Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "Is US military strong enough to conquer China on its own?" video.

The Chinese will not attack unless they are confident they can win. Right now that is not the case. Eventually the Taiwan issue will have to be resolved because the Chinese are not giving up their claim on it. If the United States draws first blood, and in Binkov's scenario above that would almost certainly be the case, the world might not side with the United States regarding sanctions and such.
4
Russia as it currently operates would probably see this as an opportunity to unseat the U.S. as world superpower and see China reduced at the same time. They'll probably side with the Chinese, which if they do so openly would really change the calculus. Unless China has done something horrific I can't see Europe sending support and even countries like Korea may want to see how things play out before securing the long-term enmity of the colossal neighbor.
3
Aircraft carriers can be very effective in some situations. Most of America's foes are not China and being able to bring that kind of air power near the coast of any other country is a huge benefit. Carriers are good for policing and protecting trade routes and they are great for diplomatic posturing. The degree to which they would be an asset or liability in this particular scenario is not known, because it has not been tested. The loss of the Japanese carriers in WWII was the beginning of the end of the Japanese navy. Once air superiority was established ground support and logistics protection were greatly enhanced by the presence of American flattops. Of course now the question of vulnerability to anti-ship missiles comes in to play. The Chinese PLAN has been pouring boatloads of research and investment into the development of Carrier-killer missiles while the United States has been developing counter-measures in response. Also, at some point somebodies going to develop a much smaller carrier filled with squadrons of drones to engage the ships and aircraft of the other side. These may be a lot cheaper and may put a much smaller contingent of sailors and naval aviators at risk in what would otherwise be carrier operations. It may be that tomorrow's battle carrier looks more like a toy shop.
2
Elevated Status No one outside of the Western hemisphere has the capacity to attack U.S. soil unless you're referring to a nuclear attack. Frankly, it's not going to happen. Americans don't love war, but we hate looking weak, and that combined with a belief that only democratic countries have their people's interests at heart as well as our possession of the world's strongest military sometimes leads us to decisions that history kind of frowns on. Americans love the people of the world so long as they're not trying to enter through our southern border (argument for a different thread), and what we do we do out of love, admittedly a sick and twisted love, but love none-the-less. In the movie "Caddyshack" the judge played by Ted Knight told Danny that "I've sent younger boys than you to the gas chamber; but it was for their own good." There's a bit of a Judge Smails vibe running through the American psyche, especially regarding foreign policy.
2
Ooooh, you get down with your jingoist self!
2
@LocalBloodAngelEnjoyer I'm not so sure. I think American soldiers are as good as any in the world, but I'm pretty sure that the Chinese soldiers are perfectly competent as well.
2
Combat experience will benefit the United States until China acquires some. I'm guessing that will take about a month. I don't think the United States is going to get much penetration in that short time period. The U.S. won't just be fighting the PLA. We'll be fighting the Chinese people, assuming we actually land. We'll also be fighting the largest industrial engine in the world. And realistically, how much of our military can we dedicate to this mission. Are we pulling out of the Persian Gulf?
2
@AaronDrake22 What planet are you from?
2
Bradley Scott I don't think China can depend on Russia to act as an ally. I think Russia will have two goals. The first is to maximize the weakening of both the United States and China so as to improve Russia's power position relative to the other great powers. The other thing I think is that they will avoid betraying China outright because if China isn't beaten down to the point where they can't recover, Russia doesn't want an angry, vengeful and powerful China on their southern border in the medium-range future. I think Russia will do the bare minimum necessary to support China logistically, but I'd be very surprised to see Russia engage militarily unless they saw China running the score up and they determined that they needed to be counted on the winning side.
1
@samg6548 With China and the U.S. beating themselves senseless what would remain would be a world without superpowers in which Russia would have some parity with China and the U.S. militarily and tactical military superiority over Europe, at least until such a time as Europe strengthened their political union to the level of a state. Europe as defined by the Eurodollar would continue to have the top economy in the world followed by Japan. This would most likely be seen as an improvement from Russia's standpoint even though you're right, they would not recover their old superpower status.
1
@martingilvray06 With all due respect, and I really mean that, you're being unfairly critical of China. The Belt and Road initiative is a net positive for the world. China is investing in places that the rest of the world has been highly neglectful of. Yes, it is done in large part to increase their global influence, but it is also in part a response to accusations leveled against them for decades that they weren't carrying their weight in global development. Creating islands is highly provocative, but legally it's new territory. No one has really ever done this before outside of some Gulf nations creating resort islands. The greatest claim against them is that other nations claimed the atolls upon which these islands were built, so China is occupying contested territory in order to strengthen their claim. Like I said, it's provocative. Their reasoning for doing this is mostly to protect their shipping lanes. Of course the fact that American allies Korea and Japan share those shipping lanes means that one side's protection is the other side's threat. China does not operate death camps for Christians or anyone else. China has over sixty million practicing Christians and while operating an unauthorized church can get you in trouble in China, it's not going to get you the death penalty. I'm a veteran myself and I am very keen to see China and the United States get along in the future and work together to run the world for the betterment of humanity. Yeah, I know, sissy stuff. But I don't want Americans to die fighting the inevitable. It doesn't have to be like this, and if cooler heads can prevail, we can all have a better future. Engineers—Let Us Try.
1
@martingilvray06 I don't know what you're drinking but you probably ought to put the bottle down.
