and we start to become the United States of Jesus Land...

[Roshambo]

Unlikely. Our armed forces are still as powerful as the rest of the world's combined.

Go-Go-Gadget Eggshell Armor!

 

[John Uskglass]

Go-Go-Gadget Eggshell Armor!

More like Go-Go-Gadget Most Powerful Navy In History.

 

[Bradylama]

More like nigga please.

 

[KillaKilla]

'Nuclear wepons'?

What's that? Illiteracy bombs?

Oh come on jebus...

What are those? Illiteracy bombs?

Criticizing someone for an obvious typo is so low-brow...


Really though, Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Im actually starting to look forward to a civil war at this point.

"Christians" telling me to kill my Muslim friend since "In the name of Jesus destroy them!" and kill my Jewish friend "The killed Jesus" then telling me to kill myself "The Pope is the devil incarnate!".

Their has always been good, but not always evil. Corruption is responsible for evils existence and to this day it is that which I feel is the worst thing imaginable. To think people can turn "Do not mistreat an alien for you were once aliens in Egypt", "Treat others the way you would want to be treated.", and "Your reward is not an earthly one" into "Outsiders have only bad intentions", "Kill those who oppose you.", and "A measure of God's love is based on our position and power in life."

Im sick...

,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Bradylama]

Eh. The government's been raping the constitution for the better part of a century, already. I doubt a civil war would happen now. Cool as it would be.

 

[MrMarcus]

As long as the government remains in corporate hands, there won't be a civil war. It wouldn't be in the best interest of big business to have people not spending.

 

[Roshambo]

Go-Go-Gadget Eggshell Armor!

More like Go-Go-Gadget Most Powerful Navy In History.

Speaking as one who has been in such, that works for...well, air deployment and naval bombardment. Not a whole hell of a lot else when we have soldiers who drop their guns for the anal rape, and the infantry is already stretched and undersupplied at holding a relatively small piece of desert, helpless to do much without guns being involved - almost an exact parody of the British occupation of the original Thirteen Colonies and the tactics the colonials used against them to win. The navy can also deploy marines, but that doesn't matter when there are idiots in charge who conveniently compromise the missions. I could go on about how the training has been made softer and much easier, but that is a given. I still remember the bullshit of the "Stress Cards" used in US boot camps for awhile that left most of us shaking our heads, and left new recruits weeping the first time a chief gave them a real chew out for doing something stupid.

Then if you want to go by numbers, China has enough policemen to rival the US military, and they actually have HtH training that rivals the average US army grunt. Then there's also the point of their reserves being substantially larger than the US' standing force, and they don't get the cushy training the weekend warriors of the US; they are held almost to the same standards as the active troops. Oh, they also have nukes.

Pride is one thing, good for that, but don't let it delude you. A vital part of war, despite all of the gadgets the US has and the great navy, is in ground combat. If nukes were deployed, those gadgets become fried, and it still goes back to the ground troops.

 

[John Uskglass]

I don't pretend to know as much about the military as you do Rosh, but I seriously doubt anyone could wage a succesful war agaisnt the US without a vastly superior navy. Worst comes to worst, a fullscale invasion is impossible; landing troops anywhere in the Americas would be almost out of the question. And in the best situation, America takes the straights of Malacca, taking a chunk of global trade with us.

 

[Murdoch]

And in the best situation, America takes the straights of Malaaca, taking a chunk of global trade with us.

Rosh, while we're on a related subject, what do you think about the conventional wisdom that video games have made our soldiers more willing to kill than previous generations? And do you think it's a good or bad thing if indeed it is true?

 

[calculon000]

I know that I at least know the names of, and could identify, some of the most common assault rifles thanks to video games.

 

[Roshambo]

I don't pretend to know as much about the military as you do Rosh, but I seriously doubt anyone could wage a succesful war agaisnt the US without a vastly superior navy. Worst comes to worst, a fullscale invasion is impossible; landing troops anywhere in the Americas would be almost out of the question.

News Flash For the Utterly Fucking Clueless:

The land bridge between Russia and Alaska isn't that wide anymore. That route also, coincidentally, still has Japanese gun batteries on the Aleutians. There are many other ways to land personnel on US shores. It would be costly, but they do have the numbers to go round. To put it in deference to you, think of the Zerg, but with a kung-fu death grip.

