Chinese Military is no match for US Army!

[british_patriot]

Do the Chinese have nukes?

[Richdog]

You can't take Nukes out of the scenario, this is not a selective weapon choice, Nukes would be involved end of story.

734834[/snapback]

Of course you can, because I was talking about the strength of the actual armies without nukes. Whether they would be used or not is not the point I was trying to make, I was just comparing them side-by-side.

[Commander CMG]

Well compare the armies without any hardware, no naval, air or tank support Just good old fashioned head to head troops on the ground.

[aquatus1]

Why would nukes necessarily be involved?

[Richdog]

Well compare the armies without any hardware, no naval, air or tank support Just good old fashioned head to head troops on the ground.

734903[/snapback]

Umm why? There is far more chance that two armies will fight without nukes, than without any military hardware whatsoever, lol. Sorry but is there some point you are trying to make that has so far eluded me besides what we already outlined above?

Not every conflict will resolve with nukes... they are a serious consideration that in todays age would take a LOT of careful thought to use. Any country that used nukes would risk the wrath of the rest of the world and it's surrounding countries and allies... not something to be taken lightly...

In WWII what the Americans had going for them is that they were the only ones with nukes, and they were not as powerful as those around today. Considering the awful devestation everyone now knows a nuclear bomb will wreak long-term, and the appalling amount of lives that would be lost... I just don't think the likelihood of a country using one is that large nowadays... not when everyone has one...

[Stixxman]

Well compare the armies without any hardware, no naval, air or tank support Just good old fashioned head to head troops on the ground.

734903[/snapback]

Well the advantage will still go to the US, I'm pretty sure the Chinese have been paying attention to current events recently and are marginally aware of what kind of success the US had against conventional forces. Its pretty demoralizing to watch them mop up a conventional force in a matter of weeks. The rank and file soldiers would more aware of the capabilities of their enemy than in previous times. The mind warfare alone could be crippling for the Chinese army. And as I said before communist armies are Sh^%.

[Blackleaf]

China threatens to nuke the US

Top Chinese general warns US over attack

By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington

Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 15 2005 00:03

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”. China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.

Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US.

Additional reporting by Richard McGregor in Beijing

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d...000e2511c8.html

[Blackleaf]

Well compare the armies without any hardware, no naval, air or tank support Just good old fashioned head to head troops on the ground.

734903[/snapback]

Well the advantage will still go to the US, I'm pretty sure the Chinese have been paying attention to current events recently and are marginally aware of what kind of success the US had against conventional forces. Its pretty demoralizing to watch them mop up a conventional force in a matter of weeks. The rank and file soldiers would more aware of the capabilities of their enemy than in previous times. The mind warfare alone could be crippling for the Chinese army. And as I said before communist armies are Sh^%.

735111[/snapback]

The "tough" American military is the one that is so cowardly it refused to go into London after the terrorist attacks, so how will it fare againy a 1 million strong Chinese army, the largest on Earth?

Edited July 15, 2005 by Blackleaf

[about:blank]

Well compare the armies without any hardware, no naval, air or tank support Just good old fashioned head to head troops on the ground.

734903[/snapback]

Well the advantage will still go to the US, I'm pretty sure the Chinese have been paying attention to current events recently and are marginally aware of what kind of success the US had against conventional forces. Its pretty demoralizing to watch them mop up a conventional force in a matter of weeks. The rank and file soldiers would more aware of the capabilities of their enemy than in previous times. The mind warfare alone could be crippling for the Chinese army. And as I said before communist armies are Sh^%.

735111[/snapback]

The "tough" American military is the one that is so cowardly it refused to go into London after the terrorist attacks, so how will it fare againy a 1 million strong Chinese army, the largest on Earth?

735383[/snapback]

Oh yeah, such cowards, and the british soldiers were just flocking to New York City after 9/11. How does responding to a terrorist attack in another country determine military actions during a war. Your theories are laughable Mr. Leaf

Edited July 15, 2005 by about:blank

[Stixxman]

What do you mean refused to go into london?

[british_patriot]

Why are American soldiers in Britain in the first place?

