I said conventional air power. Nuclear weapons are not conventional - they've been used only twice in history. They're also not restricted to strategic air command. You could as well say that half our navy can destroy China, through submarine launched nuclear payloads. Even taking that into account, there's no certainty that (1) a nuclear exchange could completely neutralize the massive Chinese military or (2) that America would survive a retaliatroy exchange in any fashion that we could call it a victory.

Interesting how the topic of china always provokes a discussion on whether or not the US can kick their ass. One perspective is, China isn't worth fighting. If they want a war, we'd nuke their ass and be done with it in time to watch the next episode of Desperate Housewives.

Sure we would. And if we're really lucky, China wouldn't deploy it's own ICBMs and submarine launched nuclear weapons in retaliation until the second commercial break. They have at least twenty 2-megaton yield land-launched weapons capable of reaching the United States that are confirmed. What they've got that isn't documented is anyone's guess, but considering China's recent space program efforts, I think it's safe to say they'd kick our asses between 30-60 minutes after we kick theirs. I sure hope it was a good episode, as it might be the last one you'll ever get to see.

As an aside, where exactly did this presumption come from that the American military is the be-all-and-end-all of warfare? Korea was a draw, Vietnam a defeat, Iraq War I was with an assist from the whole planet and Iraq War 2 continues to be a debacle of poor analysis, poor planning, poor deployment and poor execution. America hasn't definitively handed any nation its ass in almost 60 years, but there's this ridiculous, swaggering attitude as if the US military is the Death Star or something. The truth is that we haven't yet stamped out a disorganized and poorly armed insurgency despite 18+ months of occupation. Yet this attitude of utter supremecy is still intact, from the 'necks I hear calling in to conservative talk shows all the way up to the Pentagon braintrust that thought "Shock & Awe!" would cause Iraq to capitulate without a major offensive. The world isn't shocked, and Americans are awed with themselves, but that's about it...

because our leaders are dimwits. our troops have superior equipment, and the potential to be trained greatly. however, the people doing the orders give the wrong ones.

So does any army Mishra. Ours in no different than any other.

[ QUOTE ]
Korea was a draw, Vietnam a defeat, Iraq War I was with an assist from the whole planet and Iraq War 2 continues to be a debacle of poor analysis, poor planning, poor deployment and poor execution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I disagree with your main point, but the American miltary taking down Iraq with only 300 losses was a major achievement. They had almost a 50-1 ratio of deaths to kills in all of the major battles, I think that shows their might. What happened after that, and their nation building, is a different matter.

And also the first iraq war was the same as the second, almost 90% american, the rest british

actually, operation desert storm was not mostly american.

there were saudi, free kuwaiti, french and other arab units involved as well.

[ QUOTE ]

the people doing the orders give the wrong ones.


[/ QUOTE ]

Be that as it may, the most powerful weapons pointed in the wrong direction still can't aquire the target.

American military might is awesome, no one would deny that, but it's main purpose is the comfort factor it provides people like you, and the intimidation it inflicts on the rest of us. The track record, as Verm mentioned in one of his posts, is mediocre at best.

This whole world runs on perception. Leadership is everything. Good leaders manage the perception of those that they lead. Read Rudolph Guiliani's new book, it's the most recent reiteration of these concepts that I have read.

----

Sundance:aswell being the operative word.

US troops represented only about 74% of the combined force (Gulf War)

So the word mostly is still correct.

Wikpedia source

From the horses mouth

----

[ QUOTE ]
im quite sure that, if it came to it, we could destroy them in battle with our airforce alone.


[/ QUOTE ]

History doesn't agree with you.

The airforce is usually one of the first arms of the military deployed, but 'almost' every conflict in our post-cold war era has seen foot soldiers deployed.

Certainly every conflect against organized troops as opposed to the rabble of disgruntled peasents strapped with AK's that the US has squashed in my lifetime.

The VC had the napalm fighter jets flying home in the 70's. Mission 'not' accomplished. You're presumptions don't stand the test of time dude.