You know, fiction isn't wholly based off of unreality. You might want to play Fallout again for a good example of what China would likely do if it came to a land war scenario.

Speaking as someone with naval experience, I know it doesn't take an entire combat fleet to land a substantial land force with the numbers the Chinese have. Even civvy boats would be commandeered for that invasion, as the route isn't that difficult. There goes one of the primary oil production sites of the US, and in a very good location to make a basis for...guess what? A land war.

So now that we have first whittled "best military in the world"* down to "best navy in the world", then further disprove that it wouldn't take much of a naval force to turn it into a land war - then what is left of your incorrect assertion? The only thing that really separates the US from most of the rest of the world is the technology, and I would hate to break it to people, but numbers do matter after the nukes go round. Or even if they do not. The US has jack shit for a real physical war on the ground, and I again restate that the ground forces are already strained at holding a really small patch of desert. That is primarily why they are trying to scramble for numbers to enlist now.

* - Correction! "Our armed forces are still as powerful as the rest of the world's combined." [sic!]

Watching the SPs lay flat the infantry late on shore leave nights, on a regular basis, was a most ironic point when standing out on the docks. Even 20 to 1 outnumbered. Oh, that's right. The govt would rather that they NOT be trained as killers and instead as rifle shooters, so theoretically if you take away the gun, you take away the soldier.**

That is yet another aspect of politicians getting in the way and harming the training of their own soldiers, but I can understand the new attitude towards the vets. Break enough of the enlistment promises they agreed to when they signed on, who knows what one of them will do with the skills the military gave them? The politician's attitude exactly, so therefore the training programs have progressively become much weaker.

About the time of the "Stress Cards", rifle training for the navy only consisted of looking at a rifle, taking an old one apart and putting it back together (may be M-16, may be a heavier one depending if you were...oh, wait, they don't discriminate against fatbodies like that anymore), and then shooting it to see if you earn a ribbon out of boot camp or not. You didn't even have to pass the range in order to get through boot camp.

That was it. Pathetic. I shudder to think what that load of bureaucratic bullshit did to the other services' training regimen.

I would suggest for you to enlist to learn something, but apparently pride and politics have higher consideration than honor and respect, in the military as of late. Respect not just for yourself, but your superiors, and your opposite man. Pick whichever swordsman or school of war you wish to subscribe to, but it is a weakness to believe your opposite man to be incapable of what you are capable of if in the same position.

And in the best situation, America takes the straights of Malaaca, taking a chunk of global trade with us.

And that is precisely the reason why China doesn't look to do a full-scale invasion. It does benefit them to keep an industry of export products for American companies. As the govt there believes, the workforce breeds like rabbits and there's plenty more that will take the job to fill the quota. As long as it benefits those in power, the status quo and "workers unions" over there works just fine.

Just like the attitude Wal-Mart displays, which is why Wal-Mart China should cause a moral sinkhole that should ride the asscrack of every Western Christian fundie...if they weren't thinking of their wallet first, and what morals they can buy with said money second. Sorry, had to draw this back neatly into the original topic. Who said Communism was all bad?

This concludes your daily lesson in historic ironies.

EDIT:

** - Murdoch, good point. I think I covered it here.

 

[Jebus]

The land bridge between Russia and Alaska isn't that wide anymore. That route also, coincidentally, still has Japanese gun batteries on the Aleutians.

Hear now, I'm even more clueless on militairy matters, but I've got some questions on that:

1. How would the Chinese use the landbridge between Kamchatka and Alaska? After all, they'd have to go over Russian territory then. And since the Russians and the Chinese have historically not been all that close, the only option available to them would be to invade Russia first. Invading Russia before the USA would mean creating an enormous front - a front that they may perhaps be able to cover with their manpower, but surely not logistically - at least with their current logistical capabilities.

2. I actually don't really know if the Bering straight (sp?) would be all that easily passable. A Belgian adventurer just tried to cross it together with an American partner, using ski's, a sailing boat, water-proof costumes, etc. etc. Yet ,they only got halfway before they drifted off because of very strong northernwind and floating ice.
I don't know how the Bering straight looks like in the summer, but I don't assume it is ever completely ice free. So that might be a sizeable impediment.

3. Don't the USA have spy sattelites and long-distance rocket systems to observe incoming fleets and the like? But of course, in a post-nuclear scenario, that would be pretty unimportant.



