Brigadier Diatto

Europe

#191 Oct 19, 2012
China is ranked 3rd most powerful nation in the world and UK is 5th

Stats:

A, UK has about 250,000 active military, China has about 2.4 Million active military.

B, UK has about 11,700 Land weapons, China has 47,500

C, UK has about 450 tanks, China has about 7,500 tanks

D, UK has about 1,700 aircrafts, China has about 5,200 aircrafts

E, UK has about 100 Navy Ships, China has about 980 Navy Ships

F, UK has 1 Aircraft Carrier, China has 1 Aircraft Carrier

G, UK has 11 submarines, China has 63 submarines

H, UK has about 6 Destroyers, China has 25 Destroyers

from this, I think it is easier to determine who would get their asses handed to them.

“Fly low, fly fast.”

Since: Apr 07

East Midlands, UK

#192 Oct 20, 2012
REALITY CHECK wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahem... but Britain ain't winning in Afghanistan.
That's because of PC'ness. We're not allowed open warfare.
hispanic boy

Los Angeles, CA

#193 Oct 20, 2012
China will nuke UK with sushis, chao meins and the 2 nuclear power plant known as yoshinoya and panda express.
lawrence

Ellesmere Port, UK

#194 Nov 3, 2012
fuckdick wrote:
China has hundreds of NUKES, UK none.:*(
i am sorry but the uk has a lot of nukes
yacub zubair

Nelson, UK

#195 Nov 9, 2012
fuckdick wrote:
China has hundreds of NUKES, UK none.:*(
Im sorry half of your weapons came from britain you stupid retarded little shit.
These are some of the weapons britain invented that the US are to stupid to make and wont be able to defend themselves without:
Radar
The Jet Engine
Guns
We cracked the enigma code
The engine
Aircraft
Rocket Engines (Baisically a jet engine)
Plus we have around 300 nuclear bombs which would easily absolutely destroy the shit out of america u little peace of shit.
I know that this is the Uk about china but im replying to this stupid peace of shit.
If america were to declare war on the uk all of their invasions would fail.
American troops are just retarded little shits. Therefor it also leads to them killing there own troops all the time.
If they sent a fleet to the uk their ships would just be taken down because first your weapons are made by british people and because your such retarded peaces of shits you dont know what any of it means you will just stand there crying to your mum.
If your air force were to invade us it would be another stupid as shit peace of decision. Jet engines are made by the british. Your would either get to scared of the power of a jet engine and kill youself, try to cook a hamburger in the jet and kill yourself or you will either think its a gamne and try to play around and launch missiles at each other and end up killing and bombing your own country.
America is a stupid nation they deserve more superstorms
yacub zubair

Nelson, UK

#196 Nov 9, 2012
Brigadier Diatto wrote:
China is ranked 3rd most powerful nation in the world and UK is 5th
Stats:
A, UK has about 250,000 active military, China has about 2.4 Million active military.
B, UK has about 11,700 Land weapons, China has 47,500
C, UK has about 450 tanks, China has about 7,500 tanks
D, UK has about 1,700 aircrafts, China has about 5,200 aircrafts
E, UK has about 100 Navy Ships, China has about 980 Navy Ships
F, UK has 1 Aircraft Carrier, China has 1 Aircraft Carrier
G, UK has 11 submarines, China has 63 submarines
H, UK has about 6 Destroyers, China has 25 Destroyers
from this, I think it is easier to determine who would get their asses handed to them.
UK does not have 450 tanks you stupid retarded peace of shit and china dosent have 7500 tanks. Do you really think only 7500 tanks guard such a massive country like china. They have about 30,000 tanks. The uk has about 10,000. The uk has the best submarines on earth. Which would proubably destroy most of the chinese navy.

British navy and ground forces would win
but china would win.
Plus china is the 1st most powerful you retart they would wipe out america and russia in a war russia would get wipes out by a instect

Since: Nov 10

Dublin

#197 Nov 9, 2012
yacub zubair wrote:
russia would get wipes out by a instect
''Russia would get wipes out by a instect''

??????

I don't think you know what your talking about......

