Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined by China - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined by China (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 1/22/2008 10:59:56 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
They would never land troops on the soil of this country. We would fight them street to street and kick their asses back to China.

At least, I would end up with a full auto AK that I have wanted, when I pull it out of one of their dead troops hands.

Good point. There will be lots of Chinese AK's to be had. Never fired and only dropped once.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:00:17 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does anyone here believe we don't have the SAME type of documents prepared for a What If scenario? That we don't have a plan already set to deliver a tactical package?

It should be no surprise that China has this. While we may be the best at waging war, they have been doing so for thousands of years longer than we have.

peace,

Dean

How many wars did China actually fought in the last 15 years.

None that I know of, but they did fight US troops in Korea and Vietnam, as well as supplying arms and munitions to the North Koreans and communist Vietnamese.

I actually wouldn't mind if the idiots tried invading the mainland US. There's a marginal chance of my getting my hands on a battlefield pickup if they do.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:11:18 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Don't we have "hypothetical" plans to attack pretty much every nation on earth?

Not that we ever plan on doing it, but we have people whose job it is to make sure we're prepared for any and all possibilities.

I imagine the Chinese are no different. Same as the Russians.

+1
I think most countries have plans to attack any potential enemies.
Even Sweden had plans to attack ports on the soviet side of the Baltic during the Cold War if the russians would have been preparing for an invasion.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:11:58 AM EDT

[#4]

i think they underestimate our "rally around the flag" instinct. It's still alive and well. Reference the few months after 9/11... we wanted to bomb the crap out of ANYONE, and anyone who disagreed sure didn't want to be seen in public. It's only after a prolonged fight against an enemy that we don't see as an equal to us that the public gets impatient.

And the biggest question-- how would China finance a war against the US? All their money is based on the strength of the US dollar. Their "Fort Knox" is full of US paper currency. The majority of their trade is with the US. They hold a substantial portion of our national debt. If we go down, China is first in line to come with us.

I'm not worried about the Chinese.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:16:29 AM EDT

[#5]

Fuck Mexico, check
Fuck China, check.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:19:51 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
i think they underestimate our "rally around the flag" instinct. It's still alive and well. Reference the few months after 9/11... we wanted to bomb the crap out of ANYONE, and anyone who disagreed sure didn't want to be seen in public. It's only after a prolonged fight against an enemy that we don't see as an equal to us that the public gets impatient.

The country did not "rally around the flag" when the Marine barracks were bombed, they did not 'rally around the flag" when the Cole was bombed. That is why China will not attack any of the 50 states. They will just destroy our interest abroad and our friends.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:19:52 AM EDT

[#7]

Do the Chinese have a special American only EMP weapon that only affects the electronic equipment of America and its allies?

I imagine that the EMP attack affecting our shit would likewise affect theirs, thus blinding them too. Or am I missing something?

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:22:52 AM EDT

[#8]

The store shelves of Britain said made in Germany in 1913. Didn't stop any war. I do think there military suffers from too much ego. There idea of a big fight was the tiananmen square massacre. No matter how gullible are politicians are, how much manufacturing we lost, or how many Paris Hiltons we are stuck with America is never going to be weak. America can also reverse any temporary weakness no matter the obstacle, and Americans love a good challenge.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:24:35 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
It is not however an incorrect assesment. This is nothing new. Vietnam's massive casualties for little or no measurable gain forever tarnished the nation's view of acceptable losses. Gulf War 1's incredible victory with very few losses gave people the impression that war was no longer dangerous for our side in the modern era.

The relatively light losses of the current conflict are perceived by the masses as shockingly horrendous and pointless, while ignoring the fact, that the scope of the conflict, and holding of territory with so few combat related losses is unparalleled in human history.

China's calculation of public sentiment in this regard is likely spot on.

There would be one *BIG* difference here. In this case we would have a country which attacked us. With a country you can declare war.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:26:54 AM EDT

[#10]

Remember the Maine, forget about WW1, then along came the Hawaiian Island and PEARL HARBOR. We didn't even know if we had a Navy to fight with, but we went on the win a two front World Conflict! Hello China, let's be friends and live in mutually assured peace.

F'n idiots think this way.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:27:19 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
The store shelves of Britain said made in Germany in 1913. Didn't stop any war. I do think there military suffers from too much ego. There idea of a big fight was the tiananmen square massacre. No matter how gullible are politicians are, how much manufacturing we lost, or how many Paris Hiltons we are stuck with America is never going to be weak. America can also reverse any temporary weakness no matter the obstacle, and Americans love a good challenge.

the only thing that worries me is another generation or two of liberal bullshit and we'll be as limp wristed as the british. Talk about a once proud nation reduced to, for the most part, a bunch of sally pants sissies in the course of 20 years or so. 150 years ago they were the greatest empire the earth had ever known. 70 years ago they stood up to an entire continent full of battle hardened Nazis-- and won. Now they are banning samauri swords.

It is true the American spirit will be hard to kill off, but in many places in this country it's sure on life support.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:32:31 AM EDT

[#12]

The EMP thing rather baffles me, our early warning and tracking radars are all EMP hardened. Also our shinny new toy, the national BMD system is hardenend as well with the X-Band radars and silos linked by thousands of miles of hardened cables.

If they used a nuclear device, even in an ASAT or EMP capacity I think our only option would be to launch a counter-force retalitory strike against their Silos and 2 permanently docked boomers. Given the numbers of launcher currently deployed by the PRC that is certainly within our technical capability. Especially combined with NMD the PRCs limited number of launchers (vulnerable to a disarming first strike) and geogrpahy (places sea based missile defense close to the flight path of the missiles).

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:34:12 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
And besides, they may be able to screw over USAF aircraft, but the parts of the USAF that exist underground will turn a few keys and press a few buttons...

Delivered in 30 minutes or the next one is free!

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:34:13 AM EDT

[#14]

As long as we still have a gazillion warheads, we'd be 'very' sore losers

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:37:12 AM EDT

[#15]

Ya but our gizillion warheads are disappearing fast as part of our treaty with russia. We only have about 3000 active warheads and a diminishing boneyard.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:38:17 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
As long as we still have a gazillion warheads, we'd be 'very' sore losers

That will be until about 2020 unless we get out of the comprehensive test ban and this 'no new nuke' mentality. The stockpile stewardship program is a joke without testing and unless we want to be stuck with the current generation of weapons indefinetly we need to start running new development programs so the nuclear preisthood at the Q divisions of Lawrance Livermore and Los Alamos don't die out.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:41:10 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Ya but our gizillion warheads are disappearing fast as part of our treaty with russia. We only have about 3000 active warheads and a diminishing boneyard.

The cap is on deployed warheads, the SAR treaty (which expires in 2010) only covers removing warheads from launchers, we can have as many RVs as we want waiting to get loaded onto their boosters so long as they don't leave their storage bunkers. This was a very important provision for us since we no longer have the capacity to produce warheads in series. (Lawrance Livermore and Los Alamos have the capacity to produce and certify 1 or 2 new physics packages a year, a very limited capacity, thank you EPA for shutting down Rocky Flats)

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:45:56 AM EDT

[#18]

I believe that if they did attack us it would not be on American soil. This would also bring the casualties into account since the fight would be "over there"

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise

Downed Spy Plane Takes Sino-U.S. Relations To New Level

Regarding any damage their economy might take, I do not beleive for a minute that would faze China if they felt they could supercede America as the regional superpower. Remember they still hurt over The Boxer Rellion and what came of it. However, I think Japan and all her robots would jump in to challenge China for regional domination.

Posted: 1/22/2008 11:50:35 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Comments?
-K

Yeah. This:

Quoted:
It’s designed to strike America’s military suddenly, stunning and stalling the Air Force more than any other service. In a script written by Chinese military officers and defense analysts, a bruised U.S. military, beholden to a sheepish American public, puts up a small fight before slinking off to avoid full-on war.

Is a really, really stupid strategy. We Americans still love a good fight.

ESPECIALLY when attacked first.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:03:32 PM EDT

[#20]

I like the reference to S hitting the fan in 2012 when they have their elections.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:05:07 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive” about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces. (“The U.S. experience in Somalia is usually cited in support of this assertion,” according to the Rand report.) Once this hard-and-fast assault on U.S. bases commenced, the Chinese army would “swiftly divert” its forces and “guard vigilantly against enemy retaliation,” according to a Chinese expert.

They are severely miscalculating US political reaction and public response.

There have been and will be major differences in public opinion between casualties sustained in operations initiated by the US versus casualties sustained by a act of bare aggression against the US.

If they think they can execute a sneak attack against US military forces with devastating consequences and then have the US shrink away from further conflict they are delusional. Does the name "Pearl Harbor" ring a bell?!?! Particularly if they light off a nuke in this kind of scenario this would not go well for them.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:10:02 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
The EMP thing rather baffles me, our early warning and tracking radars are all EMP hardened. Also our shinny new toy, the national BMD system is hardenend as well with the X-Band radars and silos linked by thousands of miles of hardened cables.

If they used a nuclear device, even in an ASAT or EMP capacity I think our only option would be to launch a counter-force retalitory strike against their Silos and 2 permanently docked boomers. Given the numbers of launcher currently deployed by the PRC that is certainly within our technical capability. Especially combined with NMD the PRCs limited number of launchers (vulnerable to a disarming first strike) and geogrpahy (places sea based missile defense close to the flight path of the missiles).

