Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think it may take a while for the asteroid to get here. By which time we may have resolved the issue.

Then the asteroid hits. Creates a major problem. Creates a "winter" that last two yrs. After a year we're down to cannabalism.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Corrected your typo

Ok, Frazz, enlighten me as to how it's impossible.

Jihadin wrote:Start small like Baron says....and watch it escalate. Everything a legitimate target then

In most wars, everything is. However, that was part of the point in creating doubt as to who fired it. Making it look like a failed attempt by Korea gives the US plausible deniable.


That said, how does one defuse a nations launch capability? All I can really come up with is a decapitation strike on their capital, assuming they follow the Two Man rule in the same manner the US does. It would have to be the first strike, and it would have to be something that initially can't be traced back to the US. Some sort of engineered natural disaster.

I can tell you how to eliminate their launch capability over a large part of China, but not the whole thing.

OK The US decides to invade China. Yes we've drunk the Koolaid.
Option 1: Your plan is to launch current forces. Fleet launches. They have to get through the Chinese Air Force and Missile forces to get there.
Problem one: Thats difficult. Thats difficult like Warsaw Pact WWIII difficult, except we're trying to invade them.
Problem two: they might pull a Frazzled and nuke your fleet.
Lets say you make it. Then what? How do you supply them? How do you keep them from surviving the juggernaut of 500 divisions of screaming Chinese that will come build and come at you within 3 months?

Option 2: DDay II this time its with helicopters. You wait to build up a massive invasion force that actually has a half decent chance.
Problem one: They again pull a Frazzled and nuke your harbors. Or wait and nuke your fleet at sea.
Or they don't and you land, and they nuke you there.

Er. then what?

See this is why nuke powers don't directly engage each other. Everyone dies.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Then the asteroid hits. Creates a major problem. Creates a "winter" that last two yrs. After 18 minutes Frazzled is down to cannabalism.

Corrected your typo. Why wait? People bacon yum!

Your wife shoot you first Frazz

Jihadin wrote:Your wife shoot you first Frazz

Well I am nice and fattened up. She better let the Boy cook though, she alwasy burns bacon. BACON!!

Jihadin wrote:Then the asteroid hits. Creates a major problem. Creates a "winter" that last two yrs. After a year we're down to cannabalism.

A city smasher isn't large enough to cause a 'winter'. In and of itself, it's only equivalent to a few gigatonnes.

Frazzled wrote:
OK The US decides to invade China. Yes we've drunk the Koolaid.
Option 1: Your plan is to launch current forces. Fleet launches. They have to get through the Chinese Air Force and Missile forces to get there.
Problem one: Thats difficult. Thats difficult like Warsaw Pact WWIII difficult, except we're trying to invade them.
Problem two: they might pull a Frazzled and nuke your fleet.
Lets say you make it. Then what? How do you supply them? How do you keep them from surviving the juggernaut of 500 divisions of screaming Chinese that will come build and come at you within 3 months?

Ok, here's where you're already doing it wrong. You're creating a situation where we'd have to fight the whole way there and then land. The better way to do it is to move the troops to, say, Luzon and Mindoro piecemeal under the guise of regular troop rotations. There are still facilities there from the second world war that would effectively disguise troop strengths from the air. Once troops strength has reached necessary levels, bring up the troop ships. Most of the ones I have in mind look like cruise liners from the air, and spotting a cruise ship near the Philippines off the usual route is fairly common around the islands. H hour minus ten the Navy pulls up. If timed to coincide with the usual joint exercise with Taiwan, this probably won't trigger any alarms initially. The whole thing, at speed, should be able to cross the south China Sea in a little under three hours.

The reason this might just work is that China uses an approach they call the 'two island chain' system, depending on being able to engage opponents at extreme long range. The flaw in this design is that the US has military bases inside the 'nearest' chain, meaning that Chinese defenses have very little time to react. Further , China has recently moved it's short range nuclear weapons to Western China to possibly engage India.

Key targets in stage 1 would be the PLAN base at Sanya and the International airport at Haikou. The PLAN base is absolutely crucial, being the only nuclear arms depot (known) on Hainan, and also the headquarters of the Chinese submarine service and home base of the entire Chinese South Seas fleet. Taking it intact would ideal. The rest of the island, despite it's size, could be over run within 24 hours as long as those two key facilities were taken. There's an ideal landing point at Yingzhouzhen about 20 miles away. Resistance from the People's Armed Police should be anticipated.

The PLAN base should be underlined as THE most important objective that any invasion of China could have. Seizing it neutralizes 1/3 of their entire nuclear capability, according to DoD.



A: Yulin submarine base
B: Yalong Bay (Sanya) surface fleet base
C: Nuclear submarine base
D: Sanya City
E: Yalong Bay






A: Finger piers for berthing nuclear submarines
B: Entrance of the underground submarine tunnel
C: Nuclear submarine maintenance facilities

China is not, at this time, in a position to be able to level a counter attack on Hainan, as they lack sufficient airborne and amphibious transport capability to deploy more then a single division and half a division of paratroops according to the DoD. Further, China's nuclear capability is fairly limited, compared to Russia and the US, so, again...


