China Vs Japan

[Primarygun]

I know this is a very unplesant topic and I hope it won't happen, but if China fights against Japan, which country will win? Analysis with considering the aids of their allies.

[ed84c]

Well china has the largest airforce in the world and nukes, unlike japan.

[budullewraagh]

i thought kennedy figured this one out.

 

anyway, considering china is absolutely huge and japan has quite a bunch of WWII restrictions still pending, china would "win"

[john5746]

The US would jump in and eventually find a use for all its WMD's. China loses.

[budullewraagh]

no everyone loses

[-Demosthenes-]

No the ants win, becuase now they are free to rule the earth unheeded my humankind.

[Primarygun]

Do you think the war is unavoidable?or hardly occur?

I hope the other countries can carefully consider of the bish made by China or Japan rather than considering which country's win would lead to a strive in its country.

In my opinion, I think Japan is on the wrong side but China used a wrong way to solve the problem.

[Aardvark]

Do you think the war is unavoidable?or hardly occur?

 

Both countries have no reason whatsoever to go to war.

 

Minor maritime boundary disputes and old quarrels about war guilt aren't enough to provoke a war between two nations like China and Japan. Both countries know that they have nothing at all to gain from such a war.

[-Demosthenes-]

The US would jump in and eventually find a use for all its WMD's.

 

Yeah, and I doubt that friendly countries will enter such a war anyway, probably loan them money and sell them weapons, but not full invovement.

 

We never fought the Soviet Union straight on, we funded some countries against them, but where nuclear weapons are invoved most countries will aviod invovement. Nulear weapon force everything to be calmer, because if a few string of events go wrong, then some major cities will be destroyed all around the world, but I very much doubt that the world will be destroyed .

[Aardvark]

Yeah' date=' and I doubt that friendly countries will enter such a war anyway, probably loan them money and sell them weapons, but not full invovement.

[/quote']

 

The USA has a mutual defence alliance with Japan as well as large numbers of troops stationed in Japan. If China were to attack Japan the USA would automaticaly go to war against China.

 

That is a very strong reason why neither country will go to war against each other. Neither could win.

[Flareon]

Hypothetically if the two countries did go to war? No question, Japan would lose big. Neither country lacks in the ego department, but China has enough manpower to prolong the war until every single Japanese has either died or surrendered. China has seen enough of imperialist Japan, and will never allow it's repeat. Also, China's economy is quickly on the rise, while Japan's has been in a slow but long decline, which will factor greatly in the odds.

 

The allies? Well, I don't know about other countries, but America sure won't want to tangle with China. We are already a war-tired country, and we just want to see our good economy restored, not get into a mess with the largest population of people in the world.

 

Frankly, I'm a bit worried what Little Kim might do in the unlikely event China and Japan threw down. He is an unstable element that could quickly make an ugly situation even uglier. And South Korea would in a place no other country would envy.

 

India has nukes too, and if they want to be involved, I think they'll side with China.

[Aardvark]

Hypothetically if the two countries did go to war? No question, Japan would lose big.

 

China lacks naval power and air power. It has no way of projecting its strength overseas, Having a large army is useless if you can't deliver it to where it is needed. Militarily China is not able to defeat Japan.

 

Neither country lacks in the ego department, but China has enough manpower to prolong the war until every single Japanese has either died or surrendered. China has seen enough of imperialist Japan, and will never allow it's repeat.

 

Having hundreds of millions of peasants doesn't result in military strength. China simply doesn't have the capacity to attack Japan.

 

 

Also, China's economy is quickly on the rise, while Japan's has been in a slow but long decline, which will factor greatly in the odds.

 

China remains economically backward and undeveloped despite its recent large advances. Japan retains a huge technological lead. China is heavily dependent on other countries, in particular Japan for its modernisation.

 

The allies? Well, I don't know about other countries, but America sure won't want to tangle with China. We are already a war-tired country, and we just want to see our good economy restored, not get into a mess with the largest population of people in the world.

 

 

The USA has a defence treaty with Japan. The USA has large numbers of troops and serious military bases in Japan. If China was mad enough to attack Japan then the USA would definitely intervene on Japans side.

 

 

Frankly, I'm a bit worried what Little Kim might do in the unlikely event China and Japan threw down. He is an unstable element that could quickly make an ugly situation even uglier. And South Korea would in a place no other country would envy.

 

Kim Jong Il is a wild card, but he must know that to involve his country in any war would be suicidal. His regime is only kept in place by brutal internal repression and external aid. Any war would lead to collaspe.

 

India has nukes too, and if they want to be involved, I think they'll side with China.

 

India is no friend of Chinas. In any conflict India would not side with China. China has attacked India and militarily occupies Indian territory today. The two nations are rivals. China has consistently lent support to Pakistan in an effort to weaken China as well as directly attacking India.

 

There is no way India would side with China.

[Flareon]

And you think India will side with Japan? In turn the US? In turn the UK? I think not.

 

I didn't say India would side with China automatically, I said IF they want to be involved...sometimes one has to choose between two "evils."

 

You are absolutely right about the past conflicts between China and India, but the relations between China and India have been improving recently, so who really knows. If we took your idea of past conflicts having that great of an effect on present relations, don't forget the US nuked two cities in Japan only a few decades ago...and now look.

[Aardvark]

And you think India will side with Japan? In turn the US? In turn the UK? I think not.

 

India would not side with China. The two nations are not friends. It would probably stay neutral, but definitely not support China.

 

The USA would definitely side with Japan. The USA has a defence treaty with Japan and a lot of troops and military bases in Japan. The US navy and airforce in the Pacific completely outclass anything China has. China would be completely unable to invade Japan or challenge the USA.

 

 

I didn't say India would side with China automatically, I said IF they want to be involved...sometimes one has to choose between two "evils."

 

If forced to make a choice it is obvious that India would side with the Japan/USA alliance.

 

You are absolutely right about the past conflicts between China and India, but the relations between China and India have been improving recently, so who really knows. If we took your idea of past conflicts having that great of an effect on present relations, don't forget the US nuked two cities in Japan only a few decades ago...and now look.

 

I'm not looking at old history here. Japan and the USA are very close allies. China is militarily occupying Indian territory NOW.

 

China is also largely responsible for Pakistan developing nuclear weapons. China and India are regional rivals, not friends.

[Flareon]

If LSE is what I think it is, then you may very well have greater knowledge in world affairs. However, I still disagree that the US and Japan can overtake China as easily as you say. Please provide some more precise arguments (besides the US naval superiority example) as I would like to know why you think so.

[Aardvark]

If LSE is what I think it is, then you may very well have greater knowledge in world affairs. However, I still disagree that the US and Japan can overtake China as easily as you say. Please provide some more precise arguments (besides the US naval superiority example) as I would like to know why you think so.

 

The USA has a current military doctrine that it should be able to fight and win two simulatenous wars in seperate theatres. That means being able to occupy Iraq and deal with a full scale insurgency and defeat any aggressive attack by China.

 

China does have large armed forces, but they remain relatively primative and backward. For instance,China has over 400,000 men in its airforce, But it is ill equiped, with no capacity for mid air refueling, and the majority of the airforces 5,000 craft date from the 1960's and even earlier. The longest range for a Chinese naval cruise missile is only about 150 miles. The chinese airforce has only about 50 SU 27 fighter bombers, bought from Russia. This is nowhere near enough to attain air superiority over Taiwan, let alone Japan and the large US forces in the area.

 

In terms of naval power China is also very weak. It has no operational aircraft carriers and is completely dependent on foriegn technology for its modernisation programme, technology for which its sailors are untrained. China admits that it is still some years of being in a position to mount landings on Taiwan, landings on Japan would be a much harder proposition.

 

For China to attack Japan it would need to have air superiority, sufficent naval forces to transport and supply large numbers of troops several hundred miles over open sea onto hostile territory and modern mechanised armed forces to occupy Japan.

 

By Chinas own admission it does not have air superiority, it only has about 50 modern fighter bombers, less than Taiwan, or Japan or the US 7th Fleet. It is also severely limited in any tactical missile capacity, leaving open only the option of nuclear attack, which would result in suicide.

 

China does not have naval superiority, it has very few landing craft, let alone enough to transport a large army to Japan. It does not have any operational aircraft carriers to provide tactical air support and is suffering serve technical difficulties with its 'Kilo' class submarines, probably due to lack of training and experience with the new imported technologies.

 

China does not have the military strength to threaten Taiwan on its own. Japan is stronger than Taiwan and further away. Japan is also a host for the US 7th fleet which is stronger than the Chinese navy.

 

Japan is not helpless either, despite its constitutional restrictions it has large armed forces. It has over 150,000 very well equipped and trained soldiers in its army and over 200 modern combat aircraft, more modern aircraft than China can deploy as well as an excellent radar/anti aircraft missile defence system. Its navy has 16 submarines and 50 battleships as well as more than 150 combat aircraft.

 

On purely military grounds China is decades away from acheiving air or naval superiority. Without those it is impossible for China to project any strength overseas against nations such as Japan.

 

On economic grounds China is much more dependent on nations such as the US than the US is on China. China is forced to import almost all high technology, still not having any serious indigenous capacity to develop high technology Any war which disputed trade and investment would lead to serious problems and potential internal collaspe.

 

China would be unlikely to recieve support from its neighbours. South Korea, Taiwan, the Philipines, India, Mongolia, Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakstan all have disputes with China and have serious strategic concerns about the growing power and belligerence of the current Chinese regime. Only Pakistan might be friendly inclined, but as Pakistan is relatively weak and now dependant on the US it is improbable that any real support would be forthcoming.

 

China is modernising fast, but the majority of China is still third world. It is technologically behind the West and heavily dependant on the West for economic development and technology.

 

China does not have the means to project any military strength overseas against Japan.

 

Any war would be unfightable. China could not attack Japan and Japan could never invade China.

[Flareon]

Thanks for taking the time to provide a detailed response. Living in the US, can't say it hurts to hear positives of her war capability.

 

I understand that China is behind in terms of military technology, but how long will that gap last? China has suffered a boom-bust cycle for several generations now, but the recent trends have been larger than any previous economic jump. Beijing is also working doubly to prevent its economy from overheating, something the Japanese in the 80's fail to do. Once China gains economic equality with the west, it will only be a matter of brief time before the economic advantage turns into a militaristic edge that China undoubtedly will grab and run with. If not, why does it seem like so many countries have their pantyhose in a bunch regarding China's growing power? What is the real threat?

[Aardvark]

I understand that China is behind in terms of military technology' date=' but how long will that gap last?[/quote']

 

A difficult question to answer, but the Chinese seem to think that they are about 20 years behind, whilst the Taiwanese are confident that the rate of Chinese military development is even slower.

 

 

 

China has suffered a boom-bust cycle for several generations now, but the recent trends have been larger than any previous economic jump. Beijing is also working doubly to prevent its economy from overheating, something the Japanese in the 80's fail to do. Once China gains economic equality with the west, it will only be a matter of brief time before the economic advantage turns into a militaristic edge that China undoubtedly will grab and run with.

 

True, China is rapidly industrialising and in time should reach first world standards. But it's easy to underestimate the degree of economic backwardness to be overcome, once you look beyond the glittering skyline of the coastal towns China remains largely 3rd world, primitive farming. Its financial and legal institutions are immature, corruption and weak central control plague the provinces.

 

If and when China does reach ecomonic parity with the West it is to be hoped that China will have also politically matured. Some form of more accountable government developed which would find it harder to make acts of unprovoked aggression against its neighbours. Even if that was not the case, any war with an advanced and important nation like Japan would still not make sense, it would be massively destructive, with little to nothing to gain.

 

If not, why does it seem like so many countries have their pantyhose in a bunch regarding China's growing power? What is the real threat?

 

Unfortunately China has a habit of throwing its weight around. It isn't at a stage to seriously confront a country like Japan, but it has invaded Vietnam (1979) without any real provocation and invaded and occupied Indian territory. Its occupation of Tibet is a clear example of why neighbouring countries are wary of China. China has border disputes with most of its neighbours and isn't above using force to make its point. China can't easily project force over sea, but it is able to move large army forces around its land borders.

 

The Chinese government is facing domestic difficulties and uses appeals to nationalism as a way of diverting attention from its failings. That nationalism can easily overflow into aggression. It is possible to imagine China finding itself at war with Taiwan almost by accident.

 

That is a real worry.

[Pangloss]

The USA has a current military doctrine that it should be able to fight and win two simulatenous wars in seperate theatres.

 

Actually I believe that theoretical capability was more or less dropped during the Clinton administration. And I believe it's generally acknowledged that Iraq would have been impossible were it to be adhered to. Most military experts seem to agree that right now the Army and Marines are pretty much at their limits in terms of a sustained campaign. Sustaining a second major theater of operations would be possible only with an immediate draft.

 

But I agree with your assessment of China's military. That seems to be the general consensus, at any rate. They do have a few significant aircraft, but almost no advanced radar or command and control infrastructure. So even if a fairly new Chinese fighter were to meet a Hornet in combat, the Hornet would know where the Chinese fighter was and be able to shoot it down before the Chinese pilot even knew where the carrier was located.

 

I might add that if memory serves we have one carrier battle group actually stationed permanently in Japan (based around the Kitty Hawk?). That's gonna ballpark at around 30 ships, ~100 fixed-wing aircraft, a couple dozen rotary, and a lot of missiles. Maybe not enough to sink the entire Chinese navy and air force, but presumably enough to face a major assault, and there are at least four more carrier groups within a week's travel time to the area.