It gets better. No mention of Diego Garcia. What the flight time of a B-52 to CM range of China? What the flight time of a CM fired from a sub off-coast of China. What about Australia? Russia?

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:12:57 PM EDT

[#23]

If the want Tiawan they will just take it. If they try attacking us to take it they will be screwed.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:18:21 PM EDT

[#24]

Rodney King> Can't we all just get along? <Rodney King

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:19:14 PM EDT

[#25]

I think that Mike Tyson sums this up the best....."Everyone has a plan until I hit them"!

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:22:59 PM EDT

[#26]

+1..............Hurt enough Americans, no matter what the political persuasion the subscribe to, and the furor to destroy the Chinese will ascend to heights we have not seen since WWII..........and they would deserve it

Quoted:

Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive” about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces.

This is where they're wrong.

We're "abnormally sensitive" because A) we assign a very high value to human life, and B) because we don't see much point in sending our soldiers to far-away countries to fight people who cannot hurt us. That does not include a world superpower attacking us. We would become as united as we were after Pearl Harbor.

I'm not sure if they have decided that we really have changed too much from the Americans of 60 years ago, or if they believe that they could quickly consolidate their victories and make a counterattack look as fruitless as possible. If they sucker-punched us, too Taiwan and maybe a few other islands very quickly, then went into a defensive posture, it's possible we might be forced to accept that.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:29:12 PM EDT

[#27]

They dont stand a chacne against us.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:31:27 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
They dont stand a chacne against us.

i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb116/DD977GM2/GrassRifle.jpg

They don't plan to invade the mainland.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:39:05 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive” about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces.

This is where they're wrong.

We're "abnormally sensitive" because A) we assign a very high value to human life, and B) because we don't see much point in sending our soldiers to far-away countries to fight people who cannot hurt us. That does not include a world superpower attacking us. We would become as united as we were after Pearl Harbor.

i really really hope you're right about this.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:42:10 PM EDT

[#30]

They would suddenly be at war with South Korea, Japan, and the United States.

They would never dare to employ nuclear weapons in any capacity. The risk of escalation (which they would lose) would be entirely too great.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:44:32 PM EDT

[#31]

Anybody got the US military plan for armed conflict with China? Then we can make a real comparison.

I bet in the US military war college there is plan for war with every possible nation in the world, even Great Britain.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:44:54 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
They dont stand a chacne against us.

i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb116/DD977GM2/GrassRifle.jpg

They don't plan to invade the mainland.

Right. Nor do they need to.

-K

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:56:29 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
They would suddenly be at war with South Korea, Japan, and the United States.

They would never dare to employ nuclear weapons in any capacity. The risk of escalation (which they would lose) would be entirely too great.

The ROK would never participate in an alliance that included Japan.

I found this in the Washington Times.

PRC Developing Sub Launched ASAT.

Pentagon officials are increasingly worried that China's military is advancing its clandestine anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons program by building a submarine-launched direct-ascent missile system.

New information indicates the secret ASAT program, which Chinese leaders refused to discuss in recent meetings with visiting U.S. military leaders, will involve a space-capable ASAT warhead for the new JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile. The new missile is being readied for China's new ballistic missile submarine, called the Jin-class, or Type 094. The ASAT submarine will provide the ultimate in stealth weapons and could cripple U.S. satellites.

The reports about submarine ASAT basing followed comments by Gen. James E. Cartwright, the former U.S. Strategic Command commander and current vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told Congress last year the U.S. military is prepared to use conventional missile strikes on land-based Chinese ASAT launchers if Beijing began shooting down U.S. satellites.

China successfully tested a direct-ascent ASAT missile from a mobile ground-based launcher a year ago, sending thousands of pieces of debris from a destroyed weather satellite into low Earth orbit and threatening U.S. satellites and others.

The new information bolsters theoretical writings by Chinese military officials, which were disclosed in a report to Congress last year by Michael Pillsbury, a former Reagan administration defense official and specialist on China.

Mr. Pillsbury stated in his report, "An Assessment of China's Anti-Satellite and Space Warfare Programs," that China's sea-based and submarine-based ASAT were mentioned in 2004 by Liu Huanyu of the Dalian Naval Academy.

"Nuclear submarines are not only well concealed but can sail for a long period of time," Mr. Liu said. "By deploying just a few anti-satellite nuclear submarines in the ocean, one can seriously threaten the entire military space system of the enemy."

Surface ships also can be built for "anti-satellite operations," he stated.

Mr. Pillsbury's report was produced for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:59:33 PM EDT

[#34]

...and then there is the attack from within caused by electing the "Manchurian Candidate".

Posted: 1/22/2008 12:59:34 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined....

....anti-U.S. sucker punch strategy.

It’s designed to strike America’s military suddenly, ....
.....a bruised U.S. military, beholden to a sheepish American public, puts up a small fight before slinking off to avoid full-on war.