Ofcourse, these are only questions. I don't really know much about American home defence...

 

[Roshambo]

The land bridge between Russia and Alaska isn't that wide anymore. That route also, coincidentally, still has Japanese gun batteries on the Aleutians.

Hear now, I'm even more clueless on militairy matters, but I've got some questions on that:

1. How would the Chinese use the landbridge between Kamchatka and Alaska? After all, they'd have to go over Russian territory then. And since the Russians and the Chinese have historically not been all that close, the only option available to them would be to invade Russia first. Invading Russia before the USA would mean creating an enormous front - a front that they may perhaps be able to cover with their manpower, but surely not logistically - at least with their current logistical capabilities.

Let's see. One, the "front" would be along a rural area. If Russia were diverted in some other theater at the same time, China taking a trail to ferry troops over to Alaska might not seem like such a big thing. This also depends on Russia's views on the US or ability to do anything about it at the same time. Russian logistics aren't that sterling, either.

2. I actually don't really know if the Bering straight (sp?) would be all that easily passable. A Belgian adventurer just tried to cross it together with an American partner, using ski's, a sailing boat, water-proof costumes, etc. etc. Yet ,they only got halfway before they drifted off because of very strong northernwind and floating ice.

Not with that kind of gear. However, a troop transport or a cargo ship could make it from one coast to another, especially if China's faster boats cleared a path and debarking site. The US, to intercept, would have to pull fleets into the region from possibly thousands of miles away.

I don't know how the Bering straight looks like in the summer, but I don't assume it is ever completely ice free. So that might be a sizeable impediment.

How about it doesn't have anywhere near the ice it once had? A lot of that has since melted, the ice isn't anywhere as problematic as it once was. All it takes is holding the area long enough, as response time would be longer to get reinforcements there for the US over land or enough by sea, and enough forces could be built up. Hence why the Japanese were trying for a landing there.

3. Don't the USA have spy sattelites and long-distance rocket systems to observe incoming fleets and the like? But of course, in a post-nuclear scenario, that would be pretty unimportant.

True, and true. But then it comes back to the problem of the US having a few logistic problems of their own, and they would likely have to go through Canada with any sizeable troop movement. See my notes about The Little Patch of Desert.

It is funny that people believe the US military is so great and capable of infinite things, but the last time it seemed like they did anything great or with any success was when they had the honest reinforcements of other countries and good national pride/support. WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well. Everything else, without that support, feels like being a politician's handpuppet to the military and subsequently, the devotion to the job lacks, or the soldiers will not remain in the military for long.

Welcome to the tin-plated eagle.

 

[John Uskglass]

Roshambo, modern war in Iraq and war with China are apples and oranges. Iraq today is occupation;something the US has never been good at. Occupying China is something the United States would never even consider. The initial war in Iraq had the Iraqis, after years of preparing for a Stalingrad-esque strugal, running for cover in every direction.

Also, I think it is somewhat unrealistic to believe that America would continue to have recruitment problems if we went to war with China. Assuming that this war was not today, troop levels would continue to decrease in Iraq and Afghanistan (in all probability), and there's no better recruiting tool then gearing up toward global conflict.

Not only that, but assuming we are talking about the big one, 30 + % of the American population is in the service industry; almost the entire population in that sector of the economy could, worst comes to worst, be geared towards the war effort.

Also, there's the Chinese economy. Considering how much of the current Chinese economy is based on American and Western investment, I don't really think China's economy could survive in it's current form.

Not to mention the biggie; Oil. China would have to grab Central Asia, a massive feat, to gain acces to enough oil to support thier military machine, and they don't even have any working refineries.. Without Oil, I'd like to see the Chinese military machine crush ours, considering we control the world's second largest oil supply as a puppet nation, not to mention Canada.

And the other biggie; Nuclear Conflict. Almost the entire Chinese economy is based around megacities in the far south, while the American Economy is spread out throughout one of the largest nations in the world. If Shanghai, Beijin (Chinese power is also far more centralized here then any American equivilent) and Hong Kong go up in a Mushroom, or with our superior air force we flatten the south WWII style, that's the entire Chinese war effort.

China also has nowhere near the number of missles we do. Assuming we don't both eradicate multicellular life on the planet, a limited nuclear conflict would spell total destruction for China and a return to the early Industrial Age for us.

