Comments by "神州 Shenzhou" (@Shenzhou.) on "Is US military strong enough to take on China? (2016)" video.

  1. The "war" would be more about economic power and cyber-security than actual soldiers and tanks.
    10
  2. +Roy Vermie I think China would try not to engage the US in open waters. China's strategy would be more defensive within the South China Sea.
    9
  3. I agree with you but I think you chose the wrong examples. Korean War and Vietnam War are more accurate examples.
    6
  4. The Allies won against the Axis during WW2 because even though their tanks were inferior, they had more factories and could produce more than the Nazis.
    6
  5. puchy110 Taiwan won't risk it alone. But what if the US joins in? Currently the Taiwan president is trying to cosy up with Trump so who knows what they may be up to. Will Taiwan think it can take on China by dragging the US into a world war?
    5
  6. +puchy110 Yes, it was a short battle where both sides claimed victory. Keep in mind that China never intended to take control of Vietnam. We marched all the way to Hanoi but what happens if we take Hanoi? Do we declare North Vietnam as part of China? Can we afford to face both the Soviet Russia and South Vietnam or will be trapped by them? Vietnamese only wanted independence, from French Rule and American Rule (Why the heck are Americans there in the first place?) We believe we did the right thing by retreating and leaving Vietnam. There were a few skirmishes but as soon as Vietnam realized we weren't going to threaten them, the battles ended. Vietnam was independent. This may sound too altruistic to be true. But if you notice, China did not invade any other territory after the Sino-Vietnamese conflict. China was focusing on resolving internal issues.
    5
  7. If China wins, it gets control of the South China Sea and its resources. More importantly, it's image will change, either for the better or the worst. If US wins, then it gets the resources, China gets demilitarized, a democracy gets installed and it will be just another US puppet. Either way, its too risky for China to wage war over some resources. There are plenty of alternatives elsewhere.
    5
  8. +Norwegian733 French forces and American forces lost during the 1st and 2nd Indochina wars too. Are they just as weak? The Vietnamese had acquired Soviet and Chinese weapons during war and used it against China. China had promised to support N.Korea in gratitude for their contribution to the Communist victory after the Chinese civil war. If anything, N.Korea is still around to serve as a possible buffer against S.Korea but the S.Koreans hated the US for installing Park Chung-hee as president.
    4
  9. You have to look into the regional politics. For example supposedly China decides to invade Taiwan, S.Korea and Japan might simply see Chinese killing Chinese. These two countries dislike Chinese and would rather they finish it quickly so that they can resume trading with the victor. Joining Taiwan means that they effectively declared that they recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state. If supposedly China invades Japan, S. Korea may not send help because S.Korea was once under Japanese rule for 30+ years. N.Korea is also poised to invade S.Korea if they try anything funny. If N.Korea invades then S.Korea will be more interested in fighting N.Korea then sending aid. Taiwan was under Japanese occupation for 50+ years so no one knows whether it will join Japan. Will the Japanese even trust Taiwanese help at all since they are also Chinese? China could play on the divided conflicts between the nations. Lastly, if China supposedly invades S.Korea then similar things as above could happen. East Asia is like a chess board filled with pieces pointed at one another. Will the US even bother to send its navy across the Pacific? When Russia invaded Ukraine, all the US did was impose sanctions. I know I am overly simplifying things but if you never know what Asians are up to when they go to war. Its not a simple "who has more allies" sort of scenario. =)
    4
  10. If there's going to be a nuclear war, then everyone's dicks will be useless since the whole planet is doomed already.
    4
  11. +puchy110 But if Taiwan declared independence, China will be entitled to the excuse of quelling a "rebellious" state. It will be considered an internal civil war to anyone who recognizes the 1-China policy and not considered an external invasion of another country. The US currently recognizes that policy so if it decides to intervene, it would be breaking the policy and considered invasion of another country. On the other hand, if the US does nothing, it will preserve its reputation and be allowed to trade with whoever is the victor of the civil war without consequences. But the Taiwan president seems to be using Trump and the US to help Taiwan declare independence. Any wrong move here could trigger a possible World War 3.
    3
  12. Yes, China army is green because it is not a warlike country unlike the US. China's last major war is in 1979 while the US is involved in wars even in the 21st century.
    3
  13. +puchy110 I agree, the stakes are getting higher with each progressive war. The problem is, which unlucky country is going to become their battleground.
