Korean War 70 years later Win Lose and A draw

Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Aniah said:
This entire essay feels like a bandage for the wound. So many uses of "interesting" words for the Chinese side. I'm getting the mentality of "we didn't lose the war since they lost more men!" from this.
Click to expand...
Actually if you include the South Korean casualty, the number is even Chinese sources mention figure like 200,000 and American is about 40000. But the south korean and other allies suffer something like 150000 So it even out Anyway interesting statistic comparing national strength of US vs China China GDP is only 1/5th of the US And steel production is even lopsided 1/144th of the US Amazing Now China GDP is roughly 75% of US And China steel production way exceed US something like 12 to 1 ratio . Here is the animation
In terms of economy, the U.S. was industrially developed and technologically advanced, having had 175 years of capitalist development by the time the Korean War erupted. After WWII, the U.S. had emerged as the preeminent superpower of the capitalist world with a GNP of $150.7 billion (with some sources saying $284.8 billion) in 1950 alongside 87.72 million tons of steel being produced in the same year. China, on the other hand, could not even hope to compare. Because of the repeated invasions and pillaging by imperialist powers in China’s then-recent history, the second year of the PRC was met with extremely slow industrial development, severely-behind technological levels, and incredibly lackluster economic strength. In 1950, the gross output value of China’s agricultural production was only at ¥57.4 billion. And assuming that the exchange rate back then was ¥2 RMB to $1 USD, it would be valued at $28.7 billion, only 19% of the U.S. GNP of $150.7 billion (or 10% of $284.8 billion, depending on the source). China’s steel production was also only at 606,000 tons, only a 1:144 ratio against the steel production of the U.S.
 
Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Hendrik_2000 said:
Actually if you include the South Korean casualty, the number is even Chinese sources mention figure like 200,000 and American is about 40000. But the south korean and other allies suffer something like 150000 So it even out Anyway interesting statistic comparing national strength of US vs China China GDP is only 1/5th of the US And steel production is even lopsided 1/144th of the US Amazing Now China GDP is roughly 75% of US And China steel production way exceed US something like 12 to 1 ratio . Here is the animation
In terms of economy, the U.S. was industrially developed and technologically advanced, having had 175 years of capitalist development by the time the Korean War erupted. After WWII, the U.S. had emerged as the preeminent superpower of the capitalist world with a GNP of $150.7 billion (with some sources saying $284.8 billion) in 1950 alongside 87.72 million tons of steel being produced in the same year. China, on the other hand, could not even hope to compare. Because of the repeated invasions and pillaging by imperialist powers in China’s then-recent history, the second year of the PRC was met with extremely slow industrial development, severely-behind technological levels, and incredibly lackluster economic strength. In 1950, the gross output value of China’s agricultural production was only at ¥57.4 billion. And assuming that the exchange rate back then was ¥2 RMB to $1 USD, it would be valued at $28.7 billion, only 19% of the U.S. GNP of $150.7 billion (or 10% of $284.8 billion, depending on the source). China’s steel production was also only at 606,000 tons, only a 1:144 ratio against the steel production of the U.S.
Click to expand...

It is difficult to get an absolute handle on the relative size and strength of the two economies. But anyone with a single brain cell will know. The two economies couldn't be greater in the extreme.

China having just come through all the wars and foreign domination (And with wealth taken out by the KMT to Taiwam) is possibly at her lowest ever strength. Where as US is acknowledged as having around 80% of world GDP. None of her infrastructure were damaged as compares to Europe, Soviets, Japan And, of course China.

So for China to fight the US (let's fact it, it is a US and not UN as we all know). With no proper equipments and resources to a stand still is some achievement.
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
It's good to know that the Korea and Vietnam experiences will likely mean US and China will not fight a war in future. Even over Taiwan, I highly doubt US will militarily intervene, they don't even trust Taiwanese with F-35s, what's the probability they SHED blood for Taiwan?
 
Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
It's good to know that the Korea and Vietnam experiences will likely mean US and China will not fight a war in future. Even over Taiwan, I highly doubt US will militarily intervene, they don't even trust Taiwanese with F-35s, what's the probability they SHED blood for Taiwan?
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet my house on it. A decade ago, I would not be so sure, but now, the odds are so stack against US intervention being successful in term of cost in body bags.

The U.S. would be unable to convience Joe Public, that saving a 'democracy' in a far off land that's basically in the enemy's own turf, whit it the increase risks of increase body bags the likes the U.S. has not since the Vietnam war, or the Korean war before that.

By the way, how did those wars end?. Oh yeah. It's a nil nil draw, both of them. Gee. What ever, bro.
 
NiuBiDaRen

NiuBiDaRen

Brigadier
Registered Member
Gatekeeper said:
I'm willing to bet my house on it. A decade ago, I would not be so sure, but now, the odds are so stack against US intervention being successful in term of cost in body bags.

The U.S. would be unable to convience Joe Public, that saving a 'democracy' in a far off land that's basically in the enemy's own turf, whit it the increase risks of increase body bags the likes the U.S. has not since the Vietnam war, or the Korean war before that.

By the way, how did those wars end?. Oh yeah. It's a nil nil draw, both of them. Gee. What ever, bro.
Click to expand...
You mean against and not on it. If not, thanks for the free house!
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
What's worst?

US refusing to sell F-35s to Taiwan to counter J-20/FC-31s because Taiwan is infested with mainland Chinese spies who might learn it's capabilities and vulnerabilities.

OR

US refusing to sell F-35s to Taiwan due to potential Chinese conquest and ergo acquisition of F-35 live samples after victory.

OR

US refuses to sell F-35s to not piss off China and cross the redline.


All three scenarios does not lend confidence that US will shed blood at all costs to militarily intervene and die for Taiwan. It points to Taiwan as an expendable pawn just like HK.

Taiwan does get old F-16Vs but only because Trump was in power and Lockheed needs sales. Obama/Biden repeatedly denied new F-16s despite repeated Taiwan lobbying.
 
Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Crang said:
You mean against and not on it. If not, thanks for the free house!
Click to expand...

I guess that's the difference between American English and English English.

So when @Phead128 stated that he:

"I highly doubt US will militarily intervene".

I simply mean I'll bet on that statement. And not against that statement.

Anyway, you're welcome to my house. I doubt is as palatial as yours across the pond. I hear US houses are usually quite big compares to the UK's.
 
Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
All three scenarios does not lend confidence that US will shed blood at all costs to militarily intervene and die for Taiwan. It points to Taiwan as an expendable pawn just like HK.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It doesn't look good for Taiwan if they are hoping for U.S. intervention. And let's face it, at this moment in time, that's the only card they got left to play.

And yet, the English vegetable is harbouring hopes that the shiny knight in shiny amour will come good one day. Just look at her happiness in announcing how she look forward to meeting the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Only to have that happiness dashed by a diplomatic snub equivalent of a magnitude of Richter scale 8 earthquake.

How sad, the quicker the Taiwanese stop behaving like a frog in a well, and reliase Taiwan is a beloved land to ALL Chinese. But only a dispensable pawn on a chess board to the U.S. the better.
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Under no circumstances should unified Korea stay nuclear, stay pro-US, and continue to host US defense assets.

It is in China's utmost security interest that unified Korea acts as a counter-weight against US-backed Remilitarized Japan, and at the bare minimum, stays neutral between US and China. "Korean neutrality" has a China-leaning appeal by virtue of geography, history, and cultural ties, while maintaining Korea's independence in foreign policy arrangements.

Unified Korea must also completely revoke all territorial claims on Gando/Manchuria (Goguryeo), or else China experiences a Vietnam 2.0 (ie. ungrateful cunt neighbor after immense Chinese contributions to Vietnamese reunification). That, combined with unified Korea's denuclearization (guaranteed by a Chinese/Russian/American nuclear umbrella) and lifting of sanctions on N. Korea, is of utmost importance to avoid Japan's nuclearization in future.

Unified Korea's fate is an equal peer counter-weight to Remilitarized Japan and "Korean neutrality" between US and China shall define it's status as an independent sovereign nation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top