Since: Nov 10

Dublin

#198 Nov 9, 2012
Also, the USA would annihilate China in a war.
Evs

Gillingham, UK

#199 Nov 21, 2012
Just a thought wrote:
During the Korean war Mao did not fear Truman and the A-bomb.Most of China's population was rural and they had few large population centers.Mao felt that even if the US used the A-bomb,China's population would recover.A war of attrition was fought and it was discovered that while China had huge numbers of troops,they were poorly trained,poorly fed,and their supply lines were vunerable.Today,the fears of missle systems,an improved AF and navy could pose a real danger.
Back in the korean war our (Chinese) training was at its best after 8 years of war with japan and 13 years of intermittent civil war. we were probably the most disciplined soldiers at the time, we were able to move large number of formations without being detected. Able to march hundreds of kilometres in a day with all the equipments, and completely catch the other side off guard. Outcome of war = training + tactics + equipment. Our equipments were terrible at the time thus it must mean our training and tactics were far better than yours to have fought you guys to a embarrassing stalemate.
Evs

Gillingham, UK

#200 Nov 21, 2012
Andrew wrote:
Britian would beat China in a war as Britain has the best training in the world and some of the best equipment. We have nuclear subs Aircraft carriers and the most advanced destroyers in the world at this present momment. China has a few nukes but without them they wouldn't know what to do. There only carrier isn't even biult yet after 14 years, and more so it was an ex soviet one that the main structure was built in 1956.Granted that China has many men but if you cannot deploy themor put them to good use, why have them? The Chinnese soljers are deployed in wave atacks a tactic that the British were using in 1914.I rekon Britian could take the major citys and the coastal areas but not mainland china as thay would start using guerilla war fare and you would know who was freind or foe. A bit like Afganistan on a huge scale. Britain would win.
Typical mentality of a retired person still going on about oh back in the days crap...
Chinese had ability to build carrier from a long time ago, just didn't have the political will to do it, it's all a political statement rather than actual use.
What makes you think uk military has the best training? Well perhaps more nco are university graduates but education is only party of the story, courage and discipline tactics are equally important. Go read up the valour and tactics Chinese soldiers displayed during Korean War, and soviet border war. Once you done some research I reckon you will have a very rude awakening.
Evs

Gillingham, UK

#201 Nov 21, 2012
who="Brigadier Diatto"]China is ranked 3rd most powerful nation in the world and UK is 5th
Stats:
A, UK has about 250,000 active military, China has about 2.4 Million active military.
B, UK has about 11,700 Land weapons, China has 47,500
C, UK has about 450 tanks, China has about 7,500 tanks
D, UK has about 1,700 aircrafts, China has about 5,200 aircrafts
E, UK has about 100 Navy Ships, China has about 980 Navy Ships
F, UK has 1 Aircraft Carrier, China has 1 Aircraft Carrier
G, UK has 11 submarines, China has 63 submarines
H, UK has about 6 Destroyers, China has 25 Destroyers
from this, I think it is easier to determine who would get their asses handed
comparison of military hardware means nothing, so doesn't number of troops. The only thing that wins a war is the ability to cripple enemy intelligence gathering and communications.
Terry

Northolt, UK

#202 Nov 29, 2012
Lets not forget, Japan knocked the shit out of china in ww2. And btw uk as got nuclear weapons and can do just as much damage with them as china can. As far as the USA is concerned, they can't wipe their arses without GBs help, remember Vietnam????
Terry

Northolt, UK

#203 Nov 29, 2012
Sorry to say this, but china and uk both have a large amount of nukes and would probably annihilate each other!!!
James

Bristol, UK

#204 Dec 9, 2012
fuckdick wrote:
China has hundreds of NUKES, UK none.:*(
. What a retard uk has more nukes and better yeild and better delivery systems than china 1 uk nuke has more power than 10 chinese nukes why do people like u bother commenting on something u clearly have no idea about

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#205 Dec 9, 2012
Technology alone would see the UK win. Superior ships, planes and subs. Next time you see a chink on the street ask yourself one question "could I beat him in a fight?". I think even the ladies would answer yes to that. Lol 1.3 billion girly men with inferior technology isn't a threat to a country that far away.

In the worst case scenario, us Aussies would help the mother country out in a heartbeat along with the yanks, Kiwis, Canucks and probably the rest of Europe.

Beating the shit out of China would be the best thing we could do. We could solve the over population problem, greenhouse emissions targets would be met and our economies would be booming again...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#206 Dec 9, 2012
Remember the opium wars the emperor didn't know what hit him expect the same again should our boys need to go over and put manners on the Chinese again
bazz

Norwich, UK

#207 Dec 10, 2012
not sure why we would have a war with china
But with our curent goverment i suspect they would have to ask european court first see if we are allowed to defend ourselfs
Josh

Oxford, UK

#208 Dec 10, 2012
Okay, a war between the uk and china would see aliances form:
A-(US All commonwealth countries and the EU + south Korea and japan and any NATO state)
Against
B -(china russia north Korea a few other Ex Warsaw pact)
With the middle east not really playing a part except for India and Pakistan who's numbers could make a considerable contribution to either side.
During this time of war you could expect Argentina to take the falkland islands and south America and Africa would largely stay out of the conflict.

