USA vs China: Army Colonel Analyses Who Would Win In All Out War 

We are protecting Taiwan, and you spin it as if we are threatening them?

@@loremasteringwion9930protecting Taiwan from what? Taiwan is part of China. Oh, maybe you meant protecting Taiwan from having peace?

The chinese are threatening us overseas without effort already hijacking us companies

What for?

​@@loremasteringwion9930don't forget, Taiwan is part of China

Not yet

@@PepeCoinMania China has zero interest in doing so lol. You all are projecting because you think every superpower shares America's imperialist hegemonic ambition.

it just hurts the white men's pride LoL.

If a country is not a vassal state is a threat to Warmongers in dc.

China doesn’t even have a Bluewater navy. They can’t sail their fleet to South America. But China is a potential threat to the United States strategic interests in the western Pacific . We have economic ties with Singapore, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, India, the Philippines, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia. Oh… And Taiwan. That’s the threat. China and Russia have both stated that they want to realign the world order to where they are the ones in charge economically and strategically. That isn’t flying very well in the western world.

This would be a air & naval war….no land war.

Really and would you like Washington looking like Gaza​@@raevj

​@@raevj... Still China has home ground advantage because USA would be the aggressor attacking China. Logistically it would be a nightmare for USA being thousands of kilometers from their own country.

Usa

@@debasismohanty1952 are you Chinese?

@@lakedistrict9450 no Indian

@@lakedistrict9450 for me usa should lead the world because usa supports democracy

@@debasismohanty1952 interesting, thanks. What about the US regime change activity in South America overthrowing elected socialist? How about Vietnam where they supported the right wing dictator in the South, and killed 2 million locals in that war? How about the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Not democracies it’s true, but so much suffering for the locals. China invaded Tibet. They both have mass surveillance of the internet. India will become a superpower soon enough. Hopefully it will be the best of the 3🙏🏻

当时我们中国不允许美国越过17°线追击越共，越共的防空是解放军换服装支援的。17万防空部队。中国解放军训练的越共，武装的越共。粮食和军火。春节攻势是解放军陈赓大将指挥的

You mean US military is like a paper tiger? 🤣

shhhh... you are not suppose to bring out the truth...

@@MMLL369 😬 oops sorry, very sensitive 😬

@@desmondho9567 Yes I agree Albania world superpower, average Albanian man can beat China, Russia and US. Paper US don't got stomach for Albania, neither does Weak Russia in Ukraine or Fish China. . 🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱

Oh really? They don't talk about war in their media because their media is censored af.

They're too busy dealing with a collapsing economy and a dictator.

They do. They can retire better because they didn't throw away their money like in Ukraine! Remember, if US or UK use those money on its citizens, all the retirees could retiree happily. Now the US is threatening the SS because they're running out of money for Ukraine. Ukraine is a very dumb stupid war USNATO started with nothing to gain!!!

This is the Elephant in the Room for military strategists. When the Dollar loses its’ status as the global reserve currency, America will no longer be able to sustain its armed forces. China has been stockpiling precious metals and avoiding trading in the dollar.

That's usa😂

120 Trillion$ ... still Counting...

@@buravan1512 that's china gdp

@@jacksmith-mu3ee you don't know the real US Debt?

Totally agree with you

this is America they love wars

The United States is a warmonger, and the non belligerent President of the United States is named Kennedy. Everyone knows where he is

Because US leaders must create the wars to support their weapon industry,

Cos USA can't flourish in peacetime when MNCs raking banks while there's wars

There are bunkers radiation pass

This is where USA is wrong the speed China has after it made to hypersonic what chances are there for nukes 😂 Get your facts right

@@Saj14356You a clown wtf🤡😂

you cant stop MAD , the whole atmosphere above is radioactive, every living thing will parish.

it has real meaning, maintaining those nuclear bombs cost taxpayer alot of money. the more you have, the higher maintance fee you need to pay.

Fully agree, this guy is living in the past. The US has lost nearly every war including the retreat from Vietnam, stalemated in Korean Peninsula to the exit from Afghanistan, but managed to bully bow and arrow countries like, Iraq and Libya in the name of human rights and democracy but plainly because of Iraq and Libya wanting to trade oil in Euro and gold. Till now both countries were bombed to stone age and USA still station troops in both countries. While USA and the West kept bombing bridges and railways, China BRI is helping Global South to develop their economies by building infrastructure like airports and high speed rail so they can free themselves from "foreign aids". Because of the loss of influence they label China for causing predatory debts. On the question of naming China as a threat, the colonel should read to see China had never invaded any country other than border disputes. How can China be a threat to USA while over a 100 US military bases are encircling China (in Japan, S Korea and Philippines), while the only military base China has is in Djibouti. The Colonel should check up his geography too. As for China-Taiwan conflict in West Pacific, US has countless war scenarios showing USA will lose a war at Chinese backyard. US aircraft carriers are now a shadow of its former self since Chinese successfully tested its Dong Fung hypersonic missiles. The colonel has only one point right. The clash of 2 nuclear powers could mean the end of the planet. But why should the US need to keep its unipolar hegemony and not agree to a multipolar world for world peace?

