and we start to become the United States of Jesus Land...

[Wooz]

Dude. A Navy vet has pointed out all the possible ways such invasion could be *possible* in this thread.

Sticking to the credibility of Discovery Channel studies or documents stating "Hey! Want to invade the US? Go for Alaska" is a bit Quijote-style at this point.

 

[Big T]

No, it has not as much validity. Everyone has admited Alaska and the Aleutians are easy to defend. No one has pointed out a way to beat that, or any outside document or study proving that it can be so easily broken.

Firstly, not everyone has admitted so, I do not think this is the case, given the likely deployment of your forces (ie. not all in the Bering Strait). There are also other posters here (foremostly Roshambo (Wooz' "Navy Vet")) who disagree with that statement.

Since neither side has produced any credible outside opinion, we are forced to go with internal NMA forae opinions.

 

[Starseeker]

Wow, he seems to know so much about China.

They are this and they are that, huh?

Carry on, then.

 

[John Uskglass]

Firstly, not everyone has admitted so, I do not think this is the case,

Assuming that the Chinese would want to use the Bering Strait without Russian permission, they'd have to either sail around the coast of Russia (problematic, as it would put them in a sensitive position concerning the Russian, Japanese and American navy) or march all the way up to the Bering Strait, which would be an unprecendented feat of land war against Russia and, quite frankly, an impossible feat, not to mention having to beat through Russian and American fortifications around the Strait before beating through the US.

You're 0/4 now T. Now it's just annoying.

, given the likely deployment of your forces (ie. not all in the Bering Strait).

That's cute. The The Third Fleet would be there, and it's not THAT hard to believe that, if the PLAN was preparing a MASSIVE invasion of the US Mainland by invading Northern Russia, the USN would be able to get every Virginia and Seawolf Class sub in the world into the theater before the war in Eastern Russia was over.

Now, it's shitty that the budget defecit has been cutting the Virginia Class' funding out from under it, but in the build up to a Third World War with China, it's safe to assume that would stop real fast.

 

[Roshambo]

Actually, the original article is about the Constitutional Restoration Act. You got baited as before into an argument over the military with John, reply with "Go-Go Gadget Eggshell Armor" and thus, the topic is derailed.

Well, then, if I was baited, that would make him Troll 1 and you Troll 2, because neither of you have been remotely paying attention to the discussion aside from throwing in useless garbage when discussing a scenario. Let me guess what John said to those he claimed, "Um...some guys on the internet said it would be possible for China to invade the US by landing troops in Alaska." Which ignores the entire context of the discussion. I would guess that perhaps the conservative vets would have agreed with the "bestest military in the world, more powerful than Superman, Batman, and Aquaman combined!" remark... that is if John was willing to share such an uneducated comment with them in the first place.

No, the point was that the US is not the most powerful military the the world to the point of being greater than everyone else combined. If China wanted to and had the means to start a land war, that is precisely the angle they are going to take because it is their strongest point and the US weakest. It is the most advantageous for the position (water, airfields), the resources they and allies need (oil), and it would be hard for the US to get reinforcements there. Sure, the US could nuke Alaska as well, but considering that is one of two major domestic oil supplies for the US, I see that as unlikely.

Now the topic seems to be about military capabilities with China, which has little to do with the original thread.

Too bad you didn't bother to read the entire thread. It was pretty obvious in what context I was discussing it in, which you and John seem to miss frequently.

So, fine, I derailed the argument a bit, but only after a few choice one-liners are thrown about by you and others to originally derail it from politics into "my army is the bestest/worstest". Cry me a river Rosh about your derailing and selective reading as well.

You have no place to talk about selective reading when you were the selective idiot that ignored the numerous replies before yours, then carbon copied some of John's idiocy regarding economics. And now you post a pathetic cop-out. Keep further childishness to The Order's forum, please.

The Bearing Sea would be a lot more difficult to cross then the English Channel, and the USAF and USN are in better shape then the RAF or RN where at the time of the Battle of Britan.