 

[Roshambo]

Roshambo, modern war in Iraq and war with China are apples and oranges. Iraq today is occupation;something the US has never been good at. Occupying China is something the United States would never even consider. The initial war in Iraq had the Iraqis, after years of preparing for a Stalingrad-esque strugal, running for cover in every direction.

Oh, yes, another fine aspect of "Teh bestest military in the world, more powerful than anyone else combined!"

When it comes to that track record, I'd rather trust the British.

Joking aside, I have to really chuckle at how again this has been brought into a tangent away from your earlier assumptive assertion that you still have no hope of proving.

Also, I think it is somewhat unrealistic to believe that America would continue to have recruitment problems if we went to war with China. Assuming that this war was not today, troop levels would continue to decrease in Iraq and Afghanistan (in all probability), and there's no better recruiting tool then gearing up toward global conflict.

Assuming that this war was not today is the least of the assumptions made in the above. Unlikely does not eliminate all possibilities. China would also present far more fighting fronts than what the US had to cut through in, well, decades. Frankly, the training many troops go through is obviously not enough, given that Jessica Lynch wasn't shot for abject stupidity in a time of conflict. I could name other examples, but military code of honor and conduct would be lost on you, as would military strategy be similarly lost.

Not only that, but assuming we are talking about the big one, 30 + % of the American population is in the service industry; almost the entire population in that sector of the economy could, worst comes to worst, be geared towards the war effort.

Funny, the same could be said of the "rabbits", as I mentioned earlier. Only they have had to put controls on the pet population.

Also, there's the Chinese economy. Considering how much of the current Chinese economy is based on American and Western investment, I don't really think China's economy could survive in it's current form.

I think I pointed this out already, but if it came to a more important point than economy, then that "barrier" is moot.

Not to mention the biggie; Oil. China would have to grab Central Asia, a massive feat, to gain acces to enough oil to support thier military machine, and they don't even have any working refineries.. Without Oil, I'd like to see the Chinese military machine crush ours, considering we control the world's second largest oil supply as a puppet nation, not to mention Canada.

Thank you for ignoring the main strategic point I made. Something about oil, and which might also explain why China invaded...oh, nevermind, you aren't paying attention.

(Snip a load of irrelevant bullshit.)

I'm still wondering where you are getting this "bestest military in the world and better than everyone else combined" garbage. I don't care whether China would survive a war or not, that had no place in the discussion. If it comes to a desperate point, and I know it is quickly becoming so in China on many issues, then it begets desperate measures. That may mean war, however illogical it might seem to you. I also made mention of the fallacy in not giving credit to your opposite man. If someone has a standing army that will jump in rank and file, on command, and their interests are self-serving, then that is an unpredictable leader as their whim decides the direction of the forces. Hey, just like with Iraq, to continue with the theme of historic ironies.

But hey, keep believing that "economy", what "should happen", and warm happy feelings will be some sort of protection. Just be thankful that the USSR had a good watch on the Chinese border during the Cold War. But then again, it seems that military history is far from your strong suit, as you also failed to notice the rather blatant WWII references I made. Oh, well. A waste of time as usual.

China also has nowhere near the number of missles we do. Assuming we don't both eradicate multicellular life on the planet, a limited nuclear conflict would spell total destruction for China and a return to the early Industrial Age for us.

I fear the great American Supermarket Hunter would be a dead breed by then. Sorry. Try paying attention to social aspects not revolving around the economy.

 

[Brother None]

Let's see. One, the "front" would be along a rural area. If Russia were diverted in some other theater at the same time, China taking a trail to ferry troops over to Alaska might not seem like such a big thing. This also depends on Russia's views on the US or ability to do anything about it at the same time. Russian logistics aren't that sterling, either.

'ang on, Roshambo, this doesn't smell right to me. You're talking about the Chinese armed forces crossing the area between the nortern border of China and the Bering Strait. This is an enormous landmass and, quite frankly, we all know Russia's reputation on this. Coupled with China's logistic problems, I think there'd be zero chance of them ever reaching the Strait.

The Russians have no qualms about using scorched earth policy. Apart from that, remember that Russian males have 2 years of obligatory military training, which is a lot tougher than that of the Americans, especially those Russians that volunteer fighting in Chechnya (as one Russian once told me, you don't get sent to fight the Chechens, you have to volunteer), this puts their available military force at 24-36 million (less than China's 206 million or the USA's 73 million (mostly highly under-trained), a hole made largely by the lack of female soldiers in Russia)...where was I going with this? Oh yeah, the Russian tip on the Bering Strait is a pretty infamous military base, locked up since the Cold War.