    2
  14. Kong Wee Peh Yes those regions are growing. But somehow, US seems to want to stick it's head into their business. Why not let the Asians settle it themselves? We are capable of thought and foresight and know that trading is still the most beneficial solution.
    2
  15. But the US presence is only emboldening Japan and Philippines into provoking China to be more aggressive. China is growing and needs more resources but is being blocked in all sides by the US.
    2
  16. +puchy110 Those are air bases. China is not the first one to build those. Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia all have airstrips there before China started building. And sending spy planes and stealth bombers is not really considered deployment of assets.
    2
  17. +puchy110 Yes, resources in East Asia belongs to East Asian countries. Some will go to China, some to Japan and some to SE Asian countries but the US also wants a piece of that pie. US is the non-claimant here that is trying to make China seem like aggressive one here. US has plenty of military bases all over the world, but makes a lot of noise when China builds one near its own waters. China is not the only one with military bases overseas. Many other countries build bases all over the globe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases China is not obstructing traffic flow; many ships and commercial aircraft use South China Sea route daily and China has billions of dollars of trade flowing through the region. Why would she obstruct such a valuable trade route? http://static.businessinsider.com/image/54e66f606bb3f77c0a018299/image.jpg US selling arms to its allies is only contributing to destabilization of the region. US has been supplying the Middle East with arms and allows Al Qaeda and ISIS to come to power in order to keep the region conflicted. US is now slowly doing the same to East Asia to prevent East Asian countries from rising.
    2
  18. puchy110​ Yes, hopefully Trump can see that Taiwan president is also using him to help Taiwan claim independence. It's a noble cause, but is it worth getting into a world war over? A lot of lives are at stake here.
    2
  19. puchy110 Regarding Liu Bang, yes he did that. Virtually every Chinese dynasty has contributed in some way to expansion of the Great Wall. That is why the Great Wall is not only a physical barrier but also a symbol of China's long lineage, at least to the Chinese people. Even after the Mongols bypassed it, Ming dynasty continued to spend money on improving the wall. Let's hope Trump doesn't start one along the Mexican border ;)
    2
  20. Al Qaeda was trained by the CIA and the rise of ISIS can also be attributed to the US.
    2
  21. China has a greater claim to the South China Sea compared to the US. Why is the US wanting a piece of East Asia's resources for itself when it belongs to East Asians?
    2
  22. Eric Logan Xi Jinping is working closely with president Duterte of philippine on a peacefully settlement of the south China Sea issue. The US is the only one that seems interested in stirring up trouble in that region.
    2
  23. Eric Logan N.Korea relies heavily on trade with China. China and Russia both share the same objective in that they are outside of the US sphere of influence and want to remain that way.
    2
  24. Eric Logan Kim is not dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds it.
    2
  25. Eric Logan US also absorbed superior Nazi military technology after WW2 so what's wrong with China learning from others countries technology? US space programs were also conducted by ex Nazi rocket scientists.
    2
  26. +Eric Logan But his efforts were not recognized until after the space program was initiated. I could always say that Chinese invented the rocket historically, but the point is people copy ideas from one another so why blame China only? China produces 70-80% of the worlds products like appliances, smartphones and computers so people like you can afford it and gain access to technology. Why are you so against us?
    2
  27. Eric Logan Everyone got to begin at one point right? Modern China was built by blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice of Chinese people through invasions, famine, revolutions. China rose from war-torn state to become an economic rival to the US in only a single generation. That is a achievement not many countries can lay claim to. China is slowly branching into technologies like high speed railways. China's railway is the world's largest and Chinese people are even helping the UK to improve on their transportation systems. So why look down on us?
    2
  28. Leron Benari How? China only wants peace and to do business with US. Which US base did China threaten? US has 100+ military base all over the globe like Guam and Hawaii but complain about China bases that are so close to home. Why compare China to Nazi Germany? China has never invaded another country since 1979 unlike the US even in 21st century. China has big army because a big country with weak army is ripe to invasion as history has shown.
    2
  29. Eric Logan Genocide is the intention killing of one race over the others, like Hitler against Jews or Japanese against Chinese, Koreans etc. Mao did not intentionally kill our own race Chinese. Nobody knew that the policy would turn out to be a failure. CPC has long acknowledged the failures of Mao and some Chinese support him and some don't. Mao was trying to modernize China so there are some Chinese that appreciate the intentions. Not everyone though. Regardless, CPC does teach Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution in school. If you go to Baidu, you can find information on those events available.
