War between China & Japan, US drawn into conflict: effect on Apple

[G51989]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Agreed 100%

GS is right about one thing. The US military is very capable of handling large scale warfare. Probably the best the world. A Chinese invading force would fall under this category. Their army, much like ours, is built in the WWII - Cold War mold. It's what we've prepared ourselves to handle.

Indeed, the US Military is the best in the world when it comes to large scale military warfare, I have zero doubts that the majority of the Chinese air force and navy would be a burning, crashed, or sunken wreck if such such a conflict were to break out. I've read many many studies that have said it would only take 4 carrier strike forces to neutralize the majority of China's military and infrastructure.

A good example is the F18 Super Hornet, it could target 14 Chinese aircraft, destroy them all, and return to the carrier before the Chinese even knew what hit them.

China's military has come a long way, but its no match for US forces.

But when it comes to unconventional warfare and guerrilla tactics, the US military falls far short. We're great at rushing in, kicking asses and breaking resistance. But as soon as we settle down to fortify ourselves, we're practically sitting ducks for surgical strikes perpetrated by a fluidly moving enemy that doesn't operate on a rigid front basis. This is why we lost in Vietnam, and why we got slowly got our asses handed to us in Iraq. We're not equipped to deal with it.

This is 100% true, the US military is the best in the world at knocking out conventional forces, Iraq lasted...3 weeks? I doubt china would last much longer. I don't think any country in the world can stand up to the US in that aspect.

When it comes to 4th generation warfare, the US sucks at it, because its still stuck in cold war mode, its improving. But far to slowly. It still has to deal with threats like China and Russia ( not that either of them could put up a fight at the moment, aside from nukes. Seriously, China doesn't have the know how to build vessels half as good as the ones you see out of the USN. The only countries that come close are Britain and France )

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by G51989

And I think they are at bare minimum, 50 years away from coming close.

So even though they will be the larger economy within a decade its going to take them another 40 years to have an equivalent military?

The US military may be good now, but at the end of the day there are highly likely to be large defence cuts within the next 10-15 years as the US has to solve its deficit. At the end of the day the US doesn't really care about whether Taiwan gets invaded by China or not.

Originally Posted by G51989

Not 80, but lots of them will be entering their 60s and 70s, to old to do the slave labor that powers the Chinese economy, that will become an issue.

Slave labour is really hyperbolic, and people in their 60s and 70s can easily still work. They are going to have to in Europe.

Originally Posted by G51989

I'll admit, outside of basic European and American history, I don't. Because I don't care.

That explains a lot. Before 1820 China and India were the most important countries on the planet, and they had been for the better part of the previous 1800 years.

[Bug-Creator]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So even though they will be the larger economy within a decade its going to take them another 40 years to have an equivalent military?

They might a larger economy, but spread over 4 times the people (not sure if that matters much).

US is still way ahead in military tech and will take China decades to catch up.

Also rememeber that some of the US carriers still on active duty date back from the 70s (Nimitz dates 1975) and till recently even the 60s (Enterprise from 1961).
Building a new carrier (and it's accomping fleet) is a very very expensive task and matching the 10(?) active US carriers won't happen over night.

[Tsuchiya]

Obligations to Japan would be forgotten and I predict the US would stay out of it as long as they possibly could.

It's economical suicide that no country would want to risk. If America get involved, how long before parts of Asia and Europe get involved? Russia seem to just be itching for a fight.

That being said, I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. It's too big of a *****torm.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So even though they will be the larger economy within a decade its going to take them another 40 years to have an equivalent military?

Yes, its much more than just throwing money and bodies at it. Skill sets and combat experience play a huge part in it.

The US military may be good now, but at the end of the day there are highly likely to be large defence cuts within the next 10-15 years as the US has to solve its deficit. At the end of the day the US doesn't really care about whether Taiwan gets invaded by China or not.

There will likely be a clearing out of all the corruption in the military ( 45,000 dollar toilet seats will be gone ) world of defense contractors before we see any cuts to actual forces. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I think the Pentagon would clean house before they allowed available forces to drop drastically.

Slave labour is really hyperbolic,

And in lots of cases, its close to the truth. There are some bright spots, but they are few and far between. Unless your born into the right family, China seems like an awful place to live.( Ever been to China before? Masanjia Labor Camp ring a bell? I hear Its pretty bad.)

and people in their 60s and 70s can easily still work. They are going to have to in Europe.

Sure people can work in their 60s and 70s, but how long do they last doing hard manual labor, or hard assembly line jobs 18 hours a day before they just crap over? In Europe, most people won't be doing those jobs anyway, so thats Apples to Oranges.

That explains a lot. Before 1820 China and India were the most important countries on the planet, and they had been for the better part of the previous 1800 years.

I'll admit to not knowing very much about India or China ( I've been to both, not a fan of either. In China its to cold, the food is crap, and anywhere outside of a city is a ********. I want that month of my life back. Same with India, but its to hot, and the food is crap, its not all good over there, at all. It is improving however. ) before the 20th century. Mostly because its rather irrelevant to me.

----------

Originally Posted by Bug-Creator

They might a larger economy, but spread over 4 times the people (not sure if that matters much).

Of course it does, thats 4 times the amount of people to look after. China introduced a one child policy for a reason, to keep the population from exploding to unsustainable levels.

US is still way ahead in military tech and will take China decades to catch up.

Indeed, China's shipyards are extremely outdated and their technical know how is pretty limited compared to Europe and the US when it comes to military technology. Ever notice how every major advance they've made in recent times, has been via arms purchase, or theft? Or Copying?

Also rememeber that some of the US carriers still on active duty date back from the 70s (Nimitz dates 1975) and till recently even the 60s (Enterprise from 1961).
Building a new carrier (and it's accomping fleet) is a very very expensive task and matching the 10(?) active US carriers won't happen over night.

