generic image
Processing...
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
  • Search in Players
  • Search in Games
  • Search in Catalog
  • Search in Groups
  • Search in Library
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
  • Games
  • Catalog
  • Develop
  • Robux
   
ROBLOX Forum » ROBLOX Global » World Wide Chat
Home Search
 

Re: Santorum doesn't want war with China.

Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Avogadro is not online. Avogadro
Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Total Posts: 4011
19 Feb 2012 08:01 PM
He just misspoke. And I'm not one to defend Santorum.
Report Abuse
MahPizzaIsHere is not online. MahPizzaIsHere
Joined: 30 Apr 2011
Total Posts: 7707
19 Feb 2012 08:29 PM
I don't want war with China.
Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 08:59 PM
No one wants war with China. Even if America crushed China no one wins. The Chinese lose a lot of money and so does America.
Report Abuse
Jinxy is not online. Jinxy
Joined: 04 Aug 2007
Total Posts: 18317
19 Feb 2012 09:18 PM
Why would anybody want war with China?
Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 09:20 PM
The Korean war is a perfect example of what happens in a land battle against China. NK knocks SK back, America knocks NK back, then China knocks America back in a land battle.

In modern day the Russians actually want America and China to go to a shooting war. The Russians know that America and China will be weak after a war with each other and the Russians will once again (in theory) be the top power of the world.
Report Abuse
Branch14 is not online. Branch14
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Total Posts: 5383
19 Feb 2012 09:25 PM
>The Korean war is a perfect example of what happens in a land battle against China. NK knocks SK back, America knocks NK back, then China knocks America back in a land battle.


Once again, Due to swarm tactics.


>The Russians know that America and China will be weak after a war with each other and the Russians will once again (in theory) be the top power of the world.


Turkey alone matches against Russia's equipment, NATO would destroy Russia.
Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 09:31 PM
>Once again, Due to swarm tactics.
-----
It was swarm tactics and guess what? It worked.

>Turkey alone matches against Russia's equipment, NATO would destroy Russia.
-----
Shouldn't NATO destroy America then since it's the top power? Branch you misunderstood. Russia would be the top power country wise.
Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 09:34 PM
Not to mention if China and America did go to war, the Korean Peninsula would just basically be turned into a sheet of smoking glass.
Report Abuse
Branch14 is not online. Branch14
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Total Posts: 5383
19 Feb 2012 09:39 PM
>Once again, Due to swarm tactics.
-----
>It was swarm tactics and guess what? It worked.


Yeah, And then they were pushed back to where they started when they entered south korea.

>Turkey alone matches against Russia's equipment, NATO would destroy Russia.
-----
>Shouldn't NATO destroy America then since it's the top power? Branch you misunderstood. Russia would be the top power country wise.


No Because NATO is America's ally? Obviously.


And no it would not. It would take too much, almost not worth it, to destroy the U.S military
Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 09:44 PM
>Yeah, And then they were pushed back to where they started when they entered south korea.
-----
If China didn't step in the Korean Peninsula would be united in one democratic state.

>No Because NATO is America's ally? Obviously.
-----
I'm working off of what you said before. So lets say China became the #1 power, why would NATO even WANT to invade China? Plus NATO isn't in place to invade countries because they aren't in charge.

>And no it would not. It would take too much, almost not worth it, to destroy the U.S military
-----
Your missing the point, the American and Chinese army would be demolished. Both would be broke. Russia would be the top country after without even needing to lift a finger.
Report Abuse
Branch14 is not online. Branch14
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Total Posts: 5383
19 Feb 2012 09:47 PM
>If China didn't step in the Korean Peninsula would be united in one democratic state.

Congrats to China for its short victories, For it would have soon been pushed back right after.

>I'm working off of what you said before. So lets say China became the #1 power, why would NATO even WANT to invade China? Plus NATO isn't in place to invade countries because they aren't in charge.


What?

>Your missing the point, the American and Chinese army would be demolished. Both would be broke. Russia would be the top country after without even needing to lift a finger.

