What would a war between the U.S. and China be like?

Factual Questions
21

Does China even have H-bombs? I was under the impression that they had at most a few dozen fission bombs, more powerful than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but far weaker than the fusion bombs we have. The kinds of bombs they have would cripple a large city, but not destroy it. If they got a few hits they could hurt us, but not enough to put us in a worse position than them, because you can bet we would unload on them if the used nuclear weapons on our cities, and each one of ours could flatten a 10 mile radius around ground zero and set fires 50 miles away.

I think if we did go to war with China they would not risk using their nuclear armament on us, it would be suicide. Their nukes are probably intended for intimidating their neighbors like India, South Korea, and the above-mentioned Taiwan.

22

Well, I did a bit of research after the post, and I see that I was wrong, China is estimated to have between 300 and 500 warheads, the article did not say whether these included any fusion bombs.

23

China has a very limited (20) number of ICBMs and a mostly outdated force of medium bombers which lack the range to threaten the mainland United States (no mid-air refueling, either). Pit that against roughly 1000 US ICBMs, plus a sizeable strategic bomber force with stealth and supersonic components. China’s one SSBN has to deal with an ocean full of very powerful US attack submarines, not to mention a fleet of markedly superior US SSBNs. If one side wants to start a nuclear pissing contest, it probably won’t be the Chinese. They will inevitably come out much worse. Some would argue, quite rightly, that everyone will come out the worse for an exchange. Even so, the Chinese force is small enough to be wiped out in a first strike. Not a position of strength.

On the matter of Taiwan, not even the Chinese think they’re ready for an amphibious assault. It’s a massive and costly proposition, an invasion on the same scale as the Normandy landings. The Chinese also don’t have the advantage of an overextended enemy blinded by clever intelligence operations. Not a pretty picture for the PLA.

All of that said, any decision to engage in war would almost certainly not be a rational one, therefore not governed by such rational considerations as avoiding armageddon.

24

This page, an analysis of China’s military capabilities, puts it rather well.

http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html

25

Will we actually GO to War?

I agree the Chinese are, shall we say, unpredictable at best, but we, the US, ARE their #1 largest trading partner, by a huge margin.

Look around- see how many things in your house you can find that have “Made in China” stamped on it.

Just sitting here at my desk- admittedly pretty cluttered- I have a Coleman flashlight, my cheapie PC speakers, the CD rack, my cordless phone…

I read an article the last holiday season… It stated that a huge percentage of Holiday-related foofraw we, as Americans, use each year, is made in China. Strings of lights (you think WE could make them for $1.67 a box?) those cardboard Santa and skeleton cutouts for your door, the kid’s mask-and-jumper costume kits, artificial trees, most ornaments, those soft plastic swords and pitchforks for costumes, crepe-ball turkeys, chintzy Santa suits…

The bottom line is, as much as China would like to keep rattling it’s sabers, if we, collectively, decided to cut off ALL purchases of Chinese trinketry, they’re out what, tens of billions of dollars a year?

And just where would they GET the money to build that massive amphibious assault force or those fancy-shmancy MIRVs if we stopped buying their crap just because it’s cheap?

26

Thanks for the lead Manhattan… I have to say that I’m a tad disappointed that more nations don’t resort to stool jumping as their way of dealing with diplomatic incidents. As Cecil points out, the maximum damage that China could inflict on anyone is 500 pounds of TNT equivalent.
Give everyone stools with shorter legs and presumably this could be reduced still further. (Better still, avoid diplomatic incidents in the first place and try sitting on the stools!)
The world would be a somewhat more tranquil place methinks and we could spend our time on more worthwhile projects (like the elimination of disease, malnutrition, poverty etc.) than on the post-nuclear re-cycling of toxics.
I don’t mean to be rude, but some of the 'let’s nuke ‘em brigade’ sound as though they’ve been sniffing something toxic for too long.

27

I thought the world’s largest population belonged to India… :confused:

28

Excuse my ignorance about China, but it seems to me that all the U.S. has to do is put a trade embargo on China to bring them to their knees.
I mean, we buy so much useless stuff from them that we could easily just make ourselves or just buy elsewhere.
I’m pretty sure we are a very good source of income for their economy.

29

Another factor China might have to worry about if war broke out with the U.S is the possibility with having to deal with additional conflicts. Tibet, plus some of the western moslem minorities, might see this as a good time to rebel, India has disputes and might see this as a chance to avenge its loss to China in a 1962 border war, and even Vietnam briefly fought a border war with China a couple decades back.

30

According to the 2000 World Population Data Sheet:

China: 1,264,536,000

India: 1,002,142,000

Although I believe India are gaining, China having that one family-one child thing going on.

31

That may look kinda close but to put that into perspective and give an idea of the mumbers we are looking at here:

United States: 275,600,000 (from the same source shaolin used)

So, the difference in population between India and China comes close to equaling the entire population of the United States (and that’s just the difference between the two). Cecil’s article aside it one can begin to believe that stool jumping could actually be a viable weapon for them.

32

The link Trucido provided puts the lie to several points I made earlier so I should probably clear them up since this article is certainly a more authoitative source of info on this subject than I am.

  • I stated that I believed military doctrine called for a 10 to 1 attacker to defender advantage when attacking a well defended position. The article says doctrine calls for a 5 to 1 advantage.

  • I stated that China was working to improve its amphibious capabilities. The article states that China is in no way engaged in any serious capacity increases in this area (maybe a bit but nowhere near the level required to be of much concern).

