Great Fictional World War III book (China & allies VS US & allies)

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

LoCLai said:

However, I must criticize your ending. Chinese people would rather die than surrendering to foreign enemies.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. Eastern cultures are very very different from western ones in that it is very rare for the people to turn against their own government, especially during times of war. Look at Imperial Japan in WWII. They would have fought to the end.

However there is a key nuance in both situations. You are correct when you say that the Chinese would die fighting an "enemy" of their people. In Japan the people stopped fighting because the Americans were no longer viewed as enemies after the Emperor's surrender speech. The same is true in Jeff's book; he makes it clear the Chinese people stopped seeing the Americans as the enemy. Now that is what happened in the book so I cannot really dispute it but I find that very unlikely in real life given the fact the the vast majority of Chinese citizens are loyal to their government despite limited freedoms and the fact that in the book the US in the civillian population.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

China would never accept a new century of humiliation and neocolonialism and correspondingly the hegemonial aggressor will be certainly not allowed to consume the sweet fruits of any victory.

Small but powerful Israel's soldiers swear in their oath that ´Masada will never fall again´ and this means destruction of the enemy through the ultimate sacrifice regardless of the grim consequences.

Attacking and invading China will mean Armageddon and China has all the necessary capabilities to take the world down with her.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

LoCLai said:

Dear Jeff, I have read you book. Although I am one of the many and many supports of the so called totalitarian Chinese governmnet, I do like your book. please keep up with your effort and never stop writing fictions like this. The defeat of the Imperial Japanese Government was not because it was lacking industrial power to fight the war; it was due to lack of fictions such as the one you wrote to warn the people about the horror of war. If a $10 usd fiction can stop a war that will cost the livelihood of humanity, then why not?

However, I must criticize your ending. Chinese people would rather die than surrendering to foreign enemies.

Click to expand...

Finn McCool said:

However there is a key nuance in both situations. You are correct when you say that the Chinese would die fighting an "enemy" of their people. In Japan the people stopped fighting because the Americans were no longer viewed as enemies after the Emperor's surrender speech. The same is true in Jeff's book; he makes it clear the Chinese people stopped seeing the Americans as the enemy.

Click to expand...

Violet Oboe said:

Attacking and invading China will mean Armageddon and China has all the necessary capabilities to take the world down with her

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words LoClai, and thanks for reading the book and commenting on it. I am glad that the book generates such discussion.

It is a fictional story, but it is also written with the hopes that people will avoid the prospect, if possible, of such a tale ever coming to pass.

As to the Imperial Japanese, their defeat was also principally a result of allied force of arms. That force of arms ultimately had a people surrender unconditionally...a people who viewed their leader as a God. That force of arms ultimately led to the Emperor (as Finn McCool indicates) capitulating because he saw that the only other option was the systematic and complete destruction of their entire society and he wisely choose to avoid that.

As a result, although the war was horrific on Japan, America assisted its former enemy in rebuilding and now that same former totalitarian society is among the freest and most prosperous societies on earth. Although many ill things are said of America, it cannot be said that it mistreats or rules over with tyranny the nations it fights and defeats in war. Instead, it attempts with its own resources, to reform those nation into free societies that are prosperous...and, of course, its allies.

As to the ending, no one embarks into war with the expectation of losing...on either side. As Finn McCool indicates, in that story, in the end, the Chinese people came to view their own leaders as the enemy and therefore disavowed them. Whether that would happen in real life or not is something that only the events themselves would tell us...and we all hope that such events never come to pass.

As to Violet's statements about Armegeddon, again, I pray that such events do not come to pass. For the sake of the story, and to some extent in real life, technologies are becoming available that, particularly over the next 20 years, may well render many of today's armegeddon weapons, incapable of bringing about such a complete end to society as a whole. The book tries to reflect that and was written from that perspective. Whether that actually happens or not, again, only time will tell..

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Violet Oboe said:

China would never accept a new century of humiliation and neocolonialism and correspondingly the hegemonial aggressor will be certainly not allowed to consume the sweet fruits of any victory.

Small but powerful Israel's soldiers swear in their oath that ´Masada will never fall again´ and this means destruction of the enemy through the ultimate sacrifice regardless of the grim consequences.

Attacking and invading China will mean Armageddon and China has all the necessary capabilities to take the world down with her.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with you on your last point. No nation in the world would invade China-ie. deploy land forces onto the mainland itself as it would lead to an unwinnable guerilla war against 1.3 billion people. Also, China does not have the necessary capablities to take the world down with her as yet-its nuclear deterrent is currently too small for that compared with the USA and Russian nuclear arsenals. Maybe in 10-20 years later with the new "Type 094" online and DF-31/41 will the PRC finally be able to acheive nuclear first strike capabilities.

Unless you are talking about economic warfare, a PRC economic meltdown would indeed "take the world down" to 1929-in that I will have to agree.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

@hongkongpride:
Obviously China does not have a sufficient and credible second strike capability against the US and the PLA is currently working hard to put that right as you have observed correctly. So my intention was to show that China' comprehensive military capabilities (not only nuclear but also other means of effective destruction) are indeed sufficient already today to make even the US think twice about whether the price to pay is worth ´it´. Your thesis about China's potential ´economic deterrence´ is quite interesting and perhaps you could elaborate in a further post?