[Richdog]

Why would the American soldiers need to go into london?

[aquatus1]

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

Think about it. This guy is saying that he is willing to use nukes in retaliation for attacks on warships. How high up the chain do you think he is?

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

There's your answer.

Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US.

735381[/snapback]

Chances are pretty good that you can find some generals in the U.s. saying that they would use nukes in China too. The difference is that they aren't the ones who get to make that choice.

I do not believe that China or the U.S. would be willing to use nuclear weapons. Frankly, I do not believe that the Chinese even have the capacity to do so, but that is another topic altogether. On top of that, I even believe that if the Chinese did have the capacity, and did launch its missiles, the U.S. has resources to disable the missiles prior to them becoming a threat to the U.S.

[Stixxman]

The last thing anyone needed at that point was a bunch of soldiers from a foreign power in the city.

[Stixxman]

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

Think about it. This guy is saying that he is willing to use nukes in retaliation for attacks on warships. How high up the chain do you think he is?

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

There's your answer.

Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US.

735381[/snapback]

Chances are pretty good that you can find some generals in the U.s. saying that they would use nukes in China too. The difference is that they aren't the ones who get to make that choice.

I do not believe that China or the U.S. would be willing to use nuclear weapons. Frankly, I do not believe that the Chinese even have the capacity to do so, but that is another topic altogether. On top of that, I even believe that if the Chinese did have the capacity, and did launch its missiles, the U.S. has resources to disable the missiles prior to them becoming a threat to the U.S.

735532[/snapback]

I'm pretty sure your right there Aquatus1.

[__Kratos__]

Just saw this and thought some of you guys would be interested in this story.

House Rejects Bill on China Arms Sales

[Zeus]

I certainly do trust the official story on anything the media supplies. I trust the media to do the best ever job at giving the people the real and honest news on what is going on on every single political nes item, security issue related or not. I feel that honesty in every single one of their reports and will not take to fools telling me the the US senate and congress is a farce and i will not stand and let anybody tell me that Bush is not an honest and decent american man. Look at him. Pure US gold. I can see his powerful allies in the media doing just about everything for him to give the public the cleanest news ever after all, he says and they are sacked, he is the presedent.

[aquatus1]

Ah, so this is actually all just another conspiracy...

[PadawanOsswe]

Well compare the armies without any hardware, no naval, air or tank support Just good old fashioned head to head troops on the ground.

734903[/snapback]

Well the advantage will still go to the US, I'm pretty sure the Chinese have been paying attention to current events recently and are marginally aware of what kind of success the US had against conventional forces. Its pretty demoralizing to watch them mop up a conventional force in a matter of weeks. The rank and file soldiers would more aware of the capabilities of their enemy than in previous times. The mind warfare alone could be crippling for the Chinese army. And as I said before communist armies are Sh^%.

735111[/snapback]

The "tough" American military is the one that is so cowardly it refused to go into London after the terrorist attacks, so how will it fare againy a 1 million strong Chinese army, the largest on Earth?

735383[/snapback]

thats because there wasnt a reason for us to go into london. cowardly? no

Edited July 16, 2005 by PadawanOsswe

[Dr. Strangehug]

I apologize for any remarks that were unwarranted or seemed too American in content... ....like I said....I'm from rural Texas and it gets a little red-blooded and conservative down here......anyways....I apologize.

I agree that the U.S., in my opinion probably has some tricks up its sleeve in regards to disabling or "shooting down" incoming nuclear missiles from China(space-based perhaps?).......I know that the U.S. military is working on a large plane with a laser that intercepts missiles......frying them before they can reach their targets.....here's the version that's on the ground..

Anti-missile laser cannon jointly tested by Israel, US

JERUSALEM (AFP) Apr 30, 2004

A joint US-Israeli test of an anti-missile laser cannon was partially successful, the Israeli defense ministry said Friday.

"The trial was conducted at the White Sands US army base (in New Mexico). In accordance with the principal objective, we managed to locate the missile" and track it, "without being able however to attain our secondary objective, which was to destroy it," the statement said.

