China launches first aircraft carrier

of course i read the whole thread, i read every post up to this point. you don't just pop aircraft carriers out of your ass. it takes months to years to build them, even with china's industrial power. And we have planes that are so advanced most of our own planes 10 years back pale in comparison. i.e. the stealth bombers, and the super-hornets and the raptors. best planes on earth. and we have a lot of them. and i don't think the U.N. is going to let china unnecessarily build them. they have no reason to. and i don't know if you read but were building three now. and have a couple in reserve. that's almost 15-17 aircraft carriers.

You underestimate China and overestimate the power of the U.N. The U.N. doesn't have the authority to stop anyone frome building up their military power. And if you paid close attension, you would have noticed that most of the complaints come from the U.S. The rest of the U.N. has no problem with China expanding its military power. Yes, it would take months to build the carriers, the point was that the Chinese have a great capacity to do so, unburdened by burracracy and taxpayer disapproveal. And just because the U.S. has advanced weaponry doesn't mean that no other country has it as well. You ARE aware that Japan has the most advanced military [along with one of the smallest] in the world, right? China has the capacity to build greater and greater planes, just like the U.S. does.

And, i'm almost positive we just transitioned into quality or quantity.

Quality wins in the era of today. when we can shoot you from miles away with missiles, then quality always wins. Yes Japan has a superior army, but it pales in comparison to ours and then if china can, like Mao said, muster an army of 200 million people, japan will need the U.S. numbers to help stop them. and i'm pretty Sea invasions are always very costly, And then they have to fight through the streets with little armor (do they use bullet proof vests?) and poor training.

By greater and greater do you mean numbers, or quality, because if japan has the most advanced military in the world then we should have an easier time defeating the Chinese since we would destroy their ships that try to go anywhere. Because i don't think japan would Ally itself with china, and then threes the Europeans, and Australia. so even though you are right that the UN can't stop nations from building up there armed forces, I'd have to say no matter what china does they could't win. No matter how many carriers they have, the world always has more.

Quality is an essencial factor today, yes. But you underestimate the Chinese army. It is just as advanced and arguably [we won't really know until we see them in action] just as trained as the U.S.'s army. Japan would be little more than a footnote in a real all-out-war between the U.S. and China. It would serve as little more than a staging platform for the U.S. to launch attacks at Korea [where the North East battle would likely be fought]. By 'greater and greater' I was refering to quality, though quantity cannot be ruled out. Don't expect the Europeans to do much anything, they'll have their own problems. Israel will face a dramatic drop in U.S. presence and face the danger of invasion by its neighbors; emboldened by the absence of the U.S. Russia will likely try to reassert itself in East Europe, which will keep the rest occupied. The U.S. [if it expects victory] will focus on China, which will draw more and more of its attension and resources. Australia is not the ally that will be useful to the U.S. [and indeed I'm not convinced that they will not just declare themselves neutral], in the South East of China, the Phillipines will be the base that the U.S. will likely use; its closer and more efficient. The battles will be fought on and around Taiwan as well as the U.S. trying to push up through Vietnam. In the big picture, neither country [China or the U.S. will 'win' the war, it will draw out to a war of attrition and the U.S. will eventually pull out. China will not attack, not out of choice, but because they lack the navy to reach U.S. shores [their navy is really a joke, though everybody but the U.S.'s is for that matter].
Your perception of a war between the U.S. and China is based on outdated information and the assuption that the rest of the world will be content to sit back and watch, rather then take advantage of the situation.
BTW: Your last sentence makes no sense.

Well japan has risen to an ok status as navies.Still if they would be beated by nato's navy if they would declare war but on groun it would be more even.

The Japanese would probably be a pretty effective force against China as that's what they are trained for war with China.

I understand that china can have hundreds of millions of people, i was thinking of adding that in my previous post, but decided against it. The Chinese have't fought a war since the Korean war. And they won from a night surprise attack. They don't have the experience, or technology which you seem to think they do, to match us in quality, Europe will probably start drafting quickly with the fear of world war three, which is also what your suggesting, and invasion from Russia, so ill give you that one. but china wouldn't be able to get planes of the grounds because we would have already bombarded them. what would be the decisive battles would be on land where you have Japanese and american planes and ships bombarding the Chinese, where countless lives are being loss on the Chinese. It seems your underestimating the power of naval warfare. BUT, the war of attrition will most likely win in the end, giving us and the Japanese time to bandage ourselves, since the Chinese are going to need to time for their broken bones to heal. (if you don't get what i'm saying, the Chinese are going to have very heavy loses)

You must fall into one of these catagories: misinformed, uber-American patriot, or ignoring what the others have, convinced that the U.S. is some god-send that can win any war it goes into.
While, yes, China laggs behind the U.S. in technology, it still has the ability to challenge it in this field. China's lack of recent military experience works both ways. It doesn't have experienced commanders, but the enemy doesn't know what they are capible of.
You are assuming that:
1. That the U.S knows where all of their military assets are.
2. That the Chinese are complete idiots.
3. That the U.S. can moblilize in the region BEFORE China notices and acts accordingly.
4. That Japan has a military capible of being more than a burden to the U.S.
5. That the U.S. would only have to win the seas to win the war.

China has a higher probablility of knowing where U.S. assets are because they have to be reported to the public for burracratic reason. China does not.
China is not a military idiot, they study Sun Tzu's Art of War as a requirement in their armed forces. So does the U.S. They both realize that the modern conflicts still rely heavily on the same tactics as are in the book.
China is just as and probably more battle-ready than the U.S. In the event of a war, the preemtive strike by the U.S. will have to rely on the assets they already have in the region. This is because the whole world would be wondering: "why is the U.S. moving millions of troops and supplies to the Asian Theater?". Then, there is the political and economic backlash for an unprovoked attack on China to consider.
Japan's military would not last too long in a prolonged war. China can fire missles that can hit the missle-less soils of Japan in mere minutes. The military bases on Japan will be leveled within the first few hours of the war.
The U.S. cannot strke very far inland with a navy. And getting that close will be neigh impossible with China's new anti-carrier missles. China doesn't have to SINK the carrier, just hit it ONCE to damage it enough to force a withdrawal to prevent its eventual sinking and to get to dry dock to repair.

It is all theory; how a ground war with China will unfold. Will troops be lost? Obviously. Will the losses be heavy? Probably. Will it in any way get the U.S. victory? Not a chance. The Chinese will likely inflict equivilant amounts of damage on the U.S. and its 'allies' the difference being that China can cope with its while the U.S. and its 'allies''s populations back home will balk at the losses and question the initative, especially since the U.S. is the clear aggressor in a war that nobody but the U.S. government and a handful of people alongside profiting corperations wanted.

Being the defender who didn't provoke the war, China's goal will remain the same as it has always been: survive. And after the war? How will the world look upon the blood-thirsty U.S. and the poor, bruised China? The answer is really obvious, especially since even the U.S.'s 'allies' grow tired of following the U.S.'s lead.
In the end, China will get the better of the war. Allies. Trading partners. Unopposed dominance of the region. Oh, and as cruel as it is to say: less population strain. Plus, having lead the Chinese people to 'victory' [that is how they will portray it] the government will rule unopposed within the country with the renewed confidence of the people.

If we fight China, we will control the seas. If we control the seas, their export based industry will fall flat. America would not fight a ground war because America isn't retarded. We'd blow the major costal cities to shit and only worry for South Korea. Millions of Chinese will die and NATO casualties will be minimal unless China attacks South Korea.

@imperial
1. i don't remember ANYBODY saying who the aggressor was. what if it was china who attacked japan. then we have every reason to go to war with china, Since japan is a close ally and that we station small fleets there, in Korea, in australia and in the philipines.

2. i never assumed china was dumb.
3. i said it would be helpful that we win the sea, since then you could brutally pound the very heavily populated coastal cities into submission.
4. you seem to assume that while we would dominate in the air and sea, were not going to use those to our advantage on the ground. like we would start to target all chinese defenses and there cities.
5. The Japanese would be welcomed help in the fight against china, along with everyone else in the region.
6. the Chinese would have more casualties. civilians counted, most defiantly.