Exactly. WWII mentality.

That is why Brits had screwed themselves so badly! Brits learned nothing from Brexit and UK's economy & influence is in tatters. UK is now so insignificant with nothing left except that empty arrogance!

His facial expression, as well as his nervous voice tone, betray him big time 😂

Most Americans are still living in 1890s-1950s.

Good and evil cannot live in harmony

*lose

@@dbzfan952 Evil America

@@eddylee3826 hahahah indeed evil Amerika loves war

How? Would you like to be a wife in a home that live by strict Islamic law? If not how will you make people that thinks that's the best way for humanity to move forward? If you don't agree you will ultimately end up in war when the two society's meet.

Wow, bull's eye!

Lol its obvious you have never been in USA.

Drug users are joining army and Boeing.

Precisely, The American won't tolerate 58K casualties over a period of 20 years in the Vietnam war. And this took place when there was no instant social media. Information arrives very late and easily manipulated through newspaper, TV or Radio. Imagine losing 10,000 casualties in this instant messaging era for the soldiers to make more money for the rich? Add to that, over a territory that the US said belongs to China. The Chinese will be fighting for their motherland. The Chinese won't blink if they lose 100,000 a week.

@@goldenteacher5g626 I was educated in the US (both college and Graduate school) and worked there for five years in one of the largest US corporations. Just FYI

cn:38° usa:no cn:17° usa:yes sir

this is embarrassing for US lose to china when china dont even have better technology during korea war

Honey, if you study history well, uh, you'll find that the troops fighting the US in Korea were the ones that the Soviets trained up in Manchuria（13th crops）,Moreover, in order to reduce casualties, the United States withdrew its own knives near the 38th parallel, where the front line was relatively short,Although China and Korea had large populations and the support of the Soviet Union, they suffered heavy casualties,As a proxy of the Soviet Union, the war was a failure and did not achieve the same victory as the Vietnam War,Of course, their historians can forcibly interpret these things as their victories, which depends on personal cultural accomplishment. If most people are outsiders and do not understand history in depth, they will certainly be misled by them,The Ninth Army Corps, which fought in Chonsin Lake, was an army dominated by veteran cadres of of the Communist Party,Well, their superiors are all tied to the Soviets,It is not a real Chinese army at all,at that time, the Chinese army had already been driven to Taiwan,the rest of the people who were incorporated by the Communist Party to suppress their own people at home were engaged in contributing to the later opposition to the Soviet Union,In the early days, the CCP was subordinated to the former Soviet Union. After the Chinese joined in, they fell out with the Soviet Union in the 1960s,Now China is only a Chinese regime, not a Communist regime, so what will happen to them? It must be like Chiang Kai-shek

​​​​@@adamang3655In Korea, the United States was at war with a Soviet proxy, something MacArthur did not expect.however, the United States wrongly supported the the Corrupt Rhee Regime.South Korea's Corrupt Army Puts US and Turkey in a Sink in the battle of chongchon river.But the United States has overcome this without a numerical advantage.Most Americans don't know the real history of Asia, and you don't know who you're fighting.Macarthur was wrong to underestimate Moscow's control over the CCP, assuming they would not go to war in Korea

@@powergrassp7769 If Soviet trained Chinese army was not really Chinese army, Chiang Kaishek's army was US armed and trained and therefore it was not Chiang Kaishek's army? How marvelous!

Including the Ukraine Russia war displacement of weapons and comments.

just missed the point...

America is the guarantor of our freedoms and stability.

Maybe if the rest of the world would quit asking for more money and troops then we wouldn’t have too. No alliance is forced to house American troops.

Your one of those disinformation bots I’m guessing

现在坦克已经不算什么了，无人机才是真正的战争机器。只要我们愿意中国可以生产几百万上千万无人机❤

this is not true. 99A are used only by the capital defence force. China prefer lighter tank due to the mountainous geography in most of China. also there is no point investing in tank when China see naval and air power as its future. if the enemy can't land, you don't need tanks.

@@lagrangewei 99/99A have exceeded 1000 units as of now. With lighter BT2000 and AT4 the number has reached over 2000…

Be aware of the PLA People's Ladyboy Army. They will come at you with their lippy and handbags swinging

@@BRUCE_the_MOOSE_ I’m aware of LGBTQ being officially acceptable in the US military and most Western forces. Even some American generals are transgendered. I’m not against any LGBTQ, but be aware of what you’re talking about.

