In an all-out, no-holds-barred, Texas-cage-match kind of war. Taking into account all current political situations.
Who wins?
I think this one has been done before. Rather than make more guesses, you need to be more specific.
– Are other nations involved on either side?
– Is the conflict a US invasion of China, or vice versa?
Short answers:
If China is attempting to invade the US, no contest. The USN and USAF sinks anything attepting to cross the Pacific. There’ll be some losses to Chinese subs, enough to get the public baying for revenge, but not enough to genuinely scare the US. End result: no Chinese soldiers on US soil, Chinese air and naval forces non-existent. US reprisal raids on China are by air and missile only, taking out most Chinese hardware. However, the massive numbers of Chinese infantry and the command structure survive.
If the US attempts to invade China…again, the USN and USAF quickly destroy any Chinese opposition. US forces land pretty much unopposed, and then everything grinds to a halt. US forces repel any counterattack easily, but find it hard going against the massed infantry divisions. Sheer weight of numbers blocks significant progress, and as US casualties slowly but steadily mount and military supplies dwindle (i.e. stocks of missiles and artillery shells) the US public begins to question the attack. The sight of boys coming home in bodybags saps public support quickly (especially as the Chinese score no notable victories leaving the US looking for revenge) and the US leadership faces the possibility of massive economic (converting to a war economy) and social (attempting to bring in conscription) disruption to maintain the war effort.
Let’s see, China has more people, we’ve got better H-Bombs. Hmm…
Whatever the result, Taiwan will end up a cinder.
This isn’t at all likely today. Think 20-30 years from now. If China were to continue developing a strong, industrialized economy, put significant sums into her military buildup, strengthen international relationships with Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and other vulnerable countries in the far east, or say, even in South America, you’re looking at a significant threat, IMO. Our relationship with Europe is strained (and no, it isn’t just a simple matter of “It’s all Bush’s fault”, sorry) and due to contrary political philosophies is likely to be further strained in years to come. Admittedly my POV is pessimistic, but it’s clear to me that early signs are discouraging. A totalitarian government, such as China, with a huge population advantage over us, political philosophy directly at odds with our own, and the determination to win? Not to mention a uniform culture, again distinctly different from the US, and I’m convinced this would give them a decisive edge. Add to that in the interim a concerted drive to steal technology in all forms, influence friends, neighbors and allies, and we’re the king of the hill China needs to go after.
This is the trouble. Under socialism, this isn’t going to happen.
We live in a post-industrialist age. Silicon, not steel, is the growth industry. A strong centralized government is like a centralized economy - too slow to react to a market economy that changes, not year to year, but second to second.
The Gulf War is an example of a war between an industrial and a post-industrial country. The Iraqis had more guns, more tanks, more men under arms - and it was a turkey shoot.
China would be the one to start a war, probably by invading Taiwan. Then they lose - quickly and badly. Then they either pull in their horns, or threaten the US with nuclear missiles - and cease to exist as a nation.
The silly bastards are pushing their luck with their attack on our surveillance plane and stealing our nuclear secrets. Weren’t they watching when the USSR went down?
Regards,
Shodan
I think you are overstating the situation when you say that China is a socialist system. Its not so much a socialist system anymore (not when former Red Guards are now millionaire entrepeneurs) as a totalitarian system. Having said that, there are still enormous economic discrepencies and corruption which have a particularly communist tinge.
China is buying a lot of former Soviet hardware. Everyone freaked out when a company in Macau bought a Ukrainian aircraft carrier because they thought this was the lead in to the development of a Chinese blue water navy (apparently the damn thing is used as a night club/casino). So, with no navy of substance right now, a Taiwanese invasion is not imminent, let alone a US invasion.
As for a US invasion of China, I think the Japanese showed just how fruitless a task that is over a period of over 10 years, at a time when there was no central government worth speaking of, and resistance was maintained by two separate armies (the KMT and the CCP) with next to no co-ordination. The coast and eastern China were bloodbaths, and the Japanese never got near western China.
Much more likely is a dispute over Taiwan, in which China bombs Taipei, or a dispute with the Philippines or Japan over contested islands. In each case, an air war between the US and China might develop, depending upon the degree to which politics in the US permitted an offensive. I have no information on Chinese air strength.
