Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37

Thread: The coming battle between West and China + Russia.... the conflict of 21st century

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Still, count the carriers operated by the US Navy and match those against the entire rest of the world. Global reach is unique to one country today; others either don't have it or won't use it. China can barely keep PLAN ships serviced off of Eastern Africa, and hasn't sent a fleet around Cape Hope in nearly 600 years.
    One statistic that never fails to impress me is that one US supercarrier has a larger air force than 90% of the countries in the world, and we have ten of those supercarriers (with two more under construction). We can park one off the coast of almost any country, and still have a larger (and more capable) air force than that country has (not to mention the much-rumored nukes on-board though, as I understand it, they were supposedly removed from all US Navy ships following the end of the Cold War).
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    France was not going to spend a million lives keeping what belonged to the Germans, not after the mad rush into WWI.
    I can sympathise with French feelings at the time of the Ruhr occupation - nobody wanted another war and I can understand why. My point is they could have stopped the larger war by stamping on it at the start - when they had the ability (overwhelmingly) to do so. Deterrence works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    For all practical purposes, the Czechs were alone. There was no way to give them the help that they needed. They were going to lose the Sudetenland one way or the other. What was going to change if we encouraged them to fight was that they would die inflicting a mortal wound onto the German war machine.
    Not according to the memoirs of the British leaders at the time or the putative Czech - Polish alliance that was discussed prior to Chamberlain's visit to Munich according to FCO records. Churchill believed Czechoslovakia defensible - even with Muscovite support if need be. I wasn't around evidently so must abide by the accounts of those who were and understood the day to day situation. Simple fact is that the FCO made a total hash of it, sorry as I am to admit it.

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,555
    I would say, China vs Russia is more likely scenario, rather than China+Russia vs West.

  4. #19
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I can sympathise with French feelings at the time of the Ruhr occupation - nobody wanted another war and I can understand why. My point is they could have stopped the larger war by stamping on it at the start - when they had the ability (overwhelmingly) to do so. Deterrence works.
    The point was that you had to fight a small war to prevent the big one. Since no one can see the future, the French can be forgiven not to want to bleed for nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Not according to the memoirs of the British leaders at the time or the putative Czech - Polish alliance that was discussed prior to Chamberlain's visit to Munich according to FCO records. Churchill believed Czechoslovakia defensible - even with Muscovite support if need be. I wasn't around evidently so must abide by the accounts of those who were and understood the day to day situation. Simple fact is that the FCO made a total hash of it, sorry as I am to admit it.
    The Germans could only take the Sudetenland through a Pyrrhic victory. It was that tough. The Germans would have been bled white taking it but taking it was never in doubt.

    The only two armies ready to fight the Sudetenland were the Germans and the Czechs. No one else could have rushed enough troops to Czechoslovakia in time, not even the Poles.
    Chimo

  5. #20
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

    The only two armies ready to fight the Sudetenland were the Germans and the Czechs. No one else could have rushed enough troops to Czechoslovakia in time, not even the Poles.
    If the UK could have gotten the Czechs other neighbors to ally, or at least commit to not intervening, and France to commit to a real offense, the narrow frontage would have all but cancelled any German superiority in man power leading to a protracted war giving France time to mobilize.

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The point was that you had to fight a small war to prevent the big one. Since no one can see the future, the French can be forgiven not to want to bleed for nothing.
    I will take the small war every time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The Germans could only take the Sudetenland through a Pyrrhic victory. It was that tough. The Germans would have been bled white taking it but taking it was never in doubt.
    And left the western door wide open; lose.

  7. #22
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    If the UK could have gotten the Czechs other neighbors to ally, or at least commit to not intervening, and France to commit to a real offense, the narrow frontage would have all but cancelled any German superiority in man power leading to a protracted war giving France time to mobilize.
    You're asking way too much from war weary France.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I will take the small war every time.
    It was small in comparison to WWII but it was a commitment of over a million men by both sides. I will forgive the French for not wanting to bleed 100,000 men.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    And left the western door wide open; lose.
    You're reading this from hindsight. The Czechs can be forgiven for not wanting to lose over 300,000 men in a futile defence that no one was going to come to their rescue, at least not in time.

    The truth was no one was ready to come to the Czech defence. The battle would have been over before the British finished mobilizing and even then, it would be an inferior force to what the Germans had field.

    In hindsight, the Czechs should have fought. They would have lost but they would have killed the Wehrmacht but they didn't have hindsight and they've made a very understandable decision.

    As for Chamberlain, he was not a soldier and he didn't like the odds. Churchill was a soldier. But to Chamberlain's credit, he did start a re-armament program that the Germans could not match.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 22 May 16, at 22:02.
    Chimo

  8. #23
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,775
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I will take the small war every time.
    Unfortunately if the small war prevented a big one, then no one would know there would be a big one. And everyone would accuse you of being a "warmonger," a "war criminal," and "invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses."

