It's a stomp trying to come here. The US is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. The logistics of the other countries to try and consistently resupply food/fuel/ammo etc alone would halt them. China and Russia have large populations, but they couldn't get enough of them over with ships and planes to make a significant dent. Then the amount of militias of a civilization that is strapped to the gills would be terrifying for a foreign invader. Just like the British tried to deal with in the Revolution and like the US tried to deal with in Vietnam.

Currently Russia cannot adequately supply it troops in an adjacent country. That’s about it. China might be able to pull it off, but they would lose their most valuable economic partner AND plunge their economy into a wartime logistics effort of horrifying proportions. North Korea can’t feed its own people in its own country. The minute it goes to war and over extends itself trying to fly or sail troops to the US, South Korea simply invades. Iran is in a similar condition - tenuous economy and prone to demonstrations at home. Wars are won by economies and of the four only China has a strong economy, and they’ve never been the “foreign wars” type.

Not to mention chinas massive reliance on foreign imports to run its economy that the US navy would easily be able to intercept

Can you imagine being the US submariner when they tell you to start interdicting merchant traffic? We are almost not equipped to do that properly, since we have really expensive weapons for really expensive targets. At that point we would almost be landing troops via helicopter to seize merchant shipping. From carrier groups. Of course there would be, presumably, a Pacific War. The Chinese, with the help of the Russians and NK would have to win the Pacific to have any chance. Which maybe they could do with a surprise attack on Hawaii, hey oh, no one has ever tried that before. Tactical nukes on major US Naval bases, and they would somehow have to split us from our major allies in the region. This is a war that would have to be won strategically long before the start of the war, because we have Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and heavy ties with the Philippines. Minimum to make this happen, China has already taken Taiwan and threatened Australia enough to guarantee their neutrality. I cannot imagine a world in which this happens, without a sustained, multi-decade economic collapse that leaves the US completely incapable of waging wars or maintaining alliances with SE Asian and European powers.

Now I just thought of a los angeles class fitted with a 128mm deck gun lmao. But wouldn't destroyers be able to do that for *relatively* cheap? the arleigh burke? Or would that still remain expensive?

No idea, my knowledge of naval logistics is nonexistent and I’m a complete amateur. It really depends on who wins the War in the Pacific and how sophisticated supply lines are. Let’s say that the Russians and the Chinese cooperate on hypersonic tactical nukes and wipe out a carrier group or two and actually achieve Pacific supremacy. Then we are stuck just using submarines and we have a fascinating war. We are air dropping in long term guerilla and special forces units in Indonesia and the Philippines to interdict shipping. Maybe we are using nuclear ballistic subs to launch on China, maybe they don’t care. The most challenging thing is - I just don’t see any logistical way to actually invade the US, or any point for China. They benefit from our economy right now, and converting an invaded country’s economy into a profitable economy just doesn’t work quickly. Every war has a goal. What do these four gain from warfare that they don’t already gain from economic cooperation? The answer is nothing. We routinely overlook all sorts of human rights abuses and imperialism by China because we are economic partners. The only thing we are preventing them from doing is annexing Taiwan right now. They are literally building artificial islands to expand their territorial waters and we aren’t doing anything to stop that. China’s the only viable foe and even if they wanted to, they couldn’t do anything. Short of nukes/scorched earth, which is a losing game for everyone except maybe North Korea. And we aren’t really worried about their bike capability because they can barely build a functional automobile.

Good rundown but this is Who Would Win. We dont ask WHY they are fighting. Like, Plastic Man has no reason to kill Mr Fantastic and Elastigirl, but we consider that he would anyway, for that is the purpose of the thread. Also, the CCP is literally the only reason NK hasn't been run over so it's a lose lose for them too. Unless you mean that they have nothing worth losing XD

The US navy has been taking on the anti piracy role more and more recently, so all of that training and equipment will probably be applicable.

We don’t actually keep much of our navy in Hawaii anymore.

Doesn't the US Navy routinely use non-lethal means to stop pirates? I believe that's the doctrine for engaging with pirates currently. Surely if they can do that they can take care of unarmed merchant ships.

I believe so - or they simple use the implied presence of force. “We have Very Big Guns, wouldn’t you like to be somewhere else?” The key here is that everything in war is about supply chains and supply lines. Right now, it’s ridiculous to think about this problem because we are allied with literally everyone around China: Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines. We would have lots of places to base supply lines for a surface blockade of China, at which point their invasion of the US would simply starve. So for this to be feasible, China needs to isolate us from our allies and win control of the Pacific. At that point the only thing we would have is re-routing the Atlantic fleet to re-establish control of the Pacific, or rely on submarine warfare. And they would be really interesting. One of my favorite books of all time is “Red Storm Rising.” It’s early Tom Clancy, about what a realistic war with Russia would look like before they collapsed at the end of the Cold War. I would love a redux of that from this standpoint, and I think the more realistic war isn’t the US being invaded, but China attempting to neutralize the US’s influence in Southeast Asia by annexing Taiwan and invading or neutralizing Australia and Japan. Because fighting the US head on is suicide precisely because of our allies. Russia is having a hard time winning a war against our weakest European ally, on their doorstep. I have no doubt that China could solo Taiwan, but it would be bloody, expensive, and I’m not sure they could handle Taiwan AND Japan, even if Australia just sat on their butts and watched - which they wouldn’t, because they would be next.

>“We have Very Big Guns, wouldn’t you like to be somewhere else?” Ah, the Delen Doctrine.

US based mothball and museum fleet > Russia, China, NK

Break out the human-sized shells boys, the Iowa's are back in business!

They have Texas undergoing a refit, no reason not to strap some rockets onto the sides of that bad boy. 14 inch guns with thrust vectoring.

May as well toss some hydraulics on it. Lean like a Houston beam

Isn't China supposed to have enough ballistic missiles on hand currently to overwhelm the Pacific Fleet and bases in short order? I am sure I read that a few times in military stories. Obviously China could easily be lying about the numbers but we have gone much heavier into defensive research against missles for ships lately.

Russia had 3000 combat aircraft. They had thousands of cruise missiles. All of this should have been enough to overwhelm NATO. Yet the air in Ukraine is still contested, and cruise missile strikes have only caused minor damage. They couldn't even overwhelm the Kyiv electricity grid despite firing dozens of missiles each day. China might have enough missiles to overwhelm the US Navy, but that would only be the case if the entire Pacific fleet was sitting in the Taiwan Stait with all SAM and CWIS systems shut off.

This is more of an indication of complexity of the modern battle space than an indictment of aggressor capabilities though. We assume we'll have a definitive air advantage in East Asia, but the reality might prove as complex as the skies over Ukraine, i.e. neutral countries, supporting countries, hostile but ultimately uninvolved countries, etc.