Is it so certain? I’m not at all knowledgeable about China, but I believed they had a lot of subs in China Sea…
Once again, I’m not at all a specialist, but it doesn’t seem to me that China has “a uniform culture” at all…
says Shodan. Yes we were all watching, except you I think. The US didn’t beat the USSR in a war, remember? The Berlin Wall wasn’t accompanied by US tanks rolling into Moscow. In fact, the US and its allies didn’t beat the USSR at all. An internal change of system with a subsequent de-imperialisation doesn’t mean a “win”.
The “attack” on the US surveillance plane resulted in an apology from Dubya. Colin Powell has been on a state visit to China and was careful to smile and say that relations with China have never been better. So, who was pushing whose luck? Those air personnel on board that plane were lucky not to have been executed as spies.
The theft by the Chinese of nuclear secrets in the 1980s seems to me to be the result of US incompetance - see here and here. And Mr Wen Ho Lee was cleared.
I’m yet to see a country which would let the spy-planes of a potential ennemy flying around or miss a chance to steal its military secret…
And concerning the USSR, I’m sure they were watching very closely, and never forget it…
…and I’m suffering from UBB incompetance. Try this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_351000/351667.stm
Clairobscur makes a good point: China is slightly less ethnically diverse than Western Europe, but only slightly. In fact, China recently had war games out on its far Eastern border in order to send a message to the Uighar Islamic population out that way.
Shodan, I don’t disagree with regards to IT and its increasing use for (specifically here) military purposes. There are two ways to deal with that, as far as China goes. One - beg, borrow, or steal the technology. Two - develop ability to disrupt flow of information. Not so different from any other war, just the technological handicap. And, in a way, probably easier as distance wouldn’t be a hindrance. I didn’t spell it out, trying to cut to the chase, but it’s apparent that control of international communications, or should I say, the ability to interrupt said communications, reduces war to a conventional footing. I stipulate at this point that, imho, I don’t see this becoming a nuclear war, at least initially. This is where I believe SDI comes in. If China, say 25 years from now, is facing a US defense capable of destroying 90% of ICBM’s launched, a successful direct assault becomes less likely. More likely? A stepping stone of sorts, Taiwan being first, Japan, Philippines, and so on. Now, I know some who would like to believe that we’d jump all over any kind of aggressive act towards Taiwan, and I’d certainly like to think so, but I don’t believe it. If China, in the hypothetical future I’m drawing here, begins routine naval exercises in the Taiwan strait and turns that into an invasion force, I can see a done deal in no time. An initial violent show of force, followed by swift control of the island, with calm quickly restored. Who seriously believes we’ll attack, assuring many Taiwanese deaths to boot? I just don’t see it. Bear in mind, I’ve greatly over-simplified this just to illustrate a strategy that seems logical and feasible.
The more I think about it, the more likely I think it is that the US wouldn’t take the issue on Taiwan. Why? As Huntington points out in his book, The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of the World Order, since the end of the Cold War the US doesn’t engage in military confrontation with countries with nukes. China has nukes. It also has legitimacy - Taiwan is ostensibly a “rogue province”.
Regards China’s ethnic uniformity, my information tells me the Han ethnic group makes up 95% of the population and is considered the cultural mainstream. I’m certainly willing to accept further info, as I’m nowhere need an expert.
…nowhere near an expert. (Sheesh)
China is indeed statistically 95% Han (though Tibet, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Yunnan, etc. make me question this statistic). That does not make it monolithic; cultural differences between the north & south in China pretty much equal those differences between cultural differences in America, Germany, or Italy in a similar north/south dichotomy. Beijing is as different in attitude from Shanghai as New York is from San Francisco, and the Beijinger cosmopolitan world-view is as different from the world-view of a Hubei farmer as a Chicagoan’s attitude is from a downstate small-towner.
The difference is, to my mind, actually quite dangerous (I’m speaking culturally, not militarily, though both may be apt): China operates as if it were a monolith, has in many ways convinced itself that it is a monolith, and in many ways comes so close to being a monolith that we outside China will not question certain premises in a discussion such as this.
But what puzzles me more–and I’m speaking as someone who has essentially devoted his life, in various ways, to China–is the antagonistic view Americans have w/ China. While no one seems to be suggesting such a war, neither is anyone asking whether the US cld. defeat England in an all-out war.
