Peter Cairns

Bigduke, I still think the US has an advantage, which is why I like the Chinese in Taiwan, US backs the rebels option. Part of that could be "blue" on "Blue" as part of a Taiwanese civil war, which would see you facing an opponent of equal ability with the same equipment. Another option is that we could have pre US arrival scenarios with Chinese made T-90's v Taiwanese M60A3's, which is a far better match than M1A2's v T-55's. Oh and if it's in five or so years time we get to see the new Chinese attack helicopter, ( More Mangusta than Tiger but still enough to cause a US ground commander some problems). Peter.

Dirtweasle, It certainly opens up the possibility of the syrian people believing that the US is trying to put a figure head puppet in charge and that resulting in the Syrian people and army putting up far more resistance than was expected. I am not saying that the US would be trying too, just that Syrians might think they were. Peter.

Dirtweasle, It certainly opens up the possibility of the syrian people believing that the US is trying to put a figure head puppet in charge and that resulting in the Syrian people and army putting up far more resistance than was expected. I am not saying that the US would be trying too, just that Syrians might think they were. Peter.

Dirtweasle, It certainly opens up the possibility of the syrian people believing that the US is trying to put a figure head puppet in charge and that resulting in the Syrian people and army putting up far more resistance than was expected. I am not saying that the US would be trying too, just that Syrians might think they were. Peter.

That's true Sergi I guess Hadrian got it right, the rest of the world wasn't ready for civilisation. Peter.

In addition, when Syrain pilots ( in mig-23's and 27's against F-15's) lost contact with their ground controller they did as they were tarined and went in to a figure of eight pattern waiting for contact to be reesatblished.... A pretty suicidal tactic,really, and it was. Peter.

Steve, I tend to take issue in general with the Chinese military expansion theory. Looking at numbers if anything there is contraction. What I see lots of evidence of is modernisation. The production rates for the likes of the J-1o ( a sort of Chinese Eurofighter) are still low, but there is no indication that they will ever be ramped up to replace the numbers of Chinese built Mig-17's that they are replacing. There is a lot of investment in C3 and particularly a move to modern networked dispersable communications, but that is because it is far more effective and economical than big costly fixed instalations. (As an aside, one of the problems I have with the UK's talk about effects based warfare, where they justify fewer aircraft because one Eurofighter with a Scalp can take out a command centre where it would have taken four Tornados at low level, is that it assumes that the enemy will be static and still be dependant on big fixed instalations. My view is that increasingly a command centre will be four guys with lap tops in the back of a Landcruiser, andd that in fact the number of C3 targets is set to greatly increase, with each modile and harder to find and hit. This suggests that if anything we will need more aircraft not fewer (though UAV's will play a big part).) In terms of the Navy there is clear growth, but it is nothing like the Soviet union embarked on post Cuba, and again is characterised more by modernisation and a traditional incremental approach. The New SSN's and SSk's are clearly far more capable than the old soviet ones, but the programme is still cautious and modest. I think in general what we are seeing is modernisation in line with the growth in size and technical capability of the Chinese economy, rather than a military build up. In physical terms it may amount to the same thing, a far more capable opponent, but I think it is wrong to automatically interpret that as belegerance or aggression, as some people do. I've always thought that the Chinses had the worlds most effective nuclear deterrent, because while the US and Ussr got in to a race piling Nuke on Nuke ( ultimately contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Union), the Chinese stopped when they thought they had enough to cost the US or the USSR, more than it would be prepared to pay. In the case of the US that was enough medium range to waste Korea, Japan and Taiwan, and enough long range to take out the major cities of the west coast. From a most bang for our bucks, that was far smarter than what we did in the UK spending billions of four Trident2 capable subs. Peter.

