Yes, but what amount of goods do you buy in China with 4,909 billion US$ and what amount of goods do you buy in US with 14,245 billion US$? Forget about GDP and do it by PPP (purchasing power parity). Then you get: EU (14,793), US (14,256) and China (8,765). Quite different isn't it? And more accurate. Looking at GDPs is an illusion.;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_%28PPP%29

And if you want to feel quite bad, look at the estimates. I can't wait for 2011 to know if the planned evolution is right or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...P%29_estimates

Something I forgot about China. It spends ten time less than US in its military while it has a PPP equals to 60% that of US. I might be too quick to jump at a conclusion but it makes me think that China doesn't give a damn about competing militarily with US. I don't think China ever wanted to compete with US in that matter and I'll be surprised if it does before long.

And it only takes one or two bad decisions by the government of the day to really screw up an economy...
Generally speaking, politicians are more interested in votes than responsible financial management (although often the two do tend to go hand in hand). Lobbyists are paid obscene amounts in some countries to influence said politicians to make decisions to suit just their one small area of interest. What's good for the country (and it's military) are often forgotten for short term, or even personal gain.

Agree and it is even more true for China. If it ever revert to a more radical ideology, then, and only then, will it become a threat. The worse ennemy of China is China itself.

Then, I don't think of China as a threat (militarily) to the West but China certainly thinks of the West as a threat to it's territorial integrity. The late 18th, 19th and 20th century proved that more than enough. The 21st already did.

Someone said that they are adept of Sun Tzu, that's true and, therefore, they could well be thinking that starting a war is already loosing it (To these days, China is the sole country that gave its word not to launch an atomic bomb at an ennemy not possessing the bomb). In addition, China is more dangerous when it comes to trade. After all, they are the people who have been the most successful at that over the past 5000 years.

I was hoping you would use the PPP model. Purchasing Power Parity is the idea that adjustments to exchange rates will cause the value of a particular good in two different countries to be equal, and therefore is the amount of a certain basket of basic goods which can be bought in any one country with the standard international currency which is basically the US$. But the same good is not worth the same amount everywhere, in fact it’s not always the same even within the same country. Add geographic distance along with variations in laws and tax rates, price differences can become quite substantial. PPP exchange-rate calculation is considered controversial because of the difficulties of finding comparable items to compare purchasing power across countries. PPP estimations is complicated by the fact that countries do not simply differ in a uniform price levels, as differences can be greater between food prices and house prices but less than the difference in entertainment prices. It is necessary to use a price index for comparisons which is difficult because purchasing patterns and even the goods available differ across countries and it is necessary to make adjustments for differences in the quality of goods and services, and additional difficulties arise when more than two countries are to be compared.

The main reasons why different measures do not perfectly reflect standards of living are that PPP numbers can vary even within one specific good used, making it a rough estimate and differences in quality of goods are hard to measure. The goods that the currency can buy are categorised into different types. Local, non-tradable goods and services like electric power that are produced and sold domestically, and tradable goods such as non-perishable commodities sold on the international market. The more a product falls into the first category the further its price will be from the currency exchange model such as PPP, while the second category products tend to trade close to the currency exchange rate. Processed and expensive products are likely to fall into the second category and drift away from the PPP model. To answer your question about how much would 4,909 billion US$ buy in China and how much would 14,245 billion US$ buy in America, even if the PPP value of China’s currency is five times stronger than the currency exchange rate, it won’t buy five times as much of internationally traded goods. PPP calculations tend to overemphasise the primary sector contribution, and underemphasise the industrial and service sector contributions to the economy of a nation. Basically PPP is an artificial and inaccurate way to measure the economy of countries, and the nature and geography of supply and demand leads to natural inequalities among countries and a calculation based on the assumption of PPP must be viewed with suspicion. However some think it’s a good calculation system, but other prefer using nominal GDP and the fact that China has the second largest economy in the world is only validated by PPP, and not by any other measurement system. What is the estimate for China by GDP for 2011?

If the average per capita income of an American in 2010 is about $47,000, and the average for a Chinese is $3,700, which country do you think is doing the best? And why would I feel bad, I’m not American.

I'll get back to you on the other posts later Mo ;)

I didn't make the claim, the Chinese did. I'm sure that they are overestimating a bit but I don't doubt that they intend to do it. Given their recent successes at modernization, they probably will. Their AF is far more capable today than it was 20 years ago. In another 20, they will have further closed the technological gap on us.

And there's something to be said for sheer numbers and interior lines of supply. If the U.S. and China went to war in east Asia, the U.S. forces would be at the end of a very long lines of supply while the Chinese would be fighting essentially in their own backyard.

You are right about the Desert Storm and OIF. You could not be more wrong about the war in Afghanistan. It is the epitome of a guerilla/counterinsurgency war. No NATO ground force commander would call what's going on over there a conventional war. (If you mean "non-nuclear" you are correct, but that would be putting words in your mouth). This fundamental slip actually supports my point that the Chinese are not to be taken lightly. Despite our massive technological superiority over the Taliban, including complete air supremacy, the U.S. and its allies have not been able to defeat them strategically after 9 years of combat operations. And you are claiming that the U.S can defeat a country of 1.3 billion people, with the world's largest military, fighting on home soil (or close to it)? You are failing to see the forrest for the trees.

As far as Afghanistan goes, the Soviets were there for almost 10 years and they had superior technology and couldn't win the war. The locals are only doing what I would suspect, people would do when some foreign army moves in. They are fighting back. Much like the French did during WWII, and numerous other places since.

There are many countries in Asia and Africa that remain nation in name only where very little beyond the Capital is under the control of the "Central Goverment".

Sorry didn't think the "feel bad" in that way, cultural chock issue:). For the best country, I would argue none. I think you have made some good points and I'm sure I did too. About PPP, I was sure it was controversial, but GDP is too. It's always a question of point of view.

If you go that way, you can't compare China and US at all, Western ideas are not Asian ideas (except for Japan). Still, I have spent time in Portugal from 1986 to 2002 and I can tell you that the PPP has some true meaning.

I'll stop that exchange here, however, because I think we are going in circle now. I will not convince you and you can't convince me:rolleyes:. Future will tell and we will probably be all dead before that. I definitely don't think China to ever challenge US, not under the current ideology.

RN, thanks for the exchange;)

The French were not the best exemple you could come up with;). French freedom fighters were active but they were far from being fighting all the way back. Yougoslavia, Poland, Netherland and even Germany were much better exemples. 2 million germans were killed during ww2 fighting Nazi. They were the most active freedom fighter and could not count on any ally support.

In Afghanistan, I can see only two ways of winning the war: Genocide of most of the Afghan population (perfectly inacceptable for US) and paying warlords/talibans (increasingly bearable). It was the same for the Soviets. As long as they remained in Afghanistan they were on the losing side. From 1988 to 1991, the communist government of Afghanistan reverted to victory. It would have achieved it if soviet backing (3 billion US$/year) had not stopped in 1991. Something else about Afghanistan, NATO has soldiers, they have warriors.

To be honest the only progress that they have made over the past 20 years has been to replace the huge numbers of block obsolete aircraft they previously had, with relatively modest numbers of domestic designed aircraft and buy and license build smaller numbers of modern foreign (mainly Russian) aircraft and air defence systems. It has certainly improved China's air capabilities in many ways, and has also closed the technology gap with its major regional neighbours but it has hardly been revolutionary.


But the US has military and logistic bases across the globe, and many in the Pacific region including Japan and South Korea. Also the US has unmatchable airlift and sealift capabilities, and could bring troops, equipment and supplies at will and China could do little or nothing to prevent it. The US miltary established this capability during WW2 and has been prefecting it ever since.


So when you claimed that the US wasn't building for large scale conventional wars, how did you miss Desert Storm and OIF?


