you realize the chinese government is keeping there currency that low so everyone buys there products. I bet if they didnt do that the yuan would be worth 1.5 US dollars.
So what? China exports crap things. Japan, the US, Germany, etc export things that are modern technology. China makes things my dog could make. Chinese will just work cheap and when there is over a billion of them that adds up. If China did not have as much people as it has it would be so behind in GDP right now. China is dependent on its exports because their high population works cheap. If the US, Canada, EU, Japan, etc starts wanting to put Indian products in Wal-Mart or some other country China would be kind of screwed. Especially since they are still getting use to capitalism, while the US has used it for over a 100 years.
Crap things….like the I-pad and I-phone? Just because most of what Walmart sells is from China does not bean they make nothing but crap, they make lots of things. They are starting to produce higher quality commodities and their ability to move up the food chain to more complex products is increasing. Any nation that can launch men into space as they did a few years ago more than once and launch remote space vehicles that can dock, un-dock and maintain a livable environment and return to earth can make some sophisticated products. Their space launch success rate is better than that of the Russians recently.
Germany still does an excellent job of exporting products unlike the US. Hmmm, socialist Germany beating the tar out of a non-socialist country in terms of manufacturing and exports. Germany is more socialist than China when it comes to taking care of their people.
The US does have a huge advantage with innovation. US culture is superior to that of China when it comes to innovation. The western way of challenging authority produces people like Steve Jobs. The tendency in China is to not challenge so much, they would perfect the 8-track.
I think the original question should be a two part question. Results of a Chinese aggression that results in war in isolation with Russia and vis-a-versa. In both cases the war would have to be a war to defeat the leadership of the enemy nation rather than a conquest and long term occupation. Neither Russia nor China could occupy a majority of the others land.
@Herr:
The problem with the original question is, of course, that there wouldn’t be a non-nuclear war. So the third option, “nobody wins”, seems to be the most accurate.
And with the nukes, Russia “wins” even without any help from either Europe or the US. It’s way ahead of China in nuclear capacity and missile technology, and has the strategic advantage of having a bigger country and a more dispersed population.
I agree. If it was a Conventional War, over those great distances. We would see a return to WW1 style fronts. (Like the Pakistan/Indian boarder today).
Logistics would be a nightmare in both Siberia and the extensive Chinese interior. A mobile war would not be possible over such distances.
Remember that these areas are still vastly open and under-developed even to this day.
The distance between Beijing and Moscow is incredible.
We would also have to establish some sort of objective that both side are trying to gain, as these “strong man” contests can go on and on unless we better define the perameters. Some sort of reason like the Chinese trying to reclaim outer-Manchuria, or the Russians trying to gain influence (and covertly territory) in places like Xinzhang and using Mongolia to destablize inner-Mongolia. The we could more accurately deifne what the theaters would be, what the landscape is like, logisitical concerns, and what forces would likely be needed.
We would also have to establish some sort of objective that both side are trying to gain, as these “strong man” contests can go on and on unless we better define the perameters. Some sort of reason like the Chinese trying to reclaim outer-Manchuria, or the Russians trying to gain influence (and covertly territory) in places like Xinzhang and using Mongolia to destablize inner-Mongolia. The we could more accurately deifne what the theaters would be, what the landscape is like, logisitical concerns, and what forces would likely be needed.
Great Point! That would defiantly make this an easier question to answer.
Wars are won in the will. That’s it. The people who lose, are simply the people who get fed up first, or who think all is lost.
For example… German couldn’t possibly have occupied ALL of Russia, or Russia, ALL of Europe… but other people submitted to their will, like Poland, France, Baltic States etc, because they did not believe in the possibility of winning against their enemy (Unlike Finland) That’s all it takes.
Simply said, it’s who gives up first. Unless you ABSOLUTELY destroy everything that moves in the entire countryside, vehicles, planes, people etc.
It will be a war like the Russian Civil War, it’s about controlling the urban points, and using the infrastructure that exists in place, mixed with quick air response vietnam style. You don’t need to control the Distance, you just need to control the points at either end of the string.
Well has anyone ever played the old Nintendo 64 game Battle Tanx? Russia and China went to war there, and it ended in a global nuclear war! Of course the reasons for invasion were very unrealistic….
Well has anyone ever played the old Nintendo 64 game Battle Tanx? Russia and China went to war there, and it ended in a global nuclear war! Of course the reasons for invasion were very unrealistic….
lol I read the plot. 99.9% of women in the world died.
Haha, well China invades Russia to secure the Quarantine Zones and the Ruskies use da nukes. Needless to say, the world goes boom. Great game, great story!
