Who would win in a war against China and America?

Question

without any help from allies.

Answer 1

You didn't give any specific or an estimated dateline. Assuming that China and the United States go to war 10 years from now, its one that's going to end in a stalemate. Why do I say that? I'll break it down to short points, then I'll give the detailed explainations.

Firstly, the Sino-US war is going to be fought over the coastal shorelines of China, straddling the southern edge of the Sea of Japan, the Straits of Taiwan, the fringes of the Pacific Ocean, and the South China Sea.

The U.S Navy will most likely deploy its carrier battle groups from the 7th PACFLT (Pacific Fleet). The initial OOB (Order of Battle) for the Navy would consist of two main objective, first to secure the sea lines of communication (LOC), and secondly to blockade the PLAN (People's Liberation Army Navy) Eastern Fleet.

For the U.S Navy, this will be a somewhat easier task, due to its superior technology and experience of blue water (deep open ocean) operations. Carrier air wing would provide combat air patrol [offensive and defensive], C3 command & control of the air battlespace, long range strike operations against naval surface targets initially. U.S submarines [Los Angeles and Virgina class SSN] would conduct unlimited anti-submarine warfare against PLAN's submarine assets.

Other U.S Navy surface assets (Guided Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates) would also conduct operations as stated above, as well as interdicting PLAN naval units. Due to the naval doctrine of stand-off engagements, most of these battles would involve long range strikes utilizing aircraft like Hornets employing Harpoons, or ship launched Harpoons, Tomahawk TAASM (TActical Anti Ship Missile), and in some instances, Standard SM-3s. Most of these attacks would be carried out by the Ticonderoga class and the Arleigh Burke class Guided Cruisers and Destroyers. The newer Zumwalt class [currently designated the DD(X)] would probably number less than 4 being deployed.

Once the initial objective is completed, the U.S Navy would be called upon to conduct shoreline operations, something that the U.S Navy is currently less comfortable with. Assuming the Zumwalt class is deployed by that time, it's role will be switched to littoral operations [littoral combat operations is one of the initial design criteria]. Amphibious assets (which includes the U.S Marine Corps) will begin shore landing and forced entry assault operations. This will also be one of the most crucial and difficult phase of the entire naval campaign.

The PLA currently fields more than a million strength army, of which 210,000 are deployed as marines under Shenyang Military District. Of this figure, 8,000 are also equipped for assault operations, with the remaining as reserve assets. This translates to roughly at least a 5-to-1 ratio against U.S Marines. The PLA fields 6,200 tube artillery pieces, 3,700 MBT (Main Battle Tank) 4,100 APC (Armored Personnel Carrier) on the eastern coastline alone. That is at least 4 times the entire firepower a MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) can be brought to bear. Hence, a landing would be generally executed at nightfall for tactical reasons to minimize casualities.

Army assets in this case would generally be deployed from South Korea (assuming it is allowed by the South Korean leadership). Otherwise, unless a beachhead or an airfield is secured, U.S Army assets will not be able to play a part on the early stages of the conflict.

Once the battle shift from the sea to land, the U.S military will have a hard time maintaining its advantage mainly for the following reason:

1) the geographical terrain is too large to maintain constant overwatch;

2) all available assets will be initially tied to defensive operations until additional units can be brought in, either via maritime or airborne transports;

3) U.S Air Force assets will also be limited to defensive operations and defensive support;

4) at this phase of the conflict, the air campaign will kick in, namely:
- defensive operations (lasting anywhere from 10 weeks to 14 weeks)

- offensive operations (unlimited timeframe)

4.1) ground activities will be limited to defensive and minor offensive operations.

Note that I didn't mention any major offensive operations. This is because it is simply impossible for the U.S Joint Forces to control and maintain a large area without sacrificing at least 5% of its forces for vanguard and rearguard duties. MP (military police) units alone are simply not adequate for this task due to the vast geography of the area. The most feasible action would be either to occupy Beijing or to cut it off from external help to force a resolution.

Even having said that, it is still not likely that either one side would win. U.S forces would ultimately have to be withdrawn, units have to be rotated etc. Control would in the end have to be returned to the local populace and its newly elected interim government (similar to post-Saddam Iraq).

If you are wondering like most people do, US will still maintain the technological edge (China is at least 20 years behind by current pace and standards).

The current American military is still superior in terms of the quality of training, experience, and innovations being made.

The PLAN Navy has very limited experience in deep water operations. The surface assets have limited experience in long range naval engagements. While its newer class of destroyers acquired from Russia will pose a larger threat, its numbers are not large enough. Its submarine fleet is at best suited only for close in coastal defense operations. In a fair fight, the U.S Navy will prevail.

[Likewise, its [PLAN] navy is also not prepared for a amphibious assault on the Republic of Taiwan. It does not have enough assets to transport its troops across the Straits of Taiwan, and it does not have enough navy assets to escort and protect the vulnerable troop transports. Naval aviation assets, which will be mentioned later below does not have the range or capability to provide 24-hr protection. In short, its amphibious assets are doomed to failure from the moment it started sailing.]