Despite the nature of the war in Afghanistan, it being a war against terrorism and the Taleban ideology, the war is largely fought on a conventional basis. The Taleban engage in dirty tactics such as road side and suicide bombings, and the US and NATO use a lot or irregular special forces and special equipment to combat them, but to a large degree the war is conventional and most of the major engagements have involved large scale skirmishes between infantry supported (on the US side) by armour, artillery and air power. The Taleban know they can't take on the US & NATO forces directly as their not as well trained, equiped or supplied, and any time they have tried or tried to lure NATO troops into situations that favour themselves they have been largely trashed or anhilated. What is prolonging the conflict is the political, ethnic and religous rivalries and vendettas that exist and have long existed in Afghanistan and its immediate neigbours, and the influence of other countries namely Pakistan, Iran and some unnamed Arab and Islamic backers and suppliers, as well as the interests of bigger powers such as Russian and China in the region. Also there is a plentifull supply of lunatics and simpletons who belive what their cynical holy men tell them, and prefer the afterlife to their present existance. Its a complicated mess and the US and NATO will eventually pull out when its suits them.


No your the one claiming it.

One thing the Chinese Air Force has also done is greatly update the avionics on their older aircraft (as much as the base design allows), giving them more bang for the buck.

Fair enough.

A fair point but considering the difficulty the U.S. had in supplying its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure that supplying a substantial miltiary force across the world's largest ocean would be as simple as you've implied.

I didn't miss anything. The '91 army was essentially the pinnacle of the Cold War army- the army built to take on the Soviets in a tank war in central Europe. The 2003 army was a slimmed down, lean and mean version of the same and the Iraqi armed forces were a shell of their '91 selves. Considering that the Iraqis had lost the bulk of their better armor (not saying much) and nearly their entire airforce during '91, the relatively easy victory in 2003 doesn't really prove a whole lot. Does the U.S. military today have the same number of tanks, aircraft, and ships that it did in '91? No.

You make my point for me. If the much more advanced U.S. military can't defeat a third-world insurgent army after 9 years, how could it defeat the world's most populous nation?

Classy. Show me where. Your whole argument is that the Chinese are not a match for the U.S. military, is it not? You can't have it both ways. You've raised some valid points and presented some compelling arguments. You've also made some pretty outlandish and unsubstantiated claims. I'd love to continue this debate but if you're going to be childish then forget it.

Well in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan it world be two Oceans from the West Coast, and they have to supply the troops in the rest of Asian and Europe as well. I never said it world be simple but the US can do it far better than anyone else.


But it still was a conventional war was it not?


No, but neither does anyone else.


The fighting is largely conventional the war is not. A war against China which you seem to be banging on about is never going to lead to a US invasion because the US has no reason to invade China.


" And you are claiming that the U.S can defeat a country of 1.3 billion people, with the world's largest military, fighting on home soil (or close to it)? You are failing to see the forrest for the trees."

Your words not mine.

Yes.


How do you mean? I have argued that the Chinese are no match for US forces, and I think they are not. You are the one who brought up the US invading China not me, as you seem to think that any hypotethical conventional war between the US and China is going to lead to a US invasion of China.


What outlandish and unsubstantiated claims have I made, when have I been childish and when have I insulted you?

Play nice, kids.

You right daddy:D

No, read on. You are claiming that the U.S. can defeat China militarily. You've said so several times.

Right there.


If you go back and read what I wrote I said "on home soil or close to it" and "in China's backyard". Taiwan, for example, or, less likely, Korea.

If you would like to qualify under what circumstances the U.S. could beat China militarily, then please do so. My assertion, once again, is that for the U.S. to do so, now but especially in 10 or 20 years, on Asian soil would be improbable (but not impossible).

I would have to say that using the strategic nuclear option we would win, but there would not be much left to occupy. If used tactically we could win and even have some usable land. Though either option would probably spark a much larger exchange, and well that would not be cool. Either way I hope we never find out.

There is another option.

Playing on the vastness of China, and the diverse ethnic groups, many who are persecuted and disenfranchised with Bejin.

And then we have their economic situation as well. The riples of this economic situation is having its effects there as well. And thus, alot of low and no skilled people from the countryside moved to the cities to work in factories which many are now closed, or its workers not being paid. There have been riots even. So, playing on this dissastisfaction one could stir alot of internal unrest within China, along with attempts by former nations that have been absorbed rising up, maybe with a little help. Cause enough internal strife, coupled with a good naval blockade because they got alot of their money from selling goods, and they are pretty resource poor. So, if the ships carring raw materials in and manufactured goods out all went to the bottom which is well within the capabilities of the US, they would be severely handicapped. And a land campaign would most likely not be needed, at least by the US.

Comparing the performance of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan to the performance of the US military in a conventional war in East Asia against the PRC is not a useful exercise. The Yankees can't claim to be on top because they win an exhibition game against a promising bush league team--which is what the Iraqi Army turned out to be. General Franks did a good job setting policy and using his available resources. However, the contrasts between a Sino-Amiercan conflict and OIF/OEF are more prominent than the comparisons.

We should bear in mind that while carrier-killing missiles probably are directed principally at the US, China has other rivals. Russia is recovering, albeit slowly and unevenly. India is getting strong and rich quickly. A large and heavily mechanized PLA almost certainly is intended for action against either of these rivals, not the US. Weapons that are serviceable against the USN are even more serviceable against the Russian Pacific Fleet and the Indian Navy. The same goes for the PLAAF. I think it's good politics for the Chinese leadership to put on a good show of being able to bloody the nose of the US Navy, but in the end the real rivals are in Asia. Since messing with the US means foreswearing the flow of raw materials across the various oceans easily interdicted by the USN, the Chinese know that sinking a US carrier is a worse-case option, not a most-likely option.

As an example, China recently signed a trade agreement with Brazil. Sino-Brazilian trade operates under the guns, so to speak, of the USN. Even if the Russians were of a mind to mess with this, they would end up fighting the convoy escorts of the Western powers. Probably, this isn't worth it. China's seaborne trade depends on American goodwill, new missiles notwithstanding. Until the balance of power at sea changes significantly, this fact will be far more salient than the ability of a new missile to hit a US carrier.

Webstral

Yes they could, and I'll say it again, they could.


Well what is the definition of China's backyard? Do you mean mainland China, do you mean countries neighbouring or near China, or do you mean just the sea's and airspace around China (the Yellow Sea and East and South China Sea's), or do you mean further out into the Pacific.


Well they would have to go to war first, and unless China actually attacked American forces this is unlikely. However American forces could be drawn into an escalated conflict with China if it was compelled to back a major ally in a dispute with China, such as Taiwan, Korea or a territorial dispute in the sea's around China. Taiwan or a territorial waters dispute is the most likely senario, and a full scale Chinese invasion of Taiwan is likely to lead to a voilent American reaction. However China might begin a campaign of air and naval harassment of another countries shipping or even military forces which might drag America in, and the development and outcome of such a war would depend on the reaction of America.

If America decided to engage Chinese forces, such a conflict is likely to only involve air and naval forces, and possibly Chinese long ranged surface-to-air missiles launched from China, unless America attacked mainland China which would widen the scope of the war. It would start of with probing action by American and Chinese air and naval forces as they size each other up. It could escalate to skirmishes where America is likely to restrain or limit the actions of its air and naval forces to only react in self-defence. However the successfull sinking a US Navy warship would provoke a major American response.

Hypothetically if America decided to go full throttle after China then your looking at a US mobilisation on at least the scale of the Gulf War, with a major emphasis on air and naval power.

On the naval front were not talking about just a carrier battle group or two, but the majority of the Third, Fifth, Seventh Fleets, and elements of the other fleets as well. China's coastline would be blockaded by up to half of the USN operational SSN fleet. At least half a dozen carrier battle groups could be deployed within striking range of the Chinese mainland, heavily defended by heavily armed USN escorts with TLAM capabilities and other US land based air defence assets.

On the air front the build up of US air assets would be escalated. USAF, USN and USMC combat, reconnaisance and airlift assets from across CONUS, Europe and the Middle East are going to be deployed to US and allied air bases from the West Coast, Alaska, Hawaii, Japan, S. Korea, Guam, Diego Gargia, the Middle East and possibly Taiwan and other Asian countries. The full spectrum of US airpower is going to be deployed and on stand by here, everything from the B-2 to the F-22.

