To be fair, that's only the cost of the first one due to Research and Development. The rest will only cost about $9-10 billion each.Jacco said:
And who wouldn't want frickin' laser beams on their portable airport? Come on, son!
Poll: What do you think a real war between the East and the West would be like?
- Thread starter Jacco
- Start date
And who wouldn't want frickin' laser beams on their portable airport? Come on, son!
As I understand it, china had laid the claim that if the US crossed its borders or brought the war just a bit to close to its home it would attack them. It made the same claim to NK. Russia would do similar if not just outright say they're with the west, and would likely do the same tactic.Maclennan said:
China didnt mobilize ina full force till the US got too close to a certain river, and once the leaders saw china was serious, they decided to hurry up with the armistice.
Russia? hell no, they already lost the cold war and the whole fight for communism thing, leaving them pretty weak.
China, on the other hand? it would be BAD!- for BOTH sides. For a moment ignoring China's massive population and increasingly strong military technology, the Chinese government has stockpiled billions of dollars in US currency, which essential has held up the value of the US dollar (probably to protect China's profits from the US; complicated economics are complicated). Now if China were to simply take those billions of dollars of US currency and simply (possibly literally)dump it into the US economy, it would cause the US dollar to CRASH, pretty much destroying the American economy (tho, ofcourse destroying the US dollar would also have severe implications for the rest of the world, including China, possibly destroying the world economy; like I said, it would be bad for everyone).
In fact, that was kinda what one of germany's schemes to destroying britian during WW2; they created millions of dollars of counterfeit British currency, and planned to take the money over britian on planes and literally just drop all of the money over the cities, raining money over them; if they had succeeded in doing this, it is believed that it would have utterly destroyed the british economy; luckly the germans never got went thru with their plan (i think they lost the war before they could,)
China, on the other hand? it would be BAD!- for BOTH sides. For a moment ignoring China's massive population and increasingly strong military technology, the Chinese government has stockpiled billions of dollars in US currency, which essential has held up the value of the US dollar (probably to protect China's profits from the US; complicated economics are complicated). Now if China were to simply take those billions of dollars of US currency and simply (possibly literally)dump it into the US economy, it would cause the US dollar to CRASH, pretty much destroying the American economy (tho, ofcourse destroying the US dollar would also have severe implications for the rest of the world, including China, possibly destroying the world economy; like I said, it would be bad for everyone).
In fact, that was kinda what one of germany's schemes to destroying britian during WW2; they created millions of dollars of counterfeit British currency, and planned to take the money over britian on planes and literally just drop all of the money over the cities, raining money over them; if they had succeeded in doing this, it is believed that it would have utterly destroyed the british economy; luckly the germans never got went thru with their plan (i think they lost the war before they could,)
Huh, I can't believe I'm the only one who went for "I like cake"...
OT: Russia= probably not
China= maybe, if everything's aligned correctly.
OT: Russia= probably not
China= maybe, if everything's aligned correctly.
Well this is all speculation from me, but -
China would cause a TON of headache in the cyberwar that would occur alongside the physical war. They probe our computer system defenses all the time, and they're good at it. But our economies are way to tied up to start a war. It wouldn't be smart for either country. US has better tech, China has more numbers, but the US would without a doubt rule the sea, as well as the air (though the air would be tougher). So if China would be massing troops for an attack, the Air Force would bomb them to bits or the Navy would throw some cruise missiles their way. And then there are all the guns owned by US citizens (Japan was nervous about invading during World War II because they didn't know how many guns the citizens had).
Russia is definitely not as strong as it is portrayed in video games. I haven't played MW3 yet (personal opinion, I think it's crap) but don't they launch in invasion on the US, get beaten back, then immediately after this they try to invade the entirety of Europe? It can't take on the world by itself.
China would cause a TON of headache in the cyberwar that would occur alongside the physical war. They probe our computer system defenses all the time, and they're good at it. But our economies are way to tied up to start a war. It wouldn't be smart for either country. US has better tech, China has more numbers, but the US would without a doubt rule the sea, as well as the air (though the air would be tougher). So if China would be massing troops for an attack, the Air Force would bomb them to bits or the Navy would throw some cruise missiles their way. And then there are all the guns owned by US citizens (Japan was nervous about invading during World War II because they didn't know how many guns the citizens had).
Russia is definitely not as strong as it is portrayed in video games. I haven't played MW3 yet (personal opinion, I think it's crap) but don't they launch in invasion on the US, get beaten back, then immediately after this they try to invade the entirety of Europe? It can't take on the world by itself.
I went for the "I like cake" but I think one of them could: China. Their gear is CLOSE to that of the west and no matter how many of them you kill, there are always 3 more.
Large-scale war isn't profitable. China's got too many benefits from working with the West currently (should China's inflation rate continue to spike then they're really going to be in trouble, plus a lot of their GDP figures are fudged by infrastructure projects and good old communist lies about productivity a la the Soviet Union) and Russia's not really in a position to start a pissing contest. Large scale warfare fantasies about them are essentially jingoistic nonsense about 'dem foreigners'.