LtCol West, China doesn't have TLAM, but the US has only 2,000 in the world, and if it fired 50% and between dumies, missfires, close hits, and mobile units moving, it got a 50% hit rate, that wounded be enough. China is not Iraq, destroying it's C3 network particularly the undated fibre optics one will take massively more resources than the US used in GW1 or OIF, and both of those hugely depleted US inventories. After the cruise had done it's work the rest was done primarily by F-16's F-15's and F-18's with the USAF doing most. Problem is you just can't do that when you need to make a 2,000 mile round trip from Korea, much of it with SAM range of the chinese coast, ( and if the koreans let you). Even the B-2 which is an awsome aircraft is only available in very limited numbers. The problem with the US trying to destroy Chinese defences on the East of the Straits of Taiwan, is that effectively the US can only deploy a fraction of it's offensive capability while China can deploy most of it's. As I have said repeatedly, the current US strategy works because the wargames start with the US defending a friendly Taiwan, not trying to take it back after it has welcomed them in. Given the depth and narrowness of the Straits and with Chinese forces on both sides, anything trying to attack and close the straits would probably have to either cross Taiwan itself, or lauch carrier strikes from the North East or South East of Taiwan. In the same way any Marine Assault would probably have to be on the East coast, and given that Taiwan is only 200miles long, Chinese MLRS's with a 100 mile range, could cover huge lengths of coastline from dispersed mobile site. Given how hard it was to hunt down Scuds, tracking down hidden launchers in terrain line Taiwans would be alot harder. They don't have Big birds, but they do have this. "H-1 Military Communications Satellite NAME: Manufacturer Designation: Feng Huo-1 (FH-1) Commercial Name: Zhongxing-22 (ChinaSat-22) PROGRAMME The Feng Huo-1 (FH-1) is the first of several dedicated military communications satellites for China's first integrated command, control, communications, computer and intelligence (C4I) system. Using a commercial name Zhongxing-22 (ChinaSat 22) as a camouflage, the first satellite FH-1 was launched in January 2000 from Xichang Satellite Launch Centre by a CZ-3A launch vehicle. Little is known about the technical details of the satellite. The No.1 satellite was probably an experimental design used to test its performance. Unknown number of following operational satellites can be expected to be launched in the next few years. The mobile satellite communications ground station in service with the PLA Once fully deployed, the FH series satellite will establish a space-based military tactical communication networks to support Chinese military forces’ operations in China mainland and its peripheral areas. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been using the DFH series comsat as a part of its national C4I systems for over a decade, but the FH series will provide new capabilities, which will allow commanders to communicate with and share data with all forces under joint command at theatre level." Oh and this is interesting too "Given that China had not previously flown a major ELINT satellite, this was an enormous leap in Chinese military surveillance from space. Each orbital module remains in space as long as eight months after the other modules return to earth. That means the orbital modules of the Shenzhou spacecraft have been scanning the earth 90% of the time, day in and day out, since Shenzhou 3 was launched in March 2002. Data is dumped in ten-minute bursts when the spacecraft pass over Miyun, near Beijing. These missions would have given China's equivalent to the American National Security Agency an excellent introduction into capabilities and problems in flying an operational ELINT satellite over a variety of targets and seasons of the year. The main objective, as was the case for low-altitude Soviet systems, would be to keep track of the US Navy, particularly carrier groups. Observations by Shenzhou 4 during the Iraq War would have been an intelligence windfall for the Chinese." "The second military payload flown aboard Shenzhou is an imaging reconnaissance package. This consisted of two cameras with an aperture of 500 - 600 mm. One is mounted in the equipment package at the nose of the spacecraft, the other below it at what had been earlier thought to be the porthole above the orbital module's main hatch. The use of two differing cameras indicates a hyper-spectral, multi-resolution, combination mapping/close-look system. As reported in Space Daily last March, Zhang Houying of the Chinese Academy of Sciences gave the ground resolution of the close-look CCD camera as 1.6 m." IN GW1 the US used it's airpower for 40days ( very biblical I always thought) to perpare for the invasion. To retake Taiwan it would have to destroy a far more capable airforce and airdefence system, with probably less than half the airpower, most of it carrier based. Peter

Abbott, the Scenarios I put forward is that Taiwan goes over to China, and the US backs the faction that wants to reverse it, so they go over before the shooting war starts. Although it could be a civil war with the Chinese intervening before the US or similtaniously. Most of the scenarios(quite rightly historically) see the Chinese trying to cross the straits with Taiwan opposing it, and like everyone else i see that as a non starter. What I was looking to create was a US v China battle on Taiwan ( roughly 200miles by 50miles), with nthe US having to invade, to even up the odds. Peter.

juan_gigante Had alook at the web site for the US department of Labour, it gives comparative labour productivity figures for countries from 1950 up to 2004 Unfortunately the 14 countries it gives figures for don't include China. Some of the Figures are USA 189 Canada 145 S Korea 270 UK 142 Germany 140 Taiwan 174 France 150 Japan 143 Australia 164 The US scores high, some 30% above Germany ( though reunification has pulled them down), but it's still 40% behind South Korea. I also found this which is quite interesting in terms of the Freindly invasion scenario. "The pattern of trade mentioned above, in which China runs trade surpluses with the United States and to a lesser extent the European Union while running trade deficits with its Asian neighbors, stems also from two additional factors. First, firms based in other Asian countries have undertaken the vast majority of foreign direct investment in China. Contrary to the common impression here, United States and European firms are relatively minor investors in China. Asian firms, notably those from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan account for about 70 percent of China's inward foreign direct investment. Firms based in these countries tend to source their high valued added parts and components for their China operations from their home countries. As a result China, for example, last year ran a massive trade deficit of more than $25 billion in its trade with Taiwan. Two-thirds of China's imports from Taiwan last year consisted not of finished goods but of parts and components that subsequently were assembled in factories owned by Taiwan firms. The resulting final goods were exported into the global market, predominantly to the United States and Europe." This could indicate not only that Taiwan might over time swing towards mainland China, but also that nations like Korea, and Japan might be extremely reluctant to side with the US as conflict with China could cost them billions. However it also highlights a lack of real depth and a dependence on raw materials and semi finished goods from other asia countries. Peter.

How dare someone in advertising talk bout "selling out to the man", hell Mikey have you no shame or decency, oh wait a minute I forgot, your in Advertising..... Peter.

Considering how far Stryker forces move, if you skip a battle the next briefing should say "Back up your in the Sea". Peter.

If you push ahead without reinforcements, you could lose, but if you wait they could be reinforced, would be an easy option I'd have thought, Also if you bypass and objective your force avoids casualties, but in future scenarios, reinforcement and ammo could be reduced, because of he trouble the force you bypassed was causing to resupply. just some thoughts. Peter.

Just think if this might only be the begining. If the rate of privatisation in the US military keeps up the pace of recent yours, GI's will probably have to show a valid Bluecross card before they get CASEVACed. Peter.

The best but most time consuming way to do it is to have acertification system wher you can't either sell it or troops are "Put On A Charge" if they use it,. The harsh way is to Ban it, and tell any soilder wounded or injured while using it, to pay there own medical bills. Peter. Having said that, apparently during the battle for Mount Pleasant in the Falklands one British Squaddie was seen waving a samuri sword about, and I am pretty sure that wasn't standard issue.

MikeyD, Well as your profile blanks out your occupation, I can't tell which if any man your have or haven't sold out to already. Peter.

Steve, Lets call a hault on the US v europe bit, though I'd admit that at times as a continent we lack confidence, though I hope to god we don't try to prove we're confident by starting a stupid war. Last time I looked the ratio of Labour costs between China and the US was near 20 to 1 ( average US $12.45 per hour., average China was about 70c per hour.) Now given that you have a labour force of 150m plus 6% unemployed, say 160m tops, and China has 760 million plus 20% close to a total of 900m, just what makes you think that on mobuilisation you can out produce them. This isn't WW2, ypu can't recruit housewives can be recruited to build F-22's To employ 160m people for 40 hrs a week ( 50 weeks a year) at £10 an hour, costs $3,2 trillion, about 25% of the US economy. To employ 900m Chinese for the same time at $1 an hour ( note while US wages fall Chinese rise, so I am skewing it in Americas favour) cost $1.8trillion, about 20% of the chinese economy. However if we assume equal productivity ( iam not sure of the comparative levels) then with 20% of it's economy spent on wages it should with five times as many workers produce five times the goods, Plus look at what they start with in terms of productive capacity, of there 760m workforce, 50% are in agriculture and 29% in services, so they have even without the 20% unemployed a loyt of low skilled people that are underutilised and who can be put to work. By contrast 76% of the US 150m are in services. Now you can clear out all the McDonalds and Wendies for troops and cheap labour, but what about all those Doctors and Lawyers ( Oh and software and game designers), what happens when they all start working for peanuts and stop paying high taxes. Now again I am not kicking America but it's back to experience, as far as I know no one has ever tried to mobilise a modern service economy, ( though in WW2 lots of white collar Americans did enlist or were drafted), where as what China would be doing has been done in the past, and indeed China has done it. True like Germany v Russia, the US would have a more educated workforce, who with a learning culture could probably adapt quicker, but much of what they would need to do would produce less value than what they do now. I am not sure the modern US economy could sustain mobilisation in that traditional sense, but I am pretty sure the Chinese can as in a way that's what they have been doing for the last decade or so. Peter.

