Thread: War between China and Japan, who would win?

it's too early to discuss this issue

On face value...I would say Japan. China sells more weaponry than keeping it.

BAsed on history, I would think Japan's military is more diciplined, and determined.

The "bomb(s)" were dropped precisley for this reason, Japan fought fierce and tireless in protecting the homefront.
I just don't see the Chinese military fighting with the same vigor, they would probably hope that Japan would win.

I would also say Japan.

Here are some facts according to the CIA World Factbook:

China:
Military branches:
People's Liberation Army (PLA): Ground Forces, Navy (includes marines and naval aviation), Air Force (includes Airborne Forces), and II Artillery Corps (strategic missile force); People's Armed Police (PAP); Reserve and Militia Forces (2006)
Military service age and obligation:
18-22 years of age for compulsory military service, with 24-month service obligation; no minimum age for voluntary service (all officers are volunteers); 17 years of age for women who meet requirements for specific military jobs (2004)
Manpower available for military service:
males age 18-49: 342,956,265
females age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 281,240,272
females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$81.48 billion (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
4.3% (2005 est.)

Japan
Military branches:
Japanese Defense Agency (JDA): Ground Self-Defense Force (Rikujou Jietai, GSDF), Maritime Self-Defense Force (Kaijou Jietai, MSDF), Air Self-Defense Force (Koukuu Jietai, ASDF) (2006)
Military service age and obligation:
18 years of age for voluntary military service (2001)
Manpower available for military service:
males age 18-49: 27,003,112
females age 18-49: 26,153,482 (2005 est.)
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 22,234,663
females age 18-49: 21,494,947 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$44.31 billion (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
1% (2005 est.)

The manpower and expenditure are in favour of China, but China has a large army which would not be of much use in a war over the Diaoyu Tai Islands. China also has to have more forces tied up elsewhere, for example in the Taiwan Strait and the Spratly Islands.

Japan has no other military enemies and could therefore engage all of her military capacity in the war. Japan has limited needs for an army, most of its military expenditure can go to the navy and air force. (As far as I know, the Japanese navy is larger and more modern than the British RN.)

It should be noted that even though Japan spends 1 % of her GNP and China 4.3 %, Japan's expenditure is more than half that of China's. In a war over a length of time, Japan has a greater ability to increase its military spending. Japan is better at advanced technology. Differences in man power is not very important in modern day high technology warfare.

Well I was hoping someone would take me up on this. However, as I mentioned in my opening post (and also what you would surmise using realistic assumptions of an armed encounter between China and Japan) a battle like this would occur in the ocean.

The Japanese Navy is considerably more advanced than the Chinese Navy, so they would have the advantage there. The Air Force is the more interesting part. China has about 300 Su-27 Flankers, but most of them are the Su-27SK which have poor avionics. Also, China has only a few AWACS and they may be of an inferior capability to the US-supplied AWACS and Hawkeye.

If China had more submarines (the latest of which can fire cruise missiles) then perhaps this could turn the tide. I'd have to check up on whether the Song class could do that.

Also, China can throw in a few hundred J-7G (Mig-21 variants), but these may or may not have the range to make it that far out to sea.


WEB

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

China cannot use its nukes for whatever reason. Can't use em'.

Isn't this a bit methodological incorrect? First of all, China (and India and Pakistan as well) have put increasing emphasis on their nuclear component, and China's second-strike capability forms the economic basis for most of its capacity. For example, if China didn't have second-strike capability its other military capabilities would have been stronger. Secondly, nuclear weapons would push the balance in favor of China from the beginning, I think. It seems rather strange to abstract from this material and psychological strength. It's like abstracting from gravity. Anyway, carry on

Originally Posted by Iliak

Isn't this a bit methodological incorrect?

It's a heuristic in order to discuss conventional capabilities only. I only want to discuss conventional capabilities, so while this is not a realistic assumption, it is a useful one, for my purposes.

Originally Posted by Iliak

First of all, China (and India and Pakistan as well) have put increasing emphasis on their nuclear component, and China's second-strike capability forms the economic basis for most of its capacity. For example, if China didn't have second-strike capability its other military capabilities would have been stronger.

Second-strike capability against who? If the US so chooses, it can eliminate China's first and second strike capability.

Originally Posted by Iliak

Secondly, nuclear weapons would push the balance in favor of China from the beginning, I think. It seems rather strange to abstract from this material and psychological strength.

Already explained this part. WRT "psychological strength", I think you have been watching too much X-Men in Russia.

Originally Posted by Iliak

It's like abstracting from gravity. Anyway, carry on

No problem. Feel free to contribute to the discussion next time.


WEB

If the US considered nuking China they would have to be sure that not a single missile would be left so that China could strike back. Btw. China's own nuclear forces developed a second-strike capability in the early 1980s giving Beijing a credible, if minimum, deterrent against Soviet or United States nuclear attack.

Psychological strength is the main strength of nuclear weapons; second-strike capability adds yet another strength. It is not about what you'll do with nuclear weapons rather it is about what you can do.

Originally Posted by Iliak

If the US considered nuking China they would have to be sure that not a single missile would be left so that China could strike back. Btw. China's own nuclear forces developed a second-strike capability in the early 1980s giving Beijing a credible, if minimum, deterrent against Soviet or United States nuclear attack.

I don't think you really know what you are talking about here, but please tell me more about China's second-strike capability. Feel free to use specifics.

Originally Posted by Iliak

Psychological strength is the main strength of nuclear weapons; second-strike capability adds yet another strength. It is not about what you'll do with nuclear weapons rather it is about what you can do.

The word you are looking for is "deterrent", not "psychological strength."


WEB