U.S. Military Spending Dwarfs China's
- Thread starter china
- Start date
The asymmetric and Guerrilla warfare carried out in Vietnam was not carried out by the NVA forces. Who would meet face to face for the most part, and only rarely would the Vietcong, using said warfare tactics meet the US head on, or face to face, as you say.
Vietnam was the beginning of modern Guerrilla warfare.
Face to face ... aka walk among the enemy and leave presents behind. I forgot ... one must be exactly literal when dealing with folks who refuse to see flaws their war machinery and the money behind it.
...and since the thread deals with China ... who do you suppose instructed NVA AND Vietnamese partisans?
That isn't (or at least wasn't at one point) as far fetched as it sounds.
The Fraiser River Valley (among others) was mapped very thoroughly
almost half a century ago due to that very fear. The idea was to find
and map potential routes that the Chinese might use in marching
infantry from China through Siberia to Alaska through BC and into the
lower western states of the USA (packing sacks of rice that they'd plant
once they arrived to have a self sufficient food supply). :lol::lol::lol:
It sounds bizarre and far fetched, but plans where in place to prevent that
from happening at one point, assuming they're currently now still in place.8O
__________________
No, one must only use the correct term. If you say face to face to me, (and you should be understanding of my position, you've been there too), you conjure images of Standard modern military square off's of holding a position against an advancing force.
Sending a little girl to lob a grenade into a Medivac Helo, isn't exactly what I'ld call 'face to face'.
And your rhetoric wasn't called for.
Ummm, lets see...ummm...Kenya?
;-)
You use your inexact terminology and I'll use mine. It equates to the same thing. A more exact term might be incursion ... and not within the realm of stand-off weaponry.
Which rhetoric might that be? Money? Note thread title. War machinery? Note High-tech toys.
Don't go looking for monsters that aren't there.
Very sensible considering Ho Chi Minh trail was as much Chinese heritage as it was Vietnamese ingenuity.
Yes...note the thread title....what exactley does the military spending of China and the U.S. today, have to do with the way the NVA fought 40 years ago?
Whatever. :roll:
:roll:
I looked in the closet...all I found were clothes and moths.
Then I looked in here, no monsters, just a tired ass...;-)
Only in that US forces expended millions on an enemy that required much less at the financial end. Did you think China wasn't involved?
Do you think technology has stagnated?
The only thing stopping the US from steam rolling any country it is presently occupying is the press and the affect it has on those with weak stomachs for actually committing to a really combat mission.
Kind of like WW II, now that was commitment, ne'r to be seen again.
:roll:
again...what does Vietnam have to do with the present day military spending of China and the U.S.? Why bring up Vietnam at all? Why not bring up the Boxer Rebellion? Both the americans and the Chinese were involved in that......
Did you read technology has stagnated? The US can steamroll anyone they want to. That doesn't mean someone isn't going to resent it and hit them from underground. Having to look over your shoulder isn't a win.
Why would China want to attack Canada? Mao Zedong had written an essay about Dr. Norman Bethune, which is still taught in Chinese middle schools today. Bethune is presented as a model of self-sacrifice for the Chinese to emulate, as well as a symbol of friendship between Canada and China. When a Chinese-speaking Canadian mentions that he's Canadian, praise of Bethune is the first thing he'll hear from the lips of any Chinese with so much as a moderate level of education.
Now tell me, how could a Chinese with such respect for Bethune rationalize a senseless attack against Canada? He would certainly need to be provoked first.
Then look at China's rationalizations of past military actions. Whether Tibet ought ot be a part of China or not is a matter for a separate thread. But one thing is for sure: the Chinese do feel a need to rationalize their presence in Tibet. They place much emphasis on historical documents indicating Tibet's long-time association with China. If they feel a need to rationalize their occupation of a country, how would they do that with Canada, which has never been under Chinese rule at any time in recorded history, which even the Chinese would acknowledge.
We could also look at China's military involvement in Korea, Vietnam, and India. In none of these cases did it ever maintain a military presence. It entered, attacked, and retreated. Such a move cannot benefit China in any material way. The only benefit of such a military strategy is symbolic, as a means of warning a neighbouring country against trying any tricks against China. And in all of those cases, the Chinese had not attacked pre-emptively, but rather re-actively.
Then we have the Chinese classics. Traditional Chinese are strongly influenced by such Chinese quotes as:
四海之內皆兄弟
天下的一家
Essentially, a pre-emptive Chinese atack on Canada would raise too many cultural taboos for comfort. It woud challenge China's historical, cultural, and military identity.
Essentially, a pre-emptive Chinese atack on Canada would raise too many cultural taboos for comfort. It woud challenge China's historical, cultural, and military identity.
Don't you think a wise military strategist would have taken this into account before going off to war?
Don't you think a wise military strategist would have taken this into account before going off to war?
Yep...
You seem to think that high tech stalled in Nam...;-)
Not only was not because the high tech weaponry of that time failed, it wasn't even the capabilities of the men using them. It was simply the way in which the war was directed. Politicians should not run wars. They should just declare them and then get the hell out of the way.
It's hard to get out from underground, when your buried in rubble.
But we don't wage war like that anymore, it's all about lower body counts and better press...:lol:
WWII was different. Hitler clearly intended international expansion. We're not seeing Afghan militaryvehicles storming across national boundaries now are we? If that were the case, we'd be talking about a classic war with our military might pitted against Afghanistans.
But as it turns out, we're the enemy occupying Afghanistan to supposedly find Bn Laden, or so theoriginal argument went. The government coud not even be consistent on the objectives of the mission. At the very least, our soldiers deserve that. In WWII, the mission was clear and hadn't changed once till it was achieved. Once achieved, the war was over. in Afghanistan, the mission changes on a whim only ot be replaced by a new misison, with on end in sight.
Big differences there.