4 ms·

Between super powers? Unless someone resorted to nukes then yes. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan to some extent all these years later and those countries h

Between super powers? Unless someone resorted to nukes then yes. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan to some extent all these years later and those countries had armies weaker than some states' national guard

adrianN 8y ago
Winning against an army is quite different from keeping peace in an occupied country.
- foldr 8y ago
  But in a way that's the point. If the US can't occupy China, how can it really win a war?
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >If the US can't occupy China, how can it really win a war? Lay waste to everything of value until the enemy surrenders on terms you can accept then leave. Sure there will be resentment but traditionally this is how wars were "won" prior to 1945. The rebuilding of Europe and Japan after WW2 was the first big break from the status quo. Obviously this assumes a conventional war without nukes. Nuclear powers don't get in shooting wars with other nuclear powers (see Cuban missile crisis) so it doesn't really matter.
    - foldr 8y ago
      China's huge. Even the US doesn't have sufficient military power to lay waste to "everything of value" without using nukes or occupying the country.
  - thefounder 8y ago
    If nukes are used the loosing party would need another 100 years to get back on its feets. I'm pretty sure the loosing party would get some restrictions as well(i.e no army). I doubt they would start blowing themselves up like in the middle east either.
pjc50 8y ago
The whole point of being a superpower is having the nukes. I wouldn't worry about an attack on the US by China, but I would worry about an attack on Taiwan which the US has promised to defend and has an awful lot of chip manufacturing in the form of TSMC. Realistically a major US-China conflict could mean the end of affordable smartphones and a huge dent in the US civilian tech industry. I suspect it would also see drastic measures against information warfare, First Amendment notwithstanding.
- neuronic 8y ago
  > Realistically a major US-China conflict could mean the end of affordable smartphones Really? That's what you are concerned about? A major US-China war would likely drag the rest of the world in and burn a major world economic pillar within a week or so. You won't simply miss your smartphone and live your life like nothing happened because all the ordinance is dropped thousands of miles away - China is not Afghanistan where you can simply ignore the violence. It's an enemy that can and will strike back with infinitely more potential than WW2 Japan. And then you're still leaving Iran, North Korea and Russia out of the equation. What better time for NK to invade the South than during a major Pacific conflict where troops from Taiwan to Guam will be quite busy.
Varcht 8y ago
Those are not wars, those are a game called "war" where there are rules that give the little guys a major handicap.
- RhodesianHunter 8y ago
  Are you trying to make a point?
tossaccount123 8y ago
>We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan to some extent all these years later Only because the US isn't willing to use Mongol tactics to win. US could end it tomorrow if we said we'd nuke any village found to be working with the Taliban or use our numerous chemical and biological weapons to wipe out the native population Believing in basic human rights is why the US is still in the middle east

adrianN 8y ago

Winning against an army is quite different from keeping peace in an occupied country.

foldr 8y ago
But in a way that's the point. If the US can't occupy China, how can it really win a war?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >If the US can't occupy China, how can it really win a war? Lay waste to everything of value until the enemy surrenders on terms you can accept then leave. Sure there will be resentment but traditionally this is how wars were "won" prior to 1945. The rebuilding of Europe and Japan after WW2 was the first big break from the status quo. Obviously this assumes a conventional war without nukes. Nuclear powers don't get in shooting wars with other nuclear powers (see Cuban missile crisis) so it doesn't really matter.
  - foldr 8y ago
    China's huge. Even the US doesn't have sufficient military power to lay waste to "everything of value" without using nukes or occupying the country.
- thefounder 8y ago
  If nukes are used the loosing party would need another 100 years to get back on its feets. I'm pretty sure the loosing party would get some restrictions as well(i.e no army). I doubt they would start blowing themselves up like in the middle east either.

pjc50 8y ago

The whole point of being a superpower is having the nukes. I wouldn't worry about an attack on the US by China, but I would worry about an attack on Taiwan which the US has promised to defend and has an awful lot of chip manufacturing in the form of TSMC. Realistically a major US-China conflict could mean the end of affordable smartphones and a huge dent in the US civilian tech industry. I suspect it would also see drastic measures against information warfare, First Amendment notwithstanding.

neuronic 8y ago
> Realistically a major US-China conflict could mean the end of affordable smartphones Really? That's what you are concerned about? A major US-China war would likely drag the rest of the world in and burn a major world economic pillar within a week or so. You won't simply miss your smartphone and live your life like nothing happened because all the ordinance is dropped thousands of miles away - China is not Afghanistan where you can simply ignore the violence. It's an enemy that can and will strike back with infinitely more potential than WW2 Japan. And then you're still leaving Iran, North Korea and Russia out of the equation. What better time for NK to invade the South than during a major Pacific conflict where troops from Taiwan to Guam will be quite busy.

Varcht 8y ago

Those are not wars, those are a game called "war" where there are rules that give the little guys a major handicap.

RhodesianHunter 8y ago
Are you trying to make a point?

tossaccount123 8y ago

>We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan to some extent all these years later Only because the US isn't willing to use Mongol tactics to win. US could end it tomorrow if we said we'd nuke any village found to be working with the Taliban or use our numerous chemical and biological weapons to wipe out the native population Believing in basic human rights is why the US is still in the middle east