Here's the reason why China and Russia are depicted in games as enemies: they appear as an equal threat, rather then the massively one-sided conflicts that go on between the West and smaller countries. It's a lot easier to be dramatic and biased about the Russians invading America then a game where your bombing run accidentally kills fifteen Afghani children.
However, if you want to know about the coming war between Christianity and Islam I got a lovely pamphlet from a Nation of Islam supporter who quotes Louis Farrakhan at the mall today.
Here's the reason why China and Russia are depicted in games as enemies: they appear as an equal threat, rather then the massively one-sided conflicts that go on between the West and smaller countries. It's a lot easier to be dramatic and biased about the Russians invading America then a game where your bombing run accidentally kills fifteen Afghani children.
However, if you want to know about the coming war between Christianity and Islam I got a lovely pamphlet from a Nation of Islam supporter who quotes Louis Farrakhan at the mall today.
Either one has the potential to do some real damage at the beginning of any war, but, at the moment, the west is still in a position to eventually crush the east.
I heard once that no two countries with McDonalds have ever gone to war with each other. Not sure if it's entirely true, but the idea behind it is that trade is infinitely preferable to war. Hopefully, a situation such as the one described here never occurs.
/edit
China would be a significantly bigger problem that Russia, but its economy is utterly dependant upon exports to foreign countries, so a war might potentially ruin it. Again, hopefully this will never happen, because trade is better for everyone.
I heard once that no two countries with McDonalds have ever gone to war with each other. Not sure if it's entirely true, but the idea behind it is that trade is infinitely preferable to war. Hopefully, a situation such as the one described here never occurs.
/edit
China would be a significantly bigger problem that Russia, but its economy is utterly dependant upon exports to foreign countries, so a war might potentially ruin it. Again, hopefully this will never happen, because trade is better for everyone.
Believe me, that hurts China a lot more than it hurts the States.SciMal said:
Reminds me of a quote I remember from an old nuclear apocalypse book (I don't remember the name). But the characters were talking about how there are only a couple thousand people left in North America and Europe. One of the characters then replies "Yeah, and just wait til the million screaming Chinamen get out of their bunkers."TheBestPieEver said:
America: Predator/Reaper UAV drones, M1 Abrams tanks, F22's, F35's, long-range bombardments, optics that can see through walls or pitch black nights.
China/Russia: Some outdated MiGs and armour. Larger numbers, but that won't stop a hellfire missile.
This is assuming nukes are out, of course. I think the East could put up a fight, but it would inevitably lose. The only real power it has is economical power over the US (and there it has it by the balls).
China/Russia: Some outdated MiGs and armour. Larger numbers, but that won't stop a hellfire missile.
This is assuming nukes are out, of course. I think the East could put up a fight, but it would inevitably lose. The only real power it has is economical power over the US (and there it has it by the balls).
I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but from what I see, China's economic advantage doesn't hold up, ultimately.
From my understanding, America is in debt from China because we sell them the raw material, and they're the one's who process the stuff, turn it into a real product, and sell it back for a higher price. Cutting that link would be bad for both parties- China would have its main supply of stuff taken away, and we'd be losing our 'factories'.
That said, America has proven in WW2 that, when unified and the situation calls for it, can step the hell up. This isn't as true nowadays, since all the factories we converted for the sake of the war are now in China and America runs largely on service-based jobs, but the optimist in me thinks that we could pull it off again. Question remains if we'd have the time, though. I wouldn't believe that either China or America would be stupid enough to actually fire a Nuke, but there were dozens of times in the Cold War when malfunctions made each side THINK they were under fire, and it was only the presence of a calm mind that prevented disaster.
Russia is sort of a Non-factor. History has shown that invasions of Russia end badly for the invaders, but as far as attacks from them go, it wouldn't be noteworthy, from what I know. Its easy to forget that 30 years isn't actually that long in the great scheme of things- they were the USSR not too long ago, and are still recovering from the transition.
That's just my take...
thanks
From my understanding, America is in debt from China because we sell them the raw material, and they're the one's who process the stuff, turn it into a real product, and sell it back for a higher price. Cutting that link would be bad for both parties- China would have its main supply of stuff taken away, and we'd be losing our 'factories'.
That said, America has proven in WW2 that, when unified and the situation calls for it, can step the hell up. This isn't as true nowadays, since all the factories we converted for the sake of the war are now in China and America runs largely on service-based jobs, but the optimist in me thinks that we could pull it off again. Question remains if we'd have the time, though. I wouldn't believe that either China or America would be stupid enough to actually fire a Nuke, but there were dozens of times in the Cold War when malfunctions made each side THINK they were under fire, and it was only the presence of a calm mind that prevented disaster.
Russia is sort of a Non-factor. History has shown that invasions of Russia end badly for the invaders, but as far as attacks from them go, it wouldn't be noteworthy, from what I know. Its easy to forget that 30 years isn't actually that long in the great scheme of things- they were the USSR not too long ago, and are still recovering from the transition.
