slightlyhuman
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 19,632
- 38
- 91
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
China is such that they can march 3 wide into the ocean and never end.
Everyone is really underestimating Canada....they rely on their proximity to the US for sure, but they have a capable force...I can't remember off the top of my head, but their air force or navy got some high marks.
Å
The same geographic isolation that has served to protect us from the Germans, Japanese and the strife in the mideast (for the most part) would once again serve to our advantage. As has been mentioned an invading army would have to put out a tremendous effort to organize a cross-ocean invasion with NO jumping off point available except I suppose Siberia in this scenario.
Now, though we are in fact not that far across the Bering Straight the weather would add yet another extremely criticial element to this supposed invasion. Of course it would have to be planned in the summer months but is still hardly an ideal location to prepare and mount an invasion force which takes a very long time to assemble. Unlike England in WWII which formed an ideal staging ground, Siberia would cause many logistical nightmares including few railways, lack of large, open ports that are navigable year round, etc.
Fortunately distance comes into play here as well. Even if we were to imagine this force was magically assembled in Alaska and prepared to begin an assault into Canada and the US they have very harsh terrain to deal with and a long, long journey ahead giving us time to prepare a defense of some sort.
Also, I would never discount the Canadians fighting spirit because I have read accounts of their heroism during WWII and they are hardly pansies. Plus, neither of our countries is going to sit back contentedly surrendering our lands and freedom. The most fierce and determined fighters are those DEFENDING their homeland. History has shown countless examples of this but some of the more recent would be the Vietnam War, the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan and current occupation of Chechnya as well as the Germans extremely stubborn resistance all the way back to Berlin which was taken at an incredible loss of life. When you are fighting for your own country and the safety of your family you will defend them to the death.
Now, though we are in fact not that far across the Bering Straight the weather would add yet another extremely criticial element to this supposed invasion. Of course it would have to be planned in the summer months but is still hardly an ideal location to prepare and mount an invasion force which takes a very long time to assemble. Unlike England in WWII which formed an ideal staging ground, Siberia would cause many logistical nightmares including few railways, lack of large, open ports that are navigable year round, etc.
Fortunately distance comes into play here as well. Even if we were to imagine this force was magically assembled in Alaska and prepared to begin an assault into Canada and the US they have very harsh terrain to deal with and a long, long journey ahead giving us time to prepare a defense of some sort.
Also, I would never discount the Canadians fighting spirit because I have read accounts of their heroism during WWII and they are hardly pansies. Plus, neither of our countries is going to sit back contentedly surrendering our lands and freedom. The most fierce and determined fighters are those DEFENDING their homeland. History has shown countless examples of this but some of the more recent would be the Vietnam War, the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan and current occupation of Chechnya as well as the Germans extremely stubborn resistance all the way back to Berlin which was taken at an incredible loss of life. When you are fighting for your own country and the safety of your family you will defend them to the death.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,351
- 33,248
- 146
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
WMD get reported. I am sure the US has some things hidden up their sleeves, however the majority of what is REPORTED is not planet killers. This is well known in any political debate is factored in.
I don't see any US bashing in my comments - I'm stating rational observations from an unbiased non-US perspective. I understand that all the media information people in the US get is filtered, americanized to make the US seem patriotic and freedom-loving and at times just plain untrue, so in this respect I see why my comments concerning political matters are often disliked, labeled as untrue or ignored altogether. There may be US government bashing in my comments, and you should know it (the gov) deserves it. The US in general - I have no reason to bash that - I quite like the US. I read US sites and magazines regularly. I work for a US based company. I wouldn't say no to a green card either.
unbiased?
All our news is filtered and americanized? WTF?
About Korea - so if you know it's North and not Communist, why not refer it with its proper name?
Same way if you know it's North America, why not refer to it that way instead of America, and if you are referring to the USA, then call it that.
Freaking idiot. Pay attention to your own screwups before you start splitting hairs with others.
Å
The US does not have high-yield nuclear missiles anywhere in our inventory, at least not compared to what we made in the 50s and what Russia made throughout the cold war. We have missiels armed with numerous MIRV warheads at 360 KT each. The sub-launched ones, tridents?, have something like 11 360 KT warheads on each. That's much more effective than one 10 MT warhead that must be delivered by bomber.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 53,628
- 48,196
- 136
START II was ratified by the U.S. and Russia.