Supply: not as hard as it sounds with (hopefully) near total dominance of south china airspace and their southern fleet in hand. 'Ideally' there would be a buildup of necessary material before launching an invasion of this scope.

As far as the '500 divisions' thing goes, China recently began modernizing it's army in the US model away from protracted wars of attrition in 2000, because their logistics would collapse within a week to a month, according to thier own admission and DoD reports. This is a problem they have not gotten around yet, and have difficulty supporting even the deployment of the 500,000 man strong reserves they have.

Think the financial cost for this endeavor will collapse the econmy of America. The government will collapse with it and thus the vets will band together and create Heinlain "Federation"

Jihadin wrote:Think the financial cost for this endeavor will collapse the econmy of America. The government will collapse with it and thus the vets will band together and create Heinlain "Federation"

Actually, it would do the American economy a lot of good, as it would increase the number of manufacturing sector jobs and reduce foreign competition.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Think the financial cost for this endeavor will collapse the econmy of America. The government will collapse with it and thus the vets will band together and create Heinlain "Federation"

Actually, it would do the American economy a lot of good, as it would increase the number of manufacturing sector jobs and reduce foreign competition.

Debateable. One of the reasons the Iraq war didn't do this is because we didn't actually need to make a whole lot. It was already lying around. If I recall correctly the U.S. army has enough vehicles/supplies to bring in another division at any moment.

Dang guess the economy didn't pick up the two theaters of war we were fighting.

Jihadin wrote:Dang guess the economy didn't pick up the two theaters of war we were fighting.

Too much surplus from the cold war. and I'm fairly sure that we're not burning through munitions at anything like the rate we do against another army as opposed to an insurgency. Every tank we have isn't burning through it's shot locker on a weekly basis and needing new parts every two weeks.


That and going to war with China would mean no more cheap Chinese labor for American manufacturers. They might have to *gasp* hire Americans to make it here.

Too much surplus from the cold war. and I'm fairly sure that we're not burning through munitions at anything like the rate we do against another army as opposed to an insurgency. That and going to war with China would mean no more cheap Chinese labor for American manufacturers. They might have to *gasp* hire Americans to make it here.

Jihadin wrote:

Yeah, granted, manufacturers would be screaming to let them make it in Mexico. Or for us to conquer Mexico and let them use them as slaves.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Dang guess the economy didn't pick up the two theaters of war we were fighting.

Too much surplus from the cold war. and I'm fairly sure that we're not burning through munitions at anything like the rate we do against another army as opposed to an insurgency. Every tank we have isn't burning through it's shot locker on a weekly basis and needing new parts every two weeks.


That and going to war with China would mean no more cheap Chinese labor for American manufacturers. They might have to *gasp* hire Americans to make it here.

Them or Latin Americans, Southern Europeans, Indians, Indonesians. Plenty of cheap labour around.

Yeah, granted, manufacturers would be screaming to let them make it in Mexico. Or for us to conquer Mexico and let them use them as slaves.

Drug Cartels will say..."NO". Can't really take over mexico with all military units involved in China already. Unless we take over Mexico first and crushed the drug cartels.

I don't really want to take over Mexico, personally.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Think the financial cost for this endeavor will collapse the econmy of America. The government will collapse with it and thus the vets will band together and create Heinlain "Federation"

Actually, it would do the American economy a lot of good, as it would increase the number of manufacturing sector jobs and reduce foreign competition.

Actually financing a war is bad for a nation's economy. The way a nation can make money in wartime is to remain neutral and profiteer until one side gains the upper hand. Then third man in on the winning side and use superior wealth as leverage to create post-war agreements heavily in its own interest.

Why are we invading China?

All we have to do is blockade and maintain air superiority... the natives will overthrow the communist regime themselves due to starvations.

But, really... why? there are other trade routes to take around the SCS...

Because certain people in this thread cannot comprehend military action without a land battle.

Can't get close to mainland channel. Has to be done with subs. China has the capability for anti sub warfare and enough hardware to pull it off.

edit
I'm going to play devil advocate and say China not going to wait for the blockade to run its course. I just gather as many air transport and throw as many air wing divisions I can to protect my airborne forces and take Alaska. Or come down south and take out Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia to spread US naval forces

Melissia wrote:Because certain people in this thread cannot comprehend military action without a land battle.

But then we can't make 100 video games off of it!

whembly wrote:All we have to do is blockade and maintain air superiority... the natives will overthrow the communist regime themselves due to starvations.

Yeah, because that worked so well with Cuba.