A Cold War mentality is an out-dated mentality; moreover, it is, to me, a mentality that was insipid from the beginning. Even to hint at something of this callibre–a return to Cold War ethics–is offensive at best, idiotic at worst. China is not America’s enemy, is not the enemy of the West, but is, in fact, a complex entity more subtle & intricate than any what-if war scenario could begin to accomodate.
LRK
Too true. I’m a bit perplexed by that statistic too. I work with a guy from Tienjien north of Beijing - he’s a big Han guy who speaks Mandarin: a colleague from Shanghai, who is big boned and speaks Shanghainese: and local Hong Kongers who are small and speak Cantonese.
I think that is correct.
Sorry, but I disagree.
Cultural assertiveness and Western arrogance seem likely to bring China and the West into some sort of serious dispute sooner or later.
With Russia now relegated to the position of something economically on par with Portugal, and more or less happy to keep its buddies in the West on side, China is an exploding economic market run by an authoritarian regime, with strong memories of being under Western domination. It sees no reason to be subjugated to Western desires again. This is a source of friction.
China has territorial aspirations both along its borders (eg. it claims Mt Everest from Nepal) and at sea with several countries. Chinese assertiveness might mean that these claims are contested militarily. The West has a fearful mindset concerning “appeasement” following Hitler’s Germany’s expansion.
The US funds Taiwan’s defences, and has carrier groups moved near Taiwan in the past during Chinese military exercises to assist in Taiwan’s potential defence from the mainland. Chinese military assertiveness over Taiwan has a reasonable likelihood of bringing these countries into conflict.
US arrogance in dealing with Chinese sovereignty claims are equally likely to exacerbate any issue.
The other thing is that the (English language) Chinese press is just as suspicious and critical of the US as the US press is of China. I see this, and the recent “hacker wars” between Chinese and US hackers, as evidence of ground roots antipathy on both sides.
China is not as aggressive as Islam towards the West, but with China as the only remaining regional power with nuclear weapons and antipathy towards the West (aside from India, which ignores America rather than being antipathetic), it seems to me that conflict is likely.
Think of China this way, it is much more diverse than Eastern and Western europe. Sure, they may be 95% Han Chinese, but linguistically and culturally they are extremely diverse. There are literally hundreds of mutually incomprehensible dialects being spoken. Provinces are a lot like seperate states within a Federal system.
As for Taiwan, the debate never takes into account that Taiwan also has the bomb. IIRC, they have 6 nuclear power plants, a huge number of PhD’s, plenty of cash, an industrial base that has built jet fighters, and a huge neighbor that has at times been extremely threatening with a massive standing army and nuclear capability. China invades Taiwan, Taiwan takes out a few major cities, China leaves Taiwan as a radioactive dust spot in the pacific.
As for China undertaking a traditional invasion. It’s pretty likely that Taiwan could repel such a move at this time. After all Taiwan has been preparing for over 50 years for this eventuality. A more likely scenario is that China takes one of the small islands off of the Fujian coast. That would really up the stakes and throw down the gauntlet to Bush.
Just remember, Japan got mired down in a land war in China. The UN got mired down in a land war in Korea agianst Chinese and Korean troops. The US got mired in a land war in Viet Nam. The US could conventionally bomb major military, government and communication targets, but trying to take China in a ground war isn’t even worth thinking about. Sure, Chinese casualties would be in the hundreds of millions, but they can afford such a loss and would eventually take out the invaders.
Making China more properous through integration in the global economy reduces the risk of war every day.
The US defense budget is something like 20 times that of China’s. China has more ground troups but can’t even mass a large enough effort to invade Taiwan. If Taiwan can resist them they don’t hold a chance against the US. The US would strategically target infrastructure and economically ruin China, thus screwing the US as well as we have a large amount of trade with China. this is such a stupid debate. The cold war is over, I’m sorry guys there will be no more games on TV, the league has been dissolved, get the f*** over it. If you want to look at an actual enemy look toward the middle east. The mideast is gonna keep the US tied up for years at this point especially with our support for Israel. The way the mideast is turning the UN into an arab special interest group, I’d look to them for the next big threat. Besides, China stands to benefit so much from trade with the US as does the US. Both sides would be stupid to go to war.
There is no country on Earth that could win a war of aggression against the United States. Though China defeated us in the last two wars we fought with them in Korea and Vietnam.
Erek
Bingo. Nice caveat at the end.