This treaty covers the eventual decomissioning of the MX missile and its Russian counterpart. The remaining Minuteman III missiles are to eventually be downloaded to one warhead each, from three. This warhead is the W-87 that produces a 300KT yield.
The START II treaty was scraped by Russia after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM treaty. I don't know how much of START II was implemented, if any.
The current generation of Trident missiles, the D-5, is limited to 8 warheads by the START I treaty. They are supposedly able to carry a max of 14 warheads. The D-5 should be currently loaded with the W-88 warhead, yielding about 475KT.
The largest warhead ever deployed on a U.S. missile was the W-53 on the Titan II missile. This yielded 9MT.
The Titan II was retired in the mid 1980's.
To that whole it took the U.S. so long to take Afghanistan and Iraq crap. That was only because the U.S. military did their damndest not to kill civilians. If the military is given free reign then EU/Russia would stand absolutely no chance. Of course, all of Europe and Russia would be a crater but the US would win.
I guess no one's really given much thought to supplying a ground force large enough to survive constant harassment during a long-ass march down to the 48 contiguous states AND still have enough firepower left over to take on the U.S. army and any fortifications built up during the months-long walk. Factor in air support and it becomes a logistical nightmare. Throw in the weather and terrain and you would really need every man woman and child in China. Simply put, invasion via Alaska is one stupid-ass move.
A much better idea would be to walk into San Francisco bay. This is, of course, you somehow manage to hide thousands of boats and vessels from spy satellites, patrols, and random FISHING BOATS. On the other hand, you can try paratroopers, but you'd somewhere on the order of 100,000 planes to land a force large enough to set up a sizeable base. Plus, you'll have to deal with getting hit the next day (or even in a couple hours) by homeland forces and quite frankly, that's a bitch when you're defenses are still being built or unloaded. Personally, I'd just shoot down incoming aircraft, which means invaders would need about half a million aircraft.
But, hey, once you get here (or if you magically teleport a few hundred thousand troops), the largest natural port in the world is easily converted into a forward command base from which to launch ground operations. A couple retired air force bases here and there as well as a major commercial airport, several smaller airstrips, and lots of even terrain in the San Jouquin Valley provide ideal landing areas for transports, fighters, and support aircraft. That, and it's easier to defend against surface warships, attack subs, and random FISHING BOATS. Less room to maneuver, but there's only one entrance and there's really little in the way of running once aircraft fire anti-ship missiles from a few thousand yards.
Even assuming you can set up a base in San Francisco and hold it long enough to establish a sizeable defense, the next problem would be taking over the country. It's 3000 mi to New York and you have to fight every step of the way. Plus, you have to spread out your forces North and South to avoid losing supply lines. Of course, you could try living off the land, but that won't last more than a couple days considering the civilian population's tendency to panic and clear out supermarkets. Oh, and good luck harvesting crops which will add to the number of personnel you need to ship over.
All in all, it would be a damn bitch of a time invading the United States without nuclear weapons. Heck, the only way to invade at this point is to nuke the whole place from one end to the other, wait 50 odd years, then walk in and clean up the mess.
Invading Europe, on the other hand, is as much a pain, but for different reasons. For the United States, landing on the beach would be a relative breeze. Naval supremecy helps tremendously, although enemy aircraft would be operating closer to home, so once again, supply is a bitch. Plus, you'd have to pull in just about every aircraft carrier in operation and maybe even reactivate a few older ones. It looks like something on the order of eight fleets in the area just to provide initial air and tactical support (cruise missiles are damn expensive). However, once you're in Europe, you'll find the terrain can a bitch, the people almost universally hate you (even without all this invasion crap), and supply is still a pain in the rear. It might actually be possible, assuming everyone else in the world stands idly by. You'll run into a major problem in the mountains (that's what, the majority of Europe?) and casualties will easily exceed the weak-kneed public's tolerance within a matter of days.
Taking over China would be relatively simpler. The terrain is better suited for U.S. operations, China has almost no navy to speak of, and relatively weak air power. Plus, Taiwan would be more than happy to help, which would provide a suitable forward base on that pair of islands 10 miles off the coast of China. It'll probably be shelled heavily in the first few days, but once the navy rolls in, it wouldn't be hard to jump off from there.
