If you must be occupy the USA, you can choose 10 countries to form an alliance to launch an attack

[Azadkashmir]

nope i just get as much countries to operate on diff currency and cut out the banks or create your own digital money transfer network and barter. idea is to crash the dollar, then send huge army to saudi.A to burn down or occupy the oil field and attach huge straw to suck it dry for military expansion. I like to add city London wont be spared i go for possible invasion or send hit squad take out elite like uncle roth.

russia has the dead hand system you can kill off russian with nuke but the automated system will detect radiation and automatically will aim nuke at which country sent it and fire back.

 

[nahtanbob]

Do you think the US is divine?

Victory and defeat comes down to pragmatic preparations. If you seek to defeat someone or overcome a chellenge and you do your homework right than everyone has a fight in the dog-fight but there has to be a sincere homework and you gotta be willing to put the work in. But the US alone is extremely beatable.. You read all these surveys it says US is no.1 in the world but that is wrong in 1v1 Scenario China could make quick work out of the US and occupy the entire country. The Chinese are atleast 5 times stronger than the US militarily in a 1v1 scenario hence China should be the rightful no.1 in all these survey.

That video is almost like a satire done by people who have zero conventional military knowledge

China could not conquer Taiwan

First of all the US is not in the ME as a fighting force it is not it's main theater hence it has limited personale but the main area you gotta dislogde them is solely East Europe that is where the dragon nests and lives period the den. East Europe is the main solo theater. Not even in Korea despite having stationed there numerous they will vacate from that post if things get hectic.

They could have all of the worlds OIL but if the USN and US-Airforce is bested there is nothing on earth they can do to prevent a large scale invasion on their soil happening at will. Also Carriers are not formidble today this is not 50-60-70s. A carrier could be sunk in multiple ways and even in ways they won't see it coming. Hack all the carriers could technically get eliminated within the first 24 hours of the war if they put them all into the international waters

The US submarine fleet can cripple any invading surface fleet
good luck with that

 

[MH.Yang]

You need to balance out. Take out Canada and Mexico all the Invasion plans go bust and you need the oceans. The 10 countries you selected will not even cross the Pacific and/or Atlantic.
US allies except Mexico are too far away, they can fight little wars in their own continents.

The joint naval strength of China, Japan and South Korea is about 50% of that of the US Navy, but the shipbuilding industry capacity of China, Japan and South Korea accounts for 98% of the world. Although the US Navy is strong, but they were unable to quickly replenish the lost warships, and the strength of the joint navy of China, Japan and South Korea will surpass that of the USA within two years. Russia can quickly support Canada through the Arctic Ocean channel. Canada is not so easy to be completely occupied. Iran and Saudi Arabia just need to hold the Persian Gulf. France, Britain and Germany will come to help them occupy the Middle East after their victory.

 

[LeGenD]

China does have large Navy and it is beefing up it's navy in fact many others are also doing the same. I am talking about a short term future scenario here.

I said if? Because you can't defeat them if you can't defeat the USN and USAF? I said if you defeat them in East Europe and the Mediterranean than nothing will be able to prevent you from North America period?

Taking out the Carriers is not much of a chellenge as many would like to assume in this age and time now that being said. When you defeat them in Eurasia and ofcourse including their Navy and airforce than there is nothing they could do to prevent the opponent putting troops on US soil at will.....

They could do nothing to prevent it zero, nada and absolutely nothing this is just a conventional reality

Future scenario is highly speculatory. WE shall consider current force compositions of all countries involved.

You mentioned China (a pointer). WE need to look at how many amphibious assault ships there are in the inventory of Chinese navy and what each type can do.

Aircraft Carriers = 2 active (Type 001; Type 002)

Amphibious Assault Ships = 6 active (Type 071 = 5; Type 075 = 1)

Type 071 troop transport capacity = 800
Type 075 troop transport capacity = 900

China can realistically transport about 6000 troops with a small number of tanks and armored vehicles to American soil. This force is not sufficient to handle one state of USA, let alone entire USA. And will it even get through the USN to begin with?

Defeating NATO in Europe is another 'assumption' (a matter of IF again). I pointed out to you that Russia is not up to the task by itself and Russian allies will have to dispatch a large number of troops to European borders for the needful. This will take a while and NATO can disrupt a military buildup near European borders with its rapid reaction forces.

Europe is also very large with numerous geographical features which can bog down an invading force and some of the European countries can roll out different types of weapon systems themselves. UK, France, Germany, and Sweden are well-known in this respect. Others can contribute on some counts as well. These are technologically advanced countries on average. Full-scale war in Europe will take a substantial toll on the Opposing Camp as well. There will not be much to spare for USA afterwards. This is something which continues to allude you.

Taking out Aircraft Carriers is not much of a challenge? American at that? Are you for real?

American Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) are composed of multiple well-armed ships, airborne assets, and submarines in wartime conditions and networked to incredible levels (CEC). Each composition can can create a substantial surveillance field, resist jamming due to CEC, intercept volley after volley of different types of missiles, and knock out hostile forces from respectable distances - all at the same time. I am not sure what some members of the forum are thinking.

Sorry dear but all that tough talk is cheap.

 

[CatSultan]

You might invade California and New York but every redneck here in Texas would go up to the rockies and beat you harder than the Taliban beat them.

 

[nahtanbob]

The joint naval strength of China, Japan and South Korea is about 50% of that of the US Navy, but the shipbuilding industry capacity of China, Japan and South Korea accounts for 98% of the world. Although the US Navy is strong, but they were unable to quickly replenish the lost warships, and the strength of the joint navy of China, Japan and South Korea will surpass that of the USA within two years. Russia can quickly support Canada through the Arctic Ocean channel. Canada is not so easy to be completely occupied. Iran and Saudi Arabia just need to hold the Persian Gulf. France, Britain and Germany will come to help them occupy the Middle East after their victory.

What good is a ship if you cannot protect it from aircraft or a submarine ?

Future scenario is highly speculatory. WE shall consider current force compositions of all countries involved.

You mentioned China (a pointer). WE need to look at how many amphibious assault ships there are in the inventory of Chinese navy and what each type can do.

Aircraft Carriers = 2 active (Type 001; Type 002)

Amphibious Assault Ships = 6 active (Type 071 = 5; Type 075 = 1)

Type 071 troop transport capacity = 800
Type 075 troop transport capacity = 900

China can realistically transport about 6000 troops with a small number of tanks and armored vehicles to American soil. This force is not sufficient to handle one state of USA, let alone entire USA. And will it even get through the USN to begin with?

Defeating NATO in Europe is another 'assumption' (a matter of IF again). I pointed out to you that Russia is not up to the task by itself and Russian allies will have to dispatch a large number of troops to European borders for the needful. This will take a while and NATO can disrupt a military buildup near European borders with its rapid reaction forces.

Europe is also very large with numerous geographical features which can bog down an invading force and some of the European countries can roll out different types of weapon systems themselves. UK, France, Germany, and Sweden are well-known in this respect. Others can contribute on some counts as well. These are technologically advanced countries on average. Full-scale war in Europe will take a substantial toll on the Opposing Camp as well. There will not be much to spare for USA afterwards. This is something which continues to allude you.

Taking out Aircraft Carriers is not much of a challenge? American at that? Are you for real?

American Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) are composed of multiple well-armed ships, airborne assets, and submarines in wartime conditions and networked to incredible levels (CEC). Each composition can can create a substantial surveillance field, resist jamming due to CEC, intercept volley after volley of different types of missiles, and knock out hostile forces from respectable distances - all at the same time. I am not sure what some members of the forum are thinking.

Sorry dear but all that tough talk is cheap.

Russia in its current state cannot beat unified Western Europe

 

[MH.Yang]

What good is a ship if you cannot protect it from aircraft or a submarine ?


Russia in its current state cannot beat unified Western Europe

At the beginning of the Pacific War, the strength of the Japanese fleet was far greater than that of the US Navy. But the final winner is the USA, which has stronger industrial power.

BTW:China's shipbuilding capacity is 30 times that of the USA(per year 12 million tons:0.4 million tons)

 

[LeGenD]

Russia in its current state cannot beat unified Western Europe

Russian armed forces have improved on many counts in recent years (credit where due) but invading unified Europe is too much to expect. Russia can handle one country at a time.

Back in times of World War 2, the mighty USSR struggled to occupy and control just one European country Finland. Soviets suffered heavy losses in this military operation, and Soviet performance in this military operation (or lack thereof) convinced Hitler to take his chances with the USSR not realizing that he will provide a window of opportunity to the UK and USA instead. Soviets were able to make inroads in Poland and Finland due to European infighting courtesy of Hitler to begin with.

European situation is entirely different now. Europe is united under NATO and have fielded Rapid Reaction Forces (RRF). Americans also contribute to European security situation on top.

I would like to see Russia achieve a breakthrough in Poland on the ground, let alone against a unified Western Europe.

As per the scenario in this thread, Russia can receive reinforcements from 9 other countries. WE can call this group USSR 2.0 for easy reference. Even in this case, military build around European borders will take time and NATO can disrupt buildup process with RRFs.

Even if USSR 2.0 manage to invade Europe in some quarters, there are too many geographical features and spaces to move through. NATO can make it impractical for the invading force to make deep inroads with precision strikes and more. Full-scale war in Europe will be sufficient to cripple USSR 2.0 offensive capability and mission. Talk of invading USA and holding ground there is absolutely absurd.

Defending parties are much more capable to resist in modern times than in the past.

 

[baqai]

Economically America already is taken so meh

 

[nahtanbob]

Russian armed forces have improved on many counts in recent years (credit where due) but invading unified Europe is too much to expect. Russia can handle one country at a time.

Back in times of World War 2, the mighty USSR struggled to occupy and control just one European country Finland. Soviets suffered heavy losses in this military operation, and Soviet performance in this military operation (or lack thereof) convinced Hitler to take his chances with the USSR not realizing that he will provide a window of opportunity to the UK and USA instead. Soviets were able to make inroads in Poland and Finland due to European infighting courtesy of Hitler to begin with.

European situation is entirely different now. Europe is united under NATO and have fielded Rapid Reaction Forces (RRF). Americans also contribute to European security situation on top.

I would like to see Russia achieve a breakthrough in Poland on the ground, let alone against a unified Western Europe.

As per the scenario in this thread, Russia can receive reinforcements from 9 other countries. WE can call this group USSR 2.0 for easy reference. Even in this case, military build around European borders will take time and NATO can disrupt buildup process with RRFs.

Even if USSR 2.0 manage to invade Europe in some quarters, there are too many geographical features and spaces to move through. NATO can make it impractical for the invading force to make deep inroads with precision strikes and more. Full-scale war in Europe will be sufficient to cripple USSR 2.0 offensive capability and mission. Talk of invading USA and holding ground there is absolutely absurd.

Defending parties are much more capable to resist in modern times than in the past.

Between Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafales, precision guided weapons, anti-tank weapons the Europeans can stop the Russian bear close in its tracks. Western Europe has more people than Russia

At the beginning of the Pacific War, the strength of the Japanese fleet was far greater than that of the US Navy. But the final winner is the USA, which has stronger industrial power.

BTW:China's shipbuilding capacity is 30 times that of the USA(per year 12 million tons:0.4 million tons)

What good is the shipyard if it gets destroyed in the war ? China's industrial capacity will be targeted for destruction

 

[fitpOsitive]

If you must be occupy the USA, you can choose 10 countries to form an alliance to launch an attack,
and the USA will choose 9 countries from the remaining countries to form an alliance for defense.

The use of nuclear weapons is not allowed.

10 countries VS 10 countries

How do you choose?



View attachment 792874

Why to occupy, when you already have bought it.

 

[Dalit]

China could not conquer Taiwan


The US submarine fleet can cripple any invading surface fleet
good luck with that

 

[MH.Yang]

What good is the shipyard if it gets destroyed in the war ? China's industrial capacity will be targeted for destruction

How to destroy the shipyard? Let CV&shipboard aircraft fight hard with and land-based fighters? You are so clever. Did you know that the f35B has less load than tejas? Do you want the CV to be used as a consumable?
Why didn't the Japanese Navy have such a clever naval commander as you during the Pacific Naval Battle? They shouldn't attack Pearl Harbor. They should attack Newport.

 

[Dalit]

How to destroy the shipyard? Let CV&shipboard aircraft fight hard with and land-based fighters? You are so clever. Did you know that the f35B has less load than tejas? Do you want the CV to be used as a consumable?
Why didn't the Japanese Navy have such a clever naval commander as you during the Pacific Naval Battle? They shouldn't attack Pearl Harbor. They should attack Newport.

He is an Indian pretending to be an American. Be careful with him.

 

[nahtanbob]

How to destroy the shipyard? Let CV&shipboard aircraft fight hard with and land-based fighters? You are so clever. Did you know that the f35B has less load than tejas? Do you want the CV to be used as a consumable?
Why didn't the Japanese Navy have such a clever naval commander as you during the Pacific Naval Battle? They shouldn't attack Pearl Harbor. They should attack Newport.

read world war 2 history to see how japan and german industrial capacity was destroyed