How badly could America devastate China

China’s shaping up to be the major other power in the 21st century. Suppose there were a confrontation between America and China. Suppose that America uses nukes. But China’s a huge country with over 1.3 billion people. If it were to lose a billion people, it would still be more populous than the US.

China’s approximately 10M sq. km. If an average warhead has a devastation area of 100 sq. km (10 km x 10 km), that’s going to require 100,000 nukes, vastly more than we have. But the population is clustered, as are production centres etc.

So how badly could the US devastate China? Sufficiently badly for them to take pause?

We could nuke them back to the stone age. All major cities, industries, seaports, and airports would be utterly destroyed. Hundreds of millions would die in the initial nukes, and then hundreds of millions more would die from starvation.

Wouldn’t we have massive fallout in the western continental US a week later? The gulf stream does go from west to east in the northern hemisphere.

Well the 12 largest cities in China have a population of 111 million among them. The next 188 have well over 200 M. So 200 nukes will kill about 1/4 of the population. Of course they coule retaliate by all jumping off a chair at the same time.

from here

I am sure that there would be huge problems for the US if it decided to launch such an attack. They call it mutually assured destruction for a reason.

Forget the hoi polloi. All we’d have to do is target their communication/transportation networks. The decline in population would be a fairly meaningless side effect.

Obliterating a single city is generally enough to make most nations take pause.

Or retaliate, if capable.

Yeah, good point.
COULD they retaliate worth a flying goat?

Even without a nuclear conflict, the United States would crush China in a conventional war. Several advantages would bring a US victory:

Naval power: Our navy has a full-load displacement over ten times that of China’s (cite), and we have 24 aircraft carriers to China’s zero aircraft carriers. With air power increasingly relevant, aircraft carriers are generally considered the most important tools in
conventional warfare today, and our carriers alone could probably cause significant damage to China. Some analysts argue that China lacks the ability to project power even out to Taiwan due to the lack of an offensive air force and blue-water navy (cite).

**Forward Basing: **In addition, our close ties with many nations in the region, including Japan, Thailand, India, Singapore, and Vietnam, would enable us to maintain forward basing which would put China on the defensive (cite). There is little chance of China gaining access to similarly local bases from which they might strike at the US heartland.

**The Economy: **Furthermore, the United States has a significant economic advantage so that any sustained conflict would tip in the favor of the Americans. China’s economy is based on exports to the western world, and a war would almost certainly draw embargoes from western Europe, shutting down much of China’s economic potential.

**Oil: **China doesn’t have access to domestic oil supplies either, and a Navy blockade on oil imports, which would not be terribly difficult to sustain given our enormous naval advantage, could immediately bring the Chinese economy and military to a standstill (cite). Planes, tanks and ships don’t move without oil.

**Technology: ** Chinese leaders themselves acknowledge that the United States’ significant advantage in information warfare would mitigate any advantage that China has in sheer manpower (cite). Our technology allows us to get past virtually all air defenses China currently holds, and we would be able to use satellites to identify weak spots in China’s massive coastline. China is just so damn big, it’s nearly impossible to defend all of it, and information technology increases our ability to exploit that fact. In addition, the American advantage in long-range precision weaponry means that the United States is capable of waging a war while remaining out of range of Chinese forces entirely - a huge advantage. China’s missiles, on the other hand, are virtually all ground-based, so that airstrikes could take them out, are short- and medium-range, so that they couldn’t strike the United States homeland, and lack the guidance capability to strike moving targets like American ships at sea or carriers(cite).

**Experience: **China has not fought a major war since Korea (where the US Air Force pummeled the PLA), while the United States has had plenty of conflicts to learn and grow a competent staff. Practice may not make perfect, but it’s much better than sitting on the bench doing nothing for decades (cite).

And don’t let Iraq fool you. The United States Pacific Command (PACOM) has many more warships, submarines, and troops than the US Central Command which is in charge of the Middle East (cite). In fact, CENTCOM borrows most of its troops from PACOM.