Without even taking into account the mobilisation of US Army and Marine forces which can be deployed around the world in numbers that no other country can match, or the air, sea and land based US strategic nuclear deterent, your looking at up to 100 major warships and submarines, and probably at least 1,000 frontline combat aircraft facing China.

Faced with this the Chinese are likely to find away out of the conflict or duke it out with America. If they choose the latter their air defence network and non-nuclear strike capabilities that could obstruct or potentially harm American forces will be quickly targeted and eliminated. If the Chinese continue to fight their navy and airforce will be targeted. After about a month China won't have much of an airforce or navy left and its economy would be ruined, while the US will be considering its next option. If during such a conflict China attempted to go nuclear America's response would be overwhelming and deadly to China.

Basically its a no win situation for China. In 10 ot 20 years time China will have improved its capabilities but so will America and other countries, and even during the height of the Cold War and America's forces lowest point in the mid-1970's after the withdrawal from Vietnam, America never realy lost its supremacy over the Soviet Union in the air. The Chinese are going to have to heavily develop and improve their air defence and air combat assets to even level the playing field even in their own backyard, and massively expand their naval capabilities to take on the US Navy in the western Pacific.

Not false but not entirely true either. These disatisfied groups will be mainly Tibetans and Ouighours. Then, unrest will occur mainly in western china. I'm not sure it would last long. With China not needing to show a kind face to the world, it could rely on genocide with little regret and end it quite fast.

About economical unrest, it could indeed be a problem for China but it will entirely depend on their political choices. If the West stop buying goods in China, China simply has to switch it's economy to fuel its domestic market.

Mo;

China is having alot of small seperatists groups in the West, and some muslim terrorist activity too. Granted the Chinese would be too bashful about moving into India or Pakistan or other countries to deal with the folks giving them a hard time, but that could be politicaly damaging, as well as bringing the force of the country they just invaded.

As for China and Comerce, I was actauly thinking stopping major commerce ie, raw materials comming in and manufactured goods going out by means of submarine, air, surface ships and anti shipping missiles.

And of course with Chinas raising unemployed ranks of low and no skilled workers, well alot of dissatisfaction can be fostered. Cripple them economicaly, hit them with several small militant groups and back one or two or three of the larger revolutionary groups again encourafging their displeasure with Bejin.

Jester

I like your ideas and see them as perfectly plausible. However, depending on the level of isolation for China, it can be extremely different.

If Russia doesn't close commercial relations with China, things can turn a very different way. The groups you are talking about can start to have a very had time.

Commercialy, the situation can become more complex. Russia can provide China with more than enough raw materials in exchange for a wide variety of industrial goods (what Russia lacks). Then, with enough raw materials to keep its industry working, China could not face so much unrest and under wise leadership, it can chose to turn to its own population to sell a majority of its products.

Then, I don't think that western economy would collapse (also it could). It would, however, face a crisis that could be very long and damaging and need time to recover. As we just seen, stock exchange can make the entire western world go down and we have done very little (to these days) to correct this.

Oh, I do not advocate that any of those ideas by themselves would cause them terrible harm. But,with all of them combined it would. What I am more working with, is the idea of causing them rebelling within their boarders. <It already exists the further one gets from Bejin.>

As for them turning inward for inner markets, true, but then again, this is what I see with China today. A vast chasm between the rich who live lives of luxury. And the poor who still live in the countryside who don't even have electricity. It exists! And yes they had a growning middle class of the skilled labor, but these folks are now suffering as a result of the worlds economic crisis because China put most of its domestic energy into industrialization and manufacturing.