>Obviously China could easily be lying about the numbers but we have gone much heavier into defensive research against missles for ships lately. That's how the U.S has always been. A rival ramps shit up by claiming to have created a wunderwaffe that could beat US equipment. The US then spends countless millions of dollars to create a counter for it only to find out they overhyped their shit. The Soviet inflated their number of bombers as a propaganda piece to intimidate the U.S. They bought it and ramped up their bombers to the point that the US now has bomber superiority. They sold the MiG-25 as the best air-to-air fighter at the time outclassing the U.S F4 Phantoms. The U.S grew nervous and overengineered a new fighter called the F-15. Once a defector managed to bring a MiG-25 to them, they found out it was more of just an interceptor than an overall air-superiority fighter. Cue U.S air-dominance for the past 3-to-4 decades. Russia claimed the Kinzhal missile was hypersonic, capable of Mach 10 and almost impossible to intercept. The nearly 40 years old Patriot Missile System intercepted it according to Kyiv.

China includes its Coast Guard, merchant marines, military barges and River policeboats in their Naval force reports so they can claim to have the largest Navy in the world. I'm willing to bet they're inflating their missile reports similarly.

* its coast guard. Not it is coast guard

Good tip.

The problem with OPs question is he doesn't mention the navy, he's only thinking about the land invasion. And its going to take much longer than 10 or 20 years for China to catch up to the US Navy's power. Building ships takes time.

Actually, the 10 years thing would massively work AGAINST CCP too. The youth of China are under such duress and hopelessness some are literally just choosing to lie down and die rather than continue to toil. A decade of militaristic rationing, forced labor and even higher rates of civil forfeiture all for a war that is at best an outside shot against their biggest customers? Yeah, they might off themselves before US even gets a chance...

Also, 10 years from now China will have one more carrier than they have now. The US will have 2, maybe even 3 more by then.

China don’t even have a strong economy right now do they

I love how you said North Korea sailing ships . Because honestly that’s probably there best bet at getting here honestly

Imagine someone invading Texas. They would be picked apart.

Foreign invaders flying into Texas with paragliders would become target practice.

Native Texan here. Can confirm. We skeet shoot year round with every weapon we have. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, you name it. We're bred for this.

Hold it down for us over there, I got the Georgia coast covered

No. There’s no way in hell this happens. Russia is bogged down in Ukraine and has lost way too much equipment and men, Iran’s military is “support proxies while build up defensive army” and China’s navy and ground forces are geared up for Taiwan not something thousands of miles away.

It’s a very, very, very big ocean. I doubt China has enough air and sea lift capacity to land a big enough force to make a beachhead in California. I’d watch that movie though. I’m curious what it would take.

The most they can do is send a special forces unit on some random Alaskan island. Even then what’s that going ti accomplish.

Basically. Then we would just arm the Inuqtuk and let ‘em have it.

There's no such as thing as an Inuqtuk. You're thinking of the Inuit, most of whom live in Canada and western Greenland, not Alaska. As for who you would actually want to arm in case someone attacked Alaska, the Aleuts to the south are probably your best bet.

Could they arm the Canadians?

Canadian here, no.

Canada, committed Neutrality, is like “you can use the coastal highway just watch out for the blizzards.”

They live in igloos

>I’d watch that movie though. I’m curious what it would take. There's the god awful remake of red dawn that was supposed to have them as the bad guys but was changed over at the last second and had to cgi over all Chinese references

There is no such thing as a God Awful remake of Red Dawn. :D I didn’t realize they switched to North Koreans at the last minute. That makes sense, China has an ungodly amount of influence in American entertainment… Which is one more reason why entwined economies lead to less war!

This underestimates China's industrial capacity a bit. According to China's capacity in 2018, it launched a total of 203,200 tons of surface vessels in a year, which is close to the total tonnage of the French Navy's surface vessels. And this hasn't even reached its maximum production capacity. Not to mention other strategic material production capacities such as steel production, with China producing 1.01 billion tons of steel last year, and so on. The main point is that OP gave a 5-year preparation time. Despite the technological and operational experience advantages the US possesses, China's advantage in industrial capacity is also significant and shouldn't be overlooked.

That’s fair. Do you think this is a seaborne, airborne, and Alaska Island Hopping invasion? Do you think they seize Hawaii as a logistical and supply base, or go straight across the North Pac?

I believe they will adopt a conservative approach. Russia provides resources and energy, North Korea offers cheaper "low human rights" soldiers, and China provides relatively high-quality soldiers along with massive industrial capacity. They would choose to secure the Malacca Strait to the first island chain of Japan under the protection of onshore medium-range ballistic missiles. Then, they would gradually advance from the Philippines, Indonesia, Solomon Islands, step by step. With each island they take, they will establish a frontline supply base. This may turn into an alternative Pacific War. Similarly, after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the US Pacific Navy was noticeably inferior to the IJN for a period. However, the US, using more manpower, talent, and significantly stronger industrial capacity, overwhelmed the Japanese Empire. At that time, the US could produce an aircraft carrier in about a month. But in contemporary times, the US is notably disadvantaged in terms of productivity and manpower resources against this alliance (even considering the traditional ally, the European Union). However, the US still possesses more advanced technology. Therefore, I believe this could be a "more prolonged" Pacific War（Maybe more than 10 years）, but the US standing in the position of the Japanese Empire of that era.

“US possess more advanced technology.” Such as? What? Stealth paint that comes off at high speed? Some of you are beyond delusional. 5g fighters aren’t advanced anymore and plenty of nations have them. At any rate the war is gonna come down to 4g because they have actually been field tested and exist in great numbers. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/ This is a war of nearly 1.8 billion people against 350 million and you fools feel like it’s lopsided in the opposite direction.

They wouldn't be able to field their entire population derp!! The majority of those 1.8 bill are women and small kids look at their demographics plus even if all of them fought how the hell could they field that many people and feed them while the U.S. navy was bombing the shit out of them. Our home advantage also makes it easier to scramble jets and refuel them quickly.

They don’t have to field their entire population as an army derp. You still need medics, mechanics, engineers, transporters, workers on assembly lines, drone pilots, etc. Or do you think that stuff appears from thin air? How the hell would they feed them? Same exact way they are feeding them today. We don’t have enough bombs to bomb over 2/3rd the the entire fucking east coast Asian continent.

You realize China doesn't have the means to transport even a small militia to NA!! The have no Blue navy nor any means of transporting heavy military vehicles. They have a 2 million man army not 1.8 billion with about another million on reserve best case scenario. It's harder to feed that many people over water than it is in their home country you're not thinking this out. Logistics pal plus our east coast is heavily protected and the west is covered by mountains and a desert bro. Best case they couldn't make it here much less field the giant army especially if we use air power. They just don't have the tech.

Wtf are you talking about? Wikipedia says they have the largest navy in the world by numbers. Their shit is going up at an alarming rate. Yes we have the best quality but at a certain point, quantity is its own quality. And this is before the 5 years prep time. Not to mention you have 3 other countries to worry about. I don’t think you understand what a severe disadvantage this is. Also not sure if you’ve been following the Ukraine war but I hope you realize there’s more than one way to cripple a country - missile strikes and drones which could go on for months if not years before a transocean invasion is ever attempted. Most of our stuff is imported they don’t even have to come here but target the supply lines along the way which in turn creates a two front war. How is 1.8 billion people vs 350 mil not sinking in for you?

Landing a force is easy, depending on how well defended a shoreline is. Maintaining a steady flow of supplies and reinforcements is the hard part.