No it would not, America wouldn't even land ground troops in China, It could easily bomb Chinese industry from its carriers and alike, China's navy has little to compete with the U.S
Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 09:52 PM
>Congrats to China for its short victories, For it would have soon been pushed back right after.
---------
No actually it wouldn't have or America would have WON the Korean war.

>No it would not, America wouldn't even land ground troops in China, It could easily bomb Chinese industry from its carriers and alike, China's navy has little to compete with the U.S
---------
The Chinese do have bombers also, you know this right? The Americans would HAVE to land feet on land. You can't win a war with bombs only branch, or every conflict in human history would be won by grenades and artillery. Plus if America DIDN'T land troops, what is stopping China from demolishing SK and invading America by plane? There is only so much a bomb can do.
Report Abuse
Branch14 is not online. Branch14
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Total Posts: 5383
19 Feb 2012 10:01 PM
>No actually it wouldn't have or America would have WON the Korean war.


Yes it would have, China+NK was getting pushed back again and then it LOOKED like it would have been a stalemate, So talks begane but in reality if the U.N. forces kept pushing...





>The Chinese do have bombers also, you know this right?


Not as good as the United States.




>The Americans would HAVE to land feet on land. You can't win a war with bombs only branch

No, The U.S would not have to land feet on land. You could knock out Chinese industry and eventully they would come crawling.

>Plus if America DIDN'T land troops, what is stopping China from demolishing SK and invading America by plane?

Because it doesn't have the ability to do either of those? The Chinese airforce is just nothing compared to the U.S air force.

Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 10:11 PM
>Yes it would have, China+NK was getting pushed back again and then it LOOKED like it would have been a stalemate, So talks begane but in reality if the U.N. forces kept pushing...
--------
You can't change history, what happened happened. Also the USSR supplied China with weapons during the war.

>Not as good as the United States.
--------
I would beg to differ, their are probably a few Chinese pilots that surpass most America pilots. Plus the Japanese proved that you don't need to have good pilots to cause panic and destruction. 1 bomb from a MIG right into the plane elevator on the carrier immobilizes it.

>No, The U.S would not have to land feet on land. You could knock out Chinese industry and eventully they would come crawling.
--------
Branch under that logic we should have just blown Iraq sky high. Rangers lead the way for a REASON. The US will ALWAYS land ground troops like the rangers. History repeats itself. Plus US bombs can only reach so far. You can pound the coast line but there are business in cities inside of the Chinese mainland.

>Because it doesn't have the ability to do either of those? The Chinese airforce is just nothing compared to the U.S air force.
--------
It already invaded SK and already has an Aircraft carrier. Stop acting like China is the most frail country in the world.
Report Abuse
Branch14 is not online. Branch14
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Total Posts: 5383
19 Feb 2012 10:22 PM
>You can't change history, what happened happened. Also the USSR supplied China with weapons during the war.

I'm not trying to change history...


>I would beg to differ, their are probably a few Chinese pilots that surpass most America pilots. Plus the Japanese proved that you don't need to have good pilots to cause panic and destruction. 1 bomb from a MIG right into the plane elevator on the carrier immobilizes it.

Proof that Chinese pilots surpass American pilots? Even still, The U.S airforce has over 5,000 aircraft, China only has 2,000. China can't even maintain air dominance over Taiwan.


>Branch under that logic we should have just blown Iraq sky high. Rangers lead the way for a REASON. The US will ALWAYS land ground troops like the rangers. History repeats itself. Plus US bombs can only reach so far. You can pound the coast line but there are business in cities inside of the Chinese mainland.

Iraq does not have millions of men to throw at the invading forces, The United States has the ability to bomb those cities from Taiwan and several other locations. lets not forget India, A pro-U.S ally and would also likely fight China in a event.

>It already invaded SK

And was pushed back.


>and already has an Aircraft carrier. Stop acting like China is the most frail country in the world.