Now, let’s say the conflict went nuclear. Would they have a chance? Probably not.

China has all of 30 ICBMs which haven’t been updated for 25 years. They are unfueled and unarmed - basically, they are falling apart (cite). Also, remember from above that China lacks the technology for precision guidance systems, so these nukes, if launched, probably wouldn’t even hit their targets. These figures of only 30 ICBMs are probably quite accurate. The US intelligence community is pretty damn good at finding nukes - Iraq proved that, if anything, we overestimate our rivals’ nuclear arsenals.

In addition, China has never assigned nuclear missions to any of its planes, and its sole ballistic missile submarine, the Julang-1, hasn’t been deployed (cite). This gives the United States a huge advantage on the nuclear level. The nuclear triumvirate of subs, missiles, and bombers gives us the capability to easily beat China. Subs and bombers are capable of taking out China’s missile silos within hours, which prevents nuclear retaliation. A single Trident submarine could deter China’s entire nuclear force seven times over (cite ) An attempt by Beijing to ready its nuclear arsenal in the midst of a crisis with the United States would amount to suicide.
The answer to your question then, is that the United States would win in a landslide. Perhaps in twenty years, China might be more capable. For today, however, they aren’t close to our military power.

I thought it took two.

One to take pause, two to unconditionally surrender.

A huge problem is that China holds a huge amount of our national debt. So we bomb the shit out of them and they say, sorry but we’re selling all of our bonds and we’re not going to show up at the next auction. The financial markets go into total turmoil and the financial system falls apart within hours. A worldwide depression and anarchy ensues.

Keep one thing in mind, it’s not about military might, it’s about money.

44% of US debt is held by foreigners, but most of that is held by the banks of the EU and Japan. China’s chunk is significant, but hardly enough to throw the world economy into chaos. I’m too lazy to look up the actual numbers right now, though.

Yeah, but keep in mind that our forces currently have something on the order of 4500 warheads for about 1100 megatons of yield ready to rock & roll. We have about another 4500 for about another 1100 megatons in storage (the inactive reserve).

Suffice to say, that between the Minuteman missiles, Trident missiles, air launched cruise missiles, and B-2 and B-52s, we could pretty much utterly destroy almost any valuable target in China, especially considering that it would be pretty much trivial to throw a GPS guidance tail onto the gravity nukes and make sure it hits exactly where we want.

The real casualties would come after the destruction, when the infrastructure is non-existent, and hundreds of millions of people starve, fight over scarce resources, die from fallout, etc…

I believe that China’s food supply is also vulnerable to attack. They depend, I think, very heavily on rice for a major part of their diet.

If the US attacked with biological weapons that destroyed the rice crop, or even bombing the canals & locks that water the rice paddies (that was done some in Vietnam, though China is much bigger), we could greatly limit the food supply available in China.

As I understand it, the US food supply involves many more crops, so would be less vulnerable to this kind of attack.

Significant is singnificant. Poor profit projections from a Dow Jones company is enough to cause turmoil in the markets.

Bombing the Chinese, forget it. It would be like all of the major consumer suppliers saying on the same day that they were no longer going to ship to Wal-Mart, Target and K-Mart. Economically, it’s out of the realm of possibility.

Actually, China has (wisely, IMHO) not prescribed to MAD. Rather they decided to limit their arsenal to relatively few nuclear weapons and missiles, figuring that the threat of destruction of even a few large cities was adequate to deter anyone from using nukes on them, and that they wouldn’t then need to go to the expense to match the US’s and Russia’s mega-arsenals.

Sino-Vietnamese war (1979), Sino-Indian war (1962).

Exactly. The US economy will collapse if we don’t get our ration of Veg-a-matics, socks and knock-off golf clubs.

And yes, I am being facetious. The fact is, the way the world economy is structured, superiority is determined in the banks, not the battlefields.