You know the rule. ANY mention of Klaus Nomi must be accompanied by his picture.
Posted on 05/20/2005 8:09:59 AM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Every day, the economic power and political influence of Red China continues to increase. I am, however, interested in knowing how powerful China is militarily. Is China strong enough to defeat the US in a conventional war? The latest I heard is that they have a total of 10 million trained to serve in their military, including reserves. I would especially like to hear from Freeper veterans as well as those serving in the military, on the potential threat that China poses to the United States.
Depends if they will let us buy the weapons from them.
You know the rule. ANY mention of Klaus Nomi must be accompanied by his picture.
In modern times, the WEst modernize much earlier than the East which was still mired in FEUDALISM
. Hence from 1800-1950, there was no doubt the West had the military advanstage
Japan, during WW2, relaized she lacked the industrial base of the mighty US industrial. That's why she planned the Battle of Midway, to try to bring the war to a quicker close, for she knew she did not have the staying power Admiral Yamamoto had studied at YALE and knew the American advanstage of a great industrial base
I don't think that they were ready; militarily, politically, or economically.
I totally agree with your view here
If MAO knew that the US had M-1, B-52s, Bradleys,Apaches ,satellite etc, he would NOT have entered the war, for that would be suicidal (and stupid) on his part
There is a theory, that speculates that STALIN schemed and engineered the KOrean War to get the US to fight China. Before the Korean War started, MAO had been trying to make friend with the Americans, by using 3rd party intermediaries, ---and the USSR did NOT like the idea too much
Modernization? Japan started the Second World War with technically superior aircraft, ships, submarines and torpedoes, all used to fabulous effect at Pearl Harbor and in the fleet actions between 1941 and May 1942.
However, once those ships and aircraft and more importantly the trained and experienced people to operate them started to disappear, Japan began to lose the war. The Japanese could not sustain the industrial base to continue to produce those superior weapons forever, and native Japanese talent which could have produced better weapons (as began to show up later in the war) was stifled by bureaucracy, tradition and starved of funding.
The problems were many, but boiled down to three CULTURAL issues:
1. The Offensive is Prime -Japanese warfare stressed the offensive to the detriment of defense, a hold over from Samurai tradition. Therefore, Japanese ships and aircraft were designed to maximize their offensive capabilities (range, speed, armament) and things like adequate armor, self-sealinfg fuel tanks, adequate anti-aircraft armament,etc. were neglected.
Another Japanese tradition with roots in the Samurai is the notion that commanders must atone for failure with their lives. Many brilliant Japanese military commanders went down with their ships or disemboweled themselves after defeat. They would not be able to pass on their experience or caution others to learn from their mistakes. Contast this with McArthur's retreat from the Philiines. The Japanese armed forces did a good job of killing off prominent and able commanders without American help.
Very often, Japanese soldiers went into combat with inadequate supplies and arms. This was not seen as a problem because a Japanese soldier was expected to make up with "spirit" what he lacked in tools. This led to numerous banzai charges when ammunition ran low or Japanese soldiers finding ingenious ways to take the enemy with them while they took their own lives. These men were expected to fight to the death and very often did. And they did so for their Emperor. A western soldier, however, is brought up in a spirit of civic militarism where he fights not merely for patriotic reasons, or at the whim of the monarch, but because he actually has a stake in the society he's fighting to protect.
Another aspect of this preoccupation with offense was the lack of co-ordination of the Japanese Merchant Marine. Japan, as an island nation, relied on its erchant fleet to a greater extent than England did. Yet, the Japanese did not institute a convoy system, did not co-ordinate merchant shipping to make most efficient use of available ships, and barely built any cargo ships at all to replace losses. This was seen as an unimportant detail. While the Japanese merchant navy was being sent to the bottom, Japan was busy wasting scarce resources converting battleships to aircraft carriers and building more carriers, neither of which would have had any aircraft anyway, in the belief they could still fight their way out of the war. That lack of aircraft,a nd the resources to adequately arm new fleets, was directly due to lack of ores and fuel that should have been carried by a merchant fleet. At the end of the war, the United States was launching 16 new warships for every Japanese ship built in the same period.
