Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Could Britain beat China in a war? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    What does "beat" even mean?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Valyrian)
    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.
    I do wish people read the article. It's literally the first issue that's addressed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raiden10)
    What does "beat" even mean?
    Good question actually. I think they meant strategically defeat.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Well in that case I wont be fighting. Other people can die making other people rich.
    That wasn't what anyone was suggesting
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    That wasn't what anyone was suggesting
    Well someone will. Unless we are all replaced by robots or manned drones.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raiden10)
    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.
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raiden10)
    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Well someone will. Unless we are all replaced by robots or manned drones.
    Me probably to be fair haha. (reservist)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There is only one way to find out :medieval::medieval::medieval::bhangra:



    #WORLDWAR3 #GETREKT #NUKEZ #YOLO
    Attached Images
      
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    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.
    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.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Me probably to be fair haha. (reservist)
    Have fun getting maimed and then claiming non of the spoils.

    It's awful. I see these soldiers on remembrance Sundays who are blind, limbless. They deserve a share of the oil money from Irag as much as the capitalists that go in their afterwards and make millions building infrastructure etc. They are almost never the ones to actually fight on the ground.

    It;s horrible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    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.
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    That was more
    (Original post by Raiden10)
    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.
    large armies were more of a response to controlling the empire and putting down dissent than actual preparation for war fighting. When was the last full war on the European continent? Napoleon?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    If such a conflict ever did happen , it would never be 1 one 1 and probably the end of the world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Lmao

    China Russia India would wipe the floor with us.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    But I can't think of any other similar instances where there are potential for clashes?
    Do you think India would have seen all the violence after it was partitioned if colonial India wasn't connected the way it was? Would the USA have declared war on Germany in WW2 if its interests in Europe were threatened? Would so many countries have got involved in the Korean civil war in the 50s if there was no UN? Would we care about Kuwait being invaded by Iraq in the 90s if we weren't connected with the country economically, and watched it on our TV's?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/coul...ampaign=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.
    Think a war between any of the major economies in the world is unlikely to happen now or ever in future.

    Wars between major & minor and minor & minor yes, but major & major, no.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.