*sigh*
NATO and the U.N. see no reason why the U.S. should attack China. The only complaints about China's military growth are coming from the U.S. Chinese anti-naval and anti-air capablilities make the job of attacking the coast suicide missions. The U.S. populus will never condone an unprovoked war with China. Yes, the export buisness will fall flat, but so would the whole world's economy. Uncertainty; generated by the U.S.'s aggression and the fall of Chinese exports will cause the stock markets to collapse. As it is, it would take 20+ years for another country to replace the massive export buisness that China occupies. And that is on the optimistic end. China can level all of the nearby cities belonging to the U.S.'s allies, probably starting with Japan's Tokyo. This will deter anybody from wanting to join the U.S. in its unprovoked attack on Chinese soil. The ultimatum is that the U.S. cannot hope to sustain the war long enough to win, and China will still reap benefits from the war. The U.S. will be looked on as an aggressive *** who attacked a reletively peaceful nation. The war will cause a shift in the global economy and further polarize it, more of it being attracted to China's large amount of currency and manufacturing. People will want to ally with China when they see that the U.S. cannot be trusted. What is left of the U.S.'s allies in the region will fall in line under China as the U.S. is forced to withdraw by the populus who don't want to risk angering China further.

@Crusher949
Japan is China's second largest trading partner. Chinese [or at least their government] are shrewd buisness-people, they would not attack Japan for the same reason that they would not attack the U.S. or Taiwan. Because its bad buisness. Who actively antagonizes China militarily? Who in their region has the capacity and the gall to attack China? The answer is not ambiguous. The U.S. constantly fills these catagories. You assume that the U.S. will win air and naval superiority when in fact, from the land, China can quite adequately defend its terrictory. Did I say that China would inflict more casulties? I don't believe I did. I believe what I said was that China would be able to inflict eqivilant amounts of casulties. Failing that, China would inflict quite enough as to cause the U.S. public to stop backing the war, if they backed it in the first place. Its all downhill from there for the U.S. Plus the world would balk at the war, even if they have their own problems, they will blame the U.S. for having started them by attacking China and leaving the world that they shaped and upheld to fend for itself.

WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING AMERICA IS THE AGGRESSOR!!??!!?? america is never the aggressor, why would we start against OUR trading partner, who loan us billions of dollars, who produces most of our clothing and shoes and stuff like that. this is a world war 3 scenario that would not start with america attacking china. face it. maybe china and India, sure. not america attacking china.

.

Then I misunderstood your position. I held that you were advocating a U.S. attack on China and responded that the war would be a moot point. Furthermore, I cannot see any country with the capacity to challenge China on its own, besides the U.S. That is why I chose the U.S. as an example.
China does not do large amounts of trading with India, but they maintain better relations with India than they do with the U.S.
I know that China will probably [yes, I am admitting to the possibility] not start a war because of 2 factors:
1. Its bad for buisness. Simply put, China's government is very sensitive to changes in the economy. A war is bad for the economy and their international image and influence.
2. China's culture is one that dislikes violence and of course; by extension, war. Unlike some other countries, China's government is made up of people who are closely tied to the culture of the general population. More specifically, Chinese do not like instability. War causes instablity and so they do not like war.
China is unlikely to be the aggressor against the U.S. for a more practical military reason as well: their capacity to cross the Pacific to strike at the U.S. is next to zero. Their navy is simply too small and outdated.
BTW: What is the extent of your history knowledge of U.S. military ventures? As I recall, Vietnam did not attack the U.S.

I don't recall saying anything about Vietnam. i said Korea if that is what your referring to. And yes they did help korea in the Korean war, like we helped the french.

Sorry, I must has missed where you refered to Korea [not sarcasm]. The Vietnam example still stands. And the French had no right to be there in the first place [Vietnam], unless you support imperialism [no offense intended].

Imperialism is pretty bad ass... (sarcasm intended)

Just so you know, my name is actually not a support to imperialism.

Eh, who cares.

My name doesn't mean i crush people.

That would be maginally more acceptable than imperialism in this modern era.

No, it seriously isn't. The Chinese military has maybe got about one piece of US-equivalent military technology, that being the stealth plane that is under wraps and unavailable for a direct comparison. Just look at their relative spending levels compared to ours. There's no way in hell they could be considered our equal in either of those two categories, especially since they can't just steal their way to "innovation" in the military sector.