US military was handicapped by the President Truman not to touch China which sent soldiers and weapons to North Korea and caused the stalemate. The same situation we are now that US polititicians are avoiding an to start or escalate war in the world due to up coming elections.

Most Americans wun accept that it's a stalemate

志愿军秦基伟将军说过，如果我们有美联军一半儿的后勤和火力，那么美联军早已经被赶到海里

@@kimchiba4570 No it would not be a stalemate. The size of the US military would be 10 to 30 times its current size in a global war and with double the current fire power. So the US military would have a fire power nearly 100 times greater than it currently has.

​@@Art-is-craftand u think China is not 10 to 30 times now, dont be naive.

Like we're surprised with Russia, huh?

Influenced by conventional thinking and habitual thinking, social consciousness often lags behind social development, I understand. So, I will tell you this: China's technology is indeed more advanced than the United States.

@@kakogberoland4703 Your comparison of China and Russia shows that you know nothing about the current military structure. Moreover, Russia does not want to go too far. It only takes 5 minutes for a nuclear bomb to end the war in Ukraine.

Game changer weapons in Ukraine is not the HIMARs or Abrams or Patriots or Leopards. It's the Chinese-made DJI drones.

@@morrisongao852 Compared to Israel, Russia is simply an angel

China

Great Question. In my opinion, if there is WAR both parties lose But if peace prevails, China will be the biggest winner because China knows best how to benefit most of peace time for its economy. So either way., Peace or War, US is considered a LOSER and they are getting mad.

The world

The aggressor is going to be the loser

India, as even in peace, US will be anti-China. If war results in US and China destroying each other, India will be #1 by default.

I think it's you who has a somewhat limited understanding. We have bases in Japan and we're about to have 4 in the Philippines. Hypersonic missiles are not that good. Our Patriot system has already shot down a bunch of Russia's Hypersonics in Ukraine. They are not getting through multiple Aegis systems. On top of that reports have come out this week detailing the widespread corruption in the Chinese military which means their stuff probably doesn't work as good as they think it does.

You don't even dare to step in Ukraine. @@toddlawrence6872

US can only bully those small countries like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc. Majority of their Ship & plane are my grandfather age. LOL😂

also what alot of people forget is that the rear admiral for the us navy's pacific fleet said the united states would win a war against china but we would lose 40 to 60 percent of our military and our srarus as a super power

@@toddlawrence6872 For one thing Russian kinzhal is not a hypersonic missile. It is a ballistic missile that travel in a flat predictable parabolic trajectory at hypersonic speeds with almost no maneuverability . Dongfeng 21d and DF 26 YJ 21 are also ballistic missiles. Hypersonic missiles, which is a misleading term coined by the pentagon, travel at hypersonic speeds and they can maneuver. DF17 DF27 are true hypersonic missiles. U.S. assets in Korea Japan and Philippines are a fraction of US military and far smaller than Chinas entire military. Normally U.S. only operates one carrier fleet in East or South China Sea. Others they have to bring it from Hawaii and Mainland. As are most air assets. U.S. Navy is cautious of even operating in Guam because DF27 can reach Guam and perhaps Hawaii as well. And you think U.S. is not corrupt? USA failed in many projects LCS and Zumwalt to name just a few. Do more research before you dispute

If Russia is so good in science, how come their weapons and infrastructure are terrible?

thats what i was saying , it only one in WW2

US never lost a war. Tell me one.

@@Uchenna-db7ql Vietnam Afghanistan Didnt win also in Korea if we add in proxy wars they currently losing in Ukraine Syria ..

​@@Uchenna-db7qlthe question should be " when have usa ever fought a war alone like Russia or China?

@@bigtony4829 Was US defeated? There's military victory, political and ideological victory. Let's take Isreal -Hamas war in perspective. Military victory is to have Hamas military infrastructure degraded and kill top leaders. Also well as return the hostages or take more hostages than Hamas took or kill more than Hamas did. Having state that , if Isreal decides to withdraw from Gaza would you say they lost militarly? Then, politically is Israel replacing Hamas with another government in charge of gas. If they are to withdraw today, Isreal didn't with politically. Lastly, ideology. Even if Hamas is removed in power in Gaza , provided one Hamas member can till spread the ideology. Isreal didn't win.

He speaking facts...you could learn something from him

Biased and one sided views are not facts.

@@1809steph Everything he said can be verified if you do your research

​@@RamonPatterson9481 It's not about what he said. It's what he failed to say. 😂

@@btgan3838 Give an example of what he failed to say

He is in a circus or maybe dream

中国是合作。英国是殖民掠夺

That's a rediculous claim

no one believes that.

