[alanh]

the doctrine of the US military in the second half of the 20th century has been to have a military able to conduct 2 campaigns the size of ww2. thats pretty friggin strong if u ask me. so if you think about that, the US military of today would pretty much be close or equal to the combined armies of the UK, Russia and the US of ww2.

my ex wife served in the US army reserve for 5 years, and she always used to tell me that the US army was way too big and nobody, not even the US, needed an army that huge. although I think as of the last 5-10 years the US army is downsizing slightly into more mobile units and detachments.

[ManifestDestiny]

Freefall Freefall:

Don't kid yourselves, the US war machine is not what it used to be, and even with what is going on in todays world they are making cutbacks. The US or any other nation could not take on North Korea let alone China in a convential war. Here is a more interesting thought...Could the rest of the world stop North Korea and China allied together. We couldn't the first time and they had nowhere near the stuff they do now, both military and industrial......and our militaries were larger and more prepared then. Food for thought

So in your opinion North korea without the help of China could defeat the USA in a conventional war? Do you live in a far off dimension we dont know about? Did you all know that Saddams Army was larger and had more up to date weapons than N. Korea. It took only 241 hours to stop them. If China did not get invloved N. Korea would have no chance. As far as the world V. USA It depends on to many factors it could go either way. As far as China Its has 1.3 billion people it can put up an army of 350 miliion. Do you know how long it takes to moblize those numbers. In a one on one basis coventional war The usa would defeat china because of logistics. Nuke is not an option China does not have long rang capabilities on thier Rockets. All of there missles are facing Russia not the US they Cant reah us YET.

[Scape]

NYCisHome NYCisHome:

Nuke is not an option China does not have long rang capabilities on thier Rockets. All of there missles are facing Russia not the US they Cant reah us YET.

Wrong

DF-41(deployed by 2010), DF-31A and Sub launched JL-2 can all hit the US.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Freefall Freefall:

Don't kid yourselves, the US war machine is not what it used to be, and even with what is going on in todays world they are making cutbacks. The US or any other nation could not take on North Korea let alone China in a convential war. Here is a more interesting thought...Could the rest of the world stop North Korea and China allied together. We couldn't the first time and they had nowhere near the stuff they do now, both military and industrial......and our militaries were larger and more prepared then. Food for thought

I'll give you that China would be a tough foe, but North Korea? You have to be kidding me, they barely have enough money to afford any oil for their military. They might have a million man army, but they don't have the economy to support a long campaign, thus why China had to help them out in the Korean war because they got their ass kicked.

As much as this hypothetical conversation is fun, in present day situations, any war between the US and China is going to be a hard war, and neither country could take over each other because if they were cornered, nukes would probably become involved.

[Tenacious]

Holy crap, but some of this is vapid. "We" couldn't do it (DPRK and PRC) before? Tell that to a Korea Vet, dumbass. It wasn't even a 'total war' by any definition. Your starting point is falacious, so your argument canoot stand.

[dgthe3]

$1:

Sub launched JL-2 can hit the US

People always forget about the subs because their missile range isn't really important, they just need to get close enough to their target. However, i've got a feeling that the US has an attack sub following the single chinese boomer. They have been playing that game against the Russians for decades.

[Scape]

Summer pulse 04

This is the first time in US naval history that it sends seven of its 12 CSGs to just one region.

What the numbers mean:

ONE aircraft carrier is sent to a trouble spot as a reminder of US presence. This was done several times in the past, when tension was high in the Taiwan Strait.

TWO carriers show serious concern, as was the case when China test-fired missiles over the strait in 1996.

THREE OR FOUR are sent in combat situations -- as in the Gulf War in the early 1990s and the recent Iraqi war.

Sending SEVEN carriers in peace time to the same region is unprecedented. The US plan to do this in the Pacific Ocean near China, is a message to Beijing for its threat to use force to stop Taiwanese independence.

But what was the response? China passes a law allowing it to invade if Taiwan moves toward formal independence, China conspiring to weaken US Japan alliance and has told point blank that Australia had better not help the United States to defend Taiwan — or else. And why shouldn't they at this point with the EU looking to sell weapons and Russia has all along:Ukraine leader confirms missile sales to Iran and China it seems that the China has a lot to gain by making noise.
~This post is off topic, please do not post anymore off topic remarks. Make your own topic if you require it. Thanks GA-FuBaR

[TheAnalyzer]

We have to keep on our minds that half of the war is mediatic.

US vs World: U.S loose.

U.S. vs the World's "bad": U.S. could win with proper alliances and public opinion.

And forget about nukes: They will NEVER be used. They are only dissuasive.

Now, if the nukes were used, international public opinion would be against, so bad publicity for any nation using it.

Half of wars is mediatic.

[dgthe3]

i read that article and it doesn't sound too significant. It didn't say they were all sent to one area i don't think. They all came from vastly different locations around the globe,

$1:

U.S. Navy ships and aircraft participated in more than 13 exercises in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Arabian, Baltic, Mediterranean, North and Red Seas, and the Sea of Japan and Persian Gulf.

