By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 09 December 2009
Edit Thread
mrstickball said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
@Kasz.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2007/march07_2.pdf

Anyway, heaps of South America is pro-China due to the current wave of socialism down there.

Being pro china and having enough troops there to inavade the US are too different things.

I meant as a launching base for any invasion. A purely naval attempt would be doomed to failure.

Which is what i'm saying.  I don't think the US would ever allow that many Chinese troops to enter South America even before declerations of hostility.

The chinese would probably need at least 3 million troops in south America to pull it off...  possibly more when you consider then massive air and missle advantages the US would hold.

Not to mention... even if they did got that way.  They'd have to go through texas first... which is about the last place you'd want to start.

It's got a lot of Military bases, and even if taken is full of the people who are least likely to take being occupied well... There are estimates that there are more guns in the state then there are people.  It's the one place in America where you'd have guranteed "house to house" fighting.

 

An Assault from Africa makes more sense because, while more fortified if you could crush the east coast you've taken out a LOT of power right away and a lot of east coast resources and less likely to deal with guerrilla warfare.

By launching from Africa, NATO forces could easily circle the forces, with Americans coming in from the west, and Europeans from the East.

That doesn't sound like a situation that the Chinese navy would want to get itself into.

Africa would be a horrible staging ground - too much ocean to cover. Without carriers, a Chinese invasion from Africa would be easily beaten as we have just too much naval capacity.

The only way you could do it would be the Red Dawn way - come in from Mexico and launch a 3-pronged assault via the CA and TX borders, and a diversionary attack from Cuba into FL and/or the East Coast. At such ranges, Chinese forces would have an advantage, as they have a very strong stockpile of aircraft - they may be old (lots of Mig-21 copies), but they could easily swarm the US.

The thing about the US is that our anti-air is really tied up in air superiority. Despite our technological advantages, our SAM systems are pretty bad compared to Russian and Chinese system. The best we have are patriots which are good, but compared to S-300's, they may be on par if we're lucky. Remember 9/11? Guess what we rolled out - Hummers with stingers. You think that'd stop a serious air threat.

If America was mobilized, you'd have to have a force of 7-10 million troops to pose a serious threat to the US, assuming that a country could field it. Texas would be horrible, as their national guard could probably invade Mexico and win.

Of course, everything is hypothetical. It would take so many failures by the US, South America, and our East Asian interests to cause an invasion. But that *does* seem like a plausible scenario - China invades Korea, Japan and Taiwan then comes for the US next. That could be a possible scenario.

I'd guess by the time they invaded they'd have carriers.   I mean, as you said it'd probably take 7-10 million troops.  Currently the Chinese army is under 5 million... and mostley domestic to my knowlede.  Meaning they'd probably need to come up with 5-10 million more troops.