Straw man argument. The Chinese are better trained and a hell of a lot more numerous than the Nazis were. See? I could make irrelevant comparisons as well, despite the fact that I was using a military example of what was "unthinkable" at that time. Military conquest and greatness comes from doing the "unthinkable". How does it become Reality? Because someone incorrectly assumes that the opposition believes it is unthinkable and therefore, impossible. Back to the point of underestimating what your opponent is capable or willing to do. Just because you're some kid that thinks economics is the bottom line to deciding military or govt decisions, it might not have such a consideration for others and should not be taken as a safeguard.

Concerning the rest of this thread, that is some cute Googling and selective sampling there, John, but you might want to note the points that alliances change all the time. Also, the fact that Alaska has airbases, which if Russia has interest in, they could go ahead with their previous plans and deploy troops once there is enough ground support. It was also one of Russia's main targets for a land occupation in the Cold War.

You are still basing your assumptions on the incorrect assumption that current theaters and alliances will hold for an indefinite time, or the assumption that the US military would still be in the shape that it is today, and that others would make military decisions based upon "logic" and what wouldn't hurt their own country. Wow, shitloads of ironic examples I could use for the last sentence. I already pointed out a possible scenario if someone decided to take into account allies and a changing political face of the world, but thank you again in honoring what is becoming an Orderite tradition. "tl;dr"

What I meant was that a real invasion of the continental US is flat out impossible,

Nice assumption. London is safe from bombing, too!

Besides which, you still haven't retracted the ass-retarted statement that the US military is as strong as that of the rest of the world combined. Maybe you should, by now?

What I meant was that a real invasion of the continental US is flat out impossible

Bullshit, even if you wanted people to accept your revisioning of this thread.

Yeah impossible, especially after or during a civil war. Yes, I still remember the original context of what you were trying to talk about, even though you obviously are trying to reinvent it.

And, with a realistic alliance that could be forged, the US would be outmatched easily.

No, it has not as much validity. Everyone has admited Alaska and the Aleutians are easy to defend. No one has pointed out a way to beat that, or any outside document or study proving that it can be so easily broken.

Defendable with the right forces and abilities. Oil production, a clear and short route to Russia if the airfields were used (closest one for the US to Alaska is back in the continental US), and many more factors. It might have helped to pay attention to why I said Alaska was defendable for an invading force, why the Japanese and later the USSR had plans to invade it, because it is a defendable and accessible spot FOR THEM.

I duly apologize for assuming that you have SOME inkling of tactical considerations, but that was my assumption because you decided to talk about logistics. I honestly thought you had a clue about the subject.

We could hypothetically loose a war I suppose, if our economy continues to go down for several decades and some big alliance comes along.

Or we were in middle of a CIVIL WAR.

Try to pay attention to what you originally were replying to, although I am fairly certain you weren't paying attention then. What country could fight both a civil war and defend the country worth a damn? Especially with the size and infrastructure of the US? Especially if said invading countries would also coincidentally be allies.

Yes, I waited until now to pull back in the original context of the discussion point, because I thought it would be much more amusing now that it would make you look all the more foolish.

Also, again, economy doesn't mean shit when it comes to war - correction, it only matters to the considerations of some because that is all they know, because that is how the country they live in finds excuses to go to war. Oh, hey, sorry to be the one to point out the obvious yet it seems to be my role as of late, but the economy would be anything but good in the case of a civil war. I think even you could understand that correlation.

But the natural position of the United States is such that, unless this Superpower is Canada or Mexico, I don't see a traditional victory.

Let's see...if the US were to go into civil war, Alaska would be fucked for support, foreign or domestic, and therefore much tastier a target. Personally, I'd hate to see what would arise from a Chinese civil war - it could be quite ugly and undoubtedly would involve more than just China itself.

 

[Ozrat]

In twenty to twenty five years I can make no predictions other then our populations will become close to the same while China's implodes and ours continues to explode.