.

The purpose was to get them all out to sea at the same time and conduct opperations at the same time, not to get them all in one place at the same time. Usually, about 2/3 of the American carriers are out to sea at any given time.

[Freefall]

Tenacious Tenacious:

Holy crap, but some of this is vapid. "We" couldn't do it (DPRK and PRC) before? Tell that to a Korea Vet, dumbass. It wasn't even a 'total war' by any definition. Your starting point is falacious, so your argument canoot stand.

Which one of my family would you like me to tell? I have talked to them before about it. You call me a dumbass yet say it wasn't a total war? I'm pretty sure if you ask any vet that was there they will tell you it was.

As for NYC. What kind of dimension do i live in? Well i live in the one that involves the military and gives me access to the info i would properly need to make an assessment of what i'm talking about. And by the way i have been to Korea and stood at the DMZ. What one do you live in?

[Stellar]

$1:

Holy crap, but some of this is vapid. "We" couldn't do it (DPRK and PRC) before? Tell that to a Korea Vet, dumbass. It wasn't even a 'total war' by any definition. Your starting point is falacious, so your argument canoot stand.

I can tell this will turn out to be another flame thread so please keep the personal attacks to yourself, thanks.

$1:

And forget about nukes: They will NEVER be used. They are only dissuasive.

TheAnalyzer, I doubt that. The U.S used a nuke on Japan and Japan would be less of a danger to the U.S compared to the whole world against the U.S. Depending on who was attacking/defending the Americans may not use Nukes. For example, if all the countries united to attack the U.S and the only way out was to fight (which could possibly be depending on how the war was caused) the U.S would in no way hesitate to use their New Clear weapons.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Freefall Freefall:

Tenacious Tenacious:

Holy crap, but some of this is vapid. "We" couldn't do it (DPRK and PRC) before? Tell that to a Korea Vet, dumbass. It wasn't even a 'total war' by any definition. Your starting point is falacious, so your argument canoot stand.

Which one of my family would you like me to tell? I have talked to them before about it. You call me a dumbass yet say it wasn't a total war? I'm pretty sure if you ask any vet that was there they will tell you it was.

As for NYC. What kind of dimension do i live in? Well i live in the one that involves the military and gives me access to the info i would properly need to make an assessment of what i'm talking about. And by the way i have been to Korea and stood at the DMZ. What one do you live in?

Of course the war was hard, the US lost as many men as Vietnam, BUT that wasn't thanks to North Korea. The US and the allies had driven the North Koreans back and even captured their capital city. Even today North Korea doesn't have the economic strength to keep a prolonged war going against a superpower and another developed nation(south korea). Alot of North Koreas weapons are dug into the mountains, but nowadays we have bunker buster bombs. They have even made runways and kept planes in bunkers inside mountains, which a long time ago would have made a difference, but nowadays is obsolete. Now, in the start of a war, North Korea could cause some serious damage, but they don't have the ability, other than nukes, to stop the US abilities as far as being able to supply troops and etc. North Korea can barely feed their people, let alone support a major war against a superpower who has an advanced, well-funded military. Let's not downplay US abilities here.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Stellar Stellar:

$1:

Holy crap, but some of this is vapid. "We" couldn't do it (DPRK and PRC) before? Tell that to a Korea Vet, dumbass. It wasn't even a 'total war' by any definition. Your starting point is falacious, so your argument canoot stand.

I can tell this will turn out to be another flame thread so please keep the personal attacks to yourself, thanks.

$1:

And forget about nukes: They will NEVER be used. They are only dissuasive.

TheAnalyzer, I doubt that. The U.S used a nuke on Japan and Japan would be less of a danger to the U.S compared to the whole world against the U.S. Depending on who was attacking/defending the Americans may not use Nukes. For example, if all the countries united to attack the U.S and the only way out was to fight (which could possibly be depending on how the war was caused) the U.S would in no way hesitate to use their New Clear weapons.

The US is even talking on working on new, smaller nukes which the could use to take out bunkers and etc. They also developed a cannon that can be used on the battlefield to fire a nuke. Any country who has nukes, who feels they are facing destruction of their country and their peoples way of life, I think, would turn to using nukes, whether it's Russia, India, Pakistan, or whatever.

[Tenacious]

I'm pretty sure if you ask any vet that was there they will tell you it was.

Clearly, you don't have a clue if you cannot differentiate between the level of violence associated with the war and the term "Total War". Not even the United States treated the Korean War as a total war. Hell, neither did the Chinese

The accomplisments of those who volunteered for Korea are all the more remarkable considering they did not have their societies mobilized 100%, as they did in the Second World War.

[Schleihauf]

US vs. the world? US would loose. Even if US was defending. If you use the argumanet of tech. vs. numbers look at germany vs. USSR, and US vs. Vietnam. Canada being Americas #1 ally and all if there this were to happen we should help the US (with our small population we could'nt do much though) . This is coming from someone who plans on joining the army.