----

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, I'm just trying to shine a light to show a different perception. An elephant can easily squash a sizable target like a watermelon, but 400 sleeper cell ants running around under him (capable of functioning in the absence of central leadership) and now the big guy's stregth becomes his weakness.

I'd argue the exact oppsite. Old school conventional warefare is so much more difficult to contain than big fat juicy targets. China understands this, so did the VC (and the commies that armed them).

-R

Where the fuck did the argument of a US/China war come in?

Thank you Rick. I was beginning to to think I was the only one to notice.

Take the discussion not related to the article elsewhere. And I don't mean another post, I mean another message board. These thread-derailings are really dull. Seriously.

sorry , it was sorta my fault ...

[ QUOTE ]
.

edit: also, check out the "topless teen game ban" link at the bottom. WTF? who would create and sell, or ever play such a game? that deserves the ban.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take Two

hat said, its unlikely Take-Two executives are thrilled to be the subject of another furor, this time back in the US, courtesy of The Guy Game. The Cox News Service reported this morning that a young woman has filed suit against the company for including footage of her topless, taken during the annual spring break revels on Texas' South Padre Island, without her legal consent.

Why? Because the woman in question was only 17 at the time, and therefore legally incapable of giving her consent to be in The Guy Game, let alone half naked. Furthermore, the assertion that the female plaintiff, identified only as "Jane Doe" in the suit, was a minor calls into question the legality of selling or distributing The Guy Game at all. As part of her suit, according to Cox, the plaintiff asked the Travis County Court in Austin, Texas, that all copies of The Guy Game with her likeness be removed from store shelves. Reportedly, the judge hearing the case concurred, granting a temporary order prohibiting sale of the game. The suit reportedly also said Ms. Doe's image could be seen on the official The Guy Game Web site, which was up and running normally as of press time.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/12...s_6115478.html

thanks kub and rick, i tried but guess i fell for it too

in response to:

Not true China has the largest standing army on earth. Aswell, the number has 'almost' doubled within the 10 years. That says soemting about their economy. Training and feeding an army the size of a small country is no small feat.

-Ground Force (Army) (1.9 million men; 14,000 tanks; 14,500 artillery pieces & 453 helicopters)

-Air Force (470,000 airmen; 2,556 jet fighters; 400 ground attack jets.)

-Navy (250,000 sailors; 63 submarines; 18 destroyers; 35 frigates)



The USA also has 12 more aircraft carriers than any other nation on the earth, it would be a hell of a fight between us and china, and unfortunately the only way the war could be won on either side I believe would be if a nuke was used.

but we don't want that to happen, do we

eh sorry, didnt see it till i replied

(The recent "War on Terror" conflicts aren't comparable with an all-out war. Even without nukes you'd see much larger and much more devastating weapons deployed when public perception and civilian lives no longer matter. Falludjah wouldn't have been sieged, they'd have flttened the town with a few MOABs and deployed biological and chemical WMDs)

That guy game was an idiotic idea anyway. A trivia game where you get to see some average girls topless when you win? Hell, you can pick up a tabloid for 50 cents and have three to four ( sometimes only nearly) naked (privates covered) models to gawk at. And it comes out daily. Not to mention the internet's porn archives but I assume we don't count real porn here...
If you need the trivia stuff, grab You Don't Know Jack or Who Wants to Be A Millionaire. Hold the Bild next to it and you got something that is a billion times better than the guy game.

Fun Fact: Gamespot said The Guy Game would be Gamecube exclusive the first time it was mentioned. Perhaps Nintendo was the only one too scared of losing a third party to protest against that content back then?

Im rather surprised that a country with partly thrid world education, election system and hardly objective population (do to uncontrolled biased school educations, 18th century-like intolerant/conservative/witchburning religious standards etc) only seems to worry about the size of their nukes, trying to compensate maybe ?

Edit: and whoever gets upset by this really needs a break and some fresh air.

[ QUOTE ]

I mean another message board.


[/ QUOTE ]

wow, thats pretty harsh. Sounds like you have a bone to pick.

-R

So did Take-Two film the nude footage for the game themselves? Sounds like the game version of "Girls Gone Wild", or just a bunch of pervs labeling themselves as a game studio.