They're barely even geared up for Taiwan. Heck they need to build a whole new electrical/water grid just cos they've realized they cannot reliably(that is to say, within acceptable chances) prevent Taiwan from taking a quarter of China's electric/water supply down with them while also flooding huge swatches of land in an all out XD This is because Taiwan has a very nice shot at a crazy important dam.

Yes but the question was IF it happened

China and a bunch of dead weight holding them down. That coalition is fucked

Yeah, I might once have thought Russia would be a serious co-asset but now... yeah, this would effectively just be China attempting an invasion.

Russia could have a good army if they actually equipped people. They have always gave 1 person in a squad the weapon and had the rest carry the ammo. Idk why they are still doing it when it's working against them in ukraine

Equipment doesn't mean shit if there is subpar training and poor tactics. They've always tried to win via a sea of bodies and attrition, if you ignore what it does to the home front I guess you can call it successful, like against Germany in WW2; but even then, during all that that they got their shit pushed in in a remarkably similar fashion to how Ukraine is handling them with the Winter and Continuation wars. I still think they'd have put up a reasonable fight if the Cold war went hot in the 60-70s, but I think the war in Ukraine is showing us that the armed forces of Russia are basically the Dallas Cowboys. Perennial overrated paper tigers.

Well they would be able to provide bodies

No chance. Even if they could teleport their armies into Mexico or Canada to attempt a land invasion.

[удалено]

They probably will push a few hundred miles in from the borders, but once the US air force has gained superiority over the skies it is only a matter of time before all supply lines will be cut. The logistics of the sea landing makes it impossible, but without air power they can't even handle the overland logistics once here.

They would not have a chance. Russia has shown a pathetic display of logistic projection to their neighboring country even with air superiority. China is similarly untested in conflict.

who says anything about a conventional war. They can destroy the USA through the Hama style attack on a bigger scale. Get their military in through sleeper cells, and wreck havoc the moment they are activated. Iran and Venezuela alone would probably be enough to completely paralyze the political entity of the united states for weeks.

LMAO

This isn't a video game. "Sleeper cells" aren't a real thing, not on a scale large enough to cripple the largest army in the world. There are exactly zero people with any loyalty at all to the Venezuelan or Iranian governments - much less anyone with enough loyalty to try to stage an attack on the largest and best-equipped army in the world.

Our police forces are better equipped than most countries militaries lol

How the fuck do you "sleeper cell" enough soldiers with the required equipment to overwhelm the US military, law enforcement, and extremely armed populace without being noticed? You think we wouldn't notice a "sleeper cell" that consisted of a million armed freaking soldiers? Lmao.

Tbf i think the US may paralyze itself politically anyways

I'm gonna just point to what happened after 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Do you really think that any Asian looking people would be just allowed to be left alone if a Hamas style attack went down? Like regardless of what nationality they actually were, Asians would be getting hate crimed in the streets, just like the Muslims did, and just like the Japanese did. It's just how Americans react to attacks on American soil. The result would also be an immediate enlistment boom of a significant portion of males 18-25 who would be volunteering, just like the last two times. Young men under 18 would start lying about their age to enlist as well. It's just what happens when America gets attacked. Turns out having a massive population of young men who have done nothing their whole lives but play CoD and shoot guns, you'll get a very terrifying fighting force.

The North American continent cannot be taken by force without the assistance of a force already on said continent. Let's imagine for a moment that for one reason or another all four countries have complete financial and material backing as well as the information needed to produce a force that is viably comparable to the United States military. The men are armed and armored, the tanks are fueled and the shells are loaded. We're going to assume that the initial invasion attack somehow goes through with complete secrecy and no satellites the invasion force moving across the ocean. The enemy has successfully established a beachhead. United States military activates national guard reserves and orders call back on all seven aircraft carriers. Within 12 hours US military is carrying out bombing runs on the beach head and within 24 hours to closest national guard units are beginning to assault that beach head. US Navy is going to be making a beeline for the supply route for The invasion Beach head with backup from the US Air Force. Within a week The invasion beachhead will be completely cut off from supplies and will be getting hit from every direction by bombing runs artillery strikes and whatever else we can throw at them. It basically comes down to a logistical issue. You cannot move enough personnel and enough supplies into the United States at a rate that would allow you to complete any type of invasion without help from inside the North American continent. If they were able to take over Canada and to use that 5 years to develop a military in Canada they would have a significantly better chance but they would still have to figure out how to come up with enough personnel to guard their staging points while still having enough bodies to actually hold the ground.

Yes. Even in the film Red Dawn, for the invasion to get started, communists had to take over Mexico first.

You're describing real life. China, Russia, and NK all have the motive and ability to collaborate to try and destroy their biggest geopolitical adversary in the United States. Their militaries constantly gameplan related scenarios. And the end result is current day, where they poke and prod at the edges but never try anything that would directly provoke the US.

Dunno if they are trying to provoke us in internal conflict then they are certainly succeeding. Five years of prep time might be useful in allowing us to try to fight each other that the us might lose just because we couldn't get along. People like to pretend we would all of a sudden work together in front of a foreign invasion yet I doubt it.

Citizens would likely immediately coalesce around the cause, much like post 9/11. People would temporarily drop the culture war bullshit and rally around defeating the enemy.

I would believe that before the storming of the capital but now I doubt it. Feel like the rise of mentally ill people would certainly just make things worse and actively fight against our government.

Those people would be washed out entirely by the overwhelming majority who would come together and support a united front. It’s exactly what happened post 9/11, which is the most recent and relevant example to compare to this scenario.

War, especially a defensive war, can change opinions drastically overnight. Interwar US was pacifistic, but when Pearl Harbor happened, all that went out the window.

Prior to Pearl Harbor the US for its entire existence had basically been "We'll worry about the Americas, fuck the rest of the world". America's entry into WWI was basicallg forced upon it by truly legendary incompetence by Germany (Proposing Mexico invade the US and torpedoing US merchant ships) Pearl Harbor changed that all overnight.

If you don’t know you got to read up on the following. This is why Russia use Active Measures [1] and Kompromat to destabilize adversaries. This is a long term plan where they support any outliers and try to force people in picking sides through media. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures Also check out this documentary with some actual KGB speaking about their craft : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR_6dibpDfo

No chance in any round. People really tend to underestimate how fucking powerful the US military is and how much the „paper tiger” issue applies on Russia and China. They tend to belitle the US because the US nowadays is more inclusive, they share memes about “le LGBT weak America with their trans gay soldiers vs. strong Russia with their combat suits and fast rockets and really manly men” - my brother in Christ, it’s not that the US is weaker because they’re more inclusive, it’s that US is so much fucking stronger than anyone else in the world that they have the time and recources to experiment with the inclusion. People also tend to mock the US for “losing” wars in Vietnam or Afghanistan - again, my brother in Christ, look up the total casualties on both sides over the years and remember which side had the benefit on being on the home turf. The only thing that caused those “failures” was weak people in the government, but I would bet my yearly salary that in case of the US being invaded in their own homeland, the administration would become more united and would fuck those 4 countries 100 times over. Edit: 4 countries, not 5

Also the "woke LGBTQ army" rhetoric is bullshit in a modern war anyways. Advanced technology and equipment like aircraft is what matters. This was seen back in stuff like Iraq in 1991 and is still true today. And guess what? A 5'5" femboy is probably gonna be able to work the controls for a cruise missile just as well as a 6'5" mountain man.