What is this assumption based on? I think you should take a quick comparision between food procurement methods in both the US and China. China has a highly efficient agriculture system that has been based on local ecological knowledge for thousands of years, now look at the US capitalist farming industry that depends highly on automated industrial machinery and fertilization just because it is cheaper and faster than hiring actual farmers. We already have over 60 million acres of prime American farmland eroding away because of commercial farming practices. Now what's going to happen when the fuel supply that allows intensive industrial farming gets shut off?

Edit: Damn fine thread, wish I hadn't missed it up until now.

 

[John Uskglass]

I'm still working on a response to Roshambo, but I always love catching Ozrat in total bullshit.

What is this assumption based on? I think you should take a quick comparision between food procurement methods in both the US and China. China has a highly efficient agriculture system that has been based on local ecological knowledge for thousands of years, now look at the US capitalist farming industry that depends highly on automated industrial machinery and fertilization just because it is cheaper and faster than hiring actual farmers. We already have over 60 million acres of prime American farmland eroding away because of commercial farming practices.

Least accurate thing I have ever read. Chinese Agriculture is so inefficiant and polluting that the Gobi is expanding. China's enviormental problems make the US look like Japan. Acid Rain falls on 30% of the country. The Three Gorges Dam will send several species straight to the extinct list with further diversion of water to the North.

 

[Jebus]

There's also another factor at play here: that of production capacity.

If you look at the last 'real' war (WWII, most of the more recent wars were basically the big guy picking on the small one), you could say that all great wars are bound to end up in wars of attrition. Blitzkriegs like the US did in Iraq doesn't seem all that possible in China, simply because of it's enormous size. So in the end, it'd most likely come down to attrition: he who builds the most ships/plains/whatever, will ultimately get the other guy on it's knees.

China, with a population over four times greater than the US, has an obvious advantage in this area. And hey, they know how to build too: just look at Beijing. My semi-German nephew has been building labaratories for Bayer there over the last few years, and he can testify it's most likely the most booming city on earth today.

If China and the US ever came to war, China could most likely crank out way more war industry than the US could. Add to that the fact that communist countries usually have less trouble on the homefront, and you've got a military machine that could overrun everything.





And Rosh, stop with the cheap shots against The Order... It hurts

 

[John Uskglass]

That's quite a good point Jebus, but you are forgetting a few things.

One, of the Chinese population, the majority ( Labor force - by occupation: agriculture 50%, industry 22%, services 28% (2001 est.) ) are working in Agriculture, making them important to the war effort (China needs all the food it can get, especially without importing ANYTHING) and unable to work at military production.

Two, China imports almost all of it's complex machinery, meaning that if China where to go to war with the US and Japan, many sources of it's advanced machinery would go up in the dust. It's quite hard to go to work building depleted uranium rounds for the Type 98 without Uranium, or find replacment parts for those super cool Kilo class subarmines while at war with the maker. Let alone useless-in-the-case-of-war Mirage 2000s the PLAAF wants.

Three, our armerment industry is still larger.

Four, our armerment industry is still more then a few decades ahead of thiers.


Certain people have, for whatever reason, pointed to Fallout's scenario (China v. US) in which China attacks Alaska. Well, unless I'm off on my Fallout Bible, which I am not, China initiates nuclear attack on the United States because we where kicking thier asses.

 

[Jebus]

That's quite a good point Jebus, but you are forgetting a few things.

One, of the Chinese population, the majority ( Labor force - by occupation: agriculture 50%, industry 22%, services 28% (2001 est.) ) are working in Agriculture, making them important to the war effort (China needs all the food it can get, especially without importing ANYTHING) and unable to work at military production.

Two, China imports almost all of it's complex machinery, meaning that if China where to go to war with the US and Japan, many sources of it's advanced machinery would go up in the dust. It's quite hard to go to work building depleted uranium rounds for the Type 98 without Uranium, or find replacment parts for those super cool Kilo class subarmines while at war with the maker. Let alone useless-in-the-case-of-war Mirage 2000s the PLAAF wants.

Three, our armerment industry is still larger.

Four, our armerment industry is still more then a few decades ahead of thiers.

