Is China Preparing for War?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sandman


I very much doubt this is the case. No country can ever turn almost a third of its population into useful soldiers.

Many were not combat personel. Remember that their are a tremendous amount of administrative, logistical, and mechanical positions. Not to mention cooks, housekeepers, etc... Combat troops were at approx 10-12 million IIRC.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DataAeolus


World War II was one of best things ever happened to Germany and Japan economically speaking. The war destroyed their infrastructure then during the aftermath, the Americans actually helped their former enemies to rebuild. Without any restraints that would have been present if the old infrastructure was still there, Germany and Japan were able to basically rebuild everything from bottom to top resulting in an infrastructure more effective than others including Americans'.

This is true, but that infrastructure has been aging now for close to half a century. The US infrastructure is probably more modern now than eithier due to cyclical replacement.

[Barinthus]

In Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, there was this neat passage in which characters compared the military in early 20th century to the military in 23rd century. In 23rd century, everybody fights - even the cook and so on while in 20th century, for every soldier who fought, there was like 50 people to enable him to fight such as cooks, quartermasters, and other support elements. I wish I had a copy here so I could quote it for you guys.

But yeah like Plato said, not all were combat personnel - majority was the support.

[David Floyd]

Combat troops were at approx 10-12 million IIRC.

Wrong, the entire US Army was in that range, but most of those people were in support roles. The US only had 89 Army and 6 Marine divisions during the war, and if you assume an average of 15,000-20,000 men per divisions (many of whom aren't even combat personnel), you don't even approach 10 million.

[Shi Huangdi]

Urban Ranger:

Iraq and Vietnam are bad comparisons as the objective there was to take and hold hostile or semi-hostile territory, which is difficult with modern guerilla warfare. And yes, the United State would not be able to take over China, the USN and USAF would be able to bring China to it's knees.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Wrong, the entire US Army was in that range, but most of those people were in support roles. The US only had 89 Army and 6 Marine divisions during the war, and if you assume an average of 15,000-20,000 men per divisions (many of whom aren't even combat personnel), you don't even approach 10 million.

After researching the subject, I have found you are quite right (another myth of my youth dispelled!). Civilian population in 1945 was 127 million and total nearly 13 million in military population. Given same ratios, US could field military population of 30 million or about 10 % of population. Apologies also to Sandman.

[:) Smiley]

Under what situation would we need to field 30 million soldiers? A soldier today can do the work of at least 10 back in '45.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Everybody will be launching nuclear missiles at the US if the US even contemplates in making such a thread, Floyd. Better to get rid of a madman first.

Likewise, everybody will be launching a nuke at the next person to make a PRC/Taiwan "thread", right?

[Ted Striker]

Nice hat

I'd hit it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Robert Accinelli has written a thorough and thought-provoking account of U.S. relations with the Republic of China (relocated to Taiwan in December 1949) at the dawn of the Cold War. Through a chronological narrative, Accinelli retraces the complicated interplay of events that led the Truman and Eisenhower administrations toward the "two China" approach that eventually dominated American foreign policy. In this first full-length analysis of America's growing security interest in Taiwan, the author argues convincingly that the U.S. made no formal commitment to the island and that half-measures and pragmatism dominated American diplomacy. While the casual student of U.S.-East Asian relations might suspect that the Truman administration favored establishing a noncommunist outpost off the Chinese mainland, Accinelli correctly concludes that Washington was far more cautious in its dealing with Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalists. Instead, he argues that successive U.S. administrations kept military, economic, and political commitments to Taiwan limited and out of official channels.

In the aftermath of Mao Tse-tung's victory in China, American policymakers had conceded that Taiwan and the surrounding offshore islands would eventually fall to the Communists. The "interventionists" in the State Department suggested, however, that this gloomy prediction was premature. In mid-1950, this group of senior State Department officials rallied together, calling for a regional policy review. The "interventionists"--led by Dean Rusk, Paul Nitze, and John Foster Dulles--concluded that Taiwan was salvageable if given proper U.S. support. Rusk, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, spearheaded a move in Washington to provide Taiwan with at least token military assurances in the early years. The "interventionists" convinced others in Washington of Taiwan's strategic military importance and its psychological political value, and as a result, the commitment grew over time.