  • I mentioned that China could bomb the crap outta Taiwan but that is probably overstated. The articel mentions that China possess enough missiles to sting Taiwan but almost certainly nowhere near enough to force capitulation from Taiwan. If China threw every missile they had against the island it would be equivalent to little more than a somewhat severe natural disaster which Taiwan has certainly weathered in the past. (This does not take into account nuking the country but even China probably isn’t foolhardy enough to use those to merely capture territory).

The article does back-up the notion that China really possesses nowhere near the military capacity to take the island by force and won’t for the forseeable future (10-15 years out).

33

Wow. 30+ posts from apparant military enthusiasts, and not one mention of Tom Clancy’s recent book Dragon and the Bear, which centres on a short war between China and Russia (backed by US).

In Clancy’s universe, the Chinese are crippled by (i) the overconfidence, (ii) a population so ready for greater democratic freedoms that the war becomes a great excuse for overthrowing the Communist regime.

I would hazard a guess that any confictw ith China would see the first full-on psy-ops mobilization via the internet. War has always ionvoled trying to demoralize the enemies’ troops in the field and their folks back home. How easy is that going to be over television and the internet?

I think that the ruling party would have as much trouble domestically as it would from the Americans, who could essentially sit back and launch cruise missles into the offices of gov’t leaders until their hearts were content.

But, as George W. would no doubt say himself on this issue:

“It’s important to handle the situation strategery, in odour to infect a peacific solution.” At least he symapnises and compassionates with the loss of the Chinese pilot :smiley:

34

I think you might be overestimating the reach of television and the internet in China, Pip, and the ability of the PRC’s leadership to both restrict incoming international news and to supply enough propaganda to keep anti-American sentiment running high.

Personally, if anything was to happen – and I don’t believe it will – I think it would be mostly fought in the air and at sea. The US would suffer some losses from PRC diesel-electric subs before effectively wiping out the Chinese naval forces. In the air domination would be almost total from an early stage, although not without some casualties. After that it would be cruise missiles and air raids on military targets. Land combat would be a big no-no.

Bearing in mind that I doubt it will come to violence, I think the most likely military scenario is a small-scale air raid on defences around the airfield (probably from F-117s on a long haul supplied from tankers, with more conventional attacks from carrier-based F/A-18s to follow up), with air cover close behind to tackle any Chinese fighters. Follow this up with a heliborne assault by Special Forces to free the crew and destroy the EP-3, then back to friendly ground and some desperate diplomatic efforts to quell inevitable anger. I don’t think America would gain many friends; I doubt even Britain would support such a move.

35

mattk, I like the way you think.

Speaking of Clancy books, Pip, how 'bout SSN?

It’s not about all-out war, but it does give you a pretty good idea as to what a surface and subsurface confrontation would be like.

36

China’s economy is based in international trade. So they
had to build a huge merchant marine. Then they had to
build a huge deep-water navy to protect their mm. But they
must have Taiwan to control the South China Sea, or it is
all for naught.

If I were China, the first thing I’d do is neutralize
Seattle (Bremerton) and San Diego. I would then
logistically own the Pacific Ocean. I would break the
(COSCO-managed) Panama Canal, so the U.S. Navy would have
to steam around Cape Horn, with no hope of refuel or repair
unless they steamed back again. By the time the U.S. got
its act together, I would own Taiwan and there wouldn’t be
a damn thing the U.S. could do about it.

37

mixcoatl:

Your idea is vastly oversimplified.

First, how does China achieve the attacks you are talking about? Short of nukes they have no means of pulling what you suggest off. China cannot effectively project their forces far beyind their territory. Nukes would be the only option here and if they did that they’d have to contend with an entire planet pissed off at them so bad move there.

Even if China did manage what you say you seen to be forgetting:

Hawaii
Japan
Australia
(a few other less important places)

The US would still be quite capable of conducting military operations in the pacific even with the loss of Seattle, San Diego andd the Panama Canal.

38

I don’t think the Panama Canal is used much for military operations at all, only freight. The US essentially maintains two seperate navies, one in each ocean.

My thoughts:

  1. At the beginning of the conflict, defensive positions would have to be established in Taiwan and South Korea. Intelligence and a few ships would have to be dispatched to Cuba, lest Fidel get any cute ideas, like sending raft-fulls of soldiers to invade Florida. :slight_smile:

  2. The Sixth and Seventh Fleets (I think those are the right ones) would commence destroying every Chinese ship in the water, and every Chinese naval base. By this point, the US would have the support of the UK, and maybe some other European powers. Taiwan and SK would maintain a defensive position.

  3. Naval bombers from the carriers and Air Force bombers from Okinawa, Honshu, and Hawaii would begin bombing their military infrastructure to high hell. Long range bombing flights would be launched from California. By this point, all of China’s command, intelligence, and radar infrastructure will have been destroyed, as well as all mainland Chinese military bases, and, just for kicks, their industrial cities.

  4. Only after those are completed, (and if it were desired) the US, along with the UK, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe, would commence a military buildup of unheardof proportions in Taiwan, Mongolia, India, Myanmar, the Phillipines, Russia, and Pakistan, and commence a D-day style amphibious and ground-based invasion of the mainland.

39

As I recall Vietnam and China had a brief war and China backed off muy pronto. The huge Peoples Army is probably vastly over-rated. Size ain’t everything, right ladies?

40

we coulkd destroy all of China; they could destroy only half of the U.S.

I guess this would be a pyrrhic (sic?) victory