War China vs Australia, Who will win?

War China vs Australia, Who will win?

Posted in the Australia Forum

First Prev
of 48
Next Last
Andrew

Australia

#2 Nov 3, 2008
Whichever tries to invade the other will lose. The home ground advantage is worth 50 divisions on its own. China has more people. Australia has more money per capita and much better technology. In terms of military spending - China $US 61,036,400,000, Australia $US 24,802,000,000. For one to invade the other they need to transport a big enough army across the sea. Neither side has enough ships, and even if they did ships are hard to replace and vulnerable to attack by cheap weapons from the air (something the Japanese discovered in the second world war).

“Ngali”

Since: Jun 08

Perth

#5 Nov 3, 2008
Andrew wrote:
Whichever tries to invade the other will lose. The home ground advantage is worth 50 divisions on its own. China has more people. Australia has more money per capita and much better technology.
Andrew, you've got to be joking. Even more than usual.

There's only the slightest of homeground advantages to be had against one of the world's largest armies.

And a wealth per capita ratio is almost meaningless with a 1 billion difference in populations. Besides what does it matter that Australians have two cars and a flat screen when we're talking about the comparative economic capabilities of nations?

Similarly the level of technology (and I'm not sure that we have the upper hand there) of the military will only yield a slight advantage when overwhelmingly outnumbered.
Andrew wrote:
In terms of military spending - China $US 61,036,400,000, Australia $US 24,802,000,000. For one to invade the other they need to transport a big enough army across the sea. Neither side has enough ships, and even if they did ships are hard to replace and vulnerable to attack by cheap weapons from the air (something the Japanese discovered in the second world war).
Yeah that's not an unreasonable assessment. The logistics of getting to Australia by ship would be difficult - but I'd imagine the easiest route would be through SEA as per the Japanese example.

Then it's game over.
Andrew

Australia

#10 Nov 3, 2008
ngali wrote:
<quoted text>
Andrew, you've got to be joking. Even more than usual.
There's only the slightest of homeground advantages to be had against one of the world's largest armies.
And a wealth per capita ratio is almost meaningless with a 1 billion difference in populations. Besides what does it matter that Australians have two cars and a flat screen when we're talking about the comparative economic capabilities of nations?
Similarly the level of technology (and I'm not sure that we have the upper hand there) of the military will only yield a slight advantage when overwhelmingly outnumbered.
<quoted text>
Yeah that's not an unreasonable assessment. The logistics of getting to Australia by ship would be difficult - but I'd imagine the easiest route would be through SEA as per the Japanese example.
Then it's game over.
That will be quite enough of your sass Ngali! It doesn't matter how big the Chinese population is. It only matters how many troops they can transport to Australia and whether they can get a supplied beachhead or not. Airpower trumps seapower. We have the most powerful airforce in the region, and one missile can sink a ship. Any troops that land still have to face 20 million Australians on their home ground. As the Americans have discovered, the home ground advantage is everything. They are the most powerful country in the world and yet they have been beaten in vietnam and are having trouble in Iraq. Why? Because they are taking on people in their home countries.

“Ngali”

Since: Jun 08

Perth

#12 Nov 3, 2008
Andrew wrote:
<quoted text>
That will be quite enough of your sass Ngali! It doesn't matter how big the Chinese population is. It only matters how many troops they can transport to Australia and whether they can get a supplied beachhead or not. Airpower trumps seapower. We have the most powerful airforce in the region, and one missile can sink a ship. Any troops that land still have to face 20 million Australians on their home ground. As the Americans have discovered, the home ground advantage is everything. They are the most powerful country in the world and yet they have been beaten in vietnam and are having trouble in Iraq. Why? Because they are taking on people in their home countries.
Sassafrass?

20 million Australians -yes- but that includes an aged population and children - as well as the capable - none of whom are armed and the majority of who have never had any kind of military experience.

If homeground advantage was "everything" than no invasion would ever succeed.

It doesn't matter how big the Chinese population is? Well not directly, but more important is the size of their army.

I'm not going to argue to hard for this since it's all wildly hypothetical and will only attract more wack job Americans to come in with their bible prophecies.

