Americans afraid of China?

coolieno99 said:

Having a technical superior weapon doesn't always translate into victory. This is proven in the Vietnam War. This admission was later reaffirmed by Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War.
The following is a list of all fixed-wing losses(combat and accidental) during the Vietnam War. Most of the U.S. aircraft combat losses were due to groundfires(ZSU radar-guided quad 23mm AA guns and SA-2 missiles). Also about 550 U.S. airmen were held as prisoners of war by the North Vietnamese. :coffee:


United States Air Force
* A-1 Skyraider 201
* A-7 Corsair 6
* A-26 Invader 22
* A-37 Dragonfly 22
* AC-47 Gunship I 19
* AC-119 Gunship III 5
* AC-130 Gunship II 6
* B-52 Stratofortress 31
* B-57 Canberra 58
* C-7 Caribou 20
* C-47 Skytrain 21
* C-123 Provider 54
* C-130 Hercules 60
* C-141 Starlifter 2
* EB-66 Destroyer 14
* EC-121 Bat Cat 2
* F-4 Phantom II 445
* F-5 Freedom Fighter 9
* F-100 Super Sabre 242
* F-102 Delta Dagger 14
* F-104 Starfighter 14
* F-105 Thunderchief 397
* F-111 Aardvark 11
* HU-16 Albatross 2
* KB-50 Superfortress 1
* KC-135 Stratotanker 3
* O-1 Bird Dog 178
* O-2 104
* OV-10 Bronco 64
* QU-22 9
* RF-4 Phantom 83
* RF-101 Voodoo 38
* SR-71 Blackbird 2
* T-28 Trojan 23
* U-2 Dragon Lady 1
* U-3 Blue Canoe 1
* U-6 Beaver 1
* U-10 Courier 1


United States Navy
* A-1 Skyraider 65
* A-3 Skywarrior 20
* A-4 Skyhawk 271
* A-6 Intruder 59
* A-7 Corsair 99
* C-1 Trader 4
* C-2 Greyhound 3
* C-47 Skytrain 1
* E-1 Tracer 3
* E-2 Hawkeye 2
* EA-1 Skyraider 5
* EC-121 Warning Star 1
* F-4 Phantom 128
* F-8 Crusader 117
* OV-10 Bronco 7
* P-2 Neptune 4
* P-3 Orion 2
* RA-5 Vigilante 26
* RF-8 Crusdader 31
* S-2 Tracker 6


United States Marine Corps
* A-4 Skyhawk 81
* A-6 Intruder 25
* C-117 Skytrain 2
* EA-6 Prowler 2
* EF-10 Skynight 5
* F-4 Phantom 98
* F-8 Crusader 21
* KC-130 Hercules 4
* O-1 Bird Dog 7
* OV-10 Bronco 10
* RF-4 Phantom 4
* RF-8 Crusader 1
* TA-4 Skyhawk 10
* TF-9 Cougar 1


North Vietnamese aircraft
Fixed-wing losses (to aircraft only)
* An-2 4 claimed
* MiG-17 Fresco 100 (110 claimed)
* MiG-19 Farmer 10 claimed
* MiG-21 Fishbed 86 (90 claimed)


People's Republic of China aircraft
Fixed-wing losses (to aircraft only)
* MiG-17 Fresco 3 claimed

Sources: wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

and so tell me again how the Usa DIDN'T lose?

It depends on how you define "Losing a war". If your definition of losing a war means backing out without crushing the enemy, then yeah the US lost the Vietnam war. If your definition of losing a war is being invaded and forced to surrender, the US wasn't even close.

If the US government wanted to it could easily have decimated North Vietnam but at least they were smarter than that, smarter than that moron Bush is today. By invading instead of liberating all you're doing is creating more enemies for yourself, and who's gonna pay for it? The low-class G.I. Joe groundpounder on the ground is going to die for it, not the President.

Besides the US military was under very strict rules of engagement, at least the air force and navy was. Chinese or Soviet targets were generally off limits, even SAM sites that had Soviet advisors because the US didn't want to risk a war with China over North Vietnam, much less the Soviet Union. Fighter pilots had to bomb bridges using perpendicular runs, which is nearly impossible and also exposes the aircraft to ground defenses on both sides of the river. F-4 Phantom pilots had to visually identify their targets before shooting, thereby taking any the only good advantage they had of winning the smaller, more agile MiG-17s and MiG-21s. I could go on and on but what my point is that the US backed out voluntarily because it knew victory wouldn't be worth it, and that people with a conscience were protesting in Washington...

But you can still say it lost if you want to because Vietnam is now communist, not that it's a bad thing, but that's what the US was trying to prevent.

China was the largest economy in the world for 18 of the past 20 centuries.

And, it is going to be the largest once again.

The US does not fear China, but it does fear losing its status as the world's sole superpower to China.

