Who would win...United States vs China?

Question

Just curious what others think.

Answer 1

US. No question. Even the Chinese admit this.

Please note that the prior answers lack any sort of analysis beyond "They have more people" - The one about national will makes a valid point. You don't state WHY we're fighting or the political situation at all, so I'm not going to include that in this analysis.

You'll recall the last time we 'surged' 4 CVBG (Aircraft carrier battle groups) into the Western Pacific in 2006- this was a signal to China. Even Chinese internal writers feel that they could handle, at most, 2 CVBGs - Bit of a rude slap to send 4.

We have 12.

They have no real Navy in comparison to the USN. No real submarine force (though it's growing), and what there is is mostly diesel boats - Quiet, but short ranged and slow. Only a few destroyers, no cruisers, no carriers, not much Sealift capability. Compared to USN SSN, Air Wing, and Surface Warfare groups, the Chinese Navy would be like sending a good High School football team to play the Denver Broncos.

They have a large Air Force, but nothing of the quality necessary to withstand the USAF, particularly with our Raptors, Nighthawks, and Spirits - Especially when it comes to pilot training.

Their Air Defense capability is also lacking.

Essentially, in very short order they would have no Navy and no Air Force. Without control of their coast or airspace, they would be unable to supply their forces with fuel or other resources. Intenal mobility would be hampered, or blocked entirely.

They have a large Army, but their technology, communications, ECM, C4I and coordination are quite low. Add in total US air dominance and you have a killing field like Iraq for Chinese armor and infantry. The training of Chinese troopers is also very low compared to US troopers. The Chinese also lack major force multipliers that the US has such as J-STARS, large-scale AWACS, almost universal distribution of body armor, night-vision, quick-aquire rifle sights, medevac/treatment, UAV support, and so-on.

There's a lot more to modern combat than simply sending huge numbers of lightly armed peasants across the field. Air delivered weapons are VASTLY superior to those used in Korea as are infantry weapons such as the Claymore mine, the squad level automatic weapons, grenade launchers...I ask you to imagine the carnage of a massed infantry charge after a single A-10 does a pop-up and flips 4 cluster-bombs onto the formations. Our Infantry wouldn't have to fire many shots at all in that situation. Now imagine an entire squadron of A-10's with AH-64 Apaches firing 2.75" FFAR rockets, B-52's and B-2's dropping tens of thousands of pounds of cluster bombs and you can see just how important all those poorly trained and armed peasants are going to be. Their tanks wouldn't live as long as the infantry, I'm afraid.

The few who survive THAT and manage to close our infantry positions will encounter claymore mines, automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and highly accurate rifle fire.

Things just aren't what they were in 1950 in Korea.

Obviously, I'm just talking straight conventional military on conventional military - We have more than 10X the number of nuclear weapons, much more accurate delivery systems and a variety of methods of delivery. China has ICBMs only - and we have a working, rudimentary ABM system that would reduce the effectivness of that - But in reality, no one wins in a nuclear exchange.

It would also be essentially impossible for the US to occupy the Chinese mainland. Of course, we could make use of Green Beret A-Teams to forment revolt, particularly after the destruction of the Chinese military.

But it wouldn't be a contest. The US would take casualties, of course, but there is no question as to who would win such a conflict.

The Chinese know it too. And they're working hard to reduce or eliminate these advantages.

Orion

EDIT: You may knows your Bible, but you evidently don't know your geography. Meggido is in Northern Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megiddo_%28place%29), not Iraq. It is quite some distance from the Tigris and Eurphrates rivers.

2nd EDIT: As others have pointed out - Morale is critical. Sun Tzu understood this - You don't go to war until you have already won. THEN you fight. This is different than 'having the moral high ground' - Which really doesn't factor into it.

As to 'why we're fighting' or 'where we're fighting'; these parameters were not specified, so I didn't include these in the analysis. The ground you fight on is important, as is why you fight and whether or not your country is behind you. This is why the Western media and Leftists are the best ally of the terrorists right now - They are undercutting the morale of our fighting troops and depriving them of the support of their countrymen. Without the efforts of these two allies, the war against terror would probably already be won.

You asked a simple question - postulating an arena like combat with no outside factors, so that's what I answered.

In most any conflict you can imagine within the next decade or two, US vs China, the US military would annihilate the Chinese military within 60-120 days. What would happen after that would depend upon these other factors that we have not considered. Beyond that time range is very dependant upon what the US decides to do with our military in the face of Chinese expansion of their military. (US spends about 419 billion on defense or about 3.7% of our GDP. China spends about 90 billion or 4.2% of their GDP - Note: China has increased their spending by 10-20% every year for the past 15 years plus and this trend is increasing). China has also begun developing extensive info-warfare capability and are focusing heavily on anti-sattilite weapons to try to nullify many American force multiplyers. So again, much depends upon decisions made in the interim.

Your question was phrased as a 'right now' kinda thing, not a 'predict the future' sort of thing - None of us knows what will happen budget-wise, or in terms of strategic funding.

3rd Edit: Um, Guerrilla Man, the USS Jimmy Carter is a Seawolf SSN - a boat designed to attack other boats as its primary mission. Even if all her Tomahawks were replaced with TLAM-N's, that would be a maximum of 50 (this configuration would never, ever, happen)...Hardly enough to devastate all of China. Would surely hurt though. :-D

Answer 2

I was a professional soldier, as such I can tell you that no soldier really wants to go to war. The soldier from both sides are nothing but fodder, war is really done by the leadership, our blood but their decisions. I will tell you that the one with the most determination will end up being the winner, but keep in mind that the democrats in this country are wanting to walk away from Iraq and let the Muslims come here to hurt us not their plan but that is what is going to happen, don't believe me? What do you think happened in Utah less than a month ago when a 18 year old boy killed 5 people and wanted to kill More of the infidels. so in answer to your question the real answer is that China would hands down because the democrats are a bunch of cowards, by the way I am not a Republican.