Whatever.
Andrew

Australia

#16 Nov 3, 2008
ngali wrote:
<quoted text>
Sassafrass?
20 million Australians -yes- but that includes an aged population and children - as well as the capable - none of whom are armed and the majority of who have never had any kind of military experience.
If homeground advantage was "everything" than no invasion would ever succeed.
It doesn't matter how big the Chinese population is? Well not directly, but more important is the size of their army.
I'm not going to argue to hard for this since it's all wildly hypothetical and will only attract more wack job Americans to come in with their bible prophecies.
Whatever.
From the Wikipedia - "Sass or being sassy is a failure to behave according to social norms, often in a disrespectful or rude way. There is an order of severity as to what one might consider being sassy."

People stay home who are not fit for military service in the army of an invader. Their counterparts in a defending nation are home and form part of a defender's army. Any cripple can be propped up with a gun behind sandbags and shoot.
Yes, homeground advantage is not literally everything, but it is a biggy.
Whack job Americans and their bible prophesies (I presume you mean Joe) can be annoying, but some of them are very entertaining.

“I Didn't Hit You”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#19 Nov 3, 2008
McCain wrote:
Andrew, Why China need send troop to Aus if there is a war?
China may has as many ICBMs as US has. I guess just 5 will be enough...
a big H one for Syd and canberra, one A for Mel, one A for Bris, one A for Perth, one for A for Adelaide.
Then game over!!!
You state, as fact, that it will happen, please stay in Melbourne permanently, wouldn't want you to miss out on all the fun - surely you're destined to take the brunt of the one you wish on Melbourne.

Since: Sep 08

Southbank, Australia

#20 Nov 4, 2008
Here are some facts about Chinese army. The Chinese army has always been specialised in land-based troops. The reason is because of the "defending the motherland" mentality (history proves it, in ancient time, China was the most powerful nation in the world. Yes, the world. And even then, they didn't have any interest at all conquering the world beside attacking those who attacked them first, instead, sent treasure fleets to give gifts and trading with any nations it encountered).

Over the years, the Chinese has been modernising its army and the largest budget being spent on was their ground forces, People's Liberation Army. They spent money on guns, artilleries, military equipments and especially tanks where their tanks are hugely concentrated on and almost on par with US tanks in term of technology (seriously, there was a photo I've seen somewhere of a MASSIVE Chinese tank with THREE CANNONS on it).

After that stage, they turn their attentions to fighter planes and gunships. Their most recently developed gunships were Z-11, developed not long ago.

Of all that military development, their navy has been seriously ignored. So far, only one new Chinese ship was created. Seriously, just one. Oh and that nuclear submarine and there aren't a lot of them either.

So you tell me, why would the Chinese risk their troops invading an enemy that involves ships? Their armies are pretty much designed for defense.
Joe

Far Rockaway, NY

#21 Nov 4, 2008
Australia does not have to worry about China for now because the US, but in the next 20 years or so the Pacific rim will be a very different place. In 20 years a fully developed China vs a tiny Australia will be not much of a contest.

Since: Mar 07

Narraweena, Australia

#23 Nov 5, 2008
McCain wrote:
Andrew, Why China need send troop to Aus if there is a war?
China may has as many ICBMs as US has. I guess just 5 will be enough...
a big H one for Syd and canberra, one A for Mel, one A for Bris, one A for Perth, one for A for Adelaide.
Then game over!!!
The use of nukes would completely defeat the whole purpose of invading a country, you want a country as intact as possible, not just a patch of dirt with some craters in it.

Besides China wouldn’t bother to invade us it would be much more cost effective to simply buy as much or as little of Australia as they please,“country for sale going cheap”.

Since: Mar 07

Narraweena, Australia

#25 Nov 5, 2008
NASA wrote:
Country for sale? Maybe
But you can buy those made in Italy, france, Germany, Clothes, cars,
No one ask you to buy cheap ones.
But how about air-plane with other China made parts?
You! Naive, I am worry about you!
At least I can string a sentence together.
high rises on the range

Brisbane, Australia

#26 Nov 5, 2008
The "Sleeping Giant" has the capability to take down the entire GPS network with armed satelities could own the US and they know it. Who ya gonna call? New Zealand?