The problem with the billion man army from China is easily solved through technical superiority. With command of the air and the sea, it is amazing what a couple B-52's could do to massed armies with no air cover. All you need to do is take over a couple air strips, fortify them as well as you can, then launch air strikes ad nauseum. As long as you can keep the Chinese army from getting close to your air bases, it's a U.S. win. Establishing air bases on the mainland would be simple enough and supplies could be brought in from sea. Granted its one large nightmare, but then, so is any large-scale invasion. The difference between invading China and invading the U.S. would be the manpower required. Now, if China gets its act together in the next several years and becomes a truely formidable military superpower (in other words, almost as technically advanced as the U.S., and as well trained) then the U.S. is screwed, anyway.
All this goes in the wastebasket once we can use nukes. A few neutron bombs here and there and it's no longer a question of largest standing army.
A much better idea would be to walk into San Francisco bay. This is, of course, you somehow manage to hide thousands of boats and vessels from spy satellites, patrols, and random FISHING BOATS. On the other hand, you can try paratroopers, but you'd somewhere on the order of 100,000 planes to land a force large enough to set up a sizeable base. Plus, you'll have to deal with getting hit the next day (or even in a couple hours) by homeland forces and quite frankly, that's a bitch when you're defenses are still being built or unloaded. Personally, I'd just shoot down incoming aircraft, which means invaders would need about half a million aircraft.
But, hey, once you get here (or if you magically teleport a few hundred thousand troops), the largest natural port in the world is easily converted into a forward command base from which to launch ground operations. A couple retired air force bases here and there as well as a major commercial airport, several smaller airstrips, and lots of even terrain in the San Jouquin Valley provide ideal landing areas for transports, fighters, and support aircraft. That, and it's easier to defend against surface warships, attack subs, and random FISHING BOATS. Less room to maneuver, but there's only one entrance and there's really little in the way of running once aircraft fire anti-ship missiles from a few thousand yards.
Even assuming you can set up a base in San Francisco and hold it long enough to establish a sizeable defense, the next problem would be taking over the country. It's 3000 mi to New York and you have to fight every step of the way. Plus, you have to spread out your forces North and South to avoid losing supply lines. Of course, you could try living off the land, but that won't last more than a couple days considering the civilian population's tendency to panic and clear out supermarkets. Oh, and good luck harvesting crops which will add to the number of personnel you need to ship over.
All in all, it would be a damn bitch of a time invading the United States without nuclear weapons. Heck, the only way to invade at this point is to nuke the whole place from one end to the other, wait 50 odd years, then walk in and clean up the mess.
Invading Europe, on the other hand, is as much a pain, but for different reasons. For the United States, landing on the beach would be a relative breeze. Naval supremecy helps tremendously, although enemy aircraft would be operating closer to home, so once again, supply is a bitch. Plus, you'd have to pull in just about every aircraft carrier in operation and maybe even reactivate a few older ones. It looks like something on the order of eight fleets in the area just to provide initial air and tactical support (cruise missiles are damn expensive). However, once you're in Europe, you'll find the terrain can a bitch, the people almost universally hate you (even without all this invasion crap), and supply is still a pain in the rear. It might actually be possible, assuming everyone else in the world stands idly by. You'll run into a major problem in the mountains (that's what, the majority of Europe?) and casualties will easily exceed the weak-kneed public's tolerance within a matter of days.
Taking over China would be relatively simpler. The terrain is better suited for U.S. operations, China has almost no navy to speak of, and relatively weak air power. Plus, Taiwan would be more than happy to help, which would provide a suitable forward base on that pair of islands 10 miles off the coast of China. It'll probably be shelled heavily in the first few days, but once the navy rolls in, it wouldn't be hard to jump off from there.
The problem with the billion man army from China is easily solved through technical superiority. With command of the air and the sea, it is amazing what a couple B-52's could do to massed armies with no air cover. All you need to do is take over a couple air strips, fortify them as well as you can, then launch air strikes ad nauseum. As long as you can keep the Chinese army from getting close to your air bases, it's a U.S. win. Establishing air bases on the mainland would be simple enough and supplies could be brought in from sea. Granted its one large nightmare, but then, so is any large-scale invasion. The difference between invading China and invading the U.S. would be the manpower required. Now, if China gets its act together in the next several years and becomes a truely formidable military superpower (in other words, almost as technically advanced as the U.S., and as well trained) then the U.S. is screwed, anyway.