    2
  30. Eric Logan Trump is already angering Mexican president, one of the US biggest trade partner and plan to tax Mexican goods. Nothing to do with China yet.
    2
  31. +Lion24 Indeed, USA has anti-missile capabilities, but they have to intercept the missile only during midflight, which means they have to react immediately to any launch in order to successfully defend against it. Furthermore, China won't just fire one missile, we will fire a salvo to saturate the area, since US aircraft carriers would be a priority target during a war. Conquering and occupying islands depends on each navy's own strategies and also some luck. Hawaii may be difficult, but if we occupy Okinawa, we can make it difficult for USA to take that area back by simply installing more troops there. The PLA is one of our greater assets, and it can be used to occupy territory outside of China and make it difficult. for US to try and reclaim those land. US airforce can bomb the islands, but it would take a land invasion ultimately to reclaim those islands. We will have to put our strength to good use in this war.
    2
  32. +Shirghazay Cowboys Thank you for your kind words. China has worked hard to pull itself up from poverty into economical power.
    2
  33. King Bensley I agree with you too. I only contribute to the discussion as a hypothetical scenario. War is bloodshed, rape, lost of lives and disruption to livelihood. War should only be a last resort and should never be glorified.
    2
  34. +I don't like Herodotus Philippines is strategic base for the US forces in South China Sea. As long as Duterte deny the US presence in Philippines, it is already being a good ally of China for peace in the region.
    2
  35. Leron Benari Yes, now China has powerful weapons but choose not to invade other countries. Investment is more important than invasion.
    2
  36. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all have issues with each other that is historical and difficult to describe. They are also big trading partners with China so it they may choose to remain neutral until the war is over and trade with the victor.
    2
  37. I heard that the Filipino President Duterte recently decided to break it off with the US after so many years as US ally and instead, team up with China instead. At this rate, hopefully the South China Seas conflict would be resolved peacefully.
    2
  38. John Dickson But the US has military bases in S.Korea, Japan and the Philippines and for what reason? S.Korea's army is strong enough to handle N.Korea and wants the US to take steps to vacate the country. But the US has refused to leave so far. US troops in Okinawa keep raping the locals but the Japanese government keeps quiet about it. Japan's army is smallest in East Asia and it cannot rebuild because of WW2 treaty. Even Germany has long rebuilt its army after WW2 and Japan is still "castrated" after 70 over years. How is it they are considered free? Philippine President Duterte wants an end to the Philippines' joint military exercises with the United States, saying the next war games will be the last under his term. And we seen what the US has done to the Middle east countries. Afghanistan, Iraq, etc... did not emerge any better after the US invaded them. We hope the US don't do the same thing to growing Asia.
    2
  39. +coolwitme1 Lets take a look at the individual goals of each East Asian countries and try to understand them. S.Korea's ultimate goal is possibly the unification of Korea. Even if it doesn't want to claim N.Korea, if N.Korea invades than S.Korea is effectively tied up for the rest of the war. Resisting N.Korea probably takes precedence over coming to the aid of other allies. Taiwan's ultimate goal is to either reclaim China or claim independence from China. It can be persuaded to defend its allies or it could try to invade China and try to destroy the CCP from within. If it chose to invade China then the defending force is split in two because it chose to invade China. China has possibly enough troops to fight a war on two fronts if the forces are not coordinated enough although its still a disadvantage. Lastly, Japan goal is probably to simply defend itself. It would probably try to restrict its limited army to defend Japan only instead of aiding its allies. Sending them away to fight the Chinese only leaves the main island vulnerable to retaliation. These views are overly-simplified but are still possible scenarios that a Chinese general can exploit. The US could persuade them to work together but it must first know the intricacies of each nation. My example with Russia was to show that the US has to approach the situation very delicately. US would also be under great pressure to aid its allies if war breaks out in East Asia. I too, think that China is unlikely to start a war but that doesn't mean we can't hypothesize what's going to happen.
