China Vs. USA

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Who would win if an all out war suddenly broke out?

[bjornredtail]

Well, as usual it depends. What kind of conflict? Full-scale strategic combat starting with a nuclear exchange or a proxy war over a side nation? Or, something in between? Also, it depends on the status and location of both nation's forces prior to the conflict. Is China trying to keep it's western provinces under control? Is the United States involved in the Middle East or Eastern Europe or somewhere else?

Let's consider a situation in between. Some time after the close of the Olympics, China, for perhaps unknown reasons decides to blockade the island of Taiwan. It's navy sinks freighters with United States crews, it's airforce shoots down US airliners and air freight. The US could...
1. Ignore the situation, as vast political cost at home and abroad, so unlikely.

2. Respond economically. Immediately embargo Chinese goods. Of course, the Chinese would likely respond in kind, in addition to doing their best to undercut the US Government's finical footing by selling off it's US Government bonds, pushing up the cost of borrowing money worldwide. This might have sever economic effects, but the Fed and the LIBOR along with other central banks would do their best to counteract these effects. The loss of China as a trading partner would increase the costs of goods in the United States, thus causing a decant sized jump in inflation. Of course, the reduced overall trade deficit would increase the amount of economic activity in the US. We would have to manufacture stuff again, so, it might be beneficial to the US in the long run if this were to occur. In the short term, expect a depression or recession. China would hurt too, having lost it's major market.

3. Limited military action. The US would send ships and planes to defend our ally, or at the very least our airliners and freighters. The Chinese might simply ignore this US action, avoiding a further engagement. Or they might actively try to shoot down US aircraft, drawing the US deeper into the conflict...

4. Direct Military Action. Instead of simply defending our freighters and airliners, the US might attempt to eliminate Chinese military units in the area. The Chinese might respond in kind, or surrender withdrawing to the mainland, or retaliate against the US directly.

5. Full-Scale Strategic Warfare. The United States, perhaps in response to the PRC's attacks on Taiwan, attempts to destroy the PRC's ability to make war, first by a strategic bombing camping and possibly by a full-scale invasion of the Chinese mainland. Some use of nuclear weapons on a tactical level may happen, though both sides will attempt to avoid causing excess civilian casualties.

6. Full-Scale Strategic Nuclear Warfare. Both sides attempt to the best of their abilities to destroy the peoples of the other by use of an intercontinental ballistic missiles. The US has a clear advantage here, but our West coast is destroyed and rendered unlivable for weeks. 

Chances are, noting beyond economic 'warfare' will occur here. The costs are simply too great.

[Shadow]

Chinese investments are such a huge part of the American economy that if they chose to withdraw that funding they likely wouldn't have much fighting to do in order to beat the americans. Not so the other way around.

[bjornredtail]

But, the trade deficit with China also takes so much out of our economy. If we could soak up the government debt, the lack of Chinese investment wouldn't be that big of a problem... They don't do all that much over here to begin with. Of course, that's a big if with regards to the US government's debt.

[Gorak]

in terms of all out war
barring weapons of mass destruction, the US would take it by means of air superiority
but barely
China would use numbers to ware down the US war machine, but the US airforce has proven itself to be extremely effective and efficient
but even still, a ground invasion of China would be all but impossible to succeed, and so a surrender would have to be earned through air power, which would come back to weapons of mass destruction

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Well, as usual it depends. What kind of conflict? Full-scale strategic combat starting with a nuclear exchange or a proxy war over a side nation? Or, something in between? Also, it depends on the status and location of both nation's forces prior to the conflict. Is China trying to keep it's western provinces under control? Is the United States involved in the Middle East or Eastern Europe or somewhere else?

Let's consider a situation in between. Some time after the close of the Olympics, China, for perhaps unknown reasons decides to blockade the island of Taiwan. It's navy sinks freighters with United States crews, it's airforce shoots down US airliners and air freight. The US could...
1. Ignore the situation, as vast political cost at home and abroad, so unlikely.

2. Respond economically. Immediately embargo Chinese goods. Of course, the Chinese would likely respond in kind, in addition to doing their best to undercut the US Government's finical footing by selling off it's US Government bonds, pushing up the cost of borrowing money worldwide. This might have sever economic effects, but the Fed and the LIBOR along with other central banks would do their best to counteract these effects. The loss of China as a trading partner would increase the costs of goods in the United States, thus causing a decant sized jump in inflation. Of course, the reduced overall trade deficit would increase the amount of economic activity in the US. We would have to manufacture stuff again, so, it might be beneficial to the US in the long run if this were to occur. In the short term, expect a depression or recession. China would hurt too, having lost it's major market.

3. Limited military action. The US would send ships and planes to defend our ally, or at the very least our airliners and freighters. The Chinese might simply ignore this US action, avoiding a further engagement. Or they might actively try to shoot down US aircraft, drawing the US deeper into the conflict...