The PLAN's Aviation assets consist of navalized Fulcrums, Flankers, and Floggers. Almost all the pilots have no experience in aerial tanker operations and it also does not have enough of tankers (currently only 1 IL-76A leased from Russia is retrofitted as a tanker trainer). Even its indiginious fighters are short legged birds, with probably only 20 - 25 mins of time on station (combat time). Chinese pilots are currently daytime fighters, and the U.S Navy and Marine aviation assets would be deployed most likely to fight at night.

The only obvious advantage the PLA (People's Liberation Army) has is its numerically superior army and aviation assets, hence making an all-out prolonged fight for the U.S ground forces a huge disadvantage and a losing proposition.

Answer 2

The way that question is worded it sounds like it is China and America against the World. Of course if China and America were teamed up against the world as a team they would win. China has a huge population and with the military superpower of America and the technology it would be unbeatable.

I think you are really asking China against America. At this point it would still be America. America still is very advanced. China is starting to own America by purchasing bonds when America purchase the cheap products by living the walmart way of life. They laugh a Americans as they purchase the cheap products and they purchase gold with the money. Yeah there are still a majority of poor exploited Chinese people, but China is buying America a little at a time.

Someday the answer may be different. China steals technology from America all the time. American Business does not always want to set up in China because some technology is stolen. That is true of the valuable high tech stuff like Intel.

Someday they will be launching devices at us with our own technology. Check back later and see who is the superpower as America get lazy and dumb.

Answer 3

Neither. The US and China are in a symbiotic relationship. We need their mass produced cheap goods, they need our hard currency which they can turn around and spend it elsewhere.

This is why there is a trade deficit between the two countries.

If China and the US go to war and it is nuclear, we are pretty much screwed. At the very least, it will disrupt our economy because we will not be able to afford the things we will have to produce on our own to offset the loss of commerce with China. Worst case scenario is we all die of course.

If the war doesn't go nuclear then it is US, Russia, NATO, Taiwan and Japan v. mainland China. You do the math. Russia, Taiwan and Japan have to take our side. If we are taken out of the equation then mainland China will feel they can do whatever the hell they want to and try to invade Siberia (read Tom Clancy's The Bear and The Dragon for an amusing what-if of that scenario).

Answer 4

Looking through the answers here, I noticed that everyone who showed patriotism in their country and saying that America would win, got negative votes. Those who sided with China got posative votes. I have even seen a few answers that bash America and make fun of it...by Americans.

Here is my answer - We have already lost every war in the future. When Americans stop believing in their country, we have lost before any war has begun. First, we will lose a war, then our freedom.

What will those that are hating America now think then? Because it will be too late for apolagies.

Answer 5

Actually, my opinion is that blah, blah, blah. Let's not play the what if war game anymore ok? Unless we get to attack France! They really suck and don't deserve their own country anyway.

It's amazing how many people think with a Napoleonic mindset and feel that a countries military strength can be measured in terms of manpower. In modern warfare technology, manufacturing capacity, and inteligence that reign supreme. So what if china can raise a billion people to be cannon fodder, it won't happen but it would make for a fun video game.

Answer 6

If nuclear weapons were involved there would be no winners. It's called M.A.D. mutual assured destruction. If it were conventional weapons the U.S. has the upper hand because of it's location between 2 oceans and friendly neighbors whereas China has U.S allies on one side and 1 ocean allowing the concentration of U.S. troops. Hopefully we will never see that scenario, the loss of human life would be devastating. Iraq and Viet Nam should have shown the world that you can bomb a country into submission but trying to conquer the population is impossible.

Answer 7

That depends. If it's on our soil, we'd hold an advantage over them. We live here. This is our land. They don't know it as good as we do. Especially in good ole Dixie, me and my southern brothers would MASSACRE the chinese soldiers, and send their bodies drifting across the ocean, back to the scumbag land of China where they come from!
I do believe we might win, simply because we fight for our liberty, while them scumbag commies only fight for a dictator who cares none 'bout human life. So if china wants a war, we'll just have to butcher them ALL and spare NONE of the chinese soldiers!

Answer 8

As one of the six old towns in China, Beijing has been one's heart and heart of politics through the duration of its long history and subsequently there's an unmatched wealth of finding to delight and interest travelers while they investigate the city's old previous and fascinating modern growth, know more with hotelbye . Now in time, Beijing it is now certainly one of the most used travel locations on earth and the places lice Yunju Temple or Summer Palace are definitely in to the reason why for what Beijing worth visited. Beijing Summer Palace is the biggest elegant Garden in China.

Answer 9

Noone will win by the time both countries fight they will be nothing left in either country. America proved they can use an nuclear bomb also china proved they can win wars too

Answer 10

Other U.S Navy surface assets (Guided Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates) would also conduct operations as stated above, as well as interdicting PLAN naval units. Due to the naval doctrine of stand-off engagements, most of these battles would involve long range strikes utilizing aircraft like Hornets employing Harpoons, or ship launched Harpoons, Tomahawk TAASM (TActical Anti Ship Missile), and in some instances, Standard SM-3s. Most of these attacks would be carried out by th

Answer 11

a war AGAINST China and America??? That's fighting 1/4 of the world population!!!

Or do you mean a war BETWEEN China and America, as the first answerer seems to have assumed? In that case either America by nuclear power, and if they restrain from using that, probably China by sheer numbers...