Assuming that the Chinese would want to use the Bering Strait without Russian permission, they'd have to either sail around the coast of Russia (problematic, as it would put them in a sensitive position concerning the Russian, Japanese and American navy) or march all the way up to the Bering Strait, which would be an unprecendented feat of land war against Russia and, quite frankly, an impossible feat, not to mention having to beat through Russian and American fortifications around the Strait before beating through the US.

That said, Rosh is right. No matter how impressive your navy or airforce, in the end you have to either go for full-scale nuclear war or a land war, as World War II proved (failure of Germany to defeat the UK without land war, failure of Germany to defeat the USSR without land war, the necessity of land invasions from both side to finally defeat Germany, nuclear war against Japan to defeat it). As much as you shout about nuclear war, though, there are a few problems with this...

In case of nuclear war, it is *very* doubtful that Russia would side with the USA. Why? China has less than two dozen ICBMs capable of striking the USA, but it has hundreds upon hundreds of nuclear missiles capable striking its neighbour, Russia. Considering that nuclear war is inevitably followed or rather coupled with a massive landwar, I highly doubt Russia would feel it has much to gain from angering its next-door neighbour, which would mean it would have to train its impressive nuclear arsenal, the largest in the world, on the US. Coupled with the highly trained armies of Russia and China vs the under-trained non-draft pussies of the USA, the USA would stand about zero chance against a dual Russo-Chinese attack, especially if China drags the rather impressive army of North-Korea with its 1.2 million armed forces and 3.6 million people fit for armed service. Even if Europe backs the US up, it wouldn't stand a chance, either with a nuclear strike force or on a land war.

And if you think somehow the US could actually keep it from turning into a land war if the Bering Strait is available, you're a fool. Alaska would make a great State for scorched earth, though, but sadly you'd be facing Russia, experts of Scorched Earth, and Americans don't really have the grit for Scorched Earth, considering you already weep like little babies when one incompetent soldier gets whisked off and ass-raped.

But this is all besides the point, John, you stated and still haven't retracted the view of "the US military is as strong as the rest of the world combined". Considering that all it'd take would be for two 2nd World Countries to team up to crush the US into ground pulp, I think you might want to reconsider this viewpoint.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

First, I have several questions as regards this:

What would China have to gain by invading the United States, or vice versa? Given that the majority of a country's wealth is locked up in its population and infrastructure this technological age, even a limited war would be costly and would devastate both economies. If China was interested in expansion, you can be sure the rest of Asia looks a hell of a lot more desireable than the United States. Given the fact that they already have a sizeable agrarian sector, even ignoring infrastructure they have little to gain with war against the United States.

Second point: The Chinese military is undergoing a massive reduction in order to "modernize". China, despite its super magical levels of productivity, cannot sustain a long logistics war across the sea with its current military force. It does not have the supply capacity for rearming any of its troops, assuming it did invade through Alaska, though we would probably lose the oil pipeline.

Third point: The United States navy generally relies on advances weaponry as opposed to training, yes. Fortunately, the USN DOES have a superior navy to the People's Liberation Army Navy in capabilities. With sea resupply cut off in the Pacific, China would be hard pressed to again, supply its massive army for an invasion. An invasion, I might add, over an arctic region along one major point.

Fourth point: China would have to be willing to sustain horrendous damage to its coastal locations from repeated naval strikes. This would be again, devastating to an economy that relies on trade and with a majority of its population stil agriculturally based.

Fifth point: Russia would most likely NOT side with China. Assuming non-nuclear war, Russia would see the loss of Kamchatka to the Chinese as nonbeneficial. What does Russia gain from China striking the US? China could just as easily march north-west and strike Russia whenever it damn well pleases. If it was nuclear war, I can assure you, Russia, the United States, and China wouldn't be sustaining damn well anything soon enough (thus its not worth considering with conventional military capabilities at this point in time).



Anyways, off to college classes for now.

 

[Tempistfury]

On the issue of who has the best military in the world, I am going to say the United States. Now, before you gut me, read on and you'll see what I mean by best. To determine the "best" I am using technological advancement as the key factor. Because, lets face it, we are the most technologically advanced military out there. Which, sadly is our problem if it came to a real war.

