The more modern one where Vietnam kicked their ass. It was after the Vietnam war sometime
WI: What type of Non-Nuclear force would it take to reasonably conquer The United States and hold it effectively?
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
That would be the Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979. That was, however, very much a *military* victory and not a civil insurgency, aided by the fact that the Soviets provided substantial intelligence support *and* pretty literally told the Chinese Navy it didn't get to play.
(The Chinese Air Force also didn't get to play, but this was a Chinese decision based on observing the degree to which Vietnamese air defense had blooded the far superior USAF).
I did not know that actually
The thing about the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979 was that everyone knew it was coming. The Chinese were extremely angry at Vietnam for stopping the genocide in Cambodia, but couldn't do anything about it at the time because under the terms of the existing treaties, invading Vietnam would result in automatic war with the Soviet Union. The Chinese literally invaded Vietnam the very day that treaty with the Soviet Union expired, hoping for a "short victorious war" which would punish Vietnam for intervening against the Khmer Rouge, and more indirectly for siding with the Soviets when the Sino-Soviet split went down.
In the end, both sides declared victory, but the bottom line was absolute humiliation for the Chinese -- they mobilized 600,000 troops against Vietnam against less than 70,000 border troops (plus subsequent reserve militia) . . . and only "won" in the sense of temporarily occupying several border cities while barely breaking even on casualties and being forced to promptly retreat. China was so humiliated that they ended up retconning their own invasion, claiming that although 600,000 troops had been mobilized, only 200,000 actually invaded.
Wow.....The US did WAY better and we were facing gurilla war!
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
And had way way more restrictions on our rules of engagement
Back to the argument though.
Any invasion of the US will be fought tooth and nail. If people are saying to defund the police over justified shooting and fight the cops, the combined might of working together to defend their rights should come FIRST in their minds
To be fair, the Chinese were declaring only a limited campaign all along, because they were concerned that either the Soviet Union or the United States (or possibly even *both*) would jump on them if they tried to outright conquer Vietnam.
I would point out that the reasonable subsection of those protests -- including myself -- is angry at shootings that were legally justified but ethically questionable, and wants to reduce further shootings of this type by scaling back the scope of emergency calls that are handled by the police rather than by totally eliminating the police.
Edit: For the record, I'm not participating in the physical protests due to my job; when I say "including myself", I'm saying that this is the part I agree with.
For example, if you have someone who is in a psychiatric emergency state, the police are *not* an optimal responder to that situation unless they have very specific training. It is better to handle that call with a psychologist in the field rather than police officers; L.A. County has such a setup (the "Psychiatric Mobile Response Team") and I have worked alongside them during my time as an EMT, they are very good at what they do. Similarly, over here the Washington County Sheriff's Department has a similar psych care setup called the Mental Health Crisis Team, which they use in both standalone responses, and as part of the "Mental Health Response Team" where a crisis psychologist is partnered with a deputy on patrol.
That would be for another thread, or a PM to talk about it.
Val the Moofia Boss
Well-known member
How would an invasion force even make it to America, though? You can transport thousands of soldiers to the Middle East by planes over the course of years, but to actually invade America you would need an army of millions of men, and it would be impractical to airlift them all across the ocean to America. You'd need to transport them by sea...
America has total aerial superiority with its airforce and drones and a ludicrously huge missile arsenal. Any ships sailing to the US would be poofed with a single missile strike. And the ships of today aren't built to be armored like they were during WW2. American naval vessels of today are virtually unarmored and only really resist collisions and gunfire. They'd be sunk by a single missile strike. With America's ginormous missile arsenal and our ability to carry them quite far with jets and drones, I just don't see how any force could actually make it here by sea.
I'd imagine that the invading army's only option would be to cross from Russia to Alaska.
America has total aerial superiority with its airforce and drones and a ludicrously huge missile arsenal. Any ships sailing to the US would be poofed with a single missile strike. And the ships of today aren't built to be armored like they were during WW2. American naval vessels of today are virtually unarmored and only really resist collisions and gunfire. They'd be sunk by a single missile strike. With America's ginormous missile arsenal and our ability to carry them quite far with jets and drones, I just don't see how any force could actually make it here by sea.