    2
  40. coolwitme1 Kieran Jo​ You guys are shallow and naive -_- My analysis may be simple but it's much more realistic than your "let's all join hands together" scenario. You folks don't see anything beyond the surface. N.Korea doesn't need to invade the South. It just needs to apply pressure by building a large force near the border. S. Korea will be forced to allocate forces to protect its border and this will lock up valuable assets and reduce the amount of aid to give to allies. China and Taiwan hate each other but both agree that they are Chinese. If Taiwan declares independence, they relinquish the right to 4000 years of Chinese history and China has the "excuse" to quell a rebellious state. US currently recognises 1 China policy so helping Taiwan will violate the treaty. That means US is the violator not China. Do you know how hard it is for a single carrier to cross the Pacific alone? You have to include escorts or else a sneaky submarine will make short work of a lone carrier. And you say you want to send 5 carriers over? You guys know nuts about politics and warfare. The Art of War says "know yourself, know your enemies" but you don't know anything. Let's hope the new US president is not so arrogant and ignorant as you two.
    2
  41. +coolwithme1 How is that? What sort of analysis have you done? Have you looked at what S.Korea wants or what Japan or Taiwan wants? Japan and S.Korea will be safe as long as they observe the 1 China policy if China invades Taiwan. They look out for long term interests not short term like you. You think all countries are like the US? Always on the lookout for war? They are the ones living here in Asia and they stand to lose the most out of joining the war. US stands to gain the most here. After the war, East Asia will be in ruins and the US can return home to celebrate. Sorry, you are not only shallow and naive. You also clearly lack the ability to empathize with other people and to see the world through their eyes.
    2
  42. Kieran Jo Hey, being realistic is better than just declaring "All of us will all definitely go to war". Look at the historical wars, One side is aggressive, another is defensive, another remains neutral, another doesn't join in until much much later. You have to see each nations motives for joining the war and at what time should a nation join the war for maximum benefit. You think countries just commit to a war on a whim and hope for the best? Like I said you guys know nothing of politics. You group everyone into "Us versus Them" scenarios and just leave it at that. I really pray that Trump has more fore-sight than you although I seriously doubt it.
    2
  43. puchy110 I am glad to hear your view. I just hope the Japanese can be as open minded as you. As far as I know, China has never once invaded Japan (although the opposite is true) since China has all the resources that Japan lacks. By relying heavily on US protection, Japan's army has become inadequate to deal with rising regional disputes. Imagine 50 years later and Japan's military is just as dependent on the US as it was 70 years ago, and China and S. Korea militaries are getting stronger each year. US military ultimately serves the interest of America only. If a war with China is too costly, US may choose not support Japan. The chance of a war between China and Japan is quite low. China wants resources that Japan does not have, but Japan has high technology and trade would be more beneficial than outright war.
    1
  44. puchy110 I agree and hopefully China does not decide to follow the path of Japan during WW2. China has already extended peaceful talks with ASEAN over these issues. The problem is, the US is also sending destroyers into those waters, as well as surveillance planes which are provoking to China and may jeopardize the talks.
    1
  45. +puchy110 But if US has a contingency plan, then why is it sending destroyers, surveillance planes and even stealth bombers into that region? China has a big navy, but so far, no Chinese warship has been reported entering the South China Sea region. In fact, the only military assets deployed there belong to the US.
    1
  46. +puchy110 The US has its own agenda here in Asia. US has been selling arms to Philippines, Vietnam and India in an attempt to surround and contain China's growth. Why does US object to a peaceful rise of China? What does it have at stake in East Asia? Also, surveillance planes and stealth bombers aren't ships that take a long time to arrive. Sending stealth bombers into Chinese airspace is only going to end up provoking China.
    1
  47. +puchy110 Yeah, I don't envy Taiwan's current position. I suppose it could try for a "one-country, three-systems" sort of ruling, but I also doubt that would work. China tolerates Hong Kong because it is small and has no army, but Taiwan is a full fledged country with an army.
    1
  48. +Norwegian733 The same with China during the Sino-Vietnamese war. China fought from city to city up to Hanoi but withdrew because it was to prove a point that the Soviets couldn't effectively send aid to Vietnam. China had also promised not to use its navy in the war. China did not win in Korean war and neither did the Allies as it ended in a ceasefire. Technically, N.Korea and S.Korea are still at war up to today. There was no true "home" advantage as the US had turned Japan into a repair and refueling station that is more accessible than mainland China. As for casualty statistics, it was China and N.Korea versus Allies (US, UK, Turkey, Australia, Canada, France...etc). China was not a powerhouse then but it already proved that it could force a stalemate with so many other countries.