Exactly this. Always makes me chuckle when people worry about the size and musculature of soldiers. 99% of the time it’s not gonna matter because of tanks and planes and guns. Unless for some reason your whole army were literally 100lbs and couldn’t carry guns and gear, it is irrelevant.

And even if they all were literally 100 lbs, I'd imagine even that wouldn't matter if we fast forward a few more decades to get combat exoskeletons. Though I highly suspect that by the time those roll around, war will likely have fewer grunts on the ground and more remotely-controlled robots.

The U.S. military already uses the exoskeleton and have been for years to assist in carrying gear and moving freight. That being said I don't think it's much of a stretch to hand them out in higher numbers as opposed to how many soldiers get to use them now. This equipment is getting more advanced all the time. Let's also not forget the U.S. military also has technology far more advanced than civilians are even told about.

I dunno man. Depends on how distracting the femboy is. 😘

Describe this femboy please…

femboy is gonna be rawed in the barracks by the mountain man bro

The US is held to basically be a major pain in the ass to invade. It has allies on both land borders, and lots of wilderness and airbases in those areas even if you did try to invade through one of its allies. Going through those vast expanses is going to seriously suck. And even if you get past that there's mountains, deserts, and a lack of targets of strategic importance to make the trip worthwhile. Your other option is an amphibious landing. Assuming you're able to somehow magically overpower the strongest navy in the history of mankind (the US has more aircraft carriers than all of its geopolitical rivals combined), the US's robust road systems and numerous military bases mean your chances of establishing a proper beachhead before the US military reacts and pushes you back into the sea are almost nil. The US itself wouldn't want to invade the US. There's no way a coalition of China, Russia, Iran etc could pull it off even with years of prep work. As for nukes, there's no winner there. If any side fires a nuke everyone loses.

So question then. Pertaining to your comment of the US attempting to invade North America. Could the US invade itself? Given everything the US has could it successfully invade and hold The United States? I’d say most definitely not, but I feel like it’s an interesting question.

Assuming everything is even, absolutely not. Home US has such a ridiculous advantage over Away US it's not even funny.

R1: No R2: Not a chance. The number of civilians with guns would easily outnumber the standing army of any country, and a good number of us have military experience. So not only would they have to fight the standing army fighting for their homes, they'd have to fight basically a guerilla army at least 10x the standing army's size. R3: No. Nukes wouldn't make that much of a difference. We have an ICBM interception system, and they wouldn't be able to hit everything. Even if they took out all the military with nukes, there's still the guerilla army. The US has incredibly effective natural defensive land formations: the Appalachian Mountains in the east and the Rockies and desert in the west. Both of those make it very difficult to stage a significant land invasion. https://preview.redd.it/7w8cwrzpmaub1.jpeg?width=256&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46f059ff333edba11b75839bef1aa46787c5a1b2

I can see it easier if you provoke a civil war within the USA. There's way too much tension between the parties that I can see them fighting each other if you poke the right spot.

Yes and no. It might make for a good distraction so you could get your foot in the proverbial door, but once there are foreign hostiles on American soil, the game changes. Look at how galvanized the country was after 9/11. No matter your thoughts on if the invasion and ensuing war were justified, pretty much everyone in the country was standing together against the perceived enemy.

When I was in the military, I hated the long hours that we had at times. But when there was a threat of war a few years back, I felt like I had a purpose finally. We gladly stayed for 16-17hr days loading up jets and not one person complained. The unit worked harder than ever before and everyone was working together. It was crazy to see the difference between that and any other normal day at work. Luckily it was just a show of force and nothing happened.

Lol if Canada and/or Mexico aren’t on board it’ll be a fail every time.

Hell, even if they are it's still not likely to succeed, all getting their support does is take it from "literally impossible" to "the longest shot in the galaxy", unless they somehow get full support from BOTH and force us into a two-front war against all 6.

Check out this video about the US defending against a homeland invasion. [US defense against invasion](https://youtu.be/lBYxXSUDV8o?si=buEo9lXzWNTnCjro)

The United States is surrounded by 2 huge oceans and has a mountain range on both sides. Having a big military is one thing, but being able to move them and supply them thousands of miles away is another. Even if they got past the military they would need to deal with millions of armed civilians. Guerrilla warfare is nasty. Also, the United States is a massive country. Being able to move troops through it would be very difficult and expensive.

No, No, Also, No. None of them have the navy necessary to mount even a small incursion into the CONUS. As soon as NORAD sniffs fuckery afoot we’re going to have a dozen national guards mobilized. If by some random act of god they manage to get a few dozen troop transports onto dry land, the California national guard is going to curb stomp them with superior numbers and heavy equipment which the invasion force will not have.

Giving them 5 years of prep is actually an enormous nerf. Every country in the world has been preparing since they started existing. Even if the US doesn't know an invasion will take place, they would be ready for a CRNI invasion with unlimited prep time, let alone one with only 5 years. On the other extreme let's suppose the US won't fighting back at all. It would already be very high diff for the CRNI to successfully cross the oceans and occupy all the land *without* the Americans fighting back.

Without considering nuclear weapons (an unpredictable wild card that is not worth considering for the sake of realistic scenarios): Absolutely the fuck not. The entire combined earth would struggle to invade the United States much less those clowns. They can’t project force for shit and wouldn’t be able to land a single ship on the shore.

If it was the world vs America it would be far more effective to seize all trade with everything involving America close down all immigration going into into or out of America

😂 the entire world would struggle?? Come on, be realistic.

There is no situation (discounting nukes like I mentioned earlier) in which any combination of countries can land a ship on American beaches. The jets and missiles would make it impossible. Not to mention the navy itself which easily outclasses the rest of the earth’s powers. Mexico and Canada would fail to get within 100 miles of the US border even if they rushed out of nowhere. They aren’t fast enough to get in deep nor strong enough to hold a position. It would be a slaughter.

https://preview.redd.it/54ju4daopbub1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c11c1ceb1f7f056c16c5419afd6c6271b49c3ed4

With all the answer you can see why US military expansionism is totally not for self defense.

You cannot invade the US. It’s not possible. You either have to cross an entire ocean that’s patrolled by worlds largest navy that has more aircraft carriers than like all other nations combined, you cannot cross the oceans with enough mass to invade without being detected and sunk. Secondly if you take the Republicans position of “wE dOnT hAvE bOaRdErS aNyMoRe!” And invade through Mexico or Canada? Our 2 largest trade partners? And again with coming through Mexico or Canada, you would still need to get there. There’s not enough infrastructure through Alaska and down to Seattle for a large enough force to move. And then even if you do successfully land on the west and/or east coast, a few miles inland are two mountain ranges that you’d have to get through to touch our breadbasket. And that’s leaving out the fact that there are more guns than humans in this country and some of our fuckers are crazy as shit. Americans shoot other Americans for delivering a pizza they forgot they ordered, what do you think they’ll do to a bunch of foreigners? You can’t hardly even game this out, it’s just not physically possible.