Tarquelne, OK we'll do it the meaningful way as percentages. US war dead since 1940 400,000 Chinese war dead since 1940 16,000,000 Ratio 400 to 1 Current US population 295m Current Chinese population 1,350m Ratio 4.4 to 1 Which means that the Chinese in war alone without civilian casualties the cultural revolution or the great leap forward ( Now there is a contradiction in terms) have endured proportionally 90 times the losses of the US. Steve, I am not anti American, in any way, but it's the excessive optimism that Uncle Sam will always win that gets me. What the statisy=tics on casualties show is the track record, and on that basis, China ( like Japan, Russia, and Germany), has been there and done it, the US hasn't, That doesn't mean it can't, but the certainty most americans have on the strength of their own country seems bizarre to lots of people in Europe. To be honest the British suffer from it a bit too, the "We Won the War" brigade, you see it in the glorification of the SAS in the British press, as if they are bullet proof. But what you see as Anti-American, is for me and many on this side of the Atlantic, a different view on the "Utility of War" One of the reasons I think both France and Germany were so reluctant to go to war and attack and occupy Iraq was that they had been their . They're cities had been leveled they had been occupied and had occupied. This creates a very different attitude to war, and the european one (and Japanese) is very different from that of the US. Over two centuries and more europe as gone throw a stream of bloody devastating wars that have seen genocide and slaughter, time and time again. That has lead to a culture that avoids it and sees it as often futile and counter productive. By contrast US experience has been one of constant victory and often advancement as a consequence of war. After WW2 the Us came out stronger and in a better global position than it went in, the rest of us were in ruins. So when Europeans, see the US or indeed anyone, adopt a "We'd Win" attitude, and a belief that if push came to shove, they'd back down, because we wouldn't, they start to either back off, or as I do, try to warn you off. Sure you've accepted belatedly that it could harm America, or bring your government down, but your initial position was a belief in your own superiority, and that is dangerous for any nation. It's came up in the debate about Fortress Damascus. Faced with the possiblity, that the Syrians might garrison the capitail in force and make a fight of it, your contention was that it wouldn't happen,because by that stage they would know the US had one and throw in the towel. I would never plan on that basis or assume that, nor would most europeans, because having clubbed each other to a pulp for centuries we expect people to fight on regardless even when it's hopeless because we've seen it done, and mostly done it ourselves. Hell Steve I am Scots, we've fought everyone from the Romans to the Germans, via the Vikings and the English, and have been beaten more often than not but the challenge comes regardless of how daft it looks we stand and fight, and when we fight abroad we have learned to expect or enemies to do the same. For all it's strength and military prowess, that is still Americas achilles heal, it's unshakable belief in it's own superiority and ability to succeed no matter the odds.. Thats one reason why a nation that seems to be on an even more unsustainable path than China seems not oblivious to the danger but dismissive of it, be it economic, military or ecological. As Luke said to Vadar, "Your over confidence is your weakness". Peter.

How many people who bought CM even knew that there was the ability to add mod's . It might be popular with users, but I can't say how it's a selling point, I don't even think it's mentioned on the box. Peter. as to iTunes, your right the record companies have a cheek asking to be paid more for something that is a cross between money for nothing and saving them a fortune. .

Now I am not saying it was America's fault in any way or they had it coming , but as Steve mentioned an oil embargo, well thats exactly what Roosevelt placed on Japan just after being elected in 1040 and we all know what japan did within a tear. Like BigJuke said, people can make mistakes. Besides My scenario was that Taiwan had enough support for reunification peacefully on it's terms and the US backs the minority to reverse that. It was an attempt to create a US/China head to head on an even playing field. Historically there is plenty of evidence, that the communists had slight majority support for a unified Vietnam, and that the US if not engineered then helped the South to go back on the deal for unification, so it's not without precident. Peter.