SUPERIOR AUSSIE

“Ride Hard Die Free”

Since: May 08

bullet-proof tiger

#28 Nov 6, 2008
NASA wrote:
<quoted text>
SORRY, MY AUSSIE ENGLISH IS VERY BAD
May be, but we see your a nice person. Know that i have said that. You might get attacked by crazy Indians who will think I'm you. But don't worry, you know i'm not you.

Ignore the trolls.

SUPERIOR AUSSIE

“Ride Hard Die Free”

Since: May 08

bullet-proof tiger

#29 Nov 6, 2008
My English might be worse. Its been a long day.

night all.

Since: Mar 07

Narraweena, Australia

#30 Nov 6, 2008
NASA wrote:
<quoted text>
SORRY, MY AUSSIE ENGLISH IS VERY BAD
Yeah good on ya, no fowl.
riza

Jakarta, Indonesia

#31 Nov 6, 2008
Of course China will win.
Joe

Far Rockaway, NY

#32 Nov 6, 2008
If I am not mistaken I heard 85 percent of hotel rooms in Queensland are owned by the Japanese. The Chinese will just open up their wallets. The Art of War is a great read.
Pink Elephant

Chengdu, China

#34 Sep 7, 2009
1. Australians fighting a war are stupid. They abide by too many rules ex. If China sent troops as well as hundreds of thousands of women and children to Australia at the same time, then the dumb Australians would feel bad about hurting women and children, so they would lose the fight because they would have to spend all their manpower looking after civilians. Send 100 huge troop ships with 10,000 civilians each, and that is 1 million chinese civilians arriving in Australia. The Aussies would be overwhelmed. HOWEVER, id the Aussies were smart, they would wipe out all Chinese regardless of women or children.
Conversely, the chinese would kill anyone (man womman or child) and not give a shit. They are morally more corrupt, and smarter
Bridger

Croydon, Australia

#35 Sep 7, 2009
China would kick our arse 1000 times over!
Shazza and Dazza

Ashbury, Australia

#36 Sep 8, 2009
f!_!ckin chinese!! they wont win a war with Australia, they are good at ethnic cleansing... if it wasnt for the United States of America there would be no china or Australia. the Japanese took over china within 48 hours, the chinese were 10 times the population of Japan.
Spore

Canberra, Australia

#37 Sep 8, 2009
Little Boy wrote:
Here are some facts about Chinese army. The Chinese army has always been specialised in land-based troops. The reason is because of the "defending the motherland" mentality (history proves it, in ancient time, China was the most powerful nation in the world. Yes, the world. And even then, they didn't have any interest at all conquering the world beside attacking those who attacked them first, instead, sent treasure fleets to give gifts and trading with any nations it encountered).
Over the years, the Chinese has been modernising its army and the largest budget being spent on was their ground forces, People's Liberation Army. They spent money on guns, artilleries, military equipments and especially tanks where their tanks are hugely concentrated on and almost on par with US tanks in term of technology (seriously, there was a photo I've seen somewhere of a MASSIVE Chinese tank with THREE CANNONS on it).
After that stage, they turn their attentions to fighter planes and gunships. Their most recently developed gunships were Z-11, developed not long ago.
Of all that military development, their navy has been seriously ignored. So far, only one new Chinese ship was created. Seriously, just one. Oh and that nuclear submarine and there aren't a lot of them either.
So you tell me, why would the Chinese risk their troops invading an enemy that involves ships? Their armies are pretty much designed for defense.
Invading and Oppressing is the White man's passion. Oh and stealing!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 48
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Australia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Indians and Pakistanis are two faced and cannot... (Oct '14) 2 hr Mel 21
Is lifesaveressays.com a legit essay writing se... 4 hr The Gilded One 1
Why are Indians so stinky ???? (May '14) 10 hr NOpe 15
News Salvos sued for 'brutal' home (Mar '07) Sun No Jesus Here 20
Indians have Very Low Self Esteem (Sep '11) Aug 28 Sleng 56
News Bad doctors are escaping punishment (Jul '10) Aug 28 rabid slumdogs 73
Why are Australian men taller than Brits? (Dec '14) Aug 27 yep 13
More from around the web