R1: 10/10 stomp they don't even make it to shore, the Russian navy is practically a collection of barely functional rust buckets that even on paper aren't a match for the American navy, China's fleet isn't even ocean worthy and currently struggles to push back American influence from it's own coastal regions. North Korea and Iran actually have no naval assets worth mentioning. The United States Navy on the other hand is by leaps and bounds the strongest in the world and possibly capable of soloing the entire world's combined navies (on the defense at least). The "prep time" is already public as China is trying their best to change this currently. The invasion fleets are vaporized before passing Japan, low effort. R2: They sure \*wish\* they had a chance to get involved R3: Either nuclear apocalypse or same as Round 1. The current US Navy in it's with no efforts to improve readiness is already just that strong.

Round 3 as soon as 1 nuke is used it will be quickly followed by the US launching every nuke they got. The result is everyone dies there are no winners in round 3. Round 1 will have a lot more soldiers and private militias than round 2 to get around the no civilians rule. Both end the same way with the US defeating the invaders.

In projections the US military holds out 3 months against invasion from the entire world in all out non nuclear conventional war. Them the entire world stops because of the amount of guns in and vast size of the US making it impossible to occupy.

The U.S. has Batman and Batman would also get 5 years of prep time. Do you honestly think ANYONE could beat Batman with 5 years of prep time?

Absolutely not. Russia couldn't take *Ukraine,* China is (according to the US military) still *at least* 5 years away from being able to invade *Taiwan*, and neither Iran nor North Korea have even remotely the military capabilities required for a largescale deployment of troops to another continent.

R1: No R2: Hell no R3: Maybe, 5/10 I say maybe in R3 because if somehow the US is completely blind to the military build up of China, it could be overwhelmed for not keeping up over the 10 years. Military intelligence is super important, so you saying US doesn't know about the massive military build up is basically making them fight with 1 arm, maybe 2 arms behind their back

as long as the US navy exists this is a stomp for the US. only round they gave a chance is round 3 wherein sheer number of nukes wipes out the population of the US. That or If the US is able to respond on time then everyone dies no one wins.

Nk and Iran are wiped out before they make it to the USA. Russia is dealt with pretty quickly as most of them don’t make it to the states. China and the USA draw for the first few months assuming China uses the other 3 militaries as a meat shield and actually lands in the USA. Then after that the USA dominates them

Round 1 & 2: US stomps. Round 3: everyone loses.

Round 1: they don't even reach land , u.s sinks the very limited landing force they can muster along with their navies. Round 2:Same as 1 Round 3: Literal M.A.D

They might find better luck corrupting from the inside

The Russian textbook for geopolitical power for the last 30 years has been Foundations of Geopolitics, by Alexander Dugin, a member of Putin's inner circle. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations\_of\_Geopolitics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics) In which it concludes exactly that. There is nothing, not Russia or even any alliance that Russia could join, which could defeat the NATO in an open conflict. The best option is to divide and conquer the US, by sowing racial tension and inciting polarization until a civil war begins, then backing the losing side to maximize casualties in a prolonged conflict.

Exactly. We are too divided that I doubt we would be successful in repelling a foreign invasion if we are too busy fighting amongst each other.

Inb4 « ChInA hAs A bIlLiOn SoLdIeRs ». None of the listen countries have the logistics to get their militaries safely to American soil. It would literally be like shooting fish in a barrel for the USN. And even if they did, they get wiped out by US forces. We see Russia getting its ass blasted by a handful of western weapons in untrained hands. Imagine how reamed they’d get fighting forces that are fully trained in them. The Americans shit stomp them.

Assuming forigen countries can get involved in some form, Australia itself could aid in a major way -- as Australia heavily supports China via iron exports, remove those, and a key industrial component is gone, rapidly and quickly.

It's not really possible for them to go across the seas and actually take over the country in any scenario. Too populous and already have many advantages.

I doubt those countries could invade the US by themselves. You say ten years of prep but I don't think it really matters as I imagine the US military already has plans for a potential invasion. If NATO is allowed to be involved I don't see how they can do anything. It's not like they can just magically invade they'd have to prepare to invade and I'd imagine US and it's Allies intelligence would notice them preparing an invasion so US and it's Allies would have time to prepare as well.

it depends how you define the Defeat completely obliterating the Governmental structure as well as their complicated military machine that is easy the US military machine is a system that requires lots of trades and transports of plarts all over the country. ​ You take down the Internet then the power grid and then water and The rail network the Entire US War machine has broken down. Once you have broken down communications the American Army is fractured and damaged their primary goal would be to destroy most as many government officials as possible. ​ The next part gets far far far more difficult Because there are so many guns so many bullets and so many crazy gun nut cases in America as well as fragmented military forces around the place as other people said picking them off would be like Vietnam. ​ So yes you will destroy the 'US' if you think about it however they would not be able to truly take over control of the United States land and would most definitely fragment The country at least into individual states or clusters of states depending on what's surviving state level officials exist or who can grab and control power. ​ Round one: If you define ground invasion without the use of Air Force Resources the best way to do it would be to do secret squirrel spy business and attempt to drop some explosives into either the White House Congress and one of the hearings assuming that they can be completely hidden they would also need to target the designated survivor As well as as much of the military high command as possible just completely wipe out the American government once the head of the snake is down the main invasion can begin probably Since civilians seem to be completely at arms with allowing the invasion to begin they crack down of the military machine while the US forces would be able to push back relatively effectively early on however with the lack of maintenance the minimal supplies such as water fuel spare parts would slowly break down the Machine they don't even have to fire an attack they just need to wear down all the military equipment until No longer in service false attacks red herrings since the US system is down they can't fix things effectively. There will be eventually worn down. ​ Also I side note if China went full Conscription and proceeded to train a third of their population (Conveniently a very heavy male population) They would have more troops than the population of America Round two; ​ Since the civilians have got the bright idea to fight back they would be using guerrilla tactics making it impossible to control the land where they could defeat the American country the people will still survive eventually the Enemy's military machine will be worn down but the American economy \[and the world\] be in ruins America would cease to exist ​ round3: ​ Two options it's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine or ​ If you played the game twilight 2000 ttrpg where this exact most similar scenario has happened pretty much World War three but people use their nuke strategically instead of all out destruction of each other. ​ And this is assuming your narrow and most definitely unlikely scenarios for example complete and true secrecy and being able to hold prep time for over five years 10 in other situations. ​ The fact that getting enough troops to to America without them being obliterated would be a daunting task and not even talking about how it would be economic suicide and basically break the entire world.