1
@martingilvray06 Are you seriously suggesting that western media is covering for China? Western media hates China because China censors their coverage of internal Chinese affairs. If you look at coverage of China from the NYT, the BBC, Deutsche Welle, even Al Jazhera it's heavily slanted, one might say unethically slanted, against China in both the framing of stories as well as the choice of stories themselves, and don't even get me started on Australian media. And no, death camps for Christians is not a little unfair, it's slanderous. Don't get me wrong, I know China has issues, some of them are serious and embarrassing. But China is nothing like the way it's portrayed in American or any other western mainstream media. The West has a beef against China for not collapsing according to Cold War formula and the media has an understandable grudge against China because it doesn't live up to their free-speech standards. Because of this China is maligned at all opportunities.
1
@josephdestaubin7426 I don't think China would be that easily goaded into attacking the United States, at least not to a degree that can't be walked back. China's long-term plans are for the reincorporation of Taiwan and the Chinese leadership knows that a premature engagement with the United States puts that in Jeopardy. There could be an incident where a couple of destroyers collide in the East China Sea or something but I think the United States would have a difficult time convincing the world, let alone its own people, that that kind of thing would warrant a full-on war with China.
1
@jacobriverson3807 The middle class in China can't do that now and they are plenty supportive. Why people assume the Chinese have less love for their country than the citizens of other nations I cannot fathom.
1
@josephdestaubin7426 I think that terrain and infrastructure constraints preclude a large Chinese initiative against India and China is very calculating regarding Taiwan. While their island building in the South China Sea is certainly provocative I don't see them as hills to die on in China. And at this point, a conflict there would be the result of someone else attacking China. China's leaders are well aware of what led up to the War in the Pacific and they are keen to avoid the Thucydides trap. There could be a miscalculation and perhaps a change in leadership at some point that is less aware of the risks than the current cadre, but if China can't be goaded into a conflict within the next decade it likely won't matter. At that point China will be the world's most powerful state and the Belt & Road diplomacy will have born fruit and most countries will probably be very reluctant to openly side against them militarily or economically.
1
@josephdestaubin7426 I'm not sure what your standards of proof are. Perhaps you consider the explosion of the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident or the link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 as proven victimhood of international aggression. It seemed to be proven enough to bring the American public onboard initially, though most of the rest of the world didn't seem to buy it (No offense to the Koreans in Vietnam or the British in Iraq). Or perhaps you consider these events to be so far back in time that they are no longer relevant to the argument. I'm also perplexed by the term "sadly". You can't seriously want this war to take place, can you?
1
@tombrunila2695 Not during a war it doesn't.
1
@Jamicaman516 Which is why producing simpler weapons that can be churned out quickly might be a better industrial strategy. I think simple missile platforms would be one key to ultimate victory.
1
@Jamicaman516 You're right in that it doesn't work if the mass-produced cheap weaponry is liquidated by more advanced weapon system that can't be touched, which was the case in Iraq. It gets more complicated when the technological gap between existing hardware isn't as wide to begin with. If your best stuff is taking casualties then replacement of that stuff becomes a concern, and if you can't field replacement equipment in real time because of its complexity than you may lose through attrition. Any assumption that an invasion of China will be swift and decisive in my opinion is a mistake. Chinese arms and personnel are effective in a way that America's recent enemies have not been. The Chinese government—both its industry and its military—is efficient and trusted by the Chinese people. Chinese terrain is much more varied than anything in Iraq. And Chinese assets are well-protected by the largest defensive missile arsenal in the world. An American invasion into China would likely take casualty numbers and equipment losses that the U.S. hasn't experienced since WWII. After the initial clash the contest would begin on who could best replace losses. That is both a quantitative and a qualitative equation. It's a balancing act. They say you shouldn't take a knife to a gun fight, and that's good advice. But if you're still fighting after all the bullets have been spent, it's good to have that knife.
1
@carlosviajes They did a number on us as well. A lot has happened since the 70s.
1
@carlosviajes Vietnam would rather do business with both economies. You are right in your suggestion that Vietnam is not friendlier to China than it is to the U.S. though.
1
@carlosviajes China is the closest large market and it makes sense for light manufacturing to move to less developed countries. Of the less developed countries available Vietnam has one of the most reliable workforces. Vietnam has historical anxiety regarding China and it has issues regarding water resources and maritime territorial claims, but I don't think they would be full-throated cheerleaders for the U.S. in the above scenario either. The countries on China's perimeter aren't likely to want a destroyed China next door (India and Taiwan excepted).
1
@carlosviajes Sometimes. That is the dynamic when a larger powerful country has a hegemonic presence in the region (see USA/Mexico). Of course Vietnam wants to keep its independence which is not really under threat right now. But Vietnam also wants to benefit from its proximity to China, which it is doing to the tune of $42 billion worth of goods exported, and 5.8 million visitors last year. The destruction of China in the best scenario would greatly damage the Vietnamese economy and the United States would not come close to picking up the slack. And of course the worst case for Vietnam would be to be seen as China's enemy after China successfully drove back the invasion. If China came out relatively stronger, which is a real possibility, then assisting the United States might prove to have been a terrible mistake.
1
@kaybee65 I think Russia's strategy would be to try to get along with Europe and make sure that China remained strong enough to wear the United States down but withhold assistance if it looks like China will come out too strong. If their two greatest rivals could beat each other into total ineffectiveness, Russia will finally feel they security that they've never really known.
1
I don't think India is nearly as relevant as Russia.
1
@Castapher According to this fellow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7s-llqrkYk China walked away from Moscow with pretty much everything they asked for at India's expense. I'm not sure what you mean by "Tibet which originally belonged to India." It appears that in 1914 southern Tibet was ceded to the British by the 13th Dalai Lama but that was never recognized by China and Chinese claims on Tibet go back to the Yuan Dynasty.
1