@Jeff Head:
Of course I am aware that the US is working hard to neutralize the nuclear deterrent forces of China AND Russia through several redundant and highly sophisticated ´screens´of ballistic missile defenses. Simultaneously Russia and China are working also frantically to prevent that kind of strategic checkmate from happening. The coming 10 to 15 years will show whether the US is successful in establishing total global strategic dominance but the technical, scientific and financial challenge is enourmous and perhaps Moscow and Beijing are able to frustate the Pentagons's plans by creating a new strategic alliance able to complement their mutual strenghts (Russia's mil and space tech + China's financial muscle and organizational skill).

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Violet Oboe said:

@Jeff Head: Of course I am aware that the US is working hard to neutralize the nuclear deterrent forces of China AND Russia through several redundant and highly sophisticated ´screens´of ballistic missile defenses. Simultaneously Russia and China are working also frantically to prevent that kind of strategic checkmate from happening. The coming 10 to 15 years will show whether the US is successful in establishing total global strategic dominance but the technical, scientific and financial challenge is enourmous and perhaps Moscow and Beijing are able to frustate the Pentagons's plans by creating a new strategic alliance able to complement their mutual strenghts (Russia's mil and space tech + China's financial muscle and organizational skill).

Click to expand...

I agree. Both sides are working towards their various ends. But I believe that you will also find that the Russians and the Chinese are also working at rendering any incoming ICBM RVs ineffective (or destroying them) with their own anti-missile technology...both kinetic, hit-to-kill, proximity, potential nuclear, and other, more exotic defenses (as is the US). And, the US, of course, is also developing methods, manueverability, electronics, and other techniques to counter the defenses (just like Russia and China are doing).

My point is that it is possible that the defenses against ICBMs and TBMs being worked on by both sides will achieve some measure of success...which is in essence what happens in my , and therefore the conventional warfare technologies and equipment, and new technologies in those areas becomes critical to the overall war effort on both sides.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Jeff Head said:

My point is that it is possible that the defenses against ICBMs and TBMs being worked on by both sides will achieve some measure of success...which is in essence what happens in my

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and therefore the conventional warfare technologies and equipment, and new technologies in those areas becomes critical to the overall war effort on both sides.

Click to expand...

Just came to think about it. Have you thought of stealthy, nuclear tipped CMs in that context?
When TBMs/ICBMs can be intercepted in the future at a mattering rate, it may again become helpfull to employ nuclear warheads on long range, stelthy CMs. Especially since it will be really difficult making ICBMs stealthy.

How difficult would it be to give RVs the ability to take evasive maneuvers in order to avoid interceptors while still staying on a path that enables them to hit their inteded target, and how difficult would the task for interceptors become against those RVs??
Well, that's pretty much orbital physics. In the end it's the old game of steadily improving both sides.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Scratch said:

Just came to think about it. Have you thought of stealthy, nuclear tipped CMs in that context?
When TBMs/ICBMs can be intercepted in the future at a mattering rate, it may again become helpfull to employ nuclear warheads on long range, stelthy CMs. Especially since it will be really difficult making ICBMs stealthy.

Click to expand...

The US and Russia have nuclear tipped cruise missiles. Clearly, when developing stealthy cruise missiles this will be a major consideration and a capability they will easily be able to employ.

Scratch said:

How difficult would it be to give RVs the ability to take evasive maneuvers in order to avoid interceptors while still staying on a path that enables them to hit their inteded target, and how difficult would the task for interceptors become against those RVs??
Well, that's pretty much orbital physics. In the end it's the old game of steadily improving both sides.

Click to expand...

Both the US and Russia (and probably the PRC) have already studied and conducted testing on manueverable RVs. My guess is, that some capability already exists. Probably not during the boost phase, but at the top of the trajectory and in terminal trajectory mode. It implies that the RV of course has the intelligence to know exactly where its target is located relative to its current position and then have the manueverabilty (via control surfaces most probably) to evade and then realign.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Because the U.S. population is concentrated in relatively small number of cities, it doesn't take many nuclear missiles to cause catastrophic damages. One needs only 75 ICBMs to hold 1/2 the U.S. at risk:

A little more than half of the U.S. population lives in 75 metropolitan areas. Russia has 4,399 nuclear warheads deployed. Except for 624 to be carried by bombers, they are all land-based and submarine missiles.
Furthermore, this past week Russia test-fired a land-based missile, the RSM54, and a submarine-launched missile. Both were intercontinental. Both hit their targets dead-on. The sub launch was, by the way, the sixth such test-firing conducted this year.

Source: Charley Reese

Click to expand...

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

coolieno99 said:

Because the U.S. population is concentrated in relatively small number of cities, it doesn't take many nuclear missiles to cause catastrophic damages. One needs only 75 ICBMs to hold 1/2 the U.S. at risk:

Click to expand...

My guess is, any modern nation, particularly any modern major power, if you were to take out their 75 largest population centers, you would kill a majority of the population and destroy a majority of their commerce. For nations like the USSR and the US, who have thousands of such weapons, clearly, the capablity exosts to take out far more than the top 75.

Let's all pray such a scenario, such a situation never arises.