Oh, You mean the aircraft carrier that is a old 1980's and will be used for training purposes, not for actual combat at all?
Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 10:26 PM
>Proof that Chinese pilots surpass American pilots? Even still, The U.S airforce has over 5,000 aircraft, China only has 2,000. China can't even maintain air dominance over Taiwan.
------
Proof that American pilots are better than Chinese pilots? Numbers do not matter in warfare.

>Iraq does not have millions of men to throw at the invading forces, The United States has the ability to bomb those cities from Taiwan and several other locations. lets not forget India, A pro-U.S ally and would also likely fight China in a event.
------
I doubt they would and if they did Pakistan would take the chance to stab India in the back. Your missing the point. Under the same logic every country should bomb the other country and call it a win.

>And was pushed back.
------
America and the UN got no where by poor farmers with AK's during that war.

>Oh, You mean the aircraft carrier that is a old 1980's and will be used for training purposes, not for actual combat at all?
------
Yes the one that China openly said they plan to replicate with their new gear. Plus when was the last time China actually told the truth to America?....
Report Abuse
Branch14 is not online. Branch14
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Total Posts: 5383
19 Feb 2012 10:30 PM
>Proof that American pilots are better than Chinese pilots? Numbers do not matter in warfare.

The USAF standards.

>I doubt they would and if they did Pakistan would take the chance to stab India in the back. Your missing the point. Under the same logic every country should bomb the other country and call it a win.


No, That is not my logic. My logic is that eventully after some time people will have enough of it and so will the leaders when their industry is getting bombed out and cities destroyed.


>America and the UN got no where by poor farmers with AK's during that war.

Ahoy, Way to simplify things bro.

>Yes the one that China openly said they plan to replicate with their new gear. Plus when was the last time China actually told the truth to America?....


Source? Also, The carrier was spotted and identified as 1980's Soviet, The Media etc... reported on it, Everyone KNOWS.

Report Abuse
Branch14 is not online. Branch14
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Total Posts: 5383
19 Feb 2012 10:30 PM
>Numbers do not matter in warfare.


LOL ARE YOU KIDDING ME. YOU SHOULD PUNCH YOURSELF FOR THIS COMMENT, UNLESS YOU WERE JOKING.
Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 10:38 PM
>The USAF standards.
----
>Implying China doesn't have Air force standards.

>No, That is not my logic. My logic is that eventully after some time people will have enough of it and so will the leaders when their industry is getting bombed out and cities destroyed.
----
China would at least put up some kind of a fight. They aren't as much of push overs as you are making them sound.

>Ahoy, Way to simplify things bro.
----
No response to the "strongest military" being knocked back and held in the same spot by farmers?

>Source? Also, The carrier was spotted and identified as 1980's Soviet, The Media etc... reported on it, Everyone KNOWS.
----
ht
tp://en.wik
ipedia.or
g/wiki/Ch
inese_aircraft_carri
er_programme

>LOL ARE YOU KIDDING ME. YOU SHOULD PUNCH YOURSELF FOR THIS COMMENT, UNLESS YOU WERE JOKING.
----
Using your own logic, you JUST said the Chinese numbers mean nothing therefore the America numbers mean nothing. Personally I believe in quality in quantity. To say America has more jets=stronger military but China having exponentially more soldiers=weak military.
Report Abuse
Branch14 is not online. Branch14
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Total Posts: 5383
19 Feb 2012 10:46 PM
>Implying China doesn't have Air force standards.


I have never implied that, They just aren't as good as the U.S's.


>China would at least put up some kind of a fight. They aren't as much of push overs as you are making them sound.

They are not a push over, You're just making them sound like it would easily beat the U.S

>No response to the "strongest military" being knocked back and held in the same spot by farmers?

No because that is over simplification and isn't correct.

>ht
tp://en.wik
ipedia.or
g/wiki/Ch
inese_aircraft_carri
er_programme


Your point? Performing manuvers does not mean it is combat worthly. It takes years to mantain a aircraft carrier, etc... The U.S has a superior carrier doctrine.