So delusional lol.

It's the modern equivalent of colony building. China is endebting nations with poorly built infrastructure Chinese businesses will benefit from in the short term that will have a short lifespan and allow China to take control over ports and such of the nations involved when they can no longer afford to repay the debt. China will also retain a level of control over the goverments of these territories as they are in debt to China allowing them to shape internal and external policy at the international level

The core of China's military development lies in three aspects: 1. Protecting the country from aggression and achieving national reunification. 2. Protect China's trade. 3. If the Earth is invaded by aliens, we will take responsibility. Protecting the world? Please forgive us for not being interested!!!

Well said

Yes, your are much better than the speaker.

*It's insane to wage a War with your CREDITOR, who keeps you a float 🛟 FINANCIALLY.*

Creditor? Laughable at best@@buravan1512

India is catching up to that. China is no longer the worlds factory that it was before covid

And yet you took the time to comment. We’re you disappointed with the results?

You hit the nail on the head. This is a question that ONLY a six-year-child would ask. Anyone with a more developed intellectual capacity would understand the importance of stamina.

Agree. The result will be different where fight happened in Taiwan or in Florida.

@@joeblack888 Nope, the result Will Be the same in Taiwan, just as if the fight happened in Florida. Higher casualties though, sadly, for the Taiwanese.

@@milsimgamer It is different. If fight in Florida, it will be a nuclear war. If fight in Taiwanese, the war will just use Thermobaric weapon.

我们中国是国土防御型军队

Viet Nam war was more of RUSSIA vs US. Russians were planning attacks, supervising the operations, Anti US Air force operations, intelligence gathering...

i wouldn't say that, china has to import everything, supply lines would be long, and very dangerous , nothing moves without been seen, they can''t even feed their own people. and they would be fighting to take land, we would be defending, and there is so many other reasons they would not win.

Couple things to point out. The US has the ability to manufacture what WE need. We used very little artillery in our wars. We don’t use it a lot because we fight differently than Russia. Hence there was no need for a lot of artillery. We have plenty of other advanced weapons. Second, we left those places because the population was sick of spending the money. Why keep pouring billions into the wasteland that is Afghanistan? We took the whole country in 2 months and held it for 20 years. We didn’t need to leave, we chose to. No coalition forces were lost in the last 18 months there. China can be cut off from resources. The US can’t be. We control them. We can cut off food and fuel to China. They would starve and run out of energy in no time. Add in that we have allies with big militaries and it wouldn’t even be fair.

@@Vikingpoints It is true that US has plenty of food, energy and natural resources. But in the past few decades, it has relinquished much of its manufacturing capacity to China. It had to go to China to get masks during COVID. Critical minerals such as rare earth and (processed) lithium had to be imported from China. In a speech that Elon Musk made recently in a hotel ballroom in Shanghai, he reasoned that he opened a Tesla plant in China partly because he couldn’t find enough robotic engineers in the US. He said that if he assembles all the qualified robotic engineers in the US, he might be able to fill that ballroom; whereas in China, he’d be able to fill a football stadium. TSML has to ship a large number of engineers from Taiwan for the plant that they built in the US and is still having difficulty getting it up and running. US as do many western countries talk big in the media. But actions speak otherwise. Despite its immense military might, US could not even withdraw from Afghanistan on its own timeline without one department tripping over another. By the same token, US has the most advance medical technology and yet leads the world in COVID deaths. Sadly, most of its ‘powerful’ western allies are all facing economic crisis and are scrounging energy worldwide to replace the oil and gas from Russia. If a war breaks up between US and China, NATO countries would participate and more than likely, Russia, Iran and N Korea would be drawn in. There would be no clear winners. Let’s pray that both sides exercise restrain.

​@@VikingpointsThe only ones running backwards in the Korean War were the Yanks. They called their running backwards, J an advance in a different direction" The "Chinese laundrymen' M gave US their longest advance in a different direction" in US military history Even though the Chinese army was poorly equipped, it forced the U. S into its longest retreat in military history - 195 kilometers (120 miles down Korean peninsula. The Chinese attacked retreating vehicles with gauntlets of fire and bayonet attacks on men hanging on the sides of the retreating trucks.

​​@@Vikingpoints 1) china is a major food exporter, but they do import some grain for animal feed. Cutting off their grain import will cost them some fine cuisines but will not starve them. 2) if the US wants to cut off fuel from china, it has to do now, because china is increasingly using renewable energy, now at around 50% of their total energy need. They also have their own petroleum and coal mines but they import quite a bit to compliment their own fuel. Edit: spelling, reneable to renewable.