4. Direct Military Action. Instead of simply defending our freighters and airliners, the US might attempt to eliminate Chinese military units in the area. The Chinese might respond in kind, or surrender withdrawing to the mainland, or retaliate against the US directly.

5. Full-Scale Strategic Warfare. The United States, perhaps in response to the PRC's attacks on Taiwan, attempts to destroy the PRC's ability to make war, first by a strategic bombing camping and possibly by a full-scale invasion of the Chinese mainland. Some use of nuclear weapons on a tactical level may happen, though both sides will attempt to avoid causing excess civilian casualties.

6. Full-Scale Strategic Nuclear Warfare. Both sides attempt to the best of their abilities to destroy the peoples of the other by use of an intercontinental ballistic missiles. The US has a clear advantage here, but our West coast is destroyed and rendered unlivable for weeks. 

Chances are, noting beyond economic 'warfare' will occur here. The costs are simply too great.

A good response! And I meant just some random full-scale, all out war. Each side doing everything within it's power to destroy the other.

Like say USA and China woke up one morning and just declared war for some reason. All current wars stopped, they both have all forces ready.... 

[taekwondokid42]

If the USA just sent in all planes from random angles in several attack squads, each designed to take out a strategic target, the US could tilt the war in its favor very quickly.

The targets could be from anything that may dis-hearten the people, disrupt the economy, or weaken the military machine.

If we got to the point where US troops had to charge in, US would lose unless they could abandon the virtue that keeps them from killing the innocent. By performing selective killing, guerrilla warfare would wear the US down.

That's my take, anyway.

[Martin the warrior]

usa would win cause we have more military....uh oh.

[fexfighter]

youre wrong china does but there not as good as the us,s armey and the simple fact that almost everey product on the planet is made in china so it would be like saying "im sorry you cant buy anything untill our companys recover and find a diffrent method for manufacturing"( and they really wouldent care how far the stooped the fact is we have such a high sence of morality its only a matter of years before we all start thinking war is imoraly wrong)

[bjornredtail]

youre wrong china does but there not as good as the us,s armey and the simple fact that almost everey product on the planet is made in china so it would be like saying "im sorry you cant buy anything untill our companys recover and find a diffrent method for manufacturing"( and they really wouldent care how far the stooped the fact is we have such a high sence of morality its only a matter of years before we all start thinking war is imoraly wrong)

A temporary spike in the prices of manufactured goods would result in vast private sector investment in the United States to create more factories to produce the goods that we can no longer import. After a time, we would be ahead economically, as we would no longer be able to import these goods, thus they would HAVE to be manufactured here, creating more economic activity (Read: GDP) here.

Like say USA and China woke up one morning and just declared war for some reason. All current wars stopped, they both have all forces ready....

As I've said before, that's VERY unlikely for political reasons. We'd win a nuclear exchange to the greatest extent it's possible to win a nuclear exchange. After that, I'd very much doubt that either side would have the forces necessary to do a full-scale invasion.

[Shadow]

youre wrong china does but there not as good as the us,s armey and the simple fact that almost everey product on the planet is made in china so it would be like saying "im sorry you cant buy anything untill our companys recover and find a diffrent method for manufacturing"( and they really wouldent care how far the stooped the fact is we have such a high sence of morality its only a matter of years before we all start thinking war is imoraly wrong)

A temporary spike in the prices of manufactured goods would result in vast private sector investment in the United States to create more factories to produce the goods that we can no longer import. After a time, we would be ahead economically, as we would no longer be able to import these goods, thus they would HAVE to be manufactured here, creating more economic activity (Read: GDP) here.

Like say USA and China woke up one morning and just declared war for some reason. All current wars stopped, they both have all forces ready....

As I've said before, that's VERY unlikely for political reasons. We'd win a nuclear exchange to the greatest extent it's possible to win a nuclear exchange. After that, I'd very much doubt that either side would have the forces necessary to do a full-scale invasion.

You don't win a nuclear exchange. Both sides die. Period.

[fexfighter]

youre right but like we need any more factories were one of the worlds leading poluters in fact #3                                        china#1, france #2, usa #3 , Japan #4 and so on

and youre right  shadow nucuelar wars result in mass destruction and devastation that takes years or even never to clean up 

[bjornredtail]

Atomic weapons, as bad as they are, are not the end of all life on earth, or even the end of civilization and government within the targeted country (most of the time). Add to this the fact the PRC has far fewer nukes than the USA, I think we would come out 'on top', but MILLIONS of Americans would die in the process. Even worse things would happen to the PRC... Thus, such an exchange is very unlikely.

[Gorak]

Nuclear exchange is not what you should be worried about
Biological weapons of mas destruction are the scary thing

[fexfighter]

thats even more true if the were to unleash a deadley disease were so compact and we travel so much that it would wip out the planet