You know, those are practically all the same things they said about the Soviets compared to the Germans in WWII.

We all know how that ended up.

 

[John Uskglass]

Two. Two is VERY important. The US's production capacity more then dwarfed that of either of the Axis powers, and the USSR would have had A LOT MORE trouble without an almost unlimited supply of P-38's and the like, in addition to supplies for repairing said equipment shipped. China would simply not have that.

Also, China has no equivilent to the T-34, a glorious peice of equipment better then any German tank in the war. The Type 98 can't hold a candle to the Abrams or the Leopard. Considering that the Type 98 would have no way of countering a HEAT projectile, it's survivability rate would be around 0. I can't think of any truly excellent original peice of equipment the PLA uses.

 

[welsh]

This notion that the war would even be fought on conventional terms is utter bullshit.

Look, lets say the Chinese decide to go for Taiwan. First thing the US does is send two carrier battle groups to defend Taiwanese airspace and draw a trip wire. The trip wire is basically that both carriers are nuclear carrying weapon systems. Tactically its a move that says that we are placing some pretty heavy conventional assets into place that can hurt you conventionally. Strategically and diplomatically, it means that if you hit our carriers it's an attack against our strategic assets and it's nuclear war.

This is what a trip-wire is, basically a move to say "We're serious about going all the way to strategic nuclear war. We're ready to lose LA and Seattle and Honolulu, and we're capable of taking out Shanghai, Beijing and Nanking and everything else in the process putting you into a radiated stone age."

Likewise, if the Chinese make a move on Central Asia, it's the same game. The US would deploy a rapid reaction force that says "we are committing our ground forces." At the same time it puts it's B-52s in Diego Garcia ands out another battle group out to the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean placing them within tactical position. The US already has been deploying troops to Central Asia since the Clinton administration.

This would follow doctrine set in the 1973 Yom Kippur War when the Soviets threatened to send troops to Egypt when it looked like the Israeli's had reneged on their cease fire agreements. This was also doctrine through for CENTCOM in the event of a Russian armored strike into Iran during the Cold War should they want to seize Iranian oil or the Persian Gulf states.

Tthe question here is resolve and brinksmanship. By the US deploying forward it sends a message of "this is serious, it's up to you to throw down first, but once you do we're going all the way." As Joseph Conrad wrote in The Secret Agent, this is really about character- the ability to convey to your adversary that you really are willing to blow yourself to hell and take you with him.

Ok back to the question- could the US take on everyone in a conventional war? I doubt it. Would it come to that?

I found this quote from newsweek-

Like Bush, most Americans might be surprised to learn that, "The U.S. nuclear arsenal today includes 5,400 warheads loaded on intercontinental ballistic missiles at land and sea; an additional 1,750 nuclear bombs and cruise missiles ready to be launched from B-2 and B-52 bombers; a further 1,670 nuclear weapons classified as “tactical.” And just in case, an additional 10,000 or so nuclear warheads held in bunkers around the United States as a “hedge” against future surprises." (Newsweek, 6/25/01)

With those kinds of numbers I don't think it matters how many soldiers the Chinese can field. Furthermore, even if China were to somehow manage to invade Alaska and even if the US were to think of Alaska as little more than a colonial territorial useful only for primary commodities (primarily natural resources), chances the US would still nuke China.

Nuclear deterrence means that someone has to be convinced you are willing to go all the way. You go all the way but creating systems by which nuclear war is inevitable once triggered.

OK, now what about the rest of the world- 5,400 nukes. I am not sure if there are 5,400 cities worth nuking. Ok, some of those nukes will be fired at the strategic assets of other countries, but remember - there's still another 10K nukes in bunkers. Could the US nuke everyone? And if the US did that, what? Great, you've just nuked much of the world's population! Now what? Do you have the capacity to do anything with it? Haven't you just fucked your national security interests in the ass?

 

[Ozrat]

Least accurate thing I have ever read. Chinese Agriculture is so inefficiant and polluting that the Gobi is expanding. China's enviormental problems make the US look like Japan. Acid Rain falls on 30% of the country. The Three Gorges Dam will send several species straight to the extinct list with further diversion of water to the North.