I'd imagine that the invading army's only option would be to cross from Russia to Alaska.
In a "United States versus United Rest Of The World" scenario, a direct amphibious invasion would be absolutely impossible given the severely limited amphibious assets of the rest of the world and the U.S. superiority in naval assets. However, the U.S. Navy cannot cover the entire coast of North, Central, and South America; the UROTW would be able to transport by sea to ROTW territory north and south of the United States. The U.S. would be able to hunt and attrit these convoys with both submarine and surface assets, but not to the point of completely shutting down all transportation.
Realistically, the United States would likely launch limited offensives north into Canada and south into Mexico with the objective of taking and establishing the most favorable and defensible land/sea borders it can, and would only project limited (primarily submarine) striking force beyond the "American Defense Zone".
Well, the simple solution is you destroy the American Navy and Air force. Our current missile arsenal isn't actually all that large. Our 68 burkes for example could hold some 96 missiles each or about 6,500 missiles. However, the modern anti air missile you would assumeldy want to stock those with has only had about 500 of those missile built. Tomahawk missile stock seems to be in the realm of a few hundred, with something like 100 built per year.
So, you invade the US by destroying the Navy. So, slow grinding until the Navy and air force are attritioned away assuming your not allowed to just build up a massive army on the boarders capable of grinding the US military down in fairly short order.
That depends on the scenario. If you have the United Rest of the World building up forces on the borders, the United States will logically respond by escalating its own forces and preparing for war, and while the United Rest of the World has a bigger collective economy, the United States has the most refined and experienced military-industrial complex in the world, and is a single unified economy.
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Plus realistically speaking any Coalition that involves everyone but America will have to spend years working out logistical issues due to the wide variety of equipment they will use and the fact that America isn't selling military equipment or supplies anymore
Last edited:
Eh, in a single unified World vs US about 20-40% of the US would support the world, one way or another.
Drawing the US out of the borders to respond also stretches the US supply lines and burns material. It doesn't particularly matter if the US military is destroyed in America, or attempting to occupy or invade Latin America. Nepoleon and Hilter basically lost their warfighting ability before their enemies really set foot in France/Germany. The begining of the end came for the Athenians with the utterly retarded invasion of Sicily.
The ability of the US to sustain a long term war effort right now isn't all that high. The ability to absorb casualties isn't that great either. And the rest of the World in general is less dependent on imports than the other way around right now.
And all of this is about what kind of force you need to win. The answer being "something a bit bigger than the US military". Whether thats the US military now or the US military after a couple years of build up.
A bit on the nose. But, I think I get what you mean. Taking the USA down from within would be likely one of the best moves. Have a fifth column take over and then you can waltz in and they'll hand the country to you. Or, setting Americans on each other and once they weaken each other you come in and mop up.
Exactly.That is what leftist always did,becouse they could not win elections normally or win on battlefield without big numerical advantage.
Once useful idiots worked for soviets,now....China,Russia,they would work for martians as long as they destroy USA.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Whilst I haven't got the faintest idea of how to subjugate the United States (I know that defeating its navy, securing the West or East coast for supplies, and not treating the populace like shit might factor into it), in terms of defeat on the battlefield I believe it to be quite achievable, although most certainly not from "peer" powers, nor would the defeat be total. For example, a US Corps strength formation of about thirty thousand men is going to choke fuck a Russian or Chinese force of similar size.
I'd say, troop for troop, the most potent threat on the battlefield for the US would be a British, French or (to an extent) Japanese formation of similar size. That is an engagement the US could lose. Thusly, if that were part of a major engagement, that is a flank or main thrust that evaporates.
I'd say, troop for troop, the most potent threat on the battlefield for the US would be a British, French or (to an extent) Japanese formation of similar size. That is an engagement the US could lose. Thusly, if that were part of a major engagement, that is a flank or main thrust that evaporates.