According to Accinelli, there were other factors that led the Truman administration to reevaluate its Taiwan guarantee. The growing turmoil in Korea and Southeast Asia provided the regional context while Senator Joseph P. McCarthy's anticommunist crusade added certain domestic pressures. Accinelli contends that Truman and Eisenhower eventually settled for the "two China" approach, ensuring Taiwan's security and survival under Peking's gaze. At the same time, however, Washington made clear that there would be no counterattack against the mainland and no future provocative military action by the nationalists.

Accinelli bases his conclusions on meticulous archival research and a thorough review of existing literature. This book is "old fashioned" diplomatic history at its best and it should join Nancy Bernkopf Tucker's Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the United States as the standard work on the subject. Although the detail might overwhelm some undergraduates, graduate students and specialists will find it useful, and perhaps even essential reading.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2082/2_61/54469171/p1/article.jhtml

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by PLATO


Before last START talks, US had almost 11,000 warheads. Do you really think the press just missed the disposal of all that bomb grade plutonium? I'm guessing they are "being stored for disposal" at Fort Hood. (Bye Bye China if you are stupid enough to launch. Ha...China fires 20 nukes...15 are viable launches...10 are shot down or badly miss tarkets...5 hit. US retaliates with 10,000 nukes...Former SE Asia now known as the East Persian sea.)

The China ICBM carry 25 megton Temonuclear warhead(H-Bomb) than EMP (electic Magnetic Pulse) would ruin our computise ecomony real fast, powerline will be melt by than EMP tham power generator at power compancies will be either melt or burnout or both over awide part of America. Huge firestorm will rage across our national park's and forest and cities. Looking at than hight atitude 25 megton bust will cause 3rd degrecc burn on people up to 90 or more miles away(the worst time of burn possible) while at the same time the light from that themonuclear blast will blind people permanant as far as 90 or more miles. The EMP can traveler thousand mile or more from than single Themonuclear blast. Plus China is alway impoven they ICBM and there is agood change that they range is greater than we think. That why nobody test big H-bomb anymore. The Island we test our first H-Bomb on cannot support human habition yet and that test was done 44 years ago, we think that Island might be unliveable for the next few thousand years to come. We donot have than Anti-missile Defense system yet, they cannot stop very missiles, in fact in our rig test if did work every well. There are way to make than ICBM harder to shoot down.

[Nubclear]

I'm only partially reading the last post, but if you people are arguing whether a Chinese nuke would destroy the US economy....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Likewise, everybody will be launching a nuke at the next person to make a PRC/Taiwan "thread", right?

Good idea.

Nice avator, too.

Oh, how much are the bruises going for these days?

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Taiwan would repel any invasion coming from China as it stands now due to the severe lack of anything resembling sea lift capacity. Be more worried about Taiwan in a decade or so.

I hear thought my Intelligence Network that China have away to put than huge force on Taiwan without any huge sealift capacity.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I'm only partially reading the last post, but if you people are arguing whether a Chinese nuke would destroy the US economy....

There are basely three type of nuclear weapon on Earth right now.

!.) Fission bomb call commonly A-bomb useing either Pu-239(99.99 total amount) or U-235.

2.) Fission-fusion bomb (called clean H-bomb compare to the next type of nuclear weapon) use than atomic bomb to reach tempurate where hydrogen can fuse into helium it release alot of neutrons. Common call low yield H-bomb.

3.) Fission-fusion-fission bomb (call dirtly H-bomb and are also hight yeild themonuclear bomb) it use than atomic bomb to reach tempurate hight enought to make hydrogen fuse into Helium than the U-238 caseing is hits by enought hight speed neutron to actiate to start than fission reaction which is stronger than the fusion blast as they use 1000 kg to 2000 kg of U-238 in the caseing.