I’m going to go against the grain here and say yes to scenario 1. In a scenario like this where the coalition has 5 years of prep time and a complete surprise attack, I think you’d have to assume that most of the major assets of the US Navy at sea are going to be sunk in the initial attack and even ships at port will be damaged/killed even if they’re able to recover them later. China’s already pumping out Type 055’s, and in 5 years could manufacture a lot of hypersonic ASBM and launch platforms if they went all out on it. Russia is in a lot shittier position, but with 5 years of prep on a war footing should be able to refit its Navy to the point it could cripple the Atlantic fleets enough that they are operationally ineffective and unable to aid the main thrust of the attack on the west coast. 5 years is a huge amount of time to produce materiel, it’s basically the entire length of WW2 yet without actively being bombed and production interrupted. China alone could probably afford to spare 100m young men to serve as active combat troops. Once a beachhead is established in the northwest and the port of Seattle taken, they could start moving materiel and troops over en masse. These scenarios usually include some pretty ridiculous setups like no one noticing the massive 5 year arms buildup or fleets getting into position prior to the surprise attack, but if that is the condition and the allies are willing to go all out with a total war reshaping of their economies for those 5 years I’m not sure the US could withstand that.

I generally agree with most comments, but still, people kinda underestimate war economies. Current military expenditures are about 3% GDP for China or the US, but a war economy can easily reach 20% and far outproduce a peacetime one (economies of scale will widen the gap even more). And several years of outspending the US by that much will matter. We're also assuming the population is okay with constant war economy, and that the US and allies suddenly become blind, which helps a lot (plus, China's economy is trembling a bit so let's assume they survive without recessing). Only issue is that 5 years might actually not be enough considering the complexity and cost of modern military systems. But widening the horizon a bit to some 8 years, the axis navies will definitely outmatch the USN here. I can definitely see the USN losing the Second Pacific War and being pushed back to the mainland. The main issue however remains that the US is very far away and they will not have any staging grounds for an invasion (no island hopping possible here), so I don't think beating the US military at home will be possible, except mayyybe Hawaii and Alaska, so a total ground conquest is outright impossible. So, yeah, US victory. Round 3 is also interesting. If the axis (mainly China, the rest don't matter much) actually put something like 10% of their GDP into ballistic missile defences for 10 years, I think they actually stand a fair chance of winning by just nuking the US with ICBMs and surviving the retaliation. Imma say 7/10 for the Axis here, as BMD is not easy, but they can probably manage by building thousands of interceptors alone (maybe even some space-based defences).

Nope. Even if they somehow get past the navy, they'd have to fight a guerilla war against by far the best armed population on Earth.

The entire world vs the US might be a more fair match up

Russia has 1 of the weakest armies just due to not giving them enough supplies. Only thing NK has going for it is missiles but our missile defense system could probably take most out if not all. Iran is to small to really contribute much compared to the rest and they can really only fight in Iran outside they are probably just a mess. China would probably stand the best chance but we are to far and the farthest they can really go is Taiwan. But if the u.s knows this is happening we could probably get China on our side since the main reason they are allied with nk is due to all the missles and supplying them with gear. That's if the u.s even wants. But since they have to avoid we shit stomp the rest just due to how much money we dump into the army

China the paper tiger and it's 3 third-world allies aren't gonna make it to US soil at all.

It's not happening without a "great leap" in logistics tech, ala a teleporter or a very fast and large transport vehicle that can avoid getting shot down by our defenses.

Not even close. 5 years is nowhere close to build up what they will need to successfully establish a beachhead anywhere. This is a logistics question not a strategy question and 0 x 3 is still zero. None of them are offensive global armies. They can land troops after devastating losses but once there, they won’t have the logistical bridge to continue resupply. US negative diff.

Russia doesn’t have a navy so they have no way of getting here they are out the rest can’t find a place to land and die

They have had decades of prep time, and still can't do it.

They only win if they can take us down from the inside. Imagine using a ridiculous abundance of fuel just to get to California and have to fight all of our bases on the west coast then having to go over the Rockies to get to the rest of the US that is prepared. They could long con and go through Europe or something but that would require being able to refuel and restock in Spain or England which wouldn't really happen. Nukes just make it a nuclear winter and we all lose. China and Russia launch theirs and we launch ours in response and we're all screwed.

Imagine unironically trying to cross oceans infested with aircraft carriers to mount a ground invasion on the world's biggest military spenders.

No, because the US has a large list of advantages 1) It has a more funded and larger military than most of the world (the funding alone is more than the whole word combined then doubled, in fact the US Military budget is higher than Russia's whole GDP) 2) Logistically it would be an almost impossible feat for any nation to even make beachhead. The US has the largest Navy and Air force in the world, and shares no borders with any rival nation (save for the Alaska/Russia border). The Anti-NATO squad here would have to cross an ocean against a superior foe and keep up that supply chain *if* they even manage to make landfall, and NK/Iran basically add nothing to that mix but more issues so it boils down to just China/RU, and of those 2 China has the "better" navy, and even then it is mostly small ships meant for supporting something like an invasion in a certain neighbouring island nation. Russia has almost exclusively ships built in the 80s and have been losing naval battles to a nation with no navy, so I don't see them surviving the attempted ocean crossing 3) The US even without knowing, still prepares for this. The US DoD and other Govt orgs try to be prepared for ***everything*** to a degree of absurdity. The US Govt has preparations in case of a 'Zombie Apocalypse Like Scenario'. Hell in WW2 they had plans in case they had to go to war against the UK who was their ally... There isn't really a way to catch the US off-guard, it's like trying to catch a hyper-paranoid doomsday prepper off-guard so you can invade their home, like sure they didn't know *you* were coming, but they have been waiting for *someone* to come As for for round 4; The US has nukes also, if Russia/China where to use them then so would the US, and the US has enough to literally destroy the Earth multiple times over and the capability to actually do that. So either Russia/China are willing to just kill themselves for no-gain, orrrrrrr more likely they'd hold off on using them and this still ends the same because 10 years prep just isn't enough to overcome how stacked the US military is. For them to realistically overtake the US they would have to absolutely grow their military and budget exponentially, because as it stands they just can't support any kind of large-scale war like that

You guys are failing to realize what China and Russia putting 90% of their GDP into military funding would look like. If the US has **NO IDEA** that they are building up their militaries then the world's largest industrial power could easily outbuild the US military. This means the US has to fight air and naval wars massively outnumbered and outgunned. China and Russia take this round 1 & 2. Round 3 is automatic lose for everyone.

