(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363385)

china win decisive HANDSOME victory no question obliterate yankee scum gorgeous XI become POTUS USA forever and ever no stupid election benchod ever again bitch bloody bastard furk china numba 1 eat shit and die birdshits

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363346)

if it gets real spicy then look for the U.S. to focus on targeting critical infrastructure nodes like dams and electricity

China doesnt have enough food or fossil fuels so cutting off imports would also be a priority

it will be very ugly

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363374)

China does not have a blue water navy or any real ability to project power over long distances. China has never shown any interest in becoming a global hegemon like the U.S. Any war scenario that requires China to do something other than defend its own territory or conquer a close neighbor would be a Chinese loss pretty much by default. If China has to conquer NYC or DC, their only option is to try to nuke us into oblivion before we get the chance to nuke them back.

If the U.S. had to conquer and control Beijing/Shanghai in a conventional war, they probably lose that one. Their only hope would be to mass troops in South Korea while bombing the shit out of mainland China to establish air superiority. And most of China's defense budget for the past several decades has gone to counter U.S. aircraft carriers to guard against precisely this scenario. Maybe the U.S. could destroy enough of China's anti-carrier weaponry using long-range missiles to allow U.S. carriers to get close enough to finish bombing the country, but I wouldn't count on it. And even if the U.S. succeeded, the cost in money and blood of this operation would be horrifying. The U.S. would get sick of fighting unless we were motivated by some type of far more extreme version of Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

If we stick to more realistic scenarios, like a skirmish in the South China Sea leads to escalation and regional war, I think China loses in that case mainly due to China's lack of allies. Nearly every other country in the South China Sea would love to poke China in the eye, so presumably it would be China versus the U.S. and every other Southeast Asian country (and possibly all of NATO). China doesn't have the naval power to fight off the entire world.

The other likely scenario is a fight over Taiwan. And that I think is likely to be a battle of willpower. The loser will be the side that decides it is no longer worth fighting over. That would probably be the U.S., because eventually we will get sick of spending taxpayer dollars and American lives for cheap microprocessors and the idea of democracy. But if China tries and fails to conquer Taiwan, that would be an enormous embarrassment to the CCP and probably would cost Xi (or whoever the Chinese president is) their job. It could lead to a collapse of the CCP regime. So it's very hard to say. But I think that outcome would be determined by politics rather than military might.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363382)

its completely insane amerishits even talk abt this, the idea of fighting a country with 1.4b that has 40% of mannufacturing output in world and a highly competent adminsitration, u ppl are total idiots

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363384)

In a conventional war, if China wanted to run the U.S. off of South Korea, they could probably pull it off, particularly since North Korea would almost certainly fight on their side. China would have an overwhelming manpower advantage, and the U.S. would have a very difficult time reinforcing the peninsula fast enough. If China's anti-carrier weapons work as well as advertised, the U.S. is done here. That's a big if, though. I'm sure the U.S. has countermeasures that they haven't advertised. We'll never know until this war actually happens.

But Korea is far easier because they have a huge advantage in troops, a friendly ally between the mainland and South Korea, and no need for an amphibious assault. China could probably damage U.S. bases in Japan, but it is doubtful that they could destroy them or render them unusable. LJL at China being able to do anything at all to U.S. bases in Guam or Hawaii.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363810)

And that's assuming a one-on-one confrontation, which is unlikely to happen in the real world. As I said, the most realistic scenario for a naval war between China and the U.S. would be a scenario where there is a skirmish between (for example) a Chinese and a Filipino ship that escalates into a war. In such a war, most likely every other southeast Asian country allies itself against China, because everyone is pissed about China's artificial islands and territorial claims in the South China Sea. The U.S. would probably get roped in once Japan or Australia got involved. So most likely, it would be China against the U.S. plus Japan, Australia, and most every other country in the region. And that's assuming Article 5 doesn't get invoked so that China is up against NATO as well.

So no, the chances of China winning any kind of realistic naval war against the U.S. right are very, very slim.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363392)

So a convenient headline figure is ~12 nuclear-powered submarines in service (6 SSBN + ~6 SSN), but estimates differ between analysts and official tallies — and China is actively building new classes (next-gen SSBN/SSN) so the number is changing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363401)

And you're making extremely optimistic assumptions about Chinese anti-carrier missiles. The U.S. is well aware that they exist, and it is highly doubtful that they simply said, "Oh shit. There is no way to counter Chinese anti-carrier missiles. I guess we'll just have to sit back and let China rape Taiwan." I'm sure the U.S. has some countermeasures in its back pocket. We won't know if they work until an actual war happens.

And you're making optimistic assumptions about Chinese missiles in the first place. We saw in Ukraine that Russia's vaunted "hypersonic missiles" were easily shot down by Cold War-era Patriot missile defense systems. It's quite possible that China's missiles are also paper tigers. Neither side wants to show their cards before a war happens, so all we can do is speculate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363825)

And the U.S. is fighting a war with China to protect the Philippines. In this hypothetical scenario, you would need one (probably both) of Japan and Australia to get involved. Neither is a naval powerhouse, but they can, at the minimum, contribute resources and intelligence. And if it looks like this could spiral into World War 3, probably Article 5 gets invoked and all of NATO is fighting on the side of the U.S. At that point China is completely done here.

That's another major Chinese weakness in any hypothetical U.S./China war. The U.S. have allies whose combined GDP is greater than the GDP of the U.S. itself. Even if China has a greater manufacturing capacity than the U.S., it still can't outcompete the U.S. plus NATO plus the U.S.'s non-NATO allies. What allies does China have in a major armed conflict? North Korea? LJL.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363839)

but we ain’t gonna fight them on land

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5788204&forum_id=2Elisa#49363863)