2009-07-08, 23:57 | Link #3281 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
|
^ I'd take a well-trained, skilled and motivated force over a "size is strength" one. Not only is the latter a huge drain on logistics, but the concept of human wave, which is common with big armies pretty much nullifies the need for training the troops up to a certain quality. Of course, why would you need to spend on specialist training when you'll just throw the troops and hope they overwhelm the opposition?
Skilled troops = more options = a leaner, more streamlined force. ANd of course, the battle systems are standard as well. China has what? 4 or so MBT's and how many kinds of fighter planes? and how would you efficiently train people to operate 4 or 5 kinds of planes doing the same job in time of war? Last edited by Thingle; 2009-07-09 at 00:09. |
2009-07-09, 00:34 | Link #3282 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
"Well-trained, skilled and motivated" are relative terms. The US Army's recruitment drive has not been doing well for some time now. In fact, some soldiers in charge of recruitment have killed themselves over the stress of their jobs. Also, the quality of troops have been decreasing steadily.
Right now, the US are busy in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is burning money the US do not have.
__________________
|
2009-07-09, 01:57 | Link #3283 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Quote:
As long as the US doesn't try to "rebuild" China (lolz), the Chinese has no way to do any real casualty. The America has absolute command on the sea and in the sky. I mean, the US doesn't even need to "defeat" China. Keeping it a fourth world country forever is enough. But then those human right people will protest. The public will get bored. Pictures of Chinese children trembled in fear will be everywhere. Eek! And why the heck we have to fight China anyway? Intimidation should be enough... |
|
2009-07-09, 03:02 | Link #3284 | ||
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
This display of...inane swagger...is pissing me off. Really.
Quote:
Who do you think reversed the UN advance in the Korean war? That was when they barely recovered from decades of warlordism, a bloody civil war, massive Japanese invasion, and a restarted civil war. Modern China is quite capable of producing "MBT's" and "fighter planes" if you didn't notice. They are one of the great powers, deal with it. Any solution to the North Korean issue requires at the very least their tacit consent, and not just because they're the regime's primary economic and political support. I like wargames. I play a lot of them. I like military gadgets too. They're awesome. One of the things that I know however is that war isn't the realm of swaggering armchair generals. It is not to be talked about lightly, as if there are no consequences -- human consequences -- to them. I keep my fantasies strictly in videogames and for good reason. Quote:
And of course, I strongly object to your dismissal of pacifists. |
||
2009-07-09, 03:18 | Link #3285 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
First line of the Art of War: War, is a matter of great importance to the nation. It concerns life and death, survival or demise. It cannot be taken lightly.
As for the Korean War, it too exhausted the Red Army. Chinese deaths way exceeded UN losses. For the Mongols, two peoples managed to beat them: the Mameluks and the Japanese (Kamikaze, literally). They were also stopped at Java, if memory serves me.
__________________
|
2009-07-09, 04:13 | Link #3286 |
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
Of course, the cost of Human Wave tactics was deadly. And I'd say that blind Human Wave as the layman understanding goes would have been disastrous -- a good machine gun is all it takes to wipe out a column of infantry. What was truly effective was the infiltration tactics that the PLA mastered in the civil war and the Sino-Japanese war which, combined with the willingness to ignore the human cost, devastated UN defenses. Night ambushes in mountainous terrain tend to render 1950's air support technology relatively useless, especially if they come at you from the rear.