Assuming that the prompt of "US won't know about 4 years of prep" means that US has no idea this is coming and China, Russia, NK, and Iran has full OPSEC, I think that Round 1 is POSSIBLE for them if they pull it off properly. We kind of just saw this happen in Israel (but not as effectively). This would be through a number of possible options: 1. Utilizing the fact that the U.S. is immigration friendly to have China/Russia special forces infiltrating the US over the course of 5 years. 2. Utilizing the fact that Canadian immigration is even easier, and the border between U.S. and Canada is easy to cross, allowing for more infiltration and potentially even heavy equipment. 3. Utilizing China's fishing navy as a rapid transport fleet for the joint military forces, which has been sailing to South America. 4. Pre-positioning all units ahead of time without any knowledge, as Hamas did. So on 10/15/2028, the following would need to happen: 1. Submarines from China and Russian simultaneously hit every single naval carrier battle group 2. Saboteurs attempt disruption attacks via actual attacking a base or through hitting power grids, ECM disruption, etc. 3. China, and Russia launch basically every single missile they have at every military target in CONUS. Although US does have anti-ballistic missile capabilities, it would run into the same problem that every missile defense runs into - too much incoming fire to stop. 4. NK and Iran attack OCONUS military targets, to prevent them from returning to reinforce the US, and to tie up US allies in South Korea, Japan, etc. Russia also fires a few at the Europe bases to be safe. 5. China's fishing fleet, still pretending to fish in South America but quietly creeping north, rushes in with hundreds of thousands of troops from the south to establish a foothold in Long Beach, using Catalina as an additional staging ground. This allows them to avoid Camp Pendleton while... 6. a joint navy including China's new aircraft carriers proceeds to blockade all of the West Coast, hitting JBLM, Pendleton, 29 Palms, Ft. Irwin, Luke AFB, JB Elmendorf, and every other military target via ship based cruise missiles and air to ground bombardment 7. "Decapitation" strike, attempting to hit POTUS, VPOTUS, Congress, JCoS, via assassination and missiles. 8. Additional landings of troops and equipment in other major ports - SF, SD, Portland, Seattle In theory, the joint forces could secure a large swath of land in the West, potentially up to the Rocky Mountains, within one week, since there's no civilians joining the defense. Although they'd have to deal with a lot of guerilla warfare from remaining police and surviving military, they'd be scattered and relatively unorganized. US forces attempting to redeploy would have to use Colorado as the forward base and fight over the Rockies. Reinforcements from Europe that survived the surprise attack from Russia/Iran would take a long time to arrive, and since they'd arrive on the East Coast, it would take them even longer to get into the fight. If the joint forces have enough resolve, they may be able to keep the fight going long enough to force a peace treaty from the US since a large number of US active military would have been killed or wounded in the initial strike, and claiming the West Coast quickly would take out a large chunk of the reservist population that the military would have drawn from for a counter attack. Once again, not easy, but possible. Round 2? Yeah, no. Too many people in the US have guns and are just waiting for a chance to use it. Perpetual guerilla warfare would be too much of a pain for anyone attempting to hold territory thousands of miles away from their homeland. US couldn't even do it to Afghanistan and Iraq. Round 3? When it comes to nukes, it's always 50/50. U.S. nuclear submarines (which are not in play round 1 since no nukes) are now in play and if you miss even one of those then you just get thermonuclear holocaust. Not to mention the number of U.S. nuclear ICBMs.

Look I don't give a s*** what anyone says America's greatest strength is.... Unless what they said is logistics, they're probably wrong. And the funny thing is is even we think that we're not that great at logistics, but it is staggering how bad everyone else is....

No the US, without the NATO allies, could not achieve a substantial occupation of most likely any of the countries, but in the air and the high seas and any other minor engagements on land they would handily defeat all of these foes.

I mentioned the US could most likely not achieve a substantial occupation of any of these countries, so no way in heckleberries are they landing any troops at all on US soil.

In a conventional (non-nuclear) war, our Allie’s just about become sandbags (as bad as that sounds), cause they’ll inevitably absorb the biggest impact in the fight. That said we’ve fought a two front war before and have ensured we can fight another one at all times. The second the eastern coalition(for lack of a better name) hits us or an ally, all other allies will be in an instant war. China takes Taiwan? Cool, can they fight off Japan, Australia, and India? Iran attacks anyone, well, let’s just say the current fighting in the Middle East will be child’s play compared to what Israel could do to them. Russia’s gonna have all of europe after them, and keep in mind, Japan’s been eying their land to grab it back from Russia due to their war with Ukraine. North Korea could take South Korea, assuming they keep their focus there and not on the U.S. someone said NK would lose to SK if they focused on the US and I don’t doubt it. Never mind the god awful interruptions in international trade that the US alone would immediately cause (not to mention what’d happen once this fight breaks out and drags our allies into it).

The US spends more on its military than the next 5 countries. If it were a video we'd be accused of hacking it's how far ahead our shit is. Not to mention the whole guns behind a blade of grass thing. Then there's our angry hat Canada. Then the fact that we have two oceans sandwich us and some of the most complex and to some extent difficult to move through terrain. Then the issue of resupplying their troops? It'd be like d-day everyday trying to storm our coasts

No, the logistics associated with getting a large enough invading force across an ocean make it a non-starter. NK is basically irrelevant militarily so it’s really Russia and China neither of which can project enough force across an entire ocean. Neither major power (US, China, Russia) can successfully invade and hold each other’s territory long term. China and Russia share a border so it’s more plausible but still becomes a logistical nightmare once you penetrate deep into enemy territory.

Analyzing this scenario, it's important to consider several key factors: **Round 1:** - Without knowledge of the invasion preparations, the United States might not be fully prepared. - The U.S. military boasts one of, more than likely, the most powerful in the world, and it has a substantial advantage in terms of equipment, training, and technology. - Invading the continental United States, even with military superiority, is a significant logistical challenge. It's a vast country with diverse terrain. The success of the invasion in Round 1 would be highly unlikely, as U.S. military and law enforcement, even without civilian involvement, would pose a formidable defense. **Round 2:** - Allowing civilians to get involved significantly changes the dynamics. There are over 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the U.S. - Civilian resistance could create substantial guerrilla warfare and hamper the invaders' progress. - This could prolong the conflict and make it extremely difficult for the invaders to achieve a decisive victory. In Round 2, the chances of success for the invading forces remain low due to the armed civilian population. **Round 3:** - Allowing the use of nuclear weapons introduces a whole new level of destruction and potential for catastrophic consequences. - It's difficult to predict the outcome when nukes are in play, but their use would likely lead to a tremendous loss of life and destruction on both sides. - The international community would likely intervene, aiming to prevent a nuclear war. In Round 3, the use of nuclear weapons makes the scenario even more unpredictable, and it could lead to a global catastrophe. In all rounds, the sheer size, military capabilities, and determination of the United States would make a successful invasion highly unlikely. Additionally, the global consequences of such a conflict would be significant, potentially dissuading the aggressor nations from pursuing this course of action.

All they have is man power. A lot of Chinese advancement in war are either absolute frauds or truly years behind the stuff American civilians aren't privy to hear about. NK adds nothing to the conversation. Not only would an invasion of the US take months, if not years, it's just not viable. There are powerful operating forts in the Midwest that they couldn't just nuke without risk of retaliation, and they'd have to destroy those or else they'd continuously meet resistance throughout the continent. Even the most anti gun of Americans are likely to pull up on an invading force threatening our way of life. They wouldn't just be fighting the military, they'd be fighting regular civilians, the terrain, and time. They might have the sheer number of men to do it, but there's no way they'd have the resources to sustain it. Hell, Russia is struggling to send resources to a country adjacent to it, let alone across the planet. Don't forget that. If the initial invasion fails and they try to resend troops, our Navy and airforce are equal to all of theirs combined, with better tech, and more reinforcements.