[Pangloss]

Incidentally, China is Number Two in the world in defense spending, coming in somewhere around $25 billion. Number one is the US, which this year may hit $500 billion. (I looked this up when I ranted about defense spending during the election period last year.)

 

I don't suppose that has any particular relevence here, but it's an interesting factoid.

[yangxu]

My question is if there is a war between China and Japan, and US gets involved, how much is US willing to spend its money and time in this war? If the war can't end quick and become a prolonged battle, I doubt US will support Japan till the end, a lot of US industries rely on China for profits, and should it lose China as its economic partner, US will encounter some serious problems in its economy.

[john5746]

Please, the major effort in Iraq has been nation building. The 'war' was won rather easily.

 

The US relies on Japan as well as China. She needs both, but Japan is a strong ally. Invading and conquering China might be difficult, but just keeping them out of Japan and bombing the crap out of them wouldn't be.

[Pangloss]

My question is if there is a war between China and Japan, and US gets involved, how much is US willing to spend its money and time in this war? If the war can't end quick and become a prolonged battle, I doubt US will support Japan till the end, a lot of US industries rely on China for profits, and should it lose China as its economic partner, US will encounter some serious problems in its economy.

 

 

That isn't really the sort of scenario that's easily dealt with like that. What you've basically done there is written an entire series of world history-setting events, and then more or less dismissed them with a simple assumption. For one thing, the entire world would be involved in some form or fashion, even if it's just in terms of shaping policy and actions. That has major repurcussions on what actions the US would take.

 

A serious debate of this issue requires much more detailed, in-depth analysis of both the scenario and the environment surrounding it. In short, if you guys want a serious discussion, pose a serious question.

 

Just to give a brief (and entertaining) example, check out Tom Clancy's 2000 novel "The Bear and the Dragon", which poses a scenario in which China undertakes an aggressive campaign against Russia. Clancy's novels are useful if you're interested in this sort of thing, because most of them are based on real scenarios that are debated at war colleges and think tanks around the world. (Clancy needed over 1000 pages to drive his points home! But we don't need to be THAT serious here, of course.)

 

If you guys want to have a serious discussion, flesh out the terms of the scenario and the socio-political background against which it would take place. Then we'll see if we can make something of it.

[Pangloss]

Nothin, eh?

 

Here, this would be a good way to start something along the lines I'm talking about above. This article from CNN talks about current tensions between China and Japan. I had heard that China was dealing with demonstrations, but I didn't realize it had gotten so vociferous.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/04/16/china.japan.ap/

 

Thousands of police watched the protesters -- some shouting "kill the Japanese" -- rampage through Shanghai on Saturday but did little to restrain the crowd. Japan filed a strongly worded official protest, complaining that Chinese authorities failed to stop anti-Japanese violence for a third weekend in a row.

 

To some extent I can understand the underlying anger. Japan has always played more of a victim role in the post-war world, spending more time talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki than the attrocities they committed in the late 1930s in China (something that angers many Americans as well).

 

But I can't help but wonder... "Why now?" Is this a true public tipping point, owing to the sudden freedoms of the Chinese middle class, or is there something more traditionally sinister going on behind the scenes, perhaps related to the ongoing debate over oil rights in disputed waters?

 

 

There, now we at least have a causus belli!

[Aardvark]

To some extent I can understand the underlying anger. Japan has always played more of a victim role in the post-war world' date=' spending more time talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki than the attrocities they committed in the late 1930s in China (something that angers many Americans as well)[/quote']

 

Fair point, Japans neighbours have valid reasons to be upset and suspiscious of Japan considering recent history. But this does seem to be, at least partly, an artifically contrived outburst of anger.

.

 

But I can't help but wonder... "Why now?" Is this a true public tipping point' date=' owing to the sudden freedoms of the Chinese middle class, or is there something more traditionally sinister going on behind the scenes, perhaps related to the ongoing debate over oil rights in disputed waters?

 

There, now we at least have a causus belli![/quote']

 

As the Chinese regime is moving from Marxism as a dogma used to justify its position of power it is moving to nationalism.

 

This focus on nationalism helps divert attention from internal problems and lack of legitimacy. The question is, will this nationalism boil over into aggression, perhaps more than the Chinese government would actually want?

 

The Chinese regime is playing with fire.

 

 

However, the idea of China and Japan actually going to war is absurd. It is like asking whether a Tiger and a Shark would fight each other. Both may be powerful but neither is going to be in a position to actually attack the other.