Jihadin wrote:
I'm going to play devil advocate and say China not going to wait for the blockade to run its course. I just gather as many air transport and throw as many air wing divisions I can to protect my airborne forces and take Alaska. Or come down south and take out Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia to spread US naval forces

Again, China still runs into the problem that it doesn't have anything like enough heavy lift capacity to take a major city from US civilians (the invasion of Crete but worse) , let alone from armies in Vietnam or Thailand, according to intelligence. Granted, there's a lot of assumptions flying around here, but a rapid assault on Hainan would decapitate both submarine operations and their southern fleet in general as well as cripple their nuclear capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Because certain people in this thread cannot comprehend military action without a land battle.

No matter how you fight it, in the end it takes boots on the ground to win wars.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because certain people in this thread cannot comprehend military action without a land battle.

No matter how you fight it, in the end it takes boots on the ground to win wars.

The climax of world war II disagrees with you. The concept of an entire war being fought without traditional combat is not impossible, it just depends on what is being fought over.

xole wrote:
The climax of world war II disagrees with you. The concept of an entire war being fought without traditional combat is not impossible, it just depends on what is being fought over.

I have to ask who you think won the second world war without using infantry?

Who said I wouldn't just be using military airlift. Commercial airlines work quite well to. I did have a change of thought though. Instead of Alaska I'm going for Okinawa Use a sub to get a couple SF types into Canada and blow the pipe line in about 4-5 places. Start slamming Taiwan with missiles to get the US carrier fleet tied up nicely there within range of my antiship missiles from my other subs. Throw huge support behind NK drive for SK putting the US Naval/ground forces in a delimma. Not enough US forces to spread around to protect everything

Well, the first part of my statement is "the climax". We never invaded Japan Japan. We just bombed it a lot. That whole Japan affair was won by the navy and the planes therein, not the soldiers on the ground.

We have no need to step foot in China. We don't want their land. Only their cooperation. And possibly their nukes. If we were fighting for Tibet? Different story.

xole wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because certain people in this thread cannot comprehend military action without a land battle.

No matter how you fight it, in the end it takes boots on the ground to win wars.

The climax of world war II disagrees with you. The concept of an entire war being fought without traditional combat is not impossible, it just depends on what is being fought over.

Unless you consider the use of WMDs acceptable you must put boots on the ground.

Jihadin wrote:Who said I wouldn't just be using military airlift. Commercial airlines work quite well to. I did have a change of thought though. Instead of Alaska I'm going for Okinawa Use a sub to get a couple SF types into Canada and blow the pipe line in about 4-5 places. Start slamming Taiwan with missiles to get the US carrier fleet tied up nicely there within range of my antiship missiles from my other subs. Throw huge support behind NK drive for SK putting the US Naval/ground forces in a delimma. Not enough US forces to spread around to protect everything

Um... Three points:

Without Hainan, you've lost the majority of your submarine facilities including all facilities for nuclear boats. As well as any subs docked at the time. You'll have a hard time with a diesel boat trying to navigate the NW Passage to land anyone anywhere, particularly since that sucker has been monitored heavily for submarine traffic since the Cold War. You'd be caught anywhere in the Strait, and on the north shore of Canada within ten miles of the coast as Canada has been patrolling it heavily for the last few years to catch other nations trying to violate what it considers it's territorial waters.

Taiwan already has more anti-missile systems then God, and the Chinese would be firing them at such short ranges that aircraft interception would be unlikely at best.

The NK/SK thing is possible but unlikely under Kim Jung Un. His father might have done it, but I think with Un they'd be risking another front as the North Koreans would resent in the extreme being China's proxy and likely soaking up the bulk of the casualties.

As far as landing on Okinawa, good luck. Again, the Chinese only have enough amphibious transport for one division and the SDF might have something to say about them landing

Amaya wrote:

xole wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because certain people in this thread cannot comprehend military action without a land battle.

No matter how you fight it, in the end it takes boots on the ground to win wars.

The climax of world war II disagrees with you. The concept of an entire war being fought without traditional combat is not impossible, it just depends on what is being fought over.

Unless you consider the use of WMDs acceptable you must put boots on the ground.

Alright. Why in the living feth do people do this? Either you do X or you do Y! That's a fallacy...false dilemma.

We have no need to walk into China. Why would we? Why would we give their horde of foot sloggers something to do?

xole wrote:We never invaded Japan Japan. We just bombed it a lot.

I might point out that

A the climax of WWII was probably Stalingrad, Normandy, or Iwo Jima, depending on who you ask. In all honesty, the nukes were more of closing statement.

B that boots on the ground were still required to occupy Japan.Further, it was not just the bombings that did it but it was the bombings coupled with the threat of a massive invasion.

As far as fighting on the ground, surprisingly, there was some of that too, but it was Japanese against one another in the final days before the surrender.

xole wrote:
That whole Japan affair was won by the navy and the planes therein, not the soldiers on the ground.

The United States Marines had something to do with it as well... oh, and some Army guys too, I hear.