As long US exit and is on top we will not because is the only nation that creat thr own enemy to give the reason to arm themselves against the same enemy

America gets rich by making wars and stealing resources

US military industrial complex: profit. Chinese military industry enterprise: state-owned enterprise. What is profit?

The US government is under the command of the military industrial complex, and they are born for war

lol china will lose

It is NATO, the United States and the European Union that force Russia and China back to back.

In your dreams 🤣🤣🤣🤣

how many aircraft carriers do russia and china have compared to the US lol?

@@Robert-hy3vv The American war games from 2022 concluded that they would likely lose 2 aircraft carriers and up to 20 other ships to Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles. LOL.

If you're gonna consider Russia and China as one unit. Then you should check consider the US and NATO as one unit...along with Japan, phillipines, Australia, Taiwan, and South Korea as one unit

这只是为了要军费

@@user-zo4ut8mw7n 你可能是对的，确实如此

Because the USA is the one traveling across the planet to fight.

一三五 喊中国威胁 美军输-军费不够 国会打钱，二四六 中国崩溃 推翻独裁 继续国会要钱。采购百万美元的马桶不就这么来的么。😂

There must be a powerful country to stop china of bullying small countries like our country the Philippines..china is already a huge huge huge in land area and still not happy and planning to occupy our country EEZ..greedy xi king ping

as a Chinese i have to you are so damn right. we always listen the news from America about how America attack china etc. the media in China don't do that at all. the focus on people's lives in china that we all know people would like to protect the country which give them good life

Why didn't usa and ussr cooperate during cold war??

Democracy and Communism don't mix.

Don't ask who can win or lose, ask yourself are your country and you better off ??? That is the single most important question you shoud ask !

That's the very question need to be answered by the West.

because America always want to war

_China has to beef up its nuclear-armed submarines which are the US greatest fear_

What the hell nukes have to so with war? If you are at war then the nukes have already failed at their job.

@@Kiev-en-3-jours Ask Japan

@@muzikizfun That is so irrelevant and stupid. 😂 OMG.

US used to threaten,to intimidate and coerce non nuclear-armed countries when losing ground in war ex.The Korean War,Japan WW2

Good analyses, buddy. You describe it so funy.

After the birth of missiles, tanks have actually lost their deterrence. Today, China has minimized the cost of missiles and established a separate military rocket force. Since the US has been engaged in ground wars all year round, US military is not more advanced than China in rocket technology, may be further behind.

@@ModernHeaven very much correct. Avoiding the whole "what's qualifies as a kill" debate, the Abrams costs $24M for each tank but they can get killed by a $215k Javelin or a surplus Dragon. Due to that fact, you need to keep tanks moving or keep them protected from man portable anti-tank. If you add in drones, now you need to add an entirely new piece of equipment to the battlefield to defend against drones. Then again, drones aren't equal which just complicated the entire subject further. So on the other side, what are they good for? Soldiers on the ground are always in "hostile territory" unless they're inside a guarded perimeter. That means they have to use some kind system to provide protection if they want to reduce their combat readiness. You need that for sleep, meals, weapon maintenance, etc. That means you can't react as quickly to what someone else does and that delay is what tanks exploit which is why mines are commonly used outside of defensive perimeters. It buys time to neutralize the tank, but 10 tanks makes it 10^10 harder to defend. That's why we know that tanks are obsolete, or they will be shortly, but we don't have an actual solution to how it will change military doctrine by removing them. Think battleships and aircraft carriers. Before Yamato, and Iowa were built, we knew that battleships were obsolete but planes and munitions didn't "win" the fight yet because technology was missing. Then we developed missiles and it was the writing on the wall. That's the real reason why NATO is so interested in Ukraine. It's the ultimate testing grounds to decide how we should go forward. Mark these words, we will be going to war with China inside the next 10-15 years or everything we know will change fundamentally.

It is indeed laughable when mentioning tanks for a possible war over Taiwan Strait

@@itsme-nt6yu That's how you know this is just a propaganda piece to make everyone feel good.

Why? Did you win in mongol? In vietnam?

中国人的战略一直都是不败，无为而无不为-这是老子和庄子的思想

Yes, but in their mind, they are not a paper tiger.

No the US is good at bluffing and fooling people. Within the "American dream" - attracts most talents, with the "external debts" fake dollar money, which allowed them to used people and countries to build them such an army, specially use of honest chinese hardworking people. Their true warfar skill was shown in Veitnam, afghanistan etc, the other wars they have won was simply when they stepped in late and when both armies lost everything through war. So all the west anglo world is just creating these rules on paper such a creating fronts though lies and fronts, they cannot fight wars. Even the British empire was stealing from Spanish ships first, then stealing what Dutch already took and then eventually fooling the French, so what is noble about these?

