Who would win in a war US vs China?

Answer 1

Contributors have said:

One View:

The U.S. may have had more experience in war as a nation, but the fighting strategies used by the U.S. tends to work against them. They're struggling to defeat the Taliban, and the same was true with the Vietcong. China has a reputation of fighting smart wars, combine this with a more than 4:1 population difference, and the discipline of the PLA, and the weaponry on par with the U.S. and Britain, with the added advantage of high production. The USA would not stand a chance.

The reason people believe that the United States would win any war is because of their global hegemony. War is propaganda. Everyone talks big to scare. Sad to say it, but soon China will take over this world.

Another View:

First of all, America would win only if it was military to military conflict, but China does have the world's largest army with modern equipment now since they upgraded their military rapidly. If war did break out, China has the the money, since if they just call 20% of the debt that America owes them, America would go into turmoil and collapse. Secondly, China has the world's smartest students. In a test done with over 90 countries participating, China ranked #1 in Maths, Science, and Literacy while the USA ranked 25th on the list.

If it went to an all out nuke war, America would have to start it because China has signed the "No First Use" Policy and in the sense that America does fire a nuke, China has the capability to withhold the first strike and hit back with a massive amount of force to deter the enemy until a UN resolution could be called upon. One must never forget how hard China has worked to make it so high. They've come from being a 3rd world country to being a modern country in only 30 years which no other country on Earth could achieve. Their country still has a lot of developing to do but they're modernizing rapidly, and both countries are in the United Nations SC, which both has powers to veto and resolution. The UNSC was made purposely to stop World War III.

Another View:

Why the USA would win: #1 economy for now, but their economy has been slumping -1%. They have experienced and field sophisticated weaponry with the world's only 5th generation F-22 aircraft, but countries like Russia and China are on the brink of developing a 5th generation aircraft.

Also, the USA has been at war with Iraq and Afghanistan for years and they still can't win because Iraq and Afghanistan have been using guerrilla tactics with only a few thousand people. Now imagine China using that tactic with over 100 million people.

Why China would win: #2 economy that has been rising 10% a year and they also hold the most foreign reserves (2.8 trillion) and has a modern military with sophisticated technology. Their 5th generation aircraft is in testing stage.

Another View:

China wouldn't need to fight. All they have to do is dump the $1.4 trillion they have in dollar foreign currency holdings and the U.S. economy will collapse.

Another View:

Assuming that a good reason is given for the declaration of war or that the U.S. can deploy the entirety of its forces right from the start, the U.S. would most likely win in a 21st century conflict against China.

If neither side has a good reason for declaring war and the war lasts a long time, the edge would go slightly towards China.

In terms of military capacity, the U.S. would hold a considerable edge as of 2013, making it the likely winner overall. It is recommended that China does NOT strike first in a conventional war, given that the U.S.'s greatest weakness is its volatile public support for war.

Read the following for explanations:

1: In a state of total war (a war in which countries sought to DESTROY one another, instead of making the enemy SURRENDER), weapons of mass destruction will be used. As of 2013, the United States officially holds around 5,000 armed & active nuclear weapons, most of which are ICBMS (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) that have a range exceeding 10,000 km. This does not include warheads that are technically considered "inactive". China, on the other hand, currently holds 240 nuclear weapons, 180 of which are active. And of the 180, only about half of them are ready for immediate deployment; the People's Liberation Army allowed much of its silos to decay & go without maintenance due to politburo (government) corruption. Also, an OVERWHELMING majority of China's missiles are medium range ICBMs, meaning that they can't really hit vital U.S. facilities. Also, the Chinese anti nuclear defense systems have their structural schematics based from the American NORAD facility; In terms of nuclear DEFENSE, the U.S. would hold the edge. U.S. missiles can land in China within 10 minutes; China, on the other hand, does not have missile silos with the same reaction rate, nor can it send its nuclear vessels out in time. What China can promise is that if the U.S. fails to strike all vital military installations during the first strike, it could send a few missiles into U.S. soil. Unfortunately, this isn't a system of M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction), but a form of last ditch revenge. At the end of it all, the U.S. may receive some damage and millions in casualties, but China wold be destroyed. Thus, in a state of TOTAL WAR with no restriction, the U.S. holds a huge advantage.

2: In terms of commerce, the U.S. holds the edge under emergency circumstances. America doesn't have to rely on Chinese products; it does so because it is a capitalistic nation and values profit. During a state of war, the U.S. holds enough oil, metal, and natural gas reserves to wage a conventional war for some time-the same can't be done for China, which has a REALLY LOW NATURAL RESOURCE TO POPULATION RATIO. Excluding coal, it would have to import pretty much all other forms of resources, or try to substitute coal for them (which doesn't work for all).

During war, enemy countries will cease all trade with one another-which would harm both the U.S. and China. But while America could become more self efficient by sacrificing corporate profits (which the government could actually federally demand by using the warfare clauses), China, however, must direct the vacuum from the absence of U.S. markets onto European and other Asian ones because it lacks the capacity for increased self efficiency. Unfortunately, because the market is capitalist, all other countries will raise their prices for more profit, since China will be forced to buy from them. China doesn't have a say in it, because its main exports are labor based; any country can export the same product China offers. If China raises prices on its exports to regain its economy, other countries don't have to buy it, and some selfish countries may even enforce an embargo as a result to make China grow desperate (it's been done before, especially by the Middle East). If China lowers prices on its exports to sell more and regain economy, it butchers its profit margins. This issue doesn't apply to the U.S., whose technology allows it to create unique products that cannot be readily substituted. This allows the U.S. to maintain a somewhat stable position in trade. Thus, in terms of supply & commerce, the U.S. holds the advantage. This assumes that neither The U.S. or China has significantly changed their economic policies as of 2013.