Didn't an Asian country who thought America weak and prone to cowering from sucker punches try this plan in 1941?

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:10:00 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Comments?
-K

Yeah. This:

Quoted:
It’s designed to strike America’s military suddenly, stunning and stalling the Air Force more than any other service. In a script written by Chinese military officers and defense analysts, a bruised U.S. military, beholden to a sheepish American public, puts up a small fight before slinking off to avoid full-on war.

Is a really, really stupid strategy. We Americans still love a good fight.

Not to mention that we were flying B2's (?) out of Missouri to fly strike-package sorties in Iraq, then returning to their base in MO. 40 hour round trip kick in Saddam's nuts.

If China really thinks they can take out ALL of America's strategic air assets they are woefully mistaken and in for one hell of a surprise when our bombing runs start.

Not to mention those SSBN's we have...

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:12:24 PM EDT

[#37]

china = complex air defense network # one zillion we brush off

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:15:22 PM EDT

[#38]

This is news why? We certainly have similar plans for attacking China and probably every other nation on earth.

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:18:53 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Why wouldn't they go after our aircraft carriers? Do the Chicom's have a substantial sub force to do so?

Our 11 CVNs and 10 amphibious assault carriers would be their primary naval targets. China is developing land-launched, anti-ship BALLISTIC missiles. Think coastal defense guns with a 1000 mile range. These would almost certainly go after our carriers.

Then they'd probably send their new 093 SSNs hunting for our subs. They'd keep their Kilos and 039 Song-class SSKs in the regional area, and if we managed to break through, would probably scramble their outdated Romeos and modified Romeos for last ditch swarm attacks.

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:21:47 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
I like the reference to S hitting the fan in 2012 when they have their elections.

it keeps coming up more and more. coincidence?

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:23:26 PM EDT

[#41]

Chinese AF versus F35s and F22s sounds like it might be fun.

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:23:28 PM EDT

[#42]

OST for later read.

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:24:16 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I like the reference to S hitting the fan in 2012 when they have their elections.

it keeps coming up more and more. coincidence?

Not after the History Channel show I saw last night it isn't!

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:38:27 PM EDT

[#44]

Sooner or later...probably later...we will realize the need for more subs, lets hope it will not be too late

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:39:29 PM EDT

[#45]

Taggage

Posted: 1/22/2008 1:43:14 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Chinese AF versus F35s and F22s sounds like it might be fun.

Not really. Can you say turkey shoot?

We'd run out of missile before they could hit us. They have 5,000 fighters, after all, maybe 1,000 of which are capable of running as a modern air force.

Posted: 1/22/2008 2:09:49 PM EDT

[#47]

I think the PLA does not plan on attacking the US head on. Their arms buildup is more about force projection and as a deterrent from the US fulfilling their treaty obligations whenever they decide to retake Taiwan. They just want to be armed enough so that the US will think twice about getting involved in what they feel is a domestic affair. Despite Iraq, Somalia, Vietnam, etc.. we are the bad ass in this planet. China and everybody know this. They know the US public doesn't like a fight with a lot of casualties. They also know however that sentiment completely reverses whenever somebody sucker punches us, witness Pearl Harbor and 9/11. It would be suicide for them to think the US military will shrink away from a fight if they attack us first.

I think the plan is, if they feel they need to retake Taiwan, they will do so but without attacking any of our overseas bases. They will have their forces close by just to intimidate anyone from trying to stop them. That's the reason for their arms buildup. Have enough forces out there to make anybody (not just us) from intervening.

Honestly, would anybody like us to get in a shooting war with China with the potential for a lot of American casualties if China decides to retake a rebel island province? I'm sure we would win in the long run, but after thousands of casualties and a torn up economy? Would we be willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters just to intervene in what is essentially a Chinese vs Chinese war? I'm sure the politicians will be on their soap boxes about this but for the most part, I think most Americans will prefer not to get directly involved.

Posted: 1/22/2008 2:23:16 PM EDT

[#48]

no time to read all 4 pages, but maybe thats why they're driving up metal (ammo) prices.

Posted: 1/22/2008 2:31:26 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I like the reference to S hitting the fan in 2012 when they have their elections.

it keeps coming up more and more. coincidence?

Not after the History Channel show I saw last night it isn't!

Nice. Four years of having the military gutted by a democrat congress + democrat white house, then war with China.

Didn't the red bastards have plans out a while ago about how to take over the mainland USA if they needed the space and resources? nasty bioweapons to depopulate the place iirc. Talk by generals that they'd have to do it.

Posted: 1/22/2008 2:35:53 PM EDT

[#50]

'The Plan' sounds great for starting a war, seems to be lacking on the winning part.

Not to mention, the US excels at "crushing our enemies and seeing them driven before us."

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined by China (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us