The statement added that "the trial consisted, first and foremost, in locating the missile and trace it," and only "incidentally" to neutralize it.

The test was part of the THEL/MTHEL (Tactical High Energy/Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser) project on which the United States and several Israeli armament firms have been working since the late 1990s.

The MTHEL (a mobile version of the THEL with a lesser range) has already successfully been tested against Katyusha rockets fired individually or in salvos.

Experts say the THEL/MTHEL's most interesting feature, compared with a classic anti-missile missile, lies in its low operating costs and ability to be repeatedly fired at short intervals.

Israel views the MTHEL as a good way to protect itself against Katyusha rockets, typically fired across its northern frontier by the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah on its northern frontier.

All rights reserved. Copyright 2003 Agence France-Presse. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by Agence France-Presse. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of Agence France-Presse.

Source

We've also had the Patriot missile defense system and the Phalanx anti-missile gun for some time....all pretty impressive....not %100 effective but who knows what they have in secret........

Here's pics and links pertaining to the Patriot and Phalanx...

Source and Info

Source and Info

[Commander CMG]

Well compare the armies without any hardware, no naval, air or tank support Just good old fashioned head to head troops on the ground.

734903[/snapback]

Well the advantage will still go to the US, I'm pretty sure the Chinese have been paying attention to current events recently and are marginally aware of what kind of success the US had against conventional forces. Its pretty demoralizing to watch them mop up a conventional force in a matter of weeks. The rank and file soldiers would more aware of the capabilities of their enemy than in previous times. The mind warfare alone could be crippling for the Chinese army. And as I said before communist armies are Sh^%.

735111[/snapback]

The "tough" American military is the one that is so cowardly it refused to go into London after the terrorist attacks, so how will it fare againy a 1 million strong Chinese army, the largest on Earth?

735383[/snapback]

thats because there wasnt a reason for us to go into london. cowardly? no

736147[/snapback]

Yeh right nice guess.

Thousands of American servicemen and women based in Britain have been banned from entering London in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

Members of the US Air Force stationed at two RAF bases in Suffolk were instructed not to go within the M25 until further notice.

Matt Tulis, a spokesman at RAF Mildenhall, said the directive was issued to 10,000 personnel in the aftermath of the bombings and was considered the most effective measure to protect their troops.

"We are are concerned about the safety of our folks and are trying to do what we can to protect them," he said. "This is the best course of action right now."

Mr Tulis said the instruction was also issued to give the British authorities and officials the chance to "do their job" in the aftermath of the atrocity.

The instruction involved around 5,000 servicemen based at RAF Mildenhall and a further 5,000 based at RAF Lakenheath.

Staff Sgt Jeff Hamm, at RAF Lakenheath, said: "Because the attacks were so recent there is an uncertainty as to the reasons why and how imminent the threat is right now.

"Obviously it is in the interests of the air force to ensure its personnel are as vigilant and as safe as possible."

Asked whether he thought the directive may send out a negative message to Britons, he insisted the US military did sympathise with them, particularly having experienced the September 11 terrorist outrage.

"While it's important for some to carry on business as usual, the interests in keeping the air force out of harm's way until we have a bit more knowledge about about what has happened is greater than the need to send them back into the city," he said.

The directive was issued to all active servicemen and women at the two bases but their families were also "highly encouraged" to follow the same guidelines, Mr Tulis said.

[Richdog]

Yeah but that is pretty reasonable. The US military stationed in the UK don't NEED to be on station in London, and the USA is naturally concerned for it's troops abroad... how is that a cowardly thing? Do they want some widows or grieving fathers just for the sake of a shopping trip into London when there may be bombs going off?

It's natural concern for troops abroad that ARENT SEEING ACTION... i'm sure if they were ordered to go into London to support our troops they would.

[Commander CMG]

I don't remember saying that was a cowardly thing, I posted it because Paddo had no idea why they were banned from going to london.

[Richdog]

And I was just following on from that explaining why I didn't think it was cowardly, I was just following on form what you said... not aiming it at you...

[Commander CMG]