make much difference to the outcome.

Tragedy

Whats that saying about words being stronger than swords? Well thats been the case for the americans since WW2, hampered by politics at every step.

Manic Moran

Bramble wrote: »

There have a large logistical arm and unfortunately a problem they will face (and are now facing in Iraq) is the difficulty of defending this suppyline. Thye cannot afford to use well trained offensive troops to do this. And they do not have enough second-line units (national guard?) to adequately protect the supply line.

Security of the lines of communication are the function of the MPs, both Active and Guard. (US field MPs are not the same as the guys in red berets who hand out speeding tickets, they drive armoured vehicles and are heavily armed) In terms of combat role, there is no difference between a Guard unit and an Active unit. Indeed, I'm a Guardsman in the recon squadron for an active cav regiment.

The supply line problem is perhaps a little overstated. There is ample redundancy in the American logistical system that it can handle the lines being attacked and the loss of some of the logistical assets. It's gotten the news recently because the majority of the attacks in Iraq are against the soft targets (Not that they're having an effect, but they're just happening), which is not necessarily going to be the case when there is an ongoing conventional fight.

(I read somewhere that at one point in Korea some UN troops had to give up there position due running out of ammo to deal with the waves of chinese)

There were Israeli tanks which ran out of ammo against the Syrians as well. (Though they didn't pull back: After causing all the destruction which resulted in the lack of ammo, their mere presence was a sufficient deterrent to the Syrians who didn't know they were out of ammo!). It happens, from time to time.

Navy: Do the Chinese have a carrier?

Technically... no. They're working on it though, they plan to have the first carrier group operational this decade. (Don't mistake these for US-style supercarriers, it's really just going to be one of the old Russian carriers that they've resurrected. That said, they're working on the old Varyag, now Shi Lang (a Chinese admiral who took Taiwan). They're planning an indigineous carrier of their own, but it's not a high priority.

(For example the armoured cav/mechanised units are usually short on dismounted troopers,the drivers and gunners are seen as the priority for the theorised mechanised mission)

Knox has figured this out. The proposed new armoured cav structure is a return to the old 70s era pattern, with a lot more dismount capability. I look forward to this, as it also returns tanks to the cav units.

The current US army has so many specialised units that getting combat ready units takes far longer than just training new recruits to move and shoot.

Yes, a WWII-style draft isn't going to work very well: The fight would be over before they were trained.

But I doubt the US soldier has the fighting ability to kick sh*t off a stick

That's a little harsh. Can you refer me to any cases where US infantry or armoured troops have proven military ineffective or incompetent in the last, oh, twenty years? Even during the low end of the US's troop quality era, Vietnam, I am unaware of any military defeats.

Even at present the US still have troops in Korea. Do they still have significant troops in Europe anymore?

Not a huge amount. They've got a Brigade in Italy, and about a division equivalent in Germany. (Cav regiment, a few other assorted bits and bobs). 1st Infantry returned to Riley a year or two ago.

NTM

Prolatarian

Militarily the US could probably bomb any other country in the world back to the stone age, so yes they could kill China dead.

China has nukes of its own though.

Tenger

Manic Moran wrote: »

Security of the lines of communication are the function of the MPs, both Active and Guard. (US field MPs are not the same as the guys in red berets who hand out speeding tickets, they drive armoured vehicles and are heavily armed) In terms of combat role, there is no difference between a Guard unit and an Active unit. Indeed, I'm a Guardsman in the recon squadron for an active cav regiment. NTM

Am I right in saying that US units are 2/3 active and 1/3 guard? Are they called 'round out' brigades?
I do realise that Guard units do serve as front line troops in combat zone. (Indeed some individual state national guard forces are equal to many Nation armed force in the world)
Is the Army Reserve used in combat areas,how is this diferent to the National Guard?

Manic Moran

Bramble wrote: »

Am I right in saying that US units are 2/3 active and 1/3 guard? Are they called 'round out' brigades?
I do realise that Guard units do serve as front line troops in combat zone. (Indeed some individual state national guard forces are equal to many Nation armed force in the world)
Is the Army Reserve used in combat areas,how is this diferent to the National Guard?

The US went away from the Roundout concept some time ago. My unit gets away with it because the unit it's assigned to, 11th Cavalry, has a primary role of being OpFor at Ft Irwin. It sortof works out for 'surges' and the like. As a result, there are very few Guard units who wear Active Duty patches: 1/221 Cav and 1/144 Arty are the only two I'm immediately aware of.

The Guard/Reserve units generally have their own independent organisations, up to division level inclusive, containing all their required supporting infrastructure, from MPs and fuellers through air ambulance and artillery, all reservists. They are capable of deploying just as independently as a regular Army unit of equivalent size and have identical tables of equipment and manning.