First things first-
Numbers over tech
Here's the main argument, both sides contain enough nukes to cleanse the planet (thanks to Russia and the US) but nukes aside, side A is clearly more technologically advanced but side B has a much larger military force and resources and man power at it's desposal.
Let's talk basics, in a slow war resources would be needed, oil, America and Britain have a decent set of reserves but with the inevitable loss of the falklands a venture to some African states would most likely be necessary for both black gold and other rare earth elements which would be otherwise be obtained through china. Russia and the EU would be in a virtual stalemate over any land gains, with chinas land force split between helping the EU Russian front and defending it's huge land mass and production facilities the numbers while large would be spread out meaning small trained specialized task forces could do serious damage.

Japan would be a stalemate for china just as much as the uk was for Germany in WW2, any land invasion would be stupid with the support of the USA who would easily be able to deploy troops at japan, all chinas outbound commercial and surfaced military ships passing japan would be sunk.
The north Korea south korea front would be supported by china and Australia. Now you have multiple battlegrounds many stalemates, even resources equal power ratios. Here comes the deciding factor.
With the sea being in A's control supplies can continue to flow between A countries easily while B struggles with only land based trade meaning the south Americas wood and other important exports are realistically only available to A.
No doubt the middle east would have to play a part, in this, Pakistan would no doubt side with china while india (would have to) side with A, India would be able to hold it's own for a while but with sides A control over the sea it could deploy a large force, namely from America who would be stuck invading russias easten land mass, from this a push up from A through the new battleground could pass through a gap in russias military defences a's there military force was split east/west, from this th EU would make an easy push through to the USA forces after Russias western forces have been cut out, over run and overpowered

FROM There it's pretty much just over, like Germany losing in WW2 for japan, except everyone loses because nukes get launch and no one survives, not even the winners :L
rio

Beckenham, UK

#209 Dec 10, 2012
Josh wrote:
Okay, a war between the uk and china would see aliances form:
A-(US All commonwealth countries and the EU + south Korea and japan and any NATO state)
Against
B -(china russia north Korea a few other Ex Warsaw pact)
With the middle east not really playing a part except for India and Pakistan who's numbers could make a considerable contribution to either side.
During this time of war you could expect Argentina to take the falkland islands and south America and Africa would largely stay out of the conflict.
Never read anything so stupid!!

Do you really think that All commonwealth countries and the EU + south Korea and japan and any NATO state would come and support Britain?
Don't count on it!

You couldn't even rely on NATO solidarity, and even less on the EU (some countries are neutral, remember). These countries have different foreign policies and don't wish to get involved.
The US only go to war if their interests are at stake. You should remember Suez!

As for the Commomwealth, I really don't think that Pakistan, India, South Africa, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Malawi, or Bangla Desh are going to lift a finger to help Britain.

Most ex-Warsaw Pact countries are in NATO now, and unlikely to be co-belligerant with Russia, which itself certainly wouldn't support China.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#210 Dec 10, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>Never read anything so stupid!!

Do you really think that All commonwealth countries and the EU + south Korea and japan and any NATO state would come and support Britain?
Don't count on it!

You couldn't even rely on NATO solidarity, and even less on the EU (some countries are neutral, remember). These countries have different foreign policies and don't wish to get involved.
The US only go to war if their interests are at stake. You should remember Suez!

As for the Commomwealth, I really don't think that Pakistan, India, South Africa, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Malawi, or Bangla Desh are going to lift a finger to help Britain.

Most ex-Warsaw Pact countries are in NATO now, and unlikely to be co-belligerant with Russia, which itself certainly wouldn't support China.
It's not stupid at all. A lot of countries would help the UK

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

United Kingdom Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay bbm pins (Aug '13) 11 min Will 18,494
skype sex (Mar '14) 28 min rahul indore 1,133
Gay BBM pins 2014 (Jan '14) 42 min Nice guy 7,960
How come British cars are so bad? (Jan '11) 1 hr out of the way films 1,964
Gay BBM group chat (Apr '14) 2 hr johnri 248
What can Britain do about the jihadists returni... (Dec '13) 2 hr Hugh Janus 201
dirty pics and chat-gay bbm pins!! (Feb '14) 3 hr uddermilkman 166
More from around the web