I agree that China has some problems, mainly from inefficient management from a large communist government trying to implement agriculture without taking into account local ecology. However, their agriculture systems are still based largely on human labor.

You did not address a single point about intensive industrial agriculture in America. When we run out of enough gas to keep the farming machines running, the immigrant farmers that travel from corporate farm to farm during harvest seasons are not going to be enough to replace the machines, nor are they going to have any real ecological knowledge or feelings of stewardship towards the farmland that is eroding away. Most food in America comes from industrial farms that focus on immediate profits and production rates, not long-term stewardship of the land that they will need to keep a steady production from over time. Where's all the food going to come from then?

 

[John Uskglass]

And you did'nt adress my point of the Gobi swallowing up most the Farmland in China.

This may just be me, but having immigrants work on so called 'factory farms' seems like a much lesser problem then Chinese farmers allowing ruinous overgrazing and ruinous overplanting to the extent that the Gobi will, at this rate, be pretty fucking close to Beijing before you can say 'Desertifaction'.

Also, Natural Gass running out? What do the machines run on? Methane is renewable these days thanks to landfills (who'd a thunk it, those fucking things helping the enviorment?), and there's no reason why they could'nt switch over to hydrogen combustion/fuelcells/whatever by that time.

 

[Ozrat]

I wasn't ignoring what you said about the Gobi desert growing larger; that is very similar to my points about inefficient government management of farmlands, and the erosion of America's farmlands will end up with the same results.

Immigrants working on farms aren't a problem; what is a problem is that they wouldn't be able to be counted on to run these farms when relying on automated machinery is no longer considered feasible.

Again, it comes down to relying on tangible human work instead of theoretical machinery when it comes down to a crisis.

I dare you to find any shread of supporting evidence that landfills will be a reliable source of energy that will support America's farming industry. And there's no reason why we should expect to be able to rely on some future technology that has not been developed yet to fix today's real problems in stewardship.

 

[Big T]

Firstly, not everyone has admitted so, I do not think this is the case,

You're 0/4 now T. Now it's just annoying.

Huh?
I say "not everyone" and you bring out the opinion of one person?
In what way does this justify you "PWNT"-style response?

I stand my my point that not everyone thinks that Alaska is defendable in this scenario. I believe Rosh's post ("It might have helped to pay attention to why I said Alaska was defendable for an invading force, why the Japanese and later the USSR had plans to invade it, because it is a defendable and accessible spot FOR THEM.") supports this, though it is scarcely necessary.

, given the likely deployment of your forces (ie. not all in the Bering Strait).

That's cute. The The Third Fleet would be there

Third fleet as in Navy?
I believe the objective (for the Chinese) we were discussing was a land war. This is what I was speaking of.
Would you really have a sizeable portion of your troops and armour divisions positioned there?

 

[John Uskglass]

I wasn't ignoring what you said about the Gobi desert growing larger; that is very similar to my points about inefficient government management of farmlands, and the erosion of America's farmlands will end up with the same results.

Only, of course, America has people like you fighting for the enviorment. China has no such lobby.

Immigrants working on farms aren't a problem; what is a problem is that they wouldn't be able to be counted on to run these farms when relying on automated machinery is no longer considered feasible.

When oil runs out and there is no alternative we will have larger issues.

Again, it comes down to relying on tangible human work instead of theoretical machinery when it comes down to a crisis.

In China's case it is much larger; a still massive population that needs support from less and less people working in the fields who use totally inappropriate farming techniques.

I dare you to find any shread of supporting evidence that landfills will be a reliable source of energy that will support America's farming industry. And there's no reason why we should expect to be able to rely on some future technology that has not been developed yet to fix today's real problems in stewardship.

This is beyond off topic. New thread plez.

Third fleet as in Navy?
I believe the objective (for the Chinese) we were discussing was a land war. This is what I was speaking of.
Would you really have a sizeable portion of your troops and armour divisions positioned there?