Interestingly, even though the Guard is smaller than the Active Army, it has a higher proportion of the combat units. Before the recent re-org, the Guard had 60% of the Army's tanks, and 70% of the Army's artillery. I'm not sure of the current ratio, but it won't have changed that much. If you're wondering how that works out, just take into account the masses of supporting infrastructure required which are not part of any unit at all, such as who runs and maintains the bases that both Active and reserve use. Who runs the schoolhouses that all Active and reserve go through. Warehouses and inventory. That sort of thing.

The differences between Army Reserve and Guard are that the Reserve is a purely federal organisation, whilst the Guard are ordinarily under State control, and thus available for domestic use such as disaster relieve, law and order, that sort of thing. For a reason I'm not entirely aware of, the Army Reserve is 99% non-combat-arms (They have a single infantry unit), focusing on combat support/service support.

By way of comparison of size, California's National Guard is some 17,000 persons strong, consists of a light infantry brigade with all supporting arms, a spare infantry battalion, a spare heavy combined arms battalion, a spare artillery battalion, an aviation brigade, a sustainment (support) brigade, an MP brigade, and a military intelligence Brigade. It can also provide an Air Rescue Wing, a fighter wing of F-16s, an airlift wing and a Recon wing. I know I'm missing one or two units, for example, I'm not sure where the 579th engineer battalion fits in these days: Officially it's still part of 40th ID, but that division is more a division in name than strength.

NTM

delos

Manic Moran wrote: »

The supply line problem is perhaps a little overstated. There is ample redundancy in the American logistical system that it can handle the lines being attacked and the loss of some of the logistical assets. It's gotten the news recently because the majority of the attacks in Iraq are against the soft targets (Not that they're having an effect, but they're just happening), which is not necessarily going to be the case when there is an ongoing conventional fight.

In your professional opinion (not trying to be smart here, just acknowledging your expertise) would the sheer scale of tackling and securing the eastern seaboard of China not be a major concern from a logistical point of view?

Kaiser_Sma

An advanced army is irreplacable in attack, but i see what people mean about it being a numbers game when it comes to occupation. But thats really because of the hearts and minds game everybody plays now. When the context of the war is dubious and the invaders where the initial invaders, it pretty much has to be that way to maintain support/moral. It doesn't have to be that way though. What ever your oppinions of the british empire was, it managed to hold huge populations and fight much larger forces with an often very small and cheap force. One of the ways this was so succesfull was due to retailiatory attacks and examples.
Of course that isn't applicable where the eyes of the world are upon you and your nation practically started the war such as in iraq and vietnam. But in events such as world war 2 where your fighting a long drawn out and weary war and eventually invading the original aggresor, people can afford to be far more lax when it comes to these things. Prisoners can be shot, civilians will be bombed into submission, retaliations are common place. This isn't right of course, but it would definently improve the US chance of winning if it's in response to a genuine attack by china or the culmination of an aggrevated war in another theatre.

Enevitably this means fewer troops in garrisons, and a much greater concentration on the activities of conventional war. It may also be that the strains that the chinese government would put on it's people as a result of long combat and a cut off economy, would be so great that they would be willing to submit and surrender far more readily.

duggie-89

Cato wrote: »

If any group would contest American occupation it would have to be the die hard communists, but in a conventional war i think America would win even without tactical nukes, American technology, intelligence gathering and surgical strikes at strategic locations would be one of the main factors in chinas defeat i would say.

but the vast resources that would be needed to do this would stretch the americans to far and the chinese althought not totaly efficent would have numbers and knowledge of the terrain.

the usa could only win with nuks but saying that china has built a huge new range of nuke silos in well defened areas and with the range to hit american cities. usa wouldn't be able to hold the ground. i mean its ****ing china for god's sake.

hitler once said the world will shake when china awakens

Kaiser_Sma

People thought the same thing before hitlers time. It was a common concern before the 1st world war, that china was going to realise it's power one day and destroy the west. But that time certainly isn't now. The rigours of a war with the US would be so damaging to china (not just from a military stand point) that the nations capacity for maintaining it's power would severly decrease very quickly.
It would be a tactical mistake to try and take the whole country, just certain parts. Choking the dragon would probably be the best option, air superiority, naval blockade, taking key ports, intensive bombing of urban centres, transport and communication networks.
Chinas a big country but this can work to it's disadvantage as well. The key would be demorilizing the nation and seperating the multiple heads from the body. Eventually the US could get an upper hand in all the areas of specialisation, the conventional battles would be won and chinese industry and resources would be crippled and overstretched, the majority of china would be forced to capitulate eventually in increments. The terms of surrender wouldn't be conquest of china as that could not happen, it depends on whatever their aims are.

The thing is nobody fights wars like this anymore

Prolatarian

They tought there would never be another major war in Europe after WW1:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

delos wrote: »

In your professional opinion (not trying to be smart here, just acknowledging your expertise) would the sheer scale of tackling and securing the eastern seaboard of China not be a major concern from a logistical point of view?

That's not so much a logistical concern, as a manpower concern. The US military has plenty enough logistical capability to support whatever it has in the field. Whether they have enough forces to fully secure the Chinese seabord is another matter entirely.

NTM