2. Japan's Approach to the war was rooted in Ritualistic Warfare - The Japanese idea was to strike quickly, acquire as much territory as possible, and then wait for their enemy to see the futility in trying to fight back and give up. This is very much a hallmark strategy of tribal warrior: one big battle, I kill enough of you for you to surrender, I get to keep what I have taken.
Very few Japanese leaders of the time had a clue as to what happens when you arouse a democracy at peace. The Japanese way of war had the war over within the first six months. After that, it had no plans. That's because it was unthinkiable that once enough Americans, British and Dutch had been killed, that any of them would have the stomach to fight back. By all rights, once defeated, they should leave the field. The same strategy was at work at Little Big Horn, Isandlwahna, Omduran, and counless other places.
3. Japan believed itself to be a Chosen People - just like our Arab friends today, the Japanese believed that they were destined to rule Asia because of their innate superiority to the decadent Westerner. Yet, Japan (and the Arabs) could not even hope to challenge the West without acquiring and adopting western techniques in combat, production, logistics, communications. Even thoug Japan had modern arms, it lacked the ability to produce them in the numbers needed, to get them into the hands of those who needed them when they needed them, and then to often improve on the basic designs as time went on. Just because Japan had machine guns, airplanes and battleships did not mean she was a western power --- she merely looked like one. Until the social revolution in Japan (after the war), only a small part (western-style weapons) of being a first-rate power was achieved.
Please understand, it's not just having the best weapons that makes you a military power. As an example, Iran is producing a nuclear weapon as we speak, in the meantime, I'll wager that 100,000 Iranians are right at this moment washing themselves in rain puddles. Kinda puts things in perspective, huh?
and they have those little flying cages that whizz through the air and behead people and catch the head in the cage. Martial Arts technology at its best. Hopefully the Islamics will never see that movie.
ACtually, I would bet that once they got off the ship (assuming it survived the ocean passage), 90% of the Chinese troops would defect.
In the 1920s and 30s, the British used their geo-political/military concept of the "balance of power "in Asia, and got the US and Japan to agree to a quota of major surface ships in the ratio of 4-4-2 , 4 for the US and Britain, and 2 for Japan
However, the Japanese built the great battleship, the "YAMATO" in secret, and the Brits and the Americans did NOT know of her existance until after the war started
Not that it means anything, but the British actually negotiatied themselves out of the Pacific with the Naval Disarmament Treaties of the 1920's. The defense of British possessions in the Far East depended on the Royal Navy. The Treaties (and a cheap government) limited the number of ships that could be built, and when war came, Britain found itself fighting in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, not to mention the Meditterannean and Aegean Seas. That 4:4:2 ratio actually worked to Japan's advantage, since Britain's resources were divided and the Americans didn't even build up to their treaty limits.
As for the Yamato, for the amount of time, effort and resources the Japanese put into the two Yamato class ships, they could have built a mess of aircarft carriers, complete with pilots and planes, a probably would have had a better chance of winning the war with those. All in all, the Yamatos were a disgraceful waste of resources. Neither Yamato or Mushashi ever got close enough to slug it out with American battleships, and both were sunk by carrier aircraft. It's also a known fact that Yamato had badly flawed armor plating and that a proper repair would have added 5,000 tons to it's displacement, with a corresponding loss of speed. In order to save face, the Japanese Navy pretended the armor problem did not exist. The Yamatos were merely the naval version of penis envy, not effective weapons.
Again, appearances are deceiving...
No need for my opinion. You already wrote it. Agreed.
Gosh, your knowledge of War and weapons of war is truly truly amazing
Are you a professional/academian war historian or is this just your hobby ?
I have learnt a great deal from your postings already
thanks for all the info
I am enjoying it
Militarily speaking, the US would Clean their clock.
Politically speaking, we don't have the will to close our southern borders.
So all in all I would have to say no.
I briefly studied history in college (before I dropped out), but it was always my first love. And military history, of course, is the ultimate history. In fact, you could almost say that without militaries there would be no history, in a sense.
But this information is generally readily available, you just have to take the time to look for it and do a lot of reading. Of course, any World War II day on the History Channel is required watching.
BTW, since most history is written by the victors, I try to take every opportunity I can to read anything written by the losing side as well. Even when the loser puts out propaganda about why he lost it's still informative.
Me too, I love History in School and University
"School and University"?
I would assume you are not American, then? Japanese perhaps?
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.