    1
  49. Chinese also do not broadcast their military technologies to the world. That's why no one knows what it's true capabilities are.
    1
  50. Shirghazay Cowboys You have no proof of that. Why cover up weapons technology if people have nothing to be afraid of?
    1
  51. The US is a formidable force today but not forever. Rome was once power but it must fall someday. Ming Dynasty China was once a powerful country at one time but it fell to Qing Dynasty. True power does not last forever. China has been there before and is a living proof.
    1
  52. +Eric T Exactly. Like what would happen if someday, someone created something better than democracy but is somehow against it? Like lets say, an ideology where you can elect your government but in return, you will have to obey him or her like a god? That goes against the principles of free speech but it allows the leader to carry out changes unhindered. Will the people embrace it willingly or resist it violently?
    1
  53. Eric Logan Other countries also buy Chinese products like Australia, UK, Japan and so on. I don't know about Mexico's economy though.
    1
  54. +Test Test US still has trade with Mexico, but introducing tariffs to Mexican goods may provoke trade war between US and Mexico. Trump’s treatment of Mexicans makes it too easy for China to acquire new allies. China’s development with South Africa is new, but China is expert at building infrastructure like roads, schools, electricity and plumbing which will benefit Africa eventually. China and US relations will depend a lot on TPP and what Trump chooses to do with it.
    1
  55. Test Test China's development with Africa is only considered new with regards to only 30-50 years, not 100+ years like the Western presence in Africa. As for putting money into Africa, I was referring to Xi Jinping pledging $60 billion into South Africa. I can't say for sure what the Kenyan's or Ghana people think about Chinese investors, but this is from my own perspective. By TPP, I was only aware recently that Trump had cancelled the TPP. TPP excluded China but that did not mean that China could have joined in later.
    1
  56. China's population should not be underestimated. The population of China is equivalent to the population of North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand, and all of Western Europe -- combined. We shall be our own allies.
    1
  57. Leron Benari US has to liberate Chinese occupied land (maybe Japan) to achieve victory so China would do well to make full use of PLA to occupy territory. As for blockade, China grows all its food locally and makes about 80% of weapons. It is disadvantaged but not crippled. If it holds out long enough, support for the war might wane enough for US to withdraw. China needs to play defensive here.
    1
  58. Shirghazay Cowboys That has always been China's way. In true war you need all the manpower you can get. Also, China one-child policy created gender imbalance so there are more men than women in China.
    1
  59. Leron Benari But how will US reclaim lands without setting foot on it? China will use PLA to occupy territory.
    1
  60. Leron Benari Yes but China will send PLA to occupy islands outside of China. (eg Japan, Okinawa etc) US needs to free these territory and can't do it without landing. US can bombard the islands but still need to set foot on it to free it. Of course US won't invade mainland like what they do during WW2 Japan mainland. I am talking about occupied territory outside of mainland.
    1
  61. Leron Benari​​ That is if American can bring it's powerful navy over in time. It takes time to bring the fleet over and China has advantage of being close by. PLA also has cruise missiles that can be launched from the safety of the land. If China wants to invade it would use all available assets. But of course I don't support war. This is only hypothetical.