The US is not facing another white country but a country that had dominated the world in art and science for the majority of the known history in the past.

History proves that China traditionally does not invade other countries unless it thinks it's their territories or it fights against China. During the Han dynasty, the Xiongnu invaded China, China simply destroyed them without occupying it.

During the Ming dynasty, China could colonize SE Asia and Africa but it chose not to. Instead, it thought the rest of the world was too poor and underdeveloped to colonize.

If the US chooses to mess with China like the barbarians in the past, China will fight back. If it chooses to be friendly, China will stay friendly with them.

coolstorm said:

China was the largest economy in the world for 18 of the past 20 centuries.

And, it is going to be the largest once again.

The US does not fear China, but it does fear losing its status as the world's sole superpower to China.

The US is not facing another white country but a country that had dominated the world in art and science for the majority of the known history in the past.

History proves that China traditionally does not invade other countries unless it thinks it's their territories or it fights against China. During the Han dynasty, the Xiongnu invaded China, China simply destroyed them without occupying it.

During the Ming dynasty, China could colonize SE Asia and Africa but it chose not to. Instead, it thought the rest of the world was too poor and underdeveloped to colonize.

If the US chooses to mess with China like the barbarians in the past, China will fight back. If it chooses to be friendly, China will stay friendly with them.

Click to expand...

Lee Kuan Yew said many times the main reason the little dragons such as S Korea, Taiwan, HK, S'pore, Malaysia, Thailand were able to prosper were due to the 'wrong' paths chosen by India & China after WWII. ie if India & China had 'opened up' straight after WWII, these little dragons would never have had the chance.
I would say the same is true with the US. If China did not screw up itself, the Europeans, US would never have had the chance to rise.

Schumacher said:

Lee Kuan Yew said many times the main reason the little dragons such as S Korea, Taiwan, HK, S'pore, Malaysia, Thailand were able to prosper were due to the 'wrong' paths chosen by India & China after WWII. ie if India & China had 'opened up' straight after WWII, these little dragons would never have had the chance.
I would say the same is true with the US. If China did not screw up itself, the Europeans, US would never have had the chance to rise.

Click to expand...

that is very true (but perhaps "screw itself up" is too strong a phrase??! lol), during the Qing / last dynasty, the regime was foreign Manchu and wanted to suppress the majority Han people, so they prevented learning and exchanges (apart from other restrictions) by the majority Chinese population, thereby chronically stunting their technological growth during that long period. it wasnt until Sun Yat San made short work of that regime that started China on its long catch up to modernisation.

just imagine, if China wasn't self enclosed during the period of WWI / WWII, do u think Japan would attack a country ten times its size and equal / more technologically advanced than all other countries?

i mean c'mon, gunpowder IS Chinese invention!!! lol!!!

The_Zergling said:

It depends on how you define "Losing a war". If your definition of losing a war means backing out without crushing the enemy, then yeah the US lost the Vietnam war. If your definition of losing a war is being invaded and forced to surrender, the US wasn't even close.

If the US government wanted to it could easily have decimated North Vietnam but at least they were smarter than that, smarter than that moron Bush is today. By invading instead of liberating all you're doing is creating more enemies for yourself, and who's gonna pay for it? The low-class G.I. Joe groundpounder on the ground is going to die for it, not the President.

Besides the US military was under very strict rules of engagement, at least the air force and navy was. Chinese or Soviet targets were generally off limits, even SAM sites that had Soviet advisors because the US didn't want to risk a war with China over North Vietnam, much less the Soviet Union. Fighter pilots had to bomb bridges using perpendicular runs, which is nearly impossible and also exposes the aircraft to ground defenses on both sides of the river. F-4 Phantom pilots had to visually identify their targets before shooting, thereby taking any the only good advantage they had of winning the smaller, more agile MiG-17s and MiG-21s. I could go on and on but what my point is that the US backed out voluntarily because it knew victory wouldn't be worth it, and that people with a conscience were protesting in Washington...

But you can still say it lost if you want to because Vietnam is now communist, not that it's a bad thing, but that's what the US was trying to prevent.

Click to expand...

Dear Friend
No offense, but most of the stuff that u said are excuses made by the USA to justify their defeat in the Vietnam War (Or should i say the American War). It is only psychologically normal to do so in order to make themselves feel better about their failure. Rules don't truely exist to a soldier fighting for life and death in the field of battle.

In addition..... it is interesting on your many definitions of "defeat". Let me tell u in very simple terms what this word means. "Defeat" simply means one's inability to complete their objective. And the American War (or should i say the Vietnam War) was definitely a defeat for the USA. But a victory to the North Vietnamese because they were successful in achieving their objective.

chopsticks said:

just imagine, if China wasn't self enclosed during the period of WWI / WWII, do u think Japan would attack a country ten times its size and equal / more technologically advanced than all other countries?

i mean c'mon, gunpowder IS Chinese invention!!! lol!!!

Click to expand...

Thus as Sun Zi said "Victory cannot be manufactured, it can only be provided by the enemy".

chopsticks said:

that is very true (but perhaps "screw itself up" is too strong a phrase??! lol), during the Qing / last dynasty, the regime was foreign Manchu and wanted to suppress the majority Han people, so they prevented learning and exchanges (apart from other restrictions) by the majority Chinese population, thereby chronically stunting their technological growth during that long period. it wasnt until Sun Yat San made short work of that regime that started China on its long catch up to modernisation.

just imagine, if China wasn't self enclosed during the period of WWI / WWII, do u think Japan would attack a country ten times its size and equal / more technologically advanced than all other countries?

i mean c'mon, gunpowder IS Chinese invention!!! lol!!!

Click to expand...

Yes, but correct me I'm wrong, weren't the Hans fighting among themselves in the dynasty before Qing & one of the parties actually 'invited' the Manchus to come in to help them. The Manchus stayed after that.

Schumacher said:

Yes, but correct me I'm wrong, weren't the Hans fighting among themselves in the dynasty before Qing & one of the parties actually 'invited' the Manchus to come in to help them. The Manchus stayed after that.

Click to expand...

No, the Great Wall of China is truely a very effective peice of engineering and no one has ever captured it with force sucessfully. Therefore the only way to go pass the Great Wall and into China was other forms of strategies such as bribes etc. The Ming Dynasty was already on the verge of collapse from over spending in war against the Manchurians and also the government itself was becoming very corrupted which lead to inefficient administration on many levels of government. I cannot remember how to spell the name of the Ming General that Manchurians bribed in order to open the gate at the Great Wall. Anyway.... it was corrupted government servants such as this General that allowed the Manchurian army to march into China. The Ming government already at a weakened state soon fell to Manchurian rule and thus the establishment of the Qing Dynasty. The defecting Ming General who opened the gates at the Great Wall was then given the responsibility to guard southern China (Sichuan area) for the Qing. However he loved money too much and kept asking the Qing Government for more money so eventually the Emperor decided to destroy him. Inaddition the remnants of the Ming government and army fled to Taiwan island and fortifiied themselves there and it took the Qing government many more years of campaigning before Taiwan was recaptured and the final destruction of the Ming.
Chinese history agrees that it was corruption which caused the demise of the Ming Dynasty. So as Chinese, the current communist government knows the consequences of corruption.

chopsticks said:

that is very true (but perhaps "screw itself up" is too strong a phrase??! lol), during the Qing / last dynasty, the regime was foreign Manchu and wanted to suppress the majority Han people, so they prevented learning and exchanges (apart from other restrictions) by the majority Chinese population, thereby chronically stunting their technological growth during that long period. it wasnt until Sun Yat San made short work of that regime that started China on its long catch up to modernisation.

just imagine, if China wasn't self enclosed during the period of WWI / WWII, do u think Japan would attack a country ten times its size and equal / more technologically advanced than all other countries?

i mean c'mon, gunpowder IS Chinese invention!!! lol!!!

Click to expand...

Not entirely accurate. Scientific development and research in China slowed down dramatically in the middle of the Ming Dynasty. The reason for this decision by the Ming Government is still not entirely clear. However what we do know is that all univeristies (so to speak) in China were no longer allowed to conduct their own research. All research was restricted to be conducted in the forbidden city. This decision greatly slowed down scientific development. In addition at this same the the Ming Government also ordered the prohibitation of the construction of large ocean going ships with more than 3 masts. After a generation no one remembered how to build the large ships and warships of the Ming Navy.
The Qing however originally tried to suppress the Han which is natural. But however just like the Mongols they discovered that they must work with the Han in order to get the country running. The slow down in the development of weapons was also due to fact that the people was already extremely tired of war concentrated on the peace that they were enjoying.

I cannot remember how to spell the name of the Ming General that Manchurians bribed in order to open the gate at the Great Wall.

Click to expand...

吴三桂 (wu san gui)！he's such a traitor, after he betrayed Ming and let the Manchurians came in he became one of the three provincial kings (whatever you guys call that). then when 康熙(kang xi) was the emperor, he betrayed Qing as well and started a rebellion.

but what does these have to do with "Americans afraid of China?"?

in my opinion, the US should become more isolationist in terms of it's foreign policy, however, one could infer that all the major US corporations with business interests in areas of the world that aren't so "welcoming" or accessible to American corporations and put pressure on the US government to force those areas to be more accessible

the best way to defend and aid (in the aftermath of disasters) the US and its citizens is to keep the majority of the American military in the US, where it can be used effectively

if i were an American taxpayer, i wouldn't want my money going towards someone in another country to "help" them.

harsh, but true, technically, the American constitution states that the military is for the defence for American citizens and America...not the defense of oil or a campaign donor's economic interests