That's just my take...
thanks
I think there have been enough nuclear apocalypse movies released on both ends of the world that neither side would think to resort to weapons of mass destruction.
All major countries are armed with nukes nowadays. Most of them can detect if a nuke is being launched against them and can retaliate with like force.
Since everyone knows that when one side starts throwing spitballs every other side is going to go for broke and start throwing their spitballs, no one wants to start the fight. Because everyone knows in the end we're just going to all end up wet and sticky.
The only people you really want to watch out for are the braindead Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. If they get their hands on nukes, they might use 'em because they don't give a fuck if they get blown up themselves, apparently.
All major countries are armed with nukes nowadays. Most of them can detect if a nuke is being launched against them and can retaliate with like force.
Since everyone knows that when one side starts throwing spitballs every other side is going to go for broke and start throwing their spitballs, no one wants to start the fight. Because everyone knows in the end we're just going to all end up wet and sticky.
The only people you really want to watch out for are the braindead Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. If they get their hands on nukes, they might use 'em because they don't give a fuck if they get blown up themselves, apparently.
To expand on my point a little bit more: large countries fight with proxy nations now, not in massive conflicts. If you want a more realistic scenario of a conflict between China and the U.S., I suppose you could see the Americans funding rebel groups in territories like Tibet. If the Chinese started funding the military junta in Myanmar more (China currently trades with them for mineral resources, oil and electricity from dam projects they fund) and the West began to fund militia independence groups like the Kachins, Karens and Shan State Union then that's probably as big of a scale you'd see, just a massive civil war (as opposed to Myanmar's on-again off-again small civil war).
The Americans won every major battle in Vietnam and killed 17% of the North Vietnamese population. They lost due to American public opinion and the conflict spilling into other countries like Cambodia (thanks Nixon), not because of some superiority complex.capper42 said:
EDIT: Double post, my bad.
The current standard issue rifles are the Russian AK-105 models and the Chinese QBZ-95, they're comparable to M16s and SCARs. Not super familiar with the QBZ, but the new AKs can still spend a few days in the mud and be serviceable, unlike the M16.enzilewulf said:
Both China are Russia are *have* technology that rivals the US. The big deal is that both Russia and China are plagued by massive ammounts of corruption within their manufacturing sector. They might not be able to keep pace with US production, which would force the majority of their soldiers to adopt the older weapon types.
Then again, while in Iraq the US military had alot of trouble supplying their troops as well. Armored Hummer production was completely fucked and soldiers were forced to weld scrap metal to the frames for extra protection, and bullet proof vests weren't issued to every serviceman. Some families had to buy vests for their soldiers in the civilian market.
Nukes end all life either way.
The nukes don't even need to hit America; China and Russia could fire their reserved into the sky, oceans, or themselves and end the world in a Nuclear Winter.
But no, the West would turn to their largest, least human-friendly weapons (possibly from space) before facing defeat. The East probably would, too, come to think of it.
Those alliances would also likely fall apart well before the end, anyways.
The nukes don't even need to hit America; China and Russia could fire their reserved into the sky, oceans, or themselves and end the world in a Nuclear Winter.
But no, the West would turn to their largest, least human-friendly weapons (possibly from space) before facing defeat. The East probably would, too, come to think of it.
Those alliances would also likely fall apart well before the end, anyways.
China has a crapton of people and Russia has a huge industry I,m pretty sure they can curbstomp
the US if they want to.
the US if they want to.
The West would win. While Russia and China have a lot more dudes, the West has a significant technological advantage. The West would win the air war, thus winning the ground war.
An attack on the US mainland would be total suicide for any nation. As a Japanese general said during WWII, "There would be a gun behind every blade of grass."Axyun said:
Ruling nukes out of the picture, as well as the UK, Germany, France, and most other powers in Europe, I'm going to put this down to a US vs Russia situation.
Russia has the FOAB (With a blast radius of 300m), America has the MOAB (Blast radius 150m, neither are nuclear.)
Russia has a staggering force of tanks, America has the Sensor-Fused-Weapon.
And contrary to what most games will have you believe Russia does not use 50 year old rifles and rocket launchers.
The RPG-7 was the second in a long line of weapons, the most recent being the RPG-32, and Russia is considering outfitting its troops with the newly unveiled AK-200 series of rifles.
Suffice to say, a modern total war would not be a nice place to be.
Russia has the FOAB (With a blast radius of 300m), America has the MOAB (Blast radius 150m, neither are nuclear.)
Russia has a staggering force of tanks, America has the Sensor-Fused-Weapon.
And contrary to what most games will have you believe Russia does not use 50 year old rifles and rocket launchers.
The RPG-7 was the second in a long line of weapons, the most recent being the RPG-32, and Russia is considering outfitting its troops with the newly unveiled AK-200 series of rifles.
Suffice to say, a modern total war would not be a nice place to be.