Posted on 11/22/2005 7:47:59 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy
The overwhelming assessment by Asian officials, diplomats and analysts is that the U.S. military simply cannot defeat China. It has been an assessment relayed to U.S. government officials over the past few months by countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. This comes as President Bush wraps up a visit to Asia, in which he sought to strengthen U.S. ties with key allies in the region.
Most Asian officials have expressed their views privately. Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara has gone public, warning that the United States would lose any war with China.
"In any case, if tension between the United States and China heightens, if each side pulls the trigger, though it may not be stretched to nuclear weapons, and the wider hostilities expand, I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives," Mr. Ishihara said in an address to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities—even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.
The governor said the U.S. military could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw.
"Therefore, we need to consider other means to counter China," he said. "The step we should be taking against China, I believe, is economic containment."
Officials acknowledge that Mr. Ishihara's views reflect the widespread skepticism of U.S. military capabilities in such countries as Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea. They said the U.S.-led war in Iraq has pointed to the American weakness in low-tech warfare.
"When we can't even control parts of Anbar, they get the message loud and clear," an official said, referring to the flashpoint province in western Iraq.
As a result, Asian allies of the United States are quietly preparing to bolster their militaries independent of Washington. So far, the Bush administration has been strongly opposed to an indigenous Japanese defense capability, fearing it would lead to the expulsion of the U.S. military presence from that country.
On Nov. 16, Mr. Bush met with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. The two leaders discussed the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan and Tokyo's troop deployment in Iraq.
During his visit to Washington in early November, Mr. Ishihara met senior U.S. defense officials. They included talks with U.S. Defense Deputy Undersecretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Lawless to discuss the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan.
For his part, Mr. Ishihara does not see China as evolving into a stable democracy with free elections.
"I believe such predictions are totally wrong," Mr. Ishihara said.
I wouldnt count on the US govt giving us any guns. If anythign, they will take them away.. Which is already happening in various parts of the country. I own many guns and alot of ammo. I encourage all Freepers to own guns and ammo too. One we loose our guns, we loose our freedoms.
Welcome to Free Republic!
We couldn't defeat the Chinese?
Well, not if we fought on their terms door-to-door, a war of attrition.
But if we fought on our terms, if we were fortunate enought o have a leader like, say, Geogre Dubya, then,
"BOOM" and the war would be instantly in its last stages...
How about...No, No, No, No..and....No. Welcome to FR, please try not to sound like a 'cut and run' troll on your first day.
Exactly, but the reason for the article is to show the consequences of the Dims pullout statements. Their words are being used almost verbatim to our (potential) enemies.
So, you're saying those tanks, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, jet fighters and bombers we have - those are all just an illusion of some sort?
And those soldiers and marines fighting and making the OTHER guy die in Iraq and Afghanistan - those men are what? mercenaries we've hired? Another illusion?
Insight Mag has always struck me as a rather kooky and crappy source. I actually wouldn't trust that anything they claim to be quoting is correct.
This man has no idea what he's talking about, or else this is a bad translation of what he actually said. Our ground forces are highly competent and extremely brave, as Iraq found out during Desert Storm and the first month of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The problems we're having in Iraq lately are because we're fighting an insurgent force that is mixed in with the civilian population and we can't use our superior firepower against them without causing a lot of civilian casualties.
I'm not sure why he's even talking about ground forces, because any armed conflict with China would be a Naval war on the sea to stop an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. If it happened in the next few years, I think our Navy would decimate a Chinese invasion force headed for Taiwan, and Taiwan might even be able to do that alone. Ships on the open sea make easy targets for today's precision-guided missiles and bombs. It's not going to be so easy for China to invade Taiwan wihout nuking Taiwan first.
This article is a load of nonsense. Let me make a couple points:
1) The US would likely possess total air and naval superiority in any conflict with China. While China has upgraded its both sub fleet and anti ship missiles, it would be greatly outclassed in going head to head with the US. This will likely not change meaningfully for at least 20 years.
2) The US would not likely fight China in large scale land battles. The likeliest possibility would be a battle for Taiwan. Crossing a body of water is a very difficult thing to do (stopping power of water) and when you are facing a modern military (Taiwain) backed by the only superpower in the world's naval and air forces it becomes even more difficult.
3) Comparing Iraq to even an unlikely large scale land war with the US is silly. First, Iraq needs to be viewed in two stages - a classic war and a counter-insurgency. The US military easily defeated the Iraqi regular forces. In the insurgency, the US military has defeated any enemy coming at them with the exception of IEDs. Clearly, the counter-insurgency phase does not compare with anything involving China. In a land battle against Chinese regular forces, US power would used in its optimum manner. Chinese armor would be cut to pieces, precision target munitions and other conventional weapons (AC-130, Daisy cutters etc) would handle wave attacks much better than in Korea. With satellite communications, the US can destroy anything that clumps. Massed infantry would likely be no exception. Also, unless fighting on the Asian mainland, China would not be able to transport sufficient quantities of men and munitions to fight the US.
4) The silly article in question also presupposes China would change its grand strategy and undertake a highly risky action against the US. China, short of starting a major war with the US, is assured of defense. The Chinese have proven willing to let their economy grow and use positive and negative inducements to sway states in the region and around the globe.
5) The article also suggests China would be willing to use nuclear weapons against the United States early in any conflict. The history of the nuclear era suggests this is really unlikely. If they did act in this way, it would not be rational in the limited sense this word is used in international relations. China's small(er) arsenal could hurt the US badly, but the US could literally push China back to the stoneage. Our missiles could saturate every city in China within 18 minutes of any Chinese launch. China's economic development is concentrated in a handful of cities - what happens with those gone?
This is a joke?
We have a kill rate of 25 to 1, but we're incompetent?
Hmmmmm.
We have a blooded veteran armed forces and the Chicoms haven't fought a serious war with ARMED opponents since 1949, but we're incompetent?
They are begging, borrowing and stealing all of American military hardware they can get, but we're incompetent.
Things that make you go, "Huh?"
The person who wrote this article and those quoted do not know their asses from their elbows on this issue. It is not worth worrying about.
(somehow I left this concluding paragraph of my earlier post)
Right on target. See post #30.
For his part, Mr. Ishihara does not see China as evolving into a stable democracy with free elections. "I believe such predictions are totally wrong," Mr. Ishihara said.
If they do not evolve into some sort of representative government, then what form will the government take? As the Chinese continue to obtain economic freedom, they are going to want political freedom.
Given that there are 900 million peasants in the country today, allowing them a vote is hardly practical. They would vote to take away the money from the "rich" and social chaos would rein. This is the real dilemma faced by China, it is a powder keg, how this is all worked out will determine if there is war or not.
schu
>>After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw. <<
It's called the murtha Doctrine.
You should be proud of yourself mr. murtha.
Look how they're using Democrat talking points. If you repeat the same lie over and over... I have no doubt if we went to war with China in the near future, they would lose quite horribly. But if the Dims keep taking this line, where do the Dims cross the line between freedom of speech and treason?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.