Posted on 01/05/2021 4:31:12 AM PST by RomanSoldier19
he U.S. Army’s Pacific theater strategy has long maintained that it does not plan to consider a land war against China for a number of key reasons.
First and foremost, perhaps most obviously, deployment would be a problem. How could any kind of mechanized land force, with the requisite expeditionary capability, mobilize for some kind of large-scale land assault on the Asian continent. Where would there be a staging area? Possibly India, a major U.S. ally, could offer some kind of option. Abrams tanks, for example, need to be shipped, deployed, and prepared, as do larger infantry carriers, howitzers, and other weapons systems. For this reason, the U.S. Army has based its approach on the prospect of joint-attack options with force concentrations possibly launched from Japan, Australia, allied island areas south of China, such as the Philippines or South China Sea area.
Furthermore, China is known to possess a large mechanized force along with as many as one million ground soldiers, a scenario that clearly presents a threat like no other in the world. Then there is the issue of China’s rugged, mountainous terrain, making it almost impossible for larger mechanized forces to advance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
Let’s suppose by some miracle we took over China. OMG! What then? Relief supplies for a billion people? Providing free medical care for a billion people?
No. China imports almost all of its raw materials and much of its food. Cutting off the imports will cost virtually nothing. It can be done thousands of miles away from 95% of the Chinese navy. Then, just wait. Within six weeks the lights go out in China. Once all the cell phones die, they will surrender. Then, take whatever started the war and go home. Tell them, “hey, call us when you’re back up and running.”
No value in stating this, even if likely so in a traditional, kinetic sense.
Someone had to say it!
With a Sicilian there are only two options when attacked; kill or run. The is no in between.
“Why not do what we did with the Soviets? Have them spend themselves broke!”
Because the tables are reversed now, as China has a larger economy than us. And now they have their US administration in place. It’s really up to China as to whether they want to manage their ascension to top dog peacefully or not.
The US didn’t have the stomach to do what was necessary (lock up local commies) when it counted, back in the 60s and 70s, so we lost.
If you want to have food, drugs or any machinery, I’d hold off of that. American’s have no idea how dependent we are on China, although there is a slow awakening. Frankly it would take more than a decade for the US to be able to function without China.
Perhaps, but the bigger obstacle is how bought off Wall Street Executives and American Politicians are to China....
Wall Street would hand have fought every attempt to rein in China....
China is smart, they know Wall Street would sell out the USA to the Devil for a sizable ROI....and politicians are right there in the greed department...
Tariffs. Pay up and promote domestic industry. Our founders would all approve. WIN - WIN.
As Vizzini said in the movie Princess Bride, “You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is to never get involved in a land war in Asia.”
With the correct strategy, China is easy to defeat.
____________________________________________
So is the U.S.....just use “democracy”.
Are there people actually considering this?
There is more insanity around than I thought.
Do both. Without the tariff nothing will happen.
China does not have the larger economy. Ours is roughly twice the size when population numbers are factored as the should be when making comparisons of this kind.
A straw man argument.
Under current conditions and circumstances there is no rationale now for the U.S. invading China.
Circumstances and conditions could change, but knowing what those changes were would be required to judge the idea of invading China.
Speculation outside of knowledge about those things is silly.
“Ours is roughly twice the size when population numbers are factored as the should be when making comparisons of this kind.”
By that standard Lichtenstein should have been able to hold off Nazi Germany, and we should have been able to walk over China during the Korean War (since we were far wealthier than them), but they fought us to a standstill and nearly drove us off the peninsular.
Size does matter, and it matters a LOT. Anyway, we’ll about to learn that lesson, just as the UK did starting about 100 years ago.
None were directed at you ??
Did you just angergif at me.... Roflmao...
I like what you do, I just gutted the fake boat pic for the most part..
I am still lmao, dogs think I have cracked up... My first angergif.... Cross that off the bucket list.
Have a good day mate
CCP is spending a large portion of their GDP on US politicians and buying other countries. One of 2 things will occur. They will win or their people will overthrow the CCP.
[Then there is the issue of China’s rugged, mountainous terrain]
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.