All this goes in the wastebasket once we can use nukes. A few neutron bombs here and there and it's no longer a question of largest standing army.
here is the only way the EU would win the war.
hack into our military database, discover the position of each of our subs, destroy them. pull a pearl harbor on all of our naval groups, and air force bases. build and defend a bridge from russia to the us. steal every oil tanker comming from the mid east, take control of alaskan pipe lines. disable all of our nukes, and pray
and this all would have to happen in less than a day for it to succeed.
hack into our military database, discover the position of each of our subs, destroy them. pull a pearl harbor on all of our naval groups, and air force bases. build and defend a bridge from russia to the us. steal every oil tanker comming from the mid east, take control of alaskan pipe lines. disable all of our nukes, and pray
and this all would have to happen in less than a day for it to succeed.
You know the whole time that whatever war went on, Austrailia would just be like "Wtf mate?"
fvcking kangaroos.
fvcking kangaroos.
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
The Us would win no doubt. All you guys saying it would be even or the EURO would win should be shot!!!!
The US had sh!T that no one has seen yet and would prolly use it during the heat of battle if it was needed
I mean right now the US is doing fine with a pair of Aces but when it come times it will show its royal flush.
Beleive me they got planes and weapons and antiweapons that are not even being used yet and being saved for a time just like this scenario
The US had sh!T that no one has seen yet and would prolly use it during the heat of battle if it was needed
I mean right now the US is doing fine with a pair of Aces but when it come times it will show its royal flush.
Beleive me they got planes and weapons and antiweapons that are not even being used yet and being saved for a time just like this scenario
Wouldn't matter how fast they could breed, their troops are inferior, their equipment is inferior, their tactics are inferior, and, IF IT CAME DOWN TO A FULL SCALE INVASION OF CHINA, the US would roll through the Chinese military like crap through a goose.
It would take about a month or less to completely decimate their air force, and without air superiority, which the Chinese would NEVER have, ground troops are pretty much helpless in the face of overwhelming air and land attack.
I'm not saying that we wouldn't lose a lot of men, but our kill/loss ratio would be hugely disproportionate.
I'd say China, given that no WMD are used, they just send the crappy soldiers over and surrender (there are billion+), wait 'til every one runs out of provisions and then attack. How much food would you have to feed your own troops and millions and millions of prisoners? And how long can that last?
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
good angle on that. Only way we could get around that is to go against the Geneva Conventions and execute them/starve them.
People really underestimate the size of China. Also I am sure if any of these other nations were to plan attacks they'd gear up and start producing things....China is an expert of mass-production. They could probably outfit every man woman and child with an AK and 1000 rounds in the matter of a few weeks
.Tell them all to just start walking towards america.
Å
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
The U.S. would win.
Not because we are so superior, but because it is much easier to defend rather than invade. Especially in a country of 250 million people with a very high percentage of gun ownership.
The military firepower would probably be enough to prevent any large-scale invasion.
But even if foreign troops did make it ashore, they would not be in nearly large enough numbers to subdue the people here.
Because it is our own homeland being invaded and we have a heavily armed citizenry, it would be very easy to recruit millions upon millions of US citizens to join in the fight.
While they may have millions of soldiers to attack, they don't have the ability to transport them at a fast enough rate to make any progress against the millions of Americans who would be waiting.
I'm not so bold as to think we would win if we tried to invade Europe and Russia though. That is an entirely different scenario.
Not because we are so superior, but because it is much easier to defend rather than invade. Especially in a country of 250 million people with a very high percentage of gun ownership.
The military firepower would probably be enough to prevent any large-scale invasion.
But even if foreign troops did make it ashore, they would not be in nearly large enough numbers to subdue the people here.
Because it is our own homeland being invaded and we have a heavily armed citizenry, it would be very easy to recruit millions upon millions of US citizens to join in the fight.
While they may have millions of soldiers to attack, they don't have the ability to transport them at a fast enough rate to make any progress against the millions of Americans who would be waiting.
I'm not so bold as to think we would win if we tried to invade Europe and Russia though. That is an entirely different scenario.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter