Could Britain beat China in a war?

And I'm asking when would there ever be a moment where Britain decides to take down China as a whole and win against a Chinese army that is literally a thousand times larger than Britains army, even if Britain took down loads of Chinese soldiers it still wouldn't be that effective and the reserve army would probably exceed the amount of deaths anyway so it wouldn't be a loss. China wouldn't even bother fighting at an equidistant location so the whine article is pointless.

What does "beat" even mean?

Well in that case I wont be fighting. Other people can die making other people rich.

That wasn't what anyone was suggesting

That's assuming there is one.

This is not guaranteed. Indeed, fatalism about war was probably the biggest cause of world war one (and somewhat therefore its child, world war two).

In my opinion, world war one was caused by lazy fatalism about the inevitability of war, and an attendant lack of will to do anything to stop it.

Whenever I feel despair at the state of the current world, I look back for the state of countries relations before world war one, and I think that it's literally such a RELIEF how far we are from that now.

People talk about complacency, but fatalism is probably even more dangerous, and we should never forget that.

That's assuming there is one.

This is not guaranteed. Indeed, fatalism about war was probably the biggest cause of world war one (and somewhat therefore its child, world war two).

In my opinion, world war one was caused by lazy fatalism about the inevitability of war, and an attendant lack of will to do anything to stop it.

Whenever I feel despair at the state of the current world, I look back for the state of countries relations before world war one, and I think that it's literally such a RELIEF how far we are from that now.

People talk about complacency, but fatalism is probably even more dangerous, and we should never forget that.

Well someone will. Unless we are all replaced by robots or manned drones.

Again, another interesting point. However, I dont think its an accurate one. If you read letter of both ordinary men and politicians when discussing international relations, 10 years prior to ww1, a war in the European theatre isn't top of the agenda.

Me probably to be fair haha. (reservist)

I just don't think there will be one, cause we have become too afraid of what we are capable of, rightly.
The world is too interconnected now too in terms of interdependence and emotively. We all know people all across the world now, or have been presented with the positive things of their culture, so can easily empathise with them.
I'd hate a war with China. I love using chopsticks and noodles too much

People have always lived in fear of violence. Mass slaughter and genocide was far more common in the past than it has been in the last 100 years.fear hasn't stopped conflict, rather it has ignited it.

I also don't think a interconnected world makes conflict less likely. If anything, it makes conflict more likely since we are more aware of injustices and more prone to blackmail and crime. In fact, we are more likely to be wronged due to greater exposure to more people, and therefore more likely to come into conflict.

Building large armies certainly was... look at the size of the armies back then.

Whether it was discussed in letters or not discussed in letters, preparations were underway in huge proportions.

Ah.

True I guess. But back then, it was sort of death by death. Now killing can be so effortless! (not that it wasn't all that effortless in the last global war (WW2) - but still, million times easier now).

What sort of injustices and wronged how?

Lets look at the Falklands conflict. The fact that it was aware of the Falklands history, the fact that Britian was connected to the Falklands and Argentina felt this was unjust led to war. If Britain hadn't developed world interconnectedness by empire building, would the conflict have occurred? No, because Britain would have no claim since it wasn't there first.

But I can't think of any other similar instances where there are potential for clashes?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/could-britain-beat-china/?utm_source=FB&utm_medium=FacebookPage&utm_campaign=social

While China has a larger military than the United Kingdom, it does not have the logistical capability to deploy, support and sustain those forces overseas in large numbers. Professor Malcolm Chalmers, director of UK Defence Policy Studies at the renowned Royal United Services Institute, says Britain would have a clear advantage in a straight fight at an equidistant location.


I think he might have a point. I believe that, though it will never be a one on one fight, Britain has the capacity not to invade and dominate China physically, but could impose casualties and strategic defeats so significant, that China would have to submit defeat. Though it would be difficult, we would be able to project a capable expeditionary force that is effective and equipped, and keep them supplied. China could not do that and could not sustain itself in a theatre of operations in the long term.