Last time I checked there was water between Siberia and Alaska. Thus a naval battle that the Chinese could simply not win would have to be faught.

I stand my my point that not everyone thinks that Alaska is defendable in this scenario. I believe Rosh's post ("It might have helped to pay attention to why I said Alaska was defendable for an invading force, why the Japanese and later the USSR had plans to invade it, because it is a defendable and accessible spot FOR THEM.") supports this, though it is scarcely necessary.

Alaskan population has been going up for the last 50 years, in addition to the construction of the Alaskan Highway.

Also, I think the lack of infrastructure could work against the Chinese; thier primary advantage would be numbers, and they would lack the logistical ability to supply 2.3 million soldiers when the USN is sinking all the supply ships and the USAF is taking down all the supply aircraft.

Also, I would like to ask who took this, my post that started this argument, seriously:

Unlikely. Our armed forces are still as powerful as the rest of the world's combined. Frankly, I look forward to the Christian Fundementalist USA's war of purifcacion in Europe. It would be like the Thirty Year's War, only the Protestants are Secularists and we, the Catholics, have nuclear wepons.

Especially when you consider my avatar, I have every right to sarcastically comment on our Godlike military prowess (*&^!). Do I really have to make some manner of sign to prove sarcasm? Is this okay? *&^!

 

[Ozrat]

Only, of course, America has people like you fighting for the enviorment. China has no such lobby.

What exactly does lobbying have to do with any of this? No, don't really answer that.

When oil runs out and there is no alternative we will have larger issues.

I'm glad you realize that we will have some severe consequences when that happens, but I fail to see how you think that feeding a nation of ~300 million without any large sources of human-powered farming available is a light issue. We're talking mass starvation here.

My argument ties back to Rosh's points about survival in such extreme world situations boils down to human ability rather than reliance on machinery (especially since they depend on fuel and refined resources to begin with).

In China's case it is much larger; a still massive population that needs support from less and less people working in the fields who use totally inappropriate farming techniques.

You miss my point; there is a higher percentage of the Chinese population that has relevant manual expertise when it comes to farming. In an extreme situation, the farmers will grow for themselves and their neighbooring region instead of whereever they had to grow and deliver to for before. Yeah, their cities will suffer big-time in food supplies, but not any greater than ours will.

We will have a small workforce of farmers largely unfamiliar with their farmland while China will still have a large labor force of farmers who have lived on their land for generations. We will still have family-based farms over here, but they are already a minority in food production volume. You also have to realize that humans will have to replace machinery on farms that contain thousands of acres that need to be tended to.

I dare you to find any shread of supporting evidence that landfills will be a reliable source of energy that will support America's farming industry. And there's no reason why we should expect to be able to rely on some future technology that has not been developed yet to fix today's real problems in stewardship.

This is beyond off topic. New thread plez.

Exactly, your tangent about supposedly being able to power an entire farming industry off of methane gases being released by landfills was off-topic. My points are a bit off the central topic, but they still tie back strongly to related issues that have been pointed out.

 

[Bradylama]

Still working on that reply to Rosh, eh Cartman?

 

[Jebus]

Two. Two is VERY important. The US's production capacity more then dwarfed that of either of the Axis powers, and the USSR would have had A LOT MORE trouble without an almost unlimited supply of P-38's and the like, in addition to supplies for repairing said equipment shipped. China would simply not have that.

Also, China has no equivilent to the T-34, a glorious peice of equipment better then any German tank in the war. The Type 98 can't hold a candle to the Abrams or the Leopard. Considering that the Type 98 would have no way of countering a HEAT projectile, it's survivability rate would be around 0. I can't think of any truly excellent original peice of equipment the PLA uses.

*Sigh*

That wasn't the point, Cartman. I was talking about production capacity, not what they produce.

Who the fuck cares how high-grade they are? If the Chinese could put 50 Type 98's (if those are even tanks, I seem to remember that's the name of a machine gun - but whatever) against every American Abrams, the USA will still get pwnt.