    1
  62. +Tao Liu I agree that a big population requires better control over the people. Qing’s army consisted of poorly trained Han conscripts who resented Manchu rule and the British had vastly superior firearms, ships etc. However, modern PRC is much different from Qing dynasty. The PLA is trained, well-equiped modern army loyal to the CPC. China’s food source could be disrupted by war, which is why every country has emergency stockpile in case of war or disaster. China has been stockpiling rice, iron ore, barrels of oil and various other supplies. I mentioned 80% of weapons being manufactured indigenously not stockpiled, but I agree that it is not perfect and the shortfall would have to come out from allies like Pakistan. US can enforce a naval blockade, but China also does business with many other inland countries unless the US can enforce sanctions against it. Aircraft, ships and tanks take a long time to build, but China is known as the manufacturing hub of the world. China has entire manufacturing cities like Shenzhen that cater quite exclusively to building products. The CPC just needs an efficient organization of manpower to make full use of it. China also has experience in building infrastructure (which is why they build roads in Africa) so it depends on how well the US can disrupt the transport system. China’s navy is inferior, but it can make use of defensive outposts along the South China Sea as bases to support its navy and air force. Some bases have anti-aircraft gun emplacements and surface to air missiles. There are airstrips for military craft to land and refuel if needed. As for war support, I agree that it depends on how PRC’s actions are perceived. Another thing to note is that China and US economies are linked. Cutting economic ties with China would result in increased prices of products in the US, which would affect the normal livelihood of people each day. Under CPC, the whole Chinese population is ultilised for war, being assigned to factories, growing food etc. As for launching attacks, PRC’s best choice would be Taiwan. This is because PLA has already trained extensively in exercises involving an invasion of Taiwan, so it won’t take years to prepare. US may be able to send carriers to the region but I still believe the video is biased in favour of the US. Aircraft carriers are powerful, but they are vulnerable to things like a sneaky submarine torpedo or anti carrier missile. If I was a Chinese general, I would focus on sending submarines and bombers to take out the aircraft carriers because they represent the morale of the US. As for cruise missiles, China has many, many missiles pointed at Taiwan. It would be foolish to think that PRC invested so much money into these weapons without a reliable tracking system. I don’t claim to be a military expert. PRC may succeed in some areas and lose in other areas that I mentioned above. Strictly speaking, no video in Youtube will ever show PRC winning against the US because such an outcome is simply not acceptable by netizens and will only anger them and result in less views. In real life, mistakes can happen on both sides and ultimately, it depends on the number of victories and losses from both sides.
    1
  63. +Tao Liu I brought up the Qing dynasty in order to compare it’s army with the PLA. PLA may not be as advanced as the US, but it is still a modern army, not WW2 era. I was focusing on PLA’s attributes like loyalty to CPC and so on, not on the numbers. The US air force and Navy are indeed massive, but remember they are limited by the time it takes to deploy them to the warzone. About 40% of US navy assets are deployed in Asia, while China has close to 100% of its navy ready. In the Gulf War, the Iraq Army had more combat experience than PLA but perhaps not more sophisticated equipment. The war in Kuwait was perhaps US last known successful war, but the next wars were not so successful strategically. The US Army is equipped with all the best and latest gear they can be stymied by lightly armed insurgents that fight with their hearts not with hardware in the battles following the Gulf War. In a war, trade is risky because of possible sabotage and China will seek alternatives to naval trade. You look down on Chinese infrastructure capability but China can build roads and railways if needed during war time. During WW2, the Chinese helped build roads like Ledo road that allow supplies to enter from the West because the naval routes were blocked off. China already has a railroad linking to Russia. Russia may choose to remain neutral to the war, but it has a history of supplying weapons to countries in conflict with the US. In a war of attrition, China has self-sufficiency in food production, emergency stockpiles, 80% home manufactured weapons and possible inflow of weapons from Russia. So how much more prepared can China get? Regarding China’s manufacturing, China not only manufactures low quality products but also technology like vehicles and high speed railway trains. China’s automotive industry churns out more vehicles than the US (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#By_country) and China has the most expansive and complex high speed railway in the world. China even has hi speed rail projects in the UK to help them connect the country together. As for global arms sales, they do not reflect a country’s ability to manufacture arms for itself during war. China’s airstrip is only one of many that are possibly being built. China can quickly establish more bases in the region if needed, as shown them overtaking other bases built by other nations in the region. They may not cover the whole sea, but the SAMs and gun emplacement provide strategic cover in that region to support China’s navy. PLA has been planning possible retaking of Taiwan for many years already. PLA has many training exercises simulating an invasion of Taiwan so I doubt it would take as long as a month to prepare. PRC knows time is of the essence in this war with the US. Examples like PRC landing only 2 brigades of troops are only speculation and we won’t know how capable PLA is on invading Taiwan and how much of its forces is it willing to deploy. PRC is capitalist, but during war, the whole country literally goes to war. Chinese has this saying that translates to “Can there be a home without a country?” Chinese people know what’s at stake if they allow the US to land on Chinese soil, as all their hard work building the nation will be destroyed. Sure, some may choose to escape, but CPC would be extremely harsh on them. You can look down on Chinese submarines, but they have shown the ability to stalk US carriers a number of times from the following sources. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a18094/a-chinese-submarine-stalked-an-american-aircraft-carrier/ The submarines have demonstrated an ability to surface within torpedo range undetected from the carrier and its escorts. Sorry, but you can’t convince me that PRC’s 1000+ missiles pointed at Taiwan are all unreliable. Why would the PRC spend so much money on the missiles and train PLA in Taiwan retaking exercises if they weren’t going to deploy them at all? I’ve already said that no Youtube video will ever show China winning because nobody will think it will. In this video alone, there is hardly any reference to what China’s navy is doing. There is no point constantly telling me to refer to this video alone. You have to rely on other sources outside and make your own decision.
    1
  64. +Tao Liu The Gulf war was fought by a coalition but this time US may not have the same allies. Japan, S.Korea and Taiwan are China’s biggest traders after the US. For NATO allies to support they would have to go by land, through the Iraq, Iran and possibly Russia. And I keep saying “modern” because it PLA is modern, no use denying it. 40% of US navy is based on size not tonnage. US navy tonnage is unequally distributed so why would it be a comparison? If you want to compare tonnage then you should look at the locations of the aircraft carriers in the world . Why can’t PLA be both conventional and guerrilla? PLA was formed from the Communist forces fighting the Japanese and made use of guerrilla tactics to defeat the Japanese. With its size, it doesn’t need to resort to guerrilla warfare, but that does not mean it won’t use it if needed. If you want to compare conventional warfare, then the Korean war would suffice. China and US and its allies were facing off in a conventional warfare and the US were stymied and unable to achieve complete victory. You still look down on Chinese infrastructural capacity and I had already given examples of China during WW2 had no naval trade because of Japanese navy, but still built roads to receive supplies from allies. Back then China’s infrastructure was poor but now it is among the most well-connected in the world so the roads and railroads now would be much better. China has great experience building railroads and is even helping South Africa with roads so why is China’s infrastructure building so looked down upon? So if China has poor harvest in one year, it would draw upon its stockpile. If the harvest was good, there is no need to take from the stockpile and if possible, it could even store the surplus. Why do you separate these two activities from each other when China can make use of both? After US bombings, China is not stupid and will also repair the broken infrastructure. In China alone there are many, many paths to destroy so even if one road is inaccessible, China could rely on other paths to transport supplies. Like it or not, China produce 80% of its arms locally and can even import arms through landlines from Russia. Like I said, Russia may not participate in the war, but even during WW2, the Soviets and Nazis traded with each other secretly so why won’t they do the same with China? And I’ve already said what has China’s arms exports got to do with being able to produce enough locally? The fact that nations buy the weapons already shows that they aren’t of low quality. And you underestimate Chinese island building. Why then is the world so alarmed at Chinese base building? Vietnam and Philippines had bases there long before China but China’s base building is the only one in the news. Is it because of the speed it was built? The SAM and gun emplacements are only there to support the PLA N strategically in the South China Sea. PLA N is still the main fighting force. PRC’s preparation of invasion of Taiwan should not be underestimated. It will take time but PRC leaders know time is of the essence here, with the US looming on the horizon. PRC doesn’t have many amphibious assaults vehicles because Taiwan is within range of its missiles so it would most likely use ballistic missiles to soften up targets. PRC may not even use a land invasion force and will only send the PLA through air or even by sea to occupy Taiwan once the defences are down. The US civilians can prepare for war, but will the entire population support the war? US has a history of losing wars because its civilians want out of the war. Stalking still means that the Chinese submarine was able to keep pace with the Carrier. The point is also whether the US ships were able to detect the submarine before it surfaced within torpedo range. Also, which submarine travels slowly while exposed to the surface during war time? Most Chinese like it when people look down on its military capabilities. This is because of according to Sun Zi’s Art of war, you should let the army think you are weak, and let arrogance be their downfall.
    1
  65. +Haeternam That too. Still it shows that large numbers of low quality Allied tanks can still stand up to high quality Nazi tanks and you shouldn't underestimate numbers.
    1
  66. I don't like Herodotus War history is never irrelevant, whether in ancient times or WW2 or modern times. That's why people study the history of war. That was internal dispute. Many PLA troops refused to obey orders at that time. This is an army that is united against foreign threats to stability and will defend their homes, not invade another country.
    1
  67. The population of China is equivalent to the combined population of the former Soviet Union, plus Pakistan, Afghanistan, Finland, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary. Oh, and all of Southeast Asia, Japan, and both Koreas. Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/08/a-surprising-map-of-the-world-shows-just-how-big-chinas-population-is/278691/
    1
  68. +Morgan Burt That is because China can afford to choose only the best out of 1.3 billion to form PLA. Furthermore, 1/3 of 1.3 billion already forms the largest army in world that can rival US and NATO. As rejecting recruits, this is a common problem faced by all the world's military, including the US.
    1
  69. Morgan Burt That essentially the same as rejecting recruits either way. Only for different reasons. China has been recently lowering its standard too. Either way, PLA has large pool to choose from.
    1
  70. +Solomon Sheckelstein Taiwan has long given up hope on reuniting with China. It now hopes more for independence.
    1
  71. The resources of the South China Sea rightfully belong to East Asian countries. Some will go to China, some to Japan, some to S.E countries but the US wants a piece of this delicious pie. US is the only non-claimant and wants to make China seem like the aggressor.
    1
  72. +Claire AwesomeSauce I am giving you alternative view. Why else is there a territorial dispute over South China Sea? US has a history of invading countries for oil so why would US ignore the rich South China Sea? Why deploy more than half the US navy assets to that region? US has already send warships, surveillance planes and even stealth bombers. You call this a "mild" presence? China doesn't even have a single military ship there. China and Japan are great trading partners of each other so why would they want war with each other? China and Japan are competing for resources but the US is constantly interfering for what reason? Does it want a share of the bounty? There are so many other conflicts going on in the world and the US chooses to focus on Asia instead? What is the US real agenda here?
    1
  73. But China, Japan and ASEAN countries are big trading partners of each other. Billions of dollars of trade flows through this region so why would they jeopardize it by starting a war? http://static.businessinsider.com/image/54e66f606bb3f77c0a018299/image.jpg The US has a history of inventing excuses to invade countries to steal resource. Like how Bush claimed Iraq harbored WMD and invaded it only to find no evidence of WMD. More than half of US navy assets have been deployed to South China Sea and planes like stealth bombers have been sent to the area. Is this region really that conflicted when so much trade flows through daily? Most likely the US wants to harness some of that regions resources for itself.
    1
  74. Violentaye China never want to be number one in the world. China's main goal is peace and stability after many years of invasion, famine and revolution. China is not interested in spreading "communism" like the Soviets and the US with democracy. On the other hand, The US is constantly trying to be number one. Involved in Gulf war, Iraq War and even Afghan War. It then departs with resources and leave all the Middle East countries in a ruined mess. Please Trump, don't come to Asia and turn us into another Middle East. Asia is becoming more economically powerful and the US doesn't want it to rise so it keeps sending warships, aircraft carriers, submarines and bomber planes to that region. This is no way to "maintain peace" in that region.
    1
  75. Violentaye Okay then one question: Why is Peace not attractive, lowers value of humanity and equated with being a pussy?
    1
  76. +John henry Chinese people have working hours similar to Japan and Korea, maybe less so we are not slaves. China is also against N Korea nuclearization but trades to prevent a collapse of N Korea resulting in mass refugees to both China and S Korea.
    1
  77. +Oliver Adkinson That's because of the one-China policy that's been in place for decades. Previous presidents respected that policy. The US is also sending warships and stealth bombers into the South China Sea to provoke China.
    1
  78. Lion Dragon CPC doesn't always use violence to settle problems like it did before. CPC members have more freedom to criticize policies, as long as the criticisms are constructive and well-grounded.
    1
  79. South Korea and Taiwan may not be on good enough working terms with Japan to warrant joining in the conflict. They may choose to discretely send aid or choose to do nothing.
    1
  80. +Kieran Jo Alright, you make a fair point, so I apologize for calling you shallow and naive. You happen to pop into the conversation at a bad time and I didn't give you any chance to discuss anything before bringing out the name-calling so... my bad. I only noticed once I read the backlog. I sort of reacted instinctively to your statement. The thing is, in my opinion, East Asia is a chess board with pieces scattered all over and poised to strike if anyone of them makes a move. N.Korea is poised to invade S.Korea, China can "legally" invade Taiwan, Japan has many old enemies, etc... As I said, having all of them join forces against China is a possible scenario but still unlikely in the event of war. China needs to make sure that scenario never happens if it goes to war.
    1