This.

China isn't capable of building things like a Nimitz. Not for a long time.

When you look at the Chinese military, you need to look past numbers. You also need to realize that things they claim are up to date ( J20 prototype, and that silly ' anti carrier missile ' ), have never been proven to...work

[throAU]

Seeing americans bitch about chinas perceived/feared plans for expansion into taiwan or other local areas makes me LOL when you have the US engaged in multiple wars on the other side of the world that really didn't need to involve them at all (regional disputes), since 1950. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....


And as to success in war by the US... it depends on how you measure success? Keeping the military-industrial complex busy making weapons for sustained war? Great Success!

The ROE for Vietnam were deliberately engineered to make it hard for the war to be "won"....

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by throAU

Seeing americans bitch about chinas perceived/feared plans for expansion into taiwan or other local areas makes me LOL when you have the US engaged in multiple wars on the other side of the world that really didn't need to involve them at all (regional disputes), since 1950. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....


And as to success in war by the US... it depends on how you measure success? Keeping the military-industrial complex busy making weapons for sustained war? Great Success!

The ROE for Vietnam were deliberately engineered to make it hard for the war to be "won"....

When was the last time the US engaged in a war to expand its territory?

We fight for the freedom of others, not to expand our own borders.

[throAU]

Originally Posted by thewitt

When was the last time the US engaged in a war to expand its territory?

Oh, i don't know.

The oil grab in Iraq? Just because they fly a different flag, it doesn't mean the government hasn't been deposed to suit the US interests.

We fight for the freedom of others, not to expand our own borders.

You believe that?



You don't even have freedom in your own country.

[thewitt]

The oil grab? How much oil from Iraq has been sold, yes sold, to the US? If it were an oil grab, we would be there pumping oil for free and shipping it here and not paying full market price.

We are not, have not, and will not.

Your arguments are simply absurd.

[throAU]

Originally Posted by thewitt

The oil grab? How much oil from Iraq has been sold, yes sold, to the US? If it were an oil grab, we would be there pumping oil for free and shipping it here and not paying full market price.

We are not, have not, and will not.

Your arguments are simply absurd.

You realise that the dollar is backed by oil, yes?

You realise that months previous to the 2003 invasion, Iraq was attempting to sell oil in Euros, bypassing the petrodollar system, yes?

Just like Iran, has set itself up to sell oil in non-USD currency, shortly before being labelled bad guys, yes?



You don't have to buy (or even consume for free) the oil for control of it to be ESSENTIAL to US interests.

Oil sold en-masse in non-USD currencies = the US dollar TANKS, and the house of cards which is your economy comes tumbling down.

The ONLY reason countries keep extending you credit is because of the OIL/USD relationship. Other countries NEED USD to buy oil. If people can buy oil in Euro, or any other currency - the USD is done. Dead. You will become Zimbabwe.

If you think you have debt problems over there now, consider how it would be if for example, the USD was to drop in value by 90% or more against other world currencies when it is no longer needed for oil trade? Also, because it is no longer needed for oil trade, other countries no longer hold it as "reserve" to prop up their own currency when it is devaluing.

All those dollars will come back into circulation within the US economy (rather than being "locked away" elsewhere) causing massive devaluation.

There is FAR more at stake in terms of US control over oil than simply getting some cheap oil from a conquered nation. The whole economy depends on it.

If you still believe the wars in the middle east are about freedom.... well.... I really don't know how to respond.

Do some research.


edit:
some reading for peeps

http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm
http://www.tacomapjh.org/petrodollartheories.htm

[Bug-Creator]

Originally Posted by thewitt

The oil grab? .

Just because it didn't work doesn't mean it wasn't the plan

Well actually some people in the defense and oil sectors got pretty pretty rich over that war (and they surely give a flying rat over the US).

The days when you actually confiscated the land British-Empire style are long gone, prooved to be too complicated and expensive.

But all the recent wars (with or without US involvement) have been about control. Control over people, raw materials, strategig routes of transport etc etc.

You just need a cheap local proxy to do your bidding, also much better deniability if things go south.

[throAU]

One more thing:

If the war in iraq was for the freedom of the Iraqis, then why did the US wait until Saddam started selling oil in Euros, rather than take him out in the 30+ years prior of him being a very nasty man (e.g., killing 200,000 kurds between 1986 and 1989)?

Why did the US support him, when he essentially took over the government by force, and not democratic election?

Why? Because up until that point, he didn't rock the economic boat.


If you're going to war for freedom, then why aren't you at war against Saudi Arabia, which has an atrocious human rights record, yet is a staunch US ally.

Why aren't you at war in the Congo?

Why aren't you stamping out Al Quaeda in the north of Mali?

What your government in the US says, and what your government actually DOES are two entirely different things. Keeping the population uneducated (very little in the way of other country history taught, deliberately garbage news coverage) helps.

[throAU]

Originally Posted by Bug-Creator

The days when you actually confiscated the land British-Empire style are long gone, prooved to be too complicated and expensive.

But all the recent wars (with or without US involvement) have been about control. Control over people, raw materials, strategig routes of transport etc etc.

You just need a cheap local proxy to do your bidding, also much better deniability if things go south.

100% this.

Virtually ALL wars are about control. The reasons listed on the news these days are very rarely anything to do with the real reason.

You're just meant to sit and watch Fox (or your own country's equivalent), cheer "Go america! ***** yeah!" occasionally, and not think too much.

Read books. Watch other country's news programs. Especially those of the "enemy".
ALL countries use propaganda. Yes, even yours. The whole point is that you're not meant to easily realise it.

All news is slanted to a particular point of view. Get plenty of different views - the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.