Americans are the most powerful people on the planet 👊🏼🖕🏻

alot of parts for the military and alot of our economy come from china so we would have to throw all our resources in this war and china isnt some poor country. its a economic and military giant like the US so its best not to underestimate them like we do to every other country

My view exactly. if China should ever say "you want Taiwan so bad, come and get it", will the USA has the pairs to directly go get it immediately or will it wait until it can muster a proxy.

Because we do have destructive weapons

​@@leeming2781 Yes, US has very destructive weapons but so does China. China already has hypersonic missiles that can reach US mainland. I really don't think US and China should go to war. Both will lose big time. And a weakened US would benefit NATO.

@@cb250nighthawk3 I don't want war, but the United States has been shrinking our living space. The history of Western aggression against China is right before our eyes. If the United States does not withdraw its hands from Asia, especially regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea, it may directly trigger a war.

The USA didn’t loose; America never really commit to the war they are not war like fighting America itself , and they are far away, and America public was tired of this war so yea the USA didn’t loose any because it was not a war declaration that out America in war footings

@@Bjonnet55The same excuse will be applied again 🤣

@@Bjonnet55 so start a war, run away make up excuse and call yourself the winner. is this Usa logic?

Not correct across the board.

@@jetli740The US never started the Korean or Vietnam war, it came to the defence of these nations that were under attack

What happens if US blockades oil import routes to China near the Middle East/ South Asia? What if Australia as US ally stops exporting ore to China for their steel production? Australia accounts for 60%+ of china’s iron ore imports which it uses for steel production.

Totally Agree, and most. USA soldiers are just plain tired of fighting. America has been at war all of it's existence to some capacity all but a few years since its' birth. But then they call Iran and N Korea terrorist which are never hardly ever at war with neighbors LOL, go figure.

if US use nuke what make china not use nuke. question is is US prepare to lose 1/2 of it city

Atleast tried not like china who has never gone to a war

You don't know your history nor do you understand apparently, why the US was involved in those countries.

@@thomassenbart know my history extremely well actually, prove me wrong rather than writing a one line ,non factual, non content , pathetically uneducated response 🤣🤣🤣

@@yandingo This latest response of yours, satisfies your own assessment, i.e. nonfactual, non-content and pathetically uneducated... If you want to see a piece of my knowledge on this subject read anything above under my name. I am battling the disinformation crowd from China here and have given quite a few details on the multiple writings I have done. However, I'll answer your question. Wars the US has won, would first require a definition of winning. Does this mean the surrender of the opposing side? If this is the only criterion for a victory, then it is problematic, since after WWII, the US has not engaged in a single declared war. Revolutionary War Mexican American War Spanish American War WWI WWII Korea Panama Gulf War Iraq War All the above are very much victories. Vietnam was a stalemate, when the US left in 1973. The Afghan withdrawal was not a military defeat, especially after 20 years in country, with no force in the field capable of forcing US/Coalition forces from any city or base occupied. Leaving Af. was a disastrous political decision, done very badly and was disgraceful but all of that was simply Biden's fault. No one or thing forced this outcome. It came because he decided to order the withdrawal and did it in a horrible fashion. Korea was a UN police action, to stop the N. Korean aggression. Vietnam happened under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which simply paid for the military to intervene in S. Vietnam, again, in the face of communist aggression. Afghanistan was directly related to the 'War on Terror', which means terrorist groups. The Taliban was defeated within a few weeks and for the next 20 years the US and the Coalition ruled the country. To completely eradicate the Taliban would have required an invasion of Pakistan, where the leadership lived in the Northwest Province and where their supplies and training camps were located. Iraq was initiated on the idea of WMD, which really turned out to be incorrect. However, Saddam, his sons and the Baathist party were defeated, and a better regime is now in power. ISIS, AQI Al Queda in general have all been crushed by the US. In each of these conflicts the US achieved its ends, which would be labeled victory. In Vietnam, the US withdrawal and then two years later the collapse of the regime was a strategic defeat in the Cold War but since the war itself was won...it served its purpose. The view you are pushing is incorrect and an unsophisticated view of the above conflicts. It also fails to understand what exactly the US is trying to achieve. The USA is not an empire and does not seek to conquer anyone, at least not since the Spanish American War. In none of the wars listed above, did the US take resources, exploit people, enslave them etc... all of the above conflicts were done under the umbrella of larger agendas, the Cold War and containing expansionist communism and the War on Terror, to halt Jihadist Islam. Both of these objectives were met. Compare that with China which did conquer Tibet, has repressed Hong Kong and the Uyghurs and its own people through the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the COVID lockdowns and multiple other measures. The Chinese intervention in Korea was a catastrophe for the CCP. 400,000-1,000,000 dead v. 36,000 US dead. And for what? N. Korea initiated the war of aggression and had been routed, when Mao decided to attack. By May 1951, his armies were exhausted and had suffered massive losses and had also been pushed back across the 38th parallel. The only thing that saved them from complete annihilation, was Truman's order to halt the UN forces from continuing their advance. There is a piece of history for you. If you want to dispute something specific, let me know.

even if UUS has a millions tank, how the hell they transport them, tank is pretty useless for attack a country 7000km away

😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@pangitko3142 笑什么

Makes a lot of sense. I am from Scotland and we don’t have any choice but to be part of aggression because we are under English rule. It makes us sad because we are being drawn into a situation we don’t have any voice on. I love and respect China.

您做出了经过深思熟虑的清晰的分析。我同意你所看到的大部分内容，只是你不了解美国“震慑”战术的破坏性。 美国的军事理论将通过完全饱和天空来压倒中国的防空系统，直到所有防御被摧毁。他们将用数千架战斗机和轰炸机充斥天空，直到中国工业陷入停顿。 从海上和空中，中国无法威慑美国的战斗力，但这正是美国战争机器失败的地方。所有北约和金砖国家的全部联合军事力量将没有足够的士兵来保卫中国的领土，因此中国要么变成乌克兰，要么变成另一个阿富汗。在这两种情况下，中国和美国都将给对方造成致命的伤害，如果有的话，也需要几十年的时间才能恢复。 但是，如果中国使用核武器，我可以保证，中国公民将不复存在。 You make a well articulated analysis which is well thought out. I agree with much of what you see, except that you don't understand the devestation of American "Shock and Awe" tactics. The American military doctrine would overwhelm Chinese air defenses with complete saturation of the skies until all defenses were destroyed. They would flood the sky with thousands of fighters and bombers until Chinese industry ground to a halt. From the sea and the air, China would not be able to deter American combat power but that's where the American war machine would fail. The entire combined military force of all NATO and BRICS nations would not have enough soldiers to secure the ground in China so it would either turn into Ukraine or another Afghanistan. In both cases, China and the United states would be dealing each other mortal wounds that would take decades to recover from if ever. However, if China were to use nuclear weapons, I can guarantee that there wouldn't be a single Chinese citizen left.

You as China citizen me as US citizen should protest against war . I don't want to kill you in a war you didn't do nothing to me . US and China are the strongest military in the world and I understand your point but you are a little bit wrong. China would not be able to keep up production because that's what US will cut first. China imports around 70% of oil from other countries and US will block all imports to cut the production. China would suffer big time as well US . At the end nobody wins .

If military history has taught us anything, it's that every time a new element is added to the military chess board, it won't be long before a counter device comes out. Then, for the next 20 years, a cycle of counter and recounted will prevail. Tanks, as always, will adapt and will remain a viable, powerful weapon.

@@muzikizfun tank is useless in war when you not border with the country,

@jetli740 Normally, that is true, but the US has been known to move several thousand of them overseas and conduct combined arms warfare pretty well.

@@muzikizfun how long to move serval thousand tank? last check us take a years to move 31 to ukraine. where us put those 1000s of tank? before the war? S korea is the only place, but when N korea see that what you think it will do.

@jetli740 hundreds are aboard special ships at Diego Garcia Island and more are prepositional elsewhere. The sealift command can get a thousand to a preselected location in several weeks and thousands more within several months. Any initial deployment first becomes a bridgehead that is later expanded into offensive combined arms warfare.

He dodged the main question, though 😂 Who would win?

中国🇨🇳有核武器更厉害的 超级氢弹

Please explain why US is still in your backyard setting up their bases a few hundreds miles away from mainland China.

我可以告诉你中国藏了很多没有公布的东西。

​我来回答你的问题，那是历史遗留问题，包括台湾问题。中国陆军再强大，没有舰船也无法渡海作战。所有有了今天的美国布局的第一岛链，但是以前没有强大海军，今天有了。@@Nesstor01

The Chinese army never gets a chance to fight in this war. Our navy blockades the country and China surrenders in 3 months or so after their economy fails due to the USA attacking rather than protecting their trade interests. Anyone wondering about the Chinese navy, they’re all on the ocean floor after about a week or so.

weird how you didnt mention that the us military had to retreat because their supply lines were over extended and fail to mention that once the US were in supply range china got beaten back and absolutely shitted on losing men at a 5:1 ratio to the US

Iraq was the biggest military advancement in military history. Alqaeda was destroyed in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. The issue is that the US can't impose its views on other country so, eventually the war goes to where. However, a conventional war no one has a chance

Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

@@thomassenbart you are too innocent to see everything... you know the wars that are being fought in the modern era, always mentioning other countries as dictators, terrorism, etc., even though western countries have interests in it, namely oil... and you know that Libya and Iraq were attacked, including the narrative of terrorism, dictatorship,,,, back to the original question, why not invade Iran, which has accusations of terrorism and dictatorship and also has oil ? The answer is easy, don't start a war you can't possibly win...