One more thing Steve, Big Duke didn't say the Chinese won, He said the Chinese believe that they one, which is a different (and in the context of attitudes to a future conflict), thing entirely. LtCol West, did some Checking, by my reckoning even if you could use it Okinawa is 400miles each way from Northern Taiwan, and mainland Japan and Korea about a 2,000mile round trip. The Straits of Taiwan are only 90 miles wide and 100 fathoms deep. Which given that fast airborne laser depth finding can already operate to 150 fathoms would make it a Killing ground for something the size of a Los Angeles. Chinese coastal and land based cruise including New Russain SS-N-22's can cover that gap from one side let alone from each. To close the gap and use Subs, the US would need to have airsuperiority over a 500mile strip and that means almost certainly bringing Carriers in to range of shore based defences. The whole defence of Taiwan scenario that the US is geared to assumes that it's the Chinese doing the invading. Oh and my count of US amphibious forces, comes out at a maximum of 40,000 that they can put ashore if they use everything. True the US can quickly achieve local superiority as the Chinese have to cover the whole coast while the US can concentrate on their choosen beachhead, but once ashore that beachhead is incredibly vulnerable to long range MLRS. If the US concentrates too much it's fish in a barrel, if it spreads to thin, it loses local superiority. oh and I found this as well, A-100 10-tube 300 mm Multiple Rocket Launcher The A-100 is developed by China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) and CASA 1st Academy. The whole system includes 12-tube launch vehicles, reloading vehicles, and command & control vehicles, all of which are mounted on the WS-2400 8X8 wheeled chassis. The strong Russian style WS-2400 wheeled chassis is also used on the DF-11 (M-11) surface-to-surface ballistic missile system. The Command & Control vehicles is fitted with computerised fire-control and GPS. All 12 rockets can be fired out in 60 seconds, and it can be reloaded in 20 minutes. The rocket can deliver the 200 kg anti-armour or anti-personnel blasting warhead to a range of 50~100 km. The CPMIEC is also developing a variety of new 300 mm rockets with an enhanced fire range of 70~180 km. It can be fired by the A-100 system without any modification. Peter.

Steve, Pariotism is a good thing when it doesn't go to extremes and blind people, but like most americans I discuss things you are intfused with a belief in the moral and cultural superiority of your own country, and your views on china show that. take a lot at these, which i found on the web. "Analysis: If we line up the 14 sources which claim to be complete, the median falls in the 41.6 to 45.75 million range, so you probably can't go wrong picking a final number from this neighborhood. Depending on how you want to count some of the incomplete estimates (such as Becker and Meisner) and whether to count a source twice (or thrice, as with Walker) if it's referenced by two different authorities, you can slide the median up and down the scale by many millions. Keep in mind, however, that official Chinese records are hidden from scrutiny, so most of these numbers are pure guesses. It's pointless to get attached to any one of them, because the real number could easily be half or twice any number here. Perhaps a better way of estimating would be to add up the individual components. The medians here are: Purges, etc. during the first few years: 2M (10 estimates) Great Leap Forward: 30M (12 estimates) Cultural Revolution: 500T (10 estimates) Ethnic Minorities, primarily Tibetans: 750-900T (8 estimates, see below) Labor Camps: 15-20M (4 estimates) This produces a total of some 48,250,000 to 53,400,000 deaths. The weak link in this calculation is in the Labor Camp numbers for which we only have 4 estimates." Now to this you can add 6million for the civicl war and 12million for WW2, of which 2million were military. Then add in the estimated 500,000 to 1 million in Korea, and you are taking on a nation that has endured some 70 million deaths in less than 60 years. In contrast we have, US Casualties in Conflict Wounded and dead Deaths Revolutionary War 10,623 War of 1812 6,765 Civil War: Union 634,703 Confederate 335,524 Spanish-American War 4,108 World War I 320,710 World War II 670,846 Korean War 136,935 Vietnam War 211,471 Gulf War 760 The actual total number of dead, is less than 1 million ( about 800,000) in over 230 years. As with vietnam, and indeed the Iraqi's you seem to have this distinctly American belief in your own superiority and as a result to grossly underestimate the resolve and determination of your opponents. I remember reading Kissingers work on deterrents, written around the McNammara era. When talking about escalation he very clearly in an interview laid out how it would work with the US matching the Soviets at every level until they were forced to conceed when the US had raised the cost to the point that it hurt too much. But when the interviewer asked at what point the US would call a halt and conceed, he made a flat absolute denial. For Kissenger and the US political establishment that was unthinkable, the believed absolutely that without doubt the soviets would crack first and that they would keep raising the stakes till they did. For them they had truth, justice and God on their side, and the godless communists were opportunic and morally weaker, so of course they would back down. I think that when you look at what nations like Germany, or Russia or China have endured and overcome, there can be no doubt that they are every bit as strong as the US and probably a lot stronger. I agree that a military conflict with China and the US is highly unlikely, and the US would be unlikely to start it, but even if they did, I doubt the US would have the guts for it. Thats why the european always wanted US troops and even Nukes over here, because when push came to shove they wanted you dragged in on day one because they didn't trust you to commit unless you had too. As to oil embargos and trade wars, dispite what you think, I have little doubt that the Chinese can endure (and would) far more pain over Taiwan than the US would. Hell look at Vietnam, it deeply wounded the US for two decades, even though total US casualties, wouldn't even register as a large famine in China. Peter.