>Using your own logic, you JUST said the Chinese numbers mean nothing therefore the America numbers mean nothing. Personally I believe in quality in quantity. To say America has more jets=stronger military but China having exponentially more soldiers=weak military.

I didn't say Chinese numbers mean nothing, China's airforce just doesn't compare to the USAF, China having more soldiers counts that if it can operate, Maintain, train every single one of them, Then okay, But half of China's military is not as well trained a a average U.S soldier. The more troops you have, the less well trained they get.
Report Abuse
jhano123456 is not online. jhano123456
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Total Posts: 366
19 Feb 2012 10:48 PM
[ Content Deleted ]
Report Abuse
Ravenkid12 is not online. Ravenkid12
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Total Posts: 221
19 Feb 2012 10:51 PM
I don't think anyone would want war with China. They are a nuclear power as well. I wouldn't think Obama would want war with China either, this thread isn't surprised me at all.
Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 10:52 PM
>I have never implied that, They just aren't as good as the U.S's.
----
I will give you this, the Americans are better trained.

>They are not a push over, You're just making them sound like it would easily beat the U.S
----
No, I'm saying the two nations would basically kill each other.

>Your point? Performing manuvers does not mean it is combat worthly. It takes years to mantain a aircraft carrier, etc... The U.S has a superior carrier doctrine.
----
The defending force always has it the easiest. The invaders must win by winning. The defenders can win by not losing.

>I didn't say Chinese numbers mean nothing, China's airforce just doesn't compare to the USAF, China having more soldiers counts that if it can operate, Maintain, train every single one of them, Then okay, But half of China's military is not as well trained a a average U.S soldier. The more troops you have, the less well trained they get.
----
China's air force doesn't compare if they were invading. If China was defending it already has it's planes right there and has oil right there. They wouldn't have to worry about supply lines. Yes the Chinese aren't as well trained but there is quality in quantity. The chances that America would just be able to bomb and win a war is highly unlikely. The Chinese do have defenses against those kinds of attacks. A shore invasion would start where America has an advantage. The troops then move in, then the Chinese have an advantage. Even if America crushed China the economy of both countries would be destroyed.
Report Abuse
Branch14 is not online. Branch14
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Total Posts: 5383
19 Feb 2012 10:57 PM
>No, I'm saying the two nations would basically kill each other.

The U.S would not be as damaged as China.

>The defending force always has it the easiest. The invaders must win by winning. The defenders can win by not losing.


Okay?

>China's air force doesn't compare if they were invading. If China was defending it already has it's planes right there and has oil right there.

Just because China is fighting on its own turf doesn't mean its supply lines are steady. Do you think China has enough oil for its aircraft? Considering civilian cars, Tanks, etc...
Report Abuse
DrCaneJr is not online. DrCaneJr
Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Total Posts: 4970
19 Feb 2012 11:03 PM
>The U.S would not be as damaged as China.
----
Depends on who strikes first and where.

>Just because China is fighting on its own turf doesn't mean its supply lines are steady. Do you think China has enough oil for its aircraft? Considering civilian cars, Tanks, etc...
----
There is a saying that George Washington used to say."A fox chases a rabbit and you ask who will outrun who? We respond the rabbit because the rabbit is running for his life, the fox is running for his dinner"
Report Abuse
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 1 of 1
 
 
ROBLOX Forum » ROBLOX Global » World Wide Chat
   
 
   
  • About Us
  • Jobs
  • Blog
  • Parents
  • Help
  • Terms
  • Privacy

©2017 Roblox Corporation. Roblox, the Roblox logo, Robux, Bloxy, and Powering Imagination are among our registered and unregistered trademarks in the U.S. and other countries.



Progress
Starting Roblox...
Connecting to Players...
R R

Roblox is now loading. Get ready to play!

R R

You're moments away from getting into the game!

Click here for help

Check Remember my choice and click Launch Application in the dialog box above to join games faster in the future!

Gameplay sponsored by:
Loading 0% - Starting game...
Get more with Builders Club! Join Builders Club
Choose Your Avatar
I have an account
generic image