The Tang Dynasty was not defeated by Afghanistan, but by the internal power struggle of the Tang Dynasty, which evolved into the Tang Dynasty's inability to deal with external enemies.

Perhaps the US Hegemony will also implode from internal power struggles. Looks halfway there already

I agree with u!

Since when did those kingdoms in today's territory of Afghanistan defeat Tang Dynasty? In your dream? Afghanistan was a Tang protectorate for as long as tang's presence in the west, only after Wu Zetian created her Wu-Zhou Dynasty and later internal problems that plague Wu-Zhou Dynasty that cause the Tang to neglect all the western region west of Ferghana. And after that, the Tang never ever had ambition over west of Ferghana again despite the fact the Tang could have taken it back easily had they wish so, just like they did to Central Asia under Feng Changqing in year 753 when the multi-ethnic(majority non-Han) Tang armies of barely 10K swept across western Central Asia and invaded Gilgit in Pakistan and Kashmir which were both located in South Asia. And even after the successful battles and invasions, general Feng Changqing withdrew in satisfaction, even decades before this, the Tang didn't have any ambition over west of Ferghana again. The early militaristic expansionist Tang Dynasty only had barely 16K of troops in total in the entire western region despite ruling all of Central Asia, while the far less militaristic but more of economic, technologically and culturally powerhouse mid-Tang had barely 24K of troops in 4 military garrisons of Anxi, and region of western Central Asia that this mid Tang ruled was only Ferghana, they never had any ambition over the any other territory on the west of Ferghana. Internal politics bickering and civil wars cause the Tang to lose virtually every of their holdings, their expansionist policy had already died out since the end of the third emperor Tang Gaozong, and Wu Zetian Wu-Zhou Dynasty did hold onto some of the territories that the Tang had, but in the end internal problems caused them to lose all. The mid Tang under Xuanzong was much more pacifist rather than expansionist, but was much wealthier than the early Tang.

You may be right, buddy. However, Afghanistan is defeated by its internal/domestic force/problem. Do you ever hear that the biggest enemy is oneself?!

-His heart and brain are not aligned... -Translation: he doesn't believe in what he's saying 😂

ok commy

If they refused to leave then that makes them occupiers. Iraq have to make them uncomfortable to stay by forcing them out in a gorilla warfare.

Iraq now leader want usa military to stay there , you need check before put things on here

So what about Russia there promise to leave Moldova and Georgia still control on them russia also got base in Iraq no mention of that

@@raseedfaarah9311Iraq want USA troops to stay , Iraq leader did want them out but now change there mind

US watch too much rambo movies

One just came out in 2022 called Devotion.

That is untrue. The United States had a much much larger Navy and fielded larger Carriers. Quit learning history from war thunder

@@Blanzalot Right at the start of the war Japan had 10 carriers, the US had 7, and only 3 in the Pacific. You are the WarThunder gameboy here. Do read once in a while.

As it should be.

Wait what stock!??!? 😬😬

@@-TheMaskedMan- --- Raytheon (RTX), Lockheed Martin (LMT), General Dynamic (GD), General Electric (GE), Northrop Grumman (NOC) ----

@@KayyHong thanks but some of these stocks have barely moved. Would it be a good idea to play puts on these stocks or almost any stock for that matter if there is a world war 3? I feel like all stocks would crash as we suck money out of every possible place to aid in the war.

@@-TheMaskedMan- --- long term, my friend --- they are steady winners, not like Nvidia (NVDA) and Crowdstrike (CRWD). If you bought them 10 years ago, you made big bucks and 10 years from now you will be rewarded once again unless the U.S. runs out of money and collapses.

That’s a completely different issue, this video is about military capabilities only!

@@davidkennedy8929 correct. I couldn't agree more. But as the great superpower nations, both USA and China would plays primary role as leader and role model to all nations. Because the great power comes with great responsibility . i wish the US and China would cooperate on international issues like climate change, environmental degradation, poverty, terrorism and the Sustainable Development Goals

China is a developing country, not a superpower.@@charlessimbolon7333

@@charlessimbolon7333 You have much common sense and your moral guidance will fall on deaf ears, at least in the West. In a way, you’re absolutely correct, with powers come with responsibilities, it’s evident China is trying to uphold their part of the privilege. Unfortunately, the US which appears on the other end of the spectrum, that leadership is woefully in short supply. SAD!