For all of our technology we have become specialized. specialized to fight ultra modern armies, like our own, or close approximations such as Israel or Canada. (Yes, I said Canada. If you take a look at the canadian military they actually have some really nice hardware.)

Sure, we are investing in lasers that shoot down anti-missile missiles, and we have autonomous machinegun robots, but whats the point if our enemies don't use anti-missile missiles, and a $200k robot can get its shit ruined by an RPG developed in the 1960's?

The end result is we may have the "best" military, but only when fighting "modern" mlitarys.

Now onto Chinese-American war. A few things are being ignored. First, if there is a war it wont be for at least 10 years, meaning China WONT be dependent on us. So that argument is out the window. On the other hand China could right now tank our economy in a single day if it wanted to. Why? Because the Chinese buy American currency everyday. If they dump that back onto the world market right now, our economy is either A) tanked or B) so badly damaged that we'll be in another depression.

Someone also mentioned that there is no way to get over to America aside from via Alaska. This is not true. My friends, it is called... THE AIRPLANE. Now before you scream bloody hell, remember this: on September 11th 2001 the United States Air Force failed to intercept three planes that had no identification. Those three planes subsequently slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Commercial planes have their commercial transponders. on September 11th, when the planes were hijacked the transponders were turned off, thus making them invisible to CIVILIAN monitoring but not military radar. US military policy is to launch intercepters after two minutes when a plane is unidentified. As you can guess, they failed to do so.

Somehow I am willing to guess that with that level of incompetence at home that the Chinese could slip in a lot of parabombers.

Further, on the issue of russia, if you look at Russias political situation right now, its not exactly stable. (now if anyone here is from russia maybe you can comment on this please) But as far as I know it there is a noticeable push by a (large minority?) to return to communism. If Russia were to return to communism, and China wanted to cross into the US via the Bering Straight[sp?] Then I'm willing to say that Russia will let them. Even if they don't return to communism, Americans don't deceive yourselves: Russia dosent like us. In fact most countries in the world DONT LIKE US.

One last thing: Someone mentioned the USA wouldn't have enough soldiers. I'm gonna say thats a wrong statement. If China attacks us, you will have *ALOT*of people volunteering not to mention a draft. I guarantee you that I would willingly fight the chinese if they invaded us. Come in my city with tanks and guns and i'll fight you till I breathe my last breath. Now, if we attack thats a different story...

So to summarize, The US military is the "best" in its weightclass. Too bad we're just about the only ones in our weightclass. Our airforce is full of incompetence and unlikely to change and beyond that China can tank our economy.

 

[Murdoch]

Someone also mentioned that there is no way to get over to America aside from via Alaska. This is not true. My friends, it is called... THE AIRPLANE. Now before you scream bloody hell, remember this: on September 11th 2001 the United States Air Force failed to intercept three planes that had no identification. Those three planes subsequently slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Commercial planes have their commercial transponders. on September 11th, when the planes were hijacked the transponders were turned off, thus making them invisible to CIVILIAN monitoring but not military radar. US military policy is to launch intercepters after two minutes when a plane is unidentified. As you can guess, they failed to do so.
Somehow I am willing to guess that with that level of incompetence at home that the Chinese could slip in a lot of parabombers.

First, there are alot more military radars in Alaska than in New York. Second, the number of planes in the air during the day on the Eastern Seaboard is much higher than over Alaska, making it harder to detect incoming hostiles. Third the flights took off from the US and thus were not targeted as hostile, unlike flights from a foreign country, esp China. Fourth you cannot begin a land invasion and supply it over the long-haul by air. The American airforce/navy can and would annihilate that fairly quickly even if you were foolish enough to try. Even if the effort was to control ports you could never control them long or well enough to land sufficient men and supplies to properly defend against a now super-pissed US.

And while I do agree that millions would volunteer including myself if a credible threat was present it would still take a few years to ramp up for war. And don't forget that the US could damage the Chinese economy just a severely as they could damage ours.

bah, this is all academic anyway. The only thing the US and CHina will ever go to war over in Taiwan/Formosa/that speck of land we get motherboards from. That war would have fundamentally different needs and means that China is nowhere nearly as disadvantaged over.