Note; Orion has stated quite elegantly about our great abilities but what he hasn't stated is the desire. I am not a theologian, but I would like to relate a story in the Bible; A Shepard boy was out flanked to tremendous odds, he was small in stature. He faced a huge man and killed him. The man that he faced was a warrior, and he a humble Shepard boy and he had no sword, but he did have a sling shop. The story was when David slew the giant. The jest of the story tells it all what we saw in Viet Nam, and the current insurrections are proof positive that what you have in your arsenal means very little unless you have a greater determination. Nancy P will not let it happen, ergo China wins

Answer 3

Well it partly depends on the situations leading up to the war. If the reasons for entering war were murky, we may end up with an Iraq situation where the people of the country are war-weary and disapprove of the war. If that is the case, we cannot win.

However, if the American people are united, let's say (totally hypothetically of course), that China dropped a nuclear bomb and completely destroyed the city of Los Angeles. In such a case, I think we could easily get 90% of the country and the world to support us, and then I believe we could easily defeat China.

The American people feel a certain attachment and care for their country because they vote and actively shape it, and that it is designed to carry out their will and represent them, while in China, that concept is quite foreign to the ordinary citizen. When the of America are scattered and war-weary, they will not be able to fight a war. When the Americans are united and praying for their troops to win and deliver justice, I am sure we can do it.

Answer 4

The United States' military is technologically superior in comparison to China. As a matter of fact, all of the U.F.O.s that people see are actually U.S. military crafts. As a matter of fact, the weapons that our country allows the public to know about were developed 15-20 years ago, and those are far more advanced than China's. Even though it is said that we have been in the process of reducing our nuclear arsenal, that is far from the truth. The missle defense system (or star wars) of the Reagan era is in fact operational. If the Chinese ever were to trifle with our nation, they would be nuked into the stone age. But the bottom line is that they would not have a shot in a war against us. The U.S.S. Jimmy Carter (ironically named after history's worst president) alone has enough firepower to level China. The only thing that would lead to us ever losing the hypothetical war you speak of would be liberals trying to understand those who aim to destroy us.

But I truly doubt that anyone would listen to their bull**** after another attack on our nation.

Answer 5

China will win if it waits for the right time. Personally I think the US is becoming more right wing, the government that is not the people. I live in the UK, America's closest ally, and even many British feel that Bush is getting abusive and really arrogant. China will have a moral advantage. Plus although the US armed forces are really high tech history has shown that whoever can fight a war to a standstill will win, or at least not be defeated

Answer 6

It depends on the period when the war will be fought. If the war is to be fought now or the near future, the U.S. will undoubtedly win. If the war is to take place say 15 or 20 years from now and onwards, then China will win.

China's economy continue to grow at the rate of 10% annually, compared to the U.S. 3%. In 10 years time, Chinese economy will be double as it is now, the U.S. economy will be one-third more than it is now. Then in another ten years, the Chinese economy will be triple as it is now, the U.S. economy will be just over one-half more than it is now. And so on. Furthermore, China's global influence had been steadily growing in Asia, Africa, and South America. On the other hand, the U.S. global influence had been steadily declining in these regions.

In the field of military spending and technology, the U.S. has the clear edge for now. But these will always be at par with the economy. As China's economy contininue to grow, and so would be its military budget. Twenty years from now, China's military spending will have grown enormously, while the U.S. military budget would not have grown as much because it cannot spend more than it can afford.

Remember Dick Cheney's remarks in his speech in Australia last week?. He criticized China's sudden increase in its military spending. Well, the old man is justified in his alarming view of China. This is an indication of the the start of China's global military ambitions.

Answer 7

It all depends on the American people. Are they going to want to throw in the towel after a few combat deaths? If you can get the people to understand that warfare is an ugly but sometimes necessary endeavor then the United States would win. But if you fail in the propaganda war for the people ( which has happened ever since World War II) then China would win. Assuming the conflict does not go nuclear in which case everybody loses.

Answer 8

China already won. Thanks to Bush and the Republican piggy-fest, we are so in debt to China as to be able to legitimately say that China holds the mortgage now on the United States of America. It's amazing how many people don't understand that when we lower taxes and invade foreign countries that the money has to come from SOMEWHERE. It came from China. And, Korea, mostly. And, it's the largest national debt in the history of mankind. Because of the extremely interconnected global economy now in place and functioning and because of the establishment of the five economic regions ( ours is the North American Union) the big boys have no plans for big wars, just little ones for jollies and to stroke arms dealers, because it's all about a new game, the euro game. Wait. Watch. Learn Chinese.

Answer 9

The one which will win the heart of the rest of the world,
One which proves its culture is superior and more peaceful,
One which will have a stronger, but passive defence,
One which will show great boost in its economy
One which will show greater internal harmony:

So far USA is leading, but the signs are improving for China and worsening for the US.

Answer 10

The United States far surpasses China in military technology.

China has far more manpower.

The United States has far more nuclear weapons, however China would not hesistate to deploy their arsenal first.

Bottom line, there would more than likely be no winner nor loser.

It would probably end up like it did in 1953, with an Armistice, and no clear winner or loser.

Answer 11

Assuming both countries could put their full might into fighting each other... and assuming no nukes...
I'd say it would depend on naval and air superiority, which the US has over China.
Even though China does have a very large standing army, airstrikes and cruise missile barrages can highly negate a standing armies significance.