What's new

China’s Rising Military Not Ready to Win Wars, U.S. Report Says

to me US lost in Vietnam , Afghanistan and in Iraq ... today US say Afghan Talibans are not Terrorist , so that is testimony of their defeat ...

For US, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam is not a local war. The US have to travel over 10,000 mile to fight the eneky, something China cannot even match in this category, let alone winning a war in say like Italy or Africa. The preparation and reaction to those war is a lot different than Chinese winning a local war, like in Taiwan, Japan or Philippine.

Winning a war does not solely depend on how many hardware you got compare to the others, but in general how you deliever and use your hardware to the battlefield. This is what the article is talking about.

China , although strong in number or maybe tech, but there are virtually no chance for China to win a local war that does not share a land border, as the sea lift and airlift capacity is lacking and the tactical decision is unknown at this moment. Doubful even for a war with land border.
 
.
well no our army will not ... cause we dont want to take or pride in killing millions of people :D

i know exactly what i am Talking about .. its just you are american ... a Patriotic one :D
No...You do NOT.

The words 'war' and 'armed conflict' are often interchangeably used, some would say carelessly used. But the difference between them are not trivial. What is a 'war' and what is an 'armed conflict' indicates the states of minds between countries that have irreconcilable or near irreconcilable differences.

An 'armed conflict' is when countries felt each had to resort to violence to settle disputes and that said disputes do not necessarily involves existential threats to each other. Border wars are actually armed conflicts because the parties involved usually confines their violence to -- the borders. If one side retreat for whatever reasons, the other side remains in place or even withdraws to its own side.

A 'war' is when the goal for each side is the utter submission or even erasure of the other government. No better example is World War II. Either a government submit to a greater power, or be replaced by another government created by that greater power.

Common to 'war' and 'armed conflict' are combat victories. Nothing says 'You submit' or 'I surrender' better than combat victories, or lack thereof. Clausewitz characterized war as 'the continuation of policy by other means.' That implies two distinct and equally important components of a war: politics and military. If the politics demands the utter submission or erasure of the other government, then the other military must be swept aside or even destroyed. There must be no obstacles between my military and your government. Once your military is no longer a viable force, I am free to either restrain my military and exercise my politics to induce you to surrender, or restrain my politics and allow my military to mete out death and destruction to your end.

This is why those who have been in the military uniform of any country laughs at the snide remarks that the US 'lost' in Viet Nam. It does not require any deep thinking to see that the US military utterly dominated the battlefields in Viet Nam, no matter who created what battlefield and when. Individual combat may sway from one side to the other, but always whenever the US military exercised its full might, the NVA and its adjunct the Viet Cong guerrilla force usually lost and usually lost badly. If the US government poorly used its politics and allowed the North Vietnamese to exploit those lapses in American judgement, that does not take away the battlefields accomplishments made by the US military.
 
.
well no our army will not ... cause we dont want to take or pride in killing millions of people :D

i know exactly what i am Talking about .. its just you are american ... a Patriotic one :D

Bhai ki baat toh sahi hai waise,any army would suffer that kind of loss
 
.
Back
Top Bottom