Michael, It's just an idea, true it's up to BFC, but only a year or two back, the whole idea of something like iTUNES, would have seemed daft, but now it's one of the most profitable web sites in the world. BF has said before that the majority of customers don't play PBEM games, so the "no one would have them" arguement doesn't necessarily rule it out. Given that we are only talking about building textures and camo models you could play the game with or without them, after all what you see on your screen doesn't have to be the same as mine. I see no reason why if I have plain green shermans, and grey panthers on my machine, you shouldn't have pink and purple ones if thats what you want. Surely the PBEM system just says it's a sherman, not all the details. Peter. Peter.

This will go down like a lead ballon, but I'll put it in anyway. BF should allow people to modify models such as textures as before, but you couldn't then use them in the game. Instead in order to be used in the game, you would need to have them "Authorised" by BF who would pay you for it if it was posted for use. So for example if you produced a very good Tiger 1 winter mod, BF would give you say $25 plus 50c per sale. It would then be posted and anyone who wanted to use this in his game, could buy it for $1. Now to make a profit, BF would need to sell, 50 on the web site, by which time the designer would have made another $25. IF at the end of the year 1,000 people had bought it then both BF and the designer would each have made $500. I have no idea, if CM:SF is at a stage that it could build something like this in and as I said I bet most people will hate it, but it would make money for BF, and Mod makers would get paid... Okay fire away people. Peter.

Steve, lets have a comparison. CHINA (2004) USA (2004) $7.262 trillion $11.75 trillion GDP - growth rate: 9.1% GDP - growth rate:4.4% GDP - per capita: - $5,600 $40,100 GDP - composition by sector: agriculture: 13.8% agriculture: 0.9% industry : 52.9% industry: 19.7% services: 33.3% services: 79.4% Labor force: 760.8 million 147.4 million by occupation: agriculture 49%, agriculture, 0.7% industry 22%, industrial, 22.7% services 29% services, 76.6% Unemployment rate: 9.8% in urban areas; overall at 20% 5.5% Population below poverty line:10% 12% Gini index: 44 Gini index:45 Inflation rate 4.1% 2.5% Investment 46% of GDP 15.7% of GDP Budget: revenues: $317.9 billion $1.862 trillion expenditures: $348.9 billion, $2.338 trillion Difference: $ 31.0 billion, $1,476 trillion Public debt: 31.4% of GDP 65% of GDP Industrial production growth rate: 17.1% 4.4% Electricity - production: 1.91 trillion kWh 3.839 trillion kWh Electricity - consumption: 1.63 trillion kWh 3.66 trillion kWh Electricity - exports: 10.38 billion kWh 13.36 billion kWh Electricity - imports: 2.3 billion kWh 36.23 billion kWh Oil - production: 3.3 million bbl/day 7.8 million bbl Oil - consumption: 4.9 million bbl/day 19.6 million bbl Oil - reserves: 17.7 billion bbl 22.5 billion bbl Natural gas - production: 35 billion cu m 548 billion cu m Natural gas - consumption: 29 billion cu m 640 billion cu m Natural gas - reserves 2.2 trillion cu m 5.2 trillion cu m Current account balance: $30.32 billion - $646.5 billion Exports: $583.1 billion $795 billion Imports: $552.4 billion $1.476 trillion Reserves: $609.9 billion $85.9 billion Debt - external: $233.3 billion $1.4 trillion It's a bit of a mixed bag, but the idea that China would be the big loser, rather than it being a bloody disaster for both isn't borne out by these. I was going to put in Exports and imports by country, but its a bugger to format and to get an idea of how different nations might react we need to look at each individually to see there balance of trade with the US and China, and to be honest I can't be bothered. Peter.