It nonetheless does not change my point that all these hawks declaring China ripe for conquest doesn't understand war. I'll be straight up front: I don't either, that's why I'm so annoyed with their militaristic outbursts. As for who defeated the Mongols; all credit to the Mamelukes, who themselves possessed a formidable horse archer force, and I'll always contest the idea that the Mongols were supermen -- they weren't, pre-gunpowder sedentary civilizations just find dealing with steppe warfare tactics extremely hard, and a united force of well-led, highly disciplined steppe army naturally proved devastating, especially one as adaptable as the Mongols. It should still be noted however that Ain Jalut, like the Battle of Tours of similar macro-historical importance, wasn't such a decisive battle in the fact. What was defeated was only one of the many Mongol armies which relied heavily on levies from conquered states, and the Mongols were by that time quite disorganized. Il-Khanate fought against Golden Horde and Chagatai, and though local conquests continued the Mamelukes' victory was sufficient to deter them as a tempting target for a weaker Mongol Khan with other enemies to fight. Java was, like Japan, Kublai's mistake. What good are disciplined horse archers in jungles and seas? The Java campaign was almost like a classic Chinese campaign in Indochina than anything popularly recognized as Mongolian: massive army, bad logistics, tropical diseases, unfamiliar terrain, and natives fighting what is essentially guerrilla warfare against a superior force that can't pin them down. |
2009-07-09, 05:24 | Link #3287 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
The Chinese pushed the US back to the 38th Parallel because they know the Korean terrain better than the US, and they are able to take up strong L shaped flanking formations, then quickly re-enforce to continue flanking due to the superior numbers of their troops. Btw, don't underestimate the NK army SK and US sites have been hacked since last Sunday. Since both armies run on force multipliers, bringing down their network can render their armies ineffective due to extensive reliance on short communications.
__________________
|
|
2009-07-09, 05:56 | Link #3288 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
Well, the Southern Song was never really well-known for its military. The fall of Ming (the uprising led by Li Zhicheng) paved the way for the rise of Qing (the Manchus).
@Irenicus: Aye to most if not all points.
__________________
|
2009-07-09, 07:08 | Link #3289 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Quote:
During that period of time, you cannot assume that China are willing to sit tight and wait for the Americans to mobilize their troops, can you? Obviously, they will be making all sorts of movements which will in turn stop any possible progress of the deployment during the discussion/debate stage. First of all, there are tons of American investors who put lots of money into building factories abroad and hiring cheap labor to produce goods that is used in American everyday life. Although the quality may be cheap but those products are usually more affordable which proves to be rather popular among the general population, especially during times of financial turmoil. And thus, if ties sour between the two nations, those investors, wealthy businessmen of who supports and sponsors both major political parties, Democrats and Republicans will become anxious and angry as that their businesses may be at risk. For that matter, lobbies will take place, as well as organized protests. Secondly, China does have quite a large amount of US Treasury debt in their hands which will certainly do quite some damage to the economy that is still in the recovery status. Just these two moves can certainly ensure a significant problem to the United States, even though this is most likely during the stage of discussion and debate on deployment rather than actually starting the operation. Aside from this, it is obvious that the Chinese have tons of infiltrators within many layers of American society and the more useful ones tend to be part of the US government and also military. Since the US is a democratic nation, those one-sided or double-sided agents do have a say in things and it does put some weighted influences on the overall decision of the nation itself. Funny thing is that supposedly.. The US also have their agents in China but has the US ever manage to influence changes on the Chinese's side? Never heard of.. In other words, although the US military excel greatly in their naval and air military capabilities, as well as possess amazing technology to go with it... The US actually loses in everything else. A quality military capability cannot succeed by itself without other important factors. Most importantly, the biggest factor would be the citizens. The reason why Obama seems to be rather popular when visiting many nations and speaking to them is due to the rather ridiculous amount of support he gets. However, does Obama's popularity enable him to get his reasoning through with unfriendly nations is questionable.. If China were to provoke a military operation against the United States, their citizens will most likely support it. However, if the United States under the leadership of popular Obama were to suggest a military operation against China over the issue of North Korea, do you think Americans would support it? Yes, its Obama but will people shout "Yes We Can"? I have my doubts... |
|
2009-07-09, 08:37 | Link #3290 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
|
Quote:
What I am pointing out is the inefficient redundancy in their system. Maintaining 4 or 5 different fleets of planes which do the exact same job is hard. Face it, the PLAAF is just a hodgepodge of equipment. They have neither a dedicated weapons platform nor the doctrine that comes with it. What jets are their mission tactics built around, such as for Air superiority? No definite answer, because you got these J-10's, J-11's and JF-17's existing side-by side with Su-27's and Su-30's each with different internal components, quirks and capabilities. How do you get enough spare parts for each one kind? How do you train pilots for each one kind? In the long run, it's cost-prohibitive. Add the strain of war to the equation and you get yourself a mess... y'know, having that "magnificent" fleet grounded due to lack of specific parts/pilots. Last edited by Thingle; 2009-07-09 at 09:05. |
|
2009-07-09, 09:33 | Link #3292 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Quote:
Domination over China? No. The US doesn't need to dominate, capture or rebuild China. Like I said, keeping it a fourth world country is much easier. They can hide their army but things like rice fields and factories cannot be hidden, no? We don't really have to gain any direct profit from the war and actually it is much cheaper that way. According to those Keynesian, war is stimulus. BTW, I'm not object to peaceful means. In fact, I hate war and wish to avoid it at all cost. BUT if a war is bound to happen, it must be fought seriously. It is a tool of destruction, that's it. Those who committed to it must bare all the consequences. @Shadow Kira01: I don't believe a war between the US and China will happen anytime soon if the Chinese is reasonable. There are too many tights between the two. But if it were to happen, we are not gonna lose. Why? It happens, the US economy is pretty much down to the toilet. The people will change. Crazy ideologies can be promoted during those times. (See German) |
|
2009-07-09, 10:34 | Link #3293 | |||
Inactive
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Official says 7 S. Korean Web sites attacked again
Quote:
Massachusetts is 1st to fight US marriage Quote:
On CA's budget issue - Schwarzenegger plans 20% pay cuts Spoiler for Snippets:
California grants early release of parole violators Spoiler for snippet:
California’s budget drama intensifies Spoiler for spoiler:
Language Skills In Your Twenties May Predict Risk Of Dementia Decades Later Quote:
|
|||
2009-07-09, 12:32 | Link #3294 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
China's ethnic policies root cause of Uygur riots
Quote:
|
|
2009-07-09, 15:08 | Link #3295 | ||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Let's not forget that the whole thing was possible because Russian pilots in brand new Mig-15s were giving air support too, denying the US air superiority. In a new Korean war. It's highly unlikely Russia would get involved at all. Hell, it's highly unlikely China would either. They want that buffer zone, but is that more important to China than their trade with the US and Europe? My bet is no, especially if the war is a result of North Korea attacking. Even if it is more important, inviting China to play a role in the reconstructing of the post war North while the US bankrolls most of that rebuilding should satisfy them. It'll allow China to keep their buffer zone, and spare them a lot of rebuilding expense. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-07-09, 15:20 | Link #3296 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
|
The South Koreans did an "operation canned goods" and launched a bogey cyber-attack against their own systems.
Would anyone believe that NK, whose computers still run wordstar (and would crash running win 3.1) could do that? |
2009-07-09, 15:39 | Link #3297 |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
You don't need a top of the line system for stuff like that. The important thing for a DDoS attack is a nice size botnet under your control. Besides, I'd be highly surprised to learn that there isn't a single computer in North Korea capable of running XP or vista. Of course I'd be equally surprised to learn that there's a single computer there running a legal copy of xp or vista.
__________________
|
2009-07-09, 19:53 | Link #3298 |
勇者
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 34
|
I would believe it, who is to say that North Korea doesn't have capability like that. And why would we try to make it seem like attack from North Korea? If it was to tarnish their images or make them look more evil then it would be quiet pointless.
__________________
|
2009-07-10, 04:35 | Link #3299 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Actually, the latest reports states that the attacks came from 16 different nations as opposed to North Korea alone. In other words, the attackers may not be North Koreans but are working for the interest of North Korea in this case.
Last edited by Shadow Kira01; 2009-07-10 at 04:35. Reason: fixed typo. |
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|