It is vital the U.S. destroy China within the next 20 years.

I do loathe Trump personally but I've supported him politically due to the policies his administration has advanced.
War hawk is very much a matter of opinion here.

 

Yes, by the way, the USA will manage to controle China when they didn't managed to controle the Vietnam, or Afghanistan and Iraq. That's science fiction.

 

The U.S. never seriously tried to control any of those countries.

 

The fact that USA tried seriously or not, my point remain, Iraq and Afghanistan together don't even represent 1/6th of China population. Even if the US seriously tried to controle those countries, China is a challenge much beyond that.
Do you realize on how much all of what you are saying is only based on "what if" ?
If the USA manage to destroy China all nuclear weapons
If the USA manage to win the war
If the USA manage to get an inside coalition and motivate his own youth, and it's far to be won even among conservative.
If the USA don't manage to get this way an international coalition against them, because even if nobody like China, nobody would happily see USA destroy China in a one sided decision.
If the USA manage to controle China for all eternity.

Because if any of those what if is wrong, it can mean the destruction of most of the american people.

To be more precise on what I mean on conservative youth, even if I'm not conservative, in fact I would tend more to be libertarian, I tend to discuss with young conservative people, and from what I read, even in the USA, you have less and less people willing to sacrifice of the nation, because many young conservative don't want to die to protect some SJW that would betray them at the first moment possible.

Even when the USA were at the summit of their power, it would be already exceptionnaly hard, but today the USA is a ruin, and I don't say that in a disrespectfull manner. The USA get a serious birth rate problem, and you say it's not that bad for a western country, but it would be like taking the best student of a class of illeterate and say he perform academically well, a huge of debt, and got huge scaled riots with BLM.
Your country have never been in any poorer condition, and you think it could be achievable to do something harder than defeat Nazi germany and Imperial Japan.

 

We were never technically at war with Iraq or Afghanistan. We were ordered to perform military operations there, but if we wanted all out war, both of them would have been over in seconds. If Congress declared war (only they can do so- which didn't happen in Iraq or Afgh...they authorized military operations), then we would be talking about serious fire power. Iraq and Afgh are different because they don't have armies. The Iraq guard was in shambles already and they hid in the civilian public...and AlQ did the same in Afgh. China has a standing Army and if they wanted to go toe-to-toe...that would be like nothing you've seen before. That would be a DECLARATION of war...not just military operations. Just like WW2.

 

Yes but Dayton is also speaking of keeping China disarmed. He is not only speaking of defeating China, and I wouldn't bet in a particular manner on an US victory, but furthermore it mean keeping a 1,5 half billion country occupied and I noticed that the USAs had difficulting at occupying two third world countries and I don't even mention the cost it would require to occupy China, and the USA are already largely struggling with its own economy.

Furthermore, it create the question, a war but with which soldiers ? In 1944, the USA was an extremely young country, with young american believing in the american dream. Not only there is a lack of youth, there is not only the left wing which would be highly unwilling to fight for the USA, but if the project is sending the conservative to defend the progressive, you will find very few conservative that would be willing to do so.
Furthermore, it require your youth to be a minimum athletic, not only the USA has a very high obesity rate, but furthermore, in a worse physical condition, as people are doing much much less sport.

 

Haha I don't even have to ask what country you are from when reading this post. I can tell it's not the United States, let alone someone familiar with our forces. I'm guessing European?

We don't need to increase our numbers. The next war will be vastly cyber. China's been practicing lately if you have missed it on the news.

The problem isn't establishing troop presence, it's establishing control over communication. The next step is a declaration of war.

 

Yes I know about cyber war. Yes, I'm an european, I don't pretend we would do better.

 

The European myth that "Americans are too fat to win a war" is the oldest, and most hilarious, joke in the military. I chapter out soldiers all the time for PT failures. Their physical fitness is just fine for our working force. The problem with China and the US is nuclear power and geopolitics. If we go toe-to-toe with China in a ground war, it'll be a bloody one. Their on-range technology for ground field battle is very out dated. They are more focused on cyber.

 

The problem isn't a problem is you need only the regular army. However, if you require to draft a part of the population to win a war, which can be possible considering how massive is China, then a significant part of the american population would be unfit for service.
The fact that USA has a significant obesity problem isn't a myth (and that problem is also a big problem in countries such UK).

The problem of obesity even worried some american officers :
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ng-national-security-according-to-this-study/

To be honnest, among the points I mention, obesity is really among the most minor points.

 

We have selective service so if a war is declared, that's the purpose (draft). But we have weapons that can reach all over the world and cause millions of fatalities extremely quickly. China does too. The question would be, where to position and where to effectively place those weapons? And who would strike first....

 

Yes, but I'm speaking also of beyond the war.
Winning a war is great, but if you don't manage to deal with the afterwar, you get disasters such treaty of Versailles causing WW2.

I aready highly doubt that USA could win the war, or win the war without serious casualties. Then you have to deal with what happen thereafter. Occupation ?

 

Actually, there are many nations that could benefit from the US taking over China. That's a conversation I'm way too tired to get into because of the variables and the fact that I haven't slept in 36 hours. We can start a thread on it, though.

 

So you don't think they would be asking themselves who the US intends to preemptively "crush" with military attacks next, and how they can defend themselves?

 

if the USA even considered doing this, China would launch a pre-emptive attack and destroy us.

 

Sleep well !

 

I'm not going to sleep just yet. still working. I'm just too tired to get into the dynamics for future world wars. lol.

 

China's massive attack would not be physical, it would be cyber.

 

Then good luck.

 

no, they would launch hundreds of nukes against us

 

Don't be ridiculous. All we need is a long term debt reduction agreement and that problem is solved. As someone has observed, "The United States is one budget agreement from the 21st century being the "American century" just as the 20th was".

And don't know why you overstate the impact of a tiny handful of largely irrelevant riots. Back in the late 1960s the U.S. had urban riots of staggering size almost every summer for years.

 

Cyber warfare such as it is is a joke. No threat to anyone whatsoever.

 

No they wouldn't.

 

The Chinese only have a few more than 300 nuclear weapons in all forms. That assumes they all work which is unlikely.

 

No, it's not. Wonder why we spent the budget cuts under Obama building reserve cyber units with the little money we had and expanding them under Trump?