And, I just do not see Russia being as big a market for China alone that it will keep them from going bankrupt if a blockade were to be put in place. And N. Korea and Cuba wouldn't do it either. They would of course turn to the 3rd World. But, if a blockade were to be made of China then assuming Russia were on freindly terms, they could transit through Russia, into the Baltic and Black Sea ports and Arctic, but those ports are all landlocked with limited access and you would have to travel the expanse of Asia and Europe to get them to market. But, they could find markets in the 3rd World, some Asian, Africa for sure and some S. American. And I do not doubt that many European and other nations would stab the US in the back and conduct under the table trade deals with China much like they have with Iran, Iraq and A-Stan. <In my view those nations could do with a little thermo nuclear renovations.>

And another aspect is, how much does China have invested in the US and areas that are within the US's sphere of influence? All of those assets and facilities get siezed immediatly and used for the war effort <thus they are eliminated as a bargaining chip or reparation once hostilities are ended.>

And I like the idea of a nice scenario coming out of this. Don't advocate myself.:) I'll include some of our thinking to my homegrown t2k.

It seems this is more a T2K13 thing than a T2K thing, though.

Heck, I've written several scenarios. In my home rules timeline I had China acting the oportunist and jumping in a landgrab of Taiwan while the US was buising fighting in the Middle East and Europe and their fleets scattered across the glob or on the bottom of the ocean or down for lack of spares.

I even came up with an idea of a couple Chinese variants of Division de Cuba, and well, similiar ideas that have been put in the 2013 variant....things, ideas I posted back in 01 hmmmmm :rolleyes:

I incorportated Chinise infiltrations into the coastal cities China towns, operations on the former Long Beach Naval Station <leased to the Chinese under Clinton> several container ships with Chinese troops and supplies landing, and siezing the port areas coupled with the sleepers in the Chinatowns, and thus paralyzing the ports and logistics system of the Pacific Coast of N. America.

Further, I let the deal with the Chinese and Panama Canal go through so there is a presence there as well.


I also wrote another scenario years ago about a US/Free Chinese/Taiwanese landing on mainland China.

A token force of US forces, with Taiwanese, Ex Pat Chinese from N. America and the Commonwealth nationes, making up a few brigades, A division or two of Taiwanese, and a Free China Army, as I have China in a multiple party civil war, much like a great deal of their modern history. A force going through the countryside liberating them, which is for psychological purposes, to the people back home, to the enemy Chinese that they are not beyond being invaded, and to the FREE CHINA forces and the population that there is a force outside who will support them in ousting the communist regime. <Of course these people will have been prepared prior with propoganda, agents and SF types wooing the locals over to the NATO cause.> I even made a Kalisz type scenario with that one.

Then another scenario was full on commando operation. The PCs mission to go in and with other teams, make their way to the great damn they built and blow it. A little bit of Force 10 From Navarone, but I also had some ideas from Operation Eagle Claw, the rescue attempt by Delta Force to rescue the embassy personel in Iran. that would be an awesome game to play would it not? Get in, get to the locatiom, conduct the mission? Or not, and then if you are able make your getaway, all across one of the largest nations in the world after you <if you were successful> have devestated an entire region.

So, yeah, I have come up with a few ideas over the years.

So now we're intellectual property thieves, too? Hellooooo....T2K13 Design Team member in the room....

I think it's safe to say that a new carrier-killing missile, regardless of how well it works, must be put into a context in which neither the United States or China have much to gain from either a new cold war or a hot war. The Chinese, being students of history, clearly have concluded that a) peace is better than war, and b) maintaining the peace requires multiple methods and assets.

Webstral

Eddie, did you not see the emotocon? It was ment as a joke.

The idea is not unplausible, and the concept of simultainious ideas is pretty damn common. The whole China is pretty obvious as they are the rising player attempting to take Ivans place in the world stage so they fit the bill as a good antagonist, coupled with some of their actions and expansions the last two decades. Its almost a natural conclusion for folks with an idea of history which this group has in spades. Heck, a glaring example is the whole remake of Red Dawn with the Chicoms replacing Ivan.

I know.

So you're saying I didn't have you at "Hellooooo..."?

OT - Chinese Carrier Killer missile
 

I think that I posted a thread on this a year or two ago. If I can find it, I'll merge them.

EDIT: Merged.

Oops didn't see it before... but now they have updated and tested the missile and the USN is starting on a missile defence against it.

No problem. Thanks for posting the update.