    Imagine, you fight/invade Germany in 1938, to save and to protect minority German citizens and possibly other Europeans from being slaughtered in concentration camps. You sold this to the public. You won a bloody war and removed a mad man from power. But then you find no evidence of any concentration camps or even plans to exterminate the jews and the slavs and other "untermensch."

    It's not an enviable position to be in.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You're asking way too much from war weary France.
    That ended up in a larger war...

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    It was small in comparison to WWII but it was a commitment of over a million men by both sides. I will forgive the French for not wanting to bleed 100,000 men.
    There would almost certainly have been no conflict had the Ruhr occupation been forcefully opposed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You're reading this from hindsight. The Czechs can be forgiven for not wanting to lose over 300,000 men in a futile defence that no one was going to come to their rescue, at least not in time.
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Unfortunately if the small war prevented a big one, then no one would know there would be a big one. And everyone would accuse you of being a "warmonger," a "war criminal," and "invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses."
    All history is seen in hindsight but that does not mean we cannot lessons from past mistakes.

    My general point though is that wars - major wars - are caused more by mistakes - often by 'wishful thinking' ("my last territorial claim in Europe" etc) that encourages the war monger to think he (never been a she) can get away with it. Sure sometimes it will require a person to have the courage of their own convictions... and what? It is right that a person do so.
    Last edited by snapper; 23 May 16, at 22:48.

  10. #25
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    That ended up in a larger war...
    They didn't know that and they should not be faulted for not knowing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    There would almost certainly have been no conflict had the Ruhr occupation been forcefully opposed.
    At a projected cost of 100,000 Frenchmen. Forgive them for balking at such a cost for lands that the average French Joe didn't care for.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    All history is seen in hindsight but that does not mean we cannot lessons from past mistakes.
    Best decision possible based on best information available. Anything else is academically dishonest.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    My general point though is that wars - major wars - are caused more by mistakes - often by 'wishful thinking' ("my last territorial claim in Europe" etc) that encourages the war monger to think he (never been a she) can get away with it. Sure sometimes it will require a person to have the courage of their own convictions... and what? It is right that a person do so.
    How about both France and Great Britain were not ready for war? At the very least, their populations were not ready.
    Chimo

  11. #26
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Going back to the original topic, I can't see China directly challenging the USN but I can see China taking on one of the little guys (Vietnam or the Philippines) to establish her claims. Beating the crap out of Vietnam might persuade others not to get beat up ... or at least, not worth the hassle.
    Chimo

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,896
    Or China could beat up Vietnam in something else that doesn't involve the SCS, for example, the Hun Sen government in Cambodia is replaced by something less Hanoi friendly, and Vietnam tries to poke its nose in, only for China to come running in to the rescue.

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,160
    Among the many reasons for China's invasion of Vietnam in 1979 was that the PLA had no military experience beyond small skirmishes since 1962, and nothing really significant since Korea. Deng Xiaoping had sufficient reasons to test his army's capabilities, including, concern about possible Soviet naval bases at Cam Ran Bay, Vietnamese domination of Cambodia and Laos, and the disrespectful treatment of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam by a mere client state.

    Today, it is the navy and air force that haven't had any real combat experience in too long. Any foe the US would feel compelled to back up would be a poor sparring partner. So, too, would any foe capable of handing your forces their heads on a platter, so it won't be Japan. That leaves Vietnam, since the navy isn't really going to be tested in a battle with Burma or Mongolia.

    Now that the US intends to supply Vietnam with weapons, and both sides hope to sign the TPP, the prospects of a clash between China and Vietnam are rising.

  14. #29
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,662
    One thing I think is inevitable, if not outright war, is, the PLAN testing its forces against one of the smaller Joe's in the SCS in the next decade or two. Its inevitable if they are intelligent.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  15. #30
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,804
    a bit off topic but...

    The Muscovites were insane to insist of supporting Serbia and the Germans equally insane to match it by insisting on their support of Austro Hungary, Bismark would never have been so insane. No reason it could not have remained just another Balkan War.
    German high command was looking for an excuse to start a war. they were absolutely terrified by the pace of Russian industrialization and armament, PLUS they also knew that the socialists would likely take over the Reichstag, cutting the military budget.

    they saw 1913-1917 as their only reasonable chance of breaking the Entente before it was too late. they were pretty much right about that, by the way. everything else was just an excuse.

    there's less wishful thinking than you'd imagine.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Dumb Bombing in the 21st Century
    By Aussiegunner in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 31 Dec 10,, 06:06
  2. The Rise of China in the 21st Century & US Policies
    By Freeloader in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02 May 10,, 23:40
  3. Piracy in the 21st Century
    By BadKharma in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 12 Jan 09,, 11:15
  4. Airline flying in the 21st century.
    By wabpilot in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06 Sep 07,, 01:05
  5. Fresh Water in the 21st Century
    By wkllaw in forum International Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 30 Aug 07,, 03:04

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •