Who would win in an unrestrained, completely savage war, China or America?

[xylophone]

Winning on the long run.

Cyborg child soldier babies!

- - - Updated - - -

Right now, the US would win. Ten years from now, it would be a tough call though.

Technology isn't the only factors in winning a war. The Vietnamese who had no running water and lived in villages made of grass and sticks yet had the US on the run even with the superior weapons and technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon

Read the thread title "unrestrained completely savage war."

[Deleted]

If Chinese troop land in say California and were going to have a ground war here in America for the first time in 300+ years then I doubt Chinese troops would make it past the Rocky mountains.
[...]
But if we just get it in our head one day to just invade China for "reasons" I doubt we would be able to win that war either. Both sides have tremendous home team advantage. If the US was able to establish a beach head and get enough troops over there to possible get enough unmaned aircraft up in the air we could possible take enough cities if we bomb them into submission.

I agree with this: a war like proposed is the type of war where the opening move is the losing move, due to something as simple as geography and demography.
The US might have a much better invasion chance, as most of the military power of the US is geared towards projection, but their rivals have enough defensive capability to cripple it.

[teekabell]

There's a lot of hostility toward the United States in general on these boards. I noticed that when I started posting here. Hell, I've noticed that since I started using the internet.

I think so many people answering China either reflects how they feel about the United States, or their complete lack of understanding of geo-political dynamics.

Well, earlier on this page you called Americans too cowardly to fight hand-to-hand. That sounds like hostility to me. And it's completely untru

infracted - thread necromancy

[Anevers]

Well, earlier on this page you called Americans too cowardly to fight hand-to-hand. That sounds like hostility to me. And it's completely untrue.

You should leave the dead alone.

[Deleted]

Well, earlier on this page you called Americans too cowardly to fight hand-to-hand. That sounds like hostility to me. And it's completely untrue.

Earlier? You mean like over 2 years ago?

The trolls are at it again, lol.

[Noradin]

No one. Everyone will lose.

[Deleted]

China by straight up zerg.

[Shadowferal]

Umm...this is one old thread...

[TwoNineMarine]

If it was purely a ground war (no nukes) then the US. The Chinese have the numbers but the ferocity of our warriors is unmatched. Not to mention that, in general, our equipment is better than theirs.

[Annu]

Second, the Tech advantage is just as great as it is always been and it is only getting larger.

This is definitely not true. China is spending huge amounts of money to catch up with the US, especially for electronics components and military technology. Considering that the GDP of China is increasing faster than the GDP of the USA, China will soon have more money for investments than the US. Even if China reaches just the state of the EU (which has a lot of poor countries too, like Romania and Bulgaria) their economy will have twice the size of the US economy. Simply because their population is four times larger than the US population.

Third, the US doesn't ever have to put a boot in China to completely eliminate Chinas ability to fight.

This thought was brought up first in WWII and it has been a mistake ever since. There has never been a war that was won by air raids only. Exception would be a nuclear war, but China and the US have both enough nukes to destroy each other entirely.

Fourth, a large amount of the Chinese military is used to suppress unrest in China itself. What do you think happens if the US breaks up central command?

Learn history! The simplest method to unite a revolting country is to create an external enemy. This is based on a very simple human survival instinct: Defeating an external enemy is always top priority, no matter what. As soon as the US would attack China every urge to revolt would be gone instantly.

[Grogo]

Military Strength top 3:

1) United States

USAF
The F-22 and F-35 flying together.
Budget: $601 billion
Active frontline personnel: 1,400,000
Tanks: 8,848
Total aircraft: 13,892
Submarines: 72

2) Russia

Budget: $84.5 billion
Active frontline personnel: 766,055
Tanks: 15,398
Total aircraft: 3,429
Submarines: 55

3) China

Budget: $216 billion
Active frontline personnel: 2,333,000
Tanks: 9,150
Total aircraft: 2,860
Submarines: 67

[Belize]

KALIMAH KALIMAH!

Stop necroing the dead.

[ItachiZaku]

If it is to include occupancy and colonization, neither is capable of winning that war. Just decimation, "we" have more firepower by a lot.

[Kalis]

A Salandrin thread!

[Deleted]

Military Strength top 3:

1) United States

USAF
The F-22 and F-35 flying together.
Budget: $601 billion
Active frontline personnel: 1,400,000
Tanks: 8,848
Total aircraft: 13,892
Submarines: 72

2) Russia

Budget: $84.5 billion
Active frontline personnel: 766,055
Tanks: 15,398
Total aircraft: 3,429
Submarines: 55

Afghanistan

Budget: Many goats
frontline personnel: n/a
Tanks: 0
Total aircraft: 0
Submarines: 0

Won wars against the US and Russia. Go figure.

[Independent voter]

the necromancer could've posted a new China vrs US thread for the same, even better effect. The topic gets a lot of posts usually

[Khadgar]

Afghanistan

Budget: Many goats
frontline personnel: n/a
Tanks: 0
Total aircraft: 0
Submarines: 0

Won wars against the US and Russia. Go figure.

How well would've Afghanistan fared if they carpet bombed everything like in Germany?

[Crissi]

Necro

Closing