In addition, some have mentioned the Chinese use of debt pulling to threaten the U.S. into complacency. That cannot work in both peacetime and wartime. During wartime, the United States doesn't even have to pay the debt. In war, countries do not pay any debt to their enemy; that's warfare basics 101. If China pulls the plug on the debt during peacetime, that would adversely affect U.S. economy and kill U.S. demand for foreign products and increase resource efficiency to make up for the economic losses. That means China, whose number one customer is the U.S., would suffer and it can't shift the entire U.S. market to other countries, since, after a certain point, countries no longer need imports since all possible demand is satisfied. Unless China is willing to lower prices of its exports to increase demand (and slaughter its economy even more in the process), China will find that it can't simply substitute the U.S. market. Keep in mind that as of 2013, China is the #1 consumer country in the world-its population of 1.36 billion requires an absurd amount of resources. Therefore, unless China is willing to harm itself far more than the U.S. (which would lead to U.S. victory in the end), it cannot actually use the the debt as an ultimatum against the U.S.

3: In terms of sheer numbers, China does hold the advantage: the United States has 1,400,000 active soldiers and 850,000 in reserve, while China has over 2,200,000 active soldiers and 800,000 in reserve. However, in terms of military technology and logistics, China loses badly.

Many of China's state of art weapons rival those of the U.S.; in fact, no one can give a definite answer as to which one is better. The U.S. can field thousands of the most advanced weapons of the time, which China does not and can not. For example, the Chinese Type 99 tank is a match for the American M1A2 Abrams tank-but America has 8,700 of the Abrams tank, whereas the Chinese can field only 500 Type 99s.

China also has hundreds of more fighters than the U.S., but most of their stock is from the Cold War era. With just its F-22 raptor fleet (consisting of 200 5th generation fighters), the U.S. can easily dominate the majority of China's entire air force at a lower resource cost in terms of fuel, ammunition, and repairs. The United States also has the largest aircraft carrier and nuclear submarine fleets, which allows it to dominate the skies (China has only 4 nuclear submarines and 1 official aircraft carrier, the latter being there mostly for show). Air superiority effectively negates all Chinese numerical advantage; if China deploys its troops against the U.S., all the U.S. has to do is bring out the heavy bombers.

4: Both China and the United States will likely utilize some form of unconventional warfare (or in China's case, asymmetrical warfare). In layman's terms, this basically means that both countries will use black ops units, guerrilla attacks, cyber attacks (hacking), terrorism, and so on. In this case, the special forces used by both China and the United States can be considered equal. Both nations can easily take out the enemy heads of state and many high ranking officials in the chain of command, but will find it difficult to wipe out the entire command. However, this field of warfare is effectively a draw because in 21st century warfare, many countries look down upon actions such as assassinations. Thus, this part of warfare would be limited in modern day wars. Failing to do so will provoke outrage from other countries and the assailant's own people. The end results are international punitive sanctions that wold cripple the victorious nation; no country wants to win a war only to find entire world united against it.

The United State's main weakness is its democracy and reliance on public support for war. Keep in mind that America was never allowed to bomb or directly assault North Vietnam's cities during the Vietnam War until the latter years of the war, which made it impossible for the U.S. to wipe out the Viet Cong, who basically had to hide in cities and wait out the enemy. In the past 70 years, the United States always fought a war with one hand tied behind its back due to its belief in morality and free speech. If China does attempt a preemptive strike against the U.S., it must contend with American public outrage, which would effectively allow the United States to use its entire military power against it without having to worry about a lack of public support. Unless the People's Liberation Army of China can somehow wipe out all U.S. military installations or cripple them in one strike, China's first strike is in essence a suicidal, no-win situation for everyone.

The best option for China would be to wait until the U.S. strikes the first blow, which would give them international justification in striking back. Unfortunately, that would be somewhat difficult as the U.S. government is well aware of that fact as well.

5: In terms of mindset, China does hold an advantage. Mindset determines the results of most of 21st century conflict, given that weapons have become too advanced to allow for decades of warfare. Much of its populace identify themselves as nationalists, whereas the U.S. public is divided with its opinion regarding the government. Also, whereas the U.S. is dependent on public support for the war, China is neither a republic nor a democracy and thus doesn't have to worry about such things. Thus, if good reason is not given for the declaration of war, China has a good chance of outlasting the war with the U.S.

This is the most important factor; without public support the U.S. cannot utilize most of its military superiority.

In other words, the United States is likely to win assuming that it has a good reason for war or can utilize its entire military in the initial months of the war before public opinion turns.

China is unlikely to directly win against the United States, but it can force the U.S. to back off by turning its people's opinion against the war.

Answer 2

Considering that China has a larger military and its people are far smarter (let's face it) and also how could the U.S beat a nation like China when it can't beat the Vietnamese? With nukes the United States would win because it has far more nukes than China.