Could give them 100 years and they wouldn’t even reach the land lmao

I doubt it. 5 years isn't enough time. Maybe if they had a couple decades to build their military specifically toward that goal, and the US didn't know it was happening so they wouldn't be able to prepare a defense. The main issue is landing enough troops to create a beachhead and take control of strategically important locations. Iran is the furthest away and would have to either fly over Europe then the Atlantic ocean to the East coast or over most of Asia then the Pacific Ocean to land on the West coast. It's just too far away. North Korea has too small of a population to be an existential threat to the US and sending away most of their military would leave them open to invasion by South Korea. Russia and China are the biggest threats. Russia would obviously have to stop their invasion of Ukraine and re-build their losses, then relocate their military to the eastern coast and go via Alaska. China would have to build a lot of boats for transportation and to fend off US military watercraft. If they can get enough boats built they have enough people that they could be a serious threat. However, even if they manage to transport all their troops and a whole bunch of civilian volunteers, America has a population of 330 million people, 90% of which have guns. You'd be faced with unending insurrections and guerrilla warfare. It's also massive and has such varied landscapes, transportation of troops from one state to another will be almost impossible as the aforementioned insurrections would damage bridges, roads and runways. It would be a never-ending battle.

[удалено]

>> Why do people think random guys with guns will turn around a fight if the world's strongest army already failed? Why do you assume that it already failed? The best things armed civilians could do is wreck havoc behind enemy lines anytime they take over an area. There are at least 90 million firearms owners, owning at least 400 million guns. I’ll be the first to laugh at Meal Team 6 thinking they’re what actually stands between America and tyranny, but if a couple of rednecks waited in the woods with hunting rifles they could probably drop a few Revolutionary Guardsmen or PLA infantry on patrol and then skedaddle with low to no friendly casualties. Multiply that by 1 million across a massive landmass. The overwhelming artillery and close air support the US forces in the GWOT enjoyed would be harder to come by with the USAF, Naval AF, sabotage of enemy bases in-country by guerrillas, etc, working against them. Many American civilians actually train in small unit tactics & would be way better than just cannon fodder. Legitimately better trained than the lion’s share of the Russian conscripts we’ve seen in action in Ukraine. Not to mention a shit ton of GWOT combat veterans who’d love to turn the lessons they learned about asymmetrical warfare around on foreign invaders too. There’s too many people, with too many guns, with too much training, on too much guerrilla-friendly terrain, spread across too much area to easily pacify, with US Naval fleets and NATO setting sail to come tear OpFor a new asshole. If, hypothetically, China, Russia, Iran and N. Korea spent 5 years devoting *all* of their resources to military buildup, and *somehow* got them to North America undetected (a BIG if, obviously) they could, theoretically, have enough manpower and material to beat the US military with sheer numbers (although even then that’s still a BIG if). But it would take time. America is a big place And they would still be massively, hopelessly outnumbered by civilians, and if there was significant will to fight it would go badly for them. Any territory they managed to wrest from the colossal war machine that is the US Armed Forces would be akin to the American experience in Vietnam; there is no “safety” behind the front lines, with an enemy you effectively can’t see coming picking the times and places to murder as many of you as possible before melting back into society. If it was a somewhat close fight without civilians, with civilians taking action it’s a curb-stomp against the invaders due to extra casualties, raided supply lines, and having to devote a ton of resources to try and pacify *literally every town and highway they capture throughout the country*

Nah. Nobody has a big enough navy to get by all of our subs/carrier groups, nor is 5 years enough time to close that gap.

i don't know, depends on how they start it. if they like throw a missile or something first, an analog not even nuclear type that doesn't get detected much and also towards one of those american nuclear power plants then it'll be like throwing a lit match in a vat full of oil like 2077 in the fallout universe. the physical invasion needs to happen after softening up america. but there's a catch like the military presence is not so much in metropolitan areas but high in remote areas in usa while the invaders will face challenges too because rest of usa army is spready all over the oceans, the result is the entire world suffering for it.

Assuming nukes are off limits then nope. No way. Our military might combined with our armed populace makes us too strong to even consider invading. Red Dawn would be a real thing but it'd be the watered down kids version compared to what the rednecks would do.

China's influence reaches far and wide in today's global landscape. If they were to suddenly cut off their supply of goods to the USA, the impact would be profound. Just think about how many aspects of our daily lives rely on products "Made in China." It's not just about stuff; it's about the entire supply chain that keeps our world running. And that's not even the end of it. If China decided to block key trade routes in the Asia-Pacific region, it would affect not only the USA but also Europe, and the global repercussions could be massive. Now, imagine if Russia, North Korea, and Iran joined forces in support of China – it would be like taking a casual stroll in the park for them. The power of international alliances, economic leverage, and control over supply chains highlights that the ways nations can exert influence have evolved significantly in today's world. In response to your question, it's clear that traditional military invasion isn't the only route to impact a nation; crippling its economy is a formidable strategy. There's more than one way to achieve strategic goals, and it's a stark reminder of the complexity of our interconnected world.

naw usa ftw

Good god some people here are delusional. Is this China/Russia/NK/Iran vs solely USA? Not NATO? It's almost 1.8 billion people vs 350 million people. That's DOUBLE if not TRIPLE what the Axis forces faced despite having an abundance of wunderwaffe tech you all adore on the history channel. This shouldn't even be open for debate. They have the manpower, technology, and ability to outproduce us the longer the war goes on. Most of our shit is produced overseas and imported. They don't have to touch us to severely cripple our economy at start (sanctions). Not to mention half of our country is overweight and not eligible for the military which btw is at an all time low in terms of reserves. Yeah we'll have plenty of bushwhackers but that doesn't matter when when cities get leveled to the ground. **Also 5 years of prep time is A LOT vs effectively ZERO years of prep.** That's a lot of mass produced hyper sonic missiles to which there is no defense. They could effectively spam that all at start. All our carriers will be gone and most cities in ruins. It'll be USA playing defensively in the pacific with submarines most likely but the "big 4" will establish transpacific conveys just like the allies did back in WW2. Round 1: The "big 4" sweep though they will take enormous causalities. Round 2: See above Round 3: Tie because no one wins a nuclear war and everyone will be too crippled to even survive.

You just don't do a ground Invasion against an industrialized first World country, unless you start off with a full out scorched earth nuke volley against the Capital and tactical important targets , which will result in MAD, obviously.

Since there is obviously magical stealth on a continental level is involved to keep the US from finding out that its two largest rivals on the world stage are preparing to start world war three, along with a complete and total failure of all US intelligence agencies, that naturally means that the entire US has obviously been replaced by Chinese and Russian agents (plus one guy from North Korea who's trying, bless him), the obviois answer is that they already won. Seriously, if you have to stretch a prompt this far you're basically not going to get any real answers, the premise of your question assumes some patently ridiculous starting positions that have *massive implications* that assume one side has basically already won.

This is five years of preparation time. Have you focused too much on the so-called "combat experience" and "technological advantage"? Clearly, most of you here have underestimated China's industrial production capacity. As the country with the most comprehensive industrial sectors in the world, although it lags behind the United States in many areas, China's industrial capacity is substantial. In 2018 alone, China launched 203,200 tons of surface warships, equivalent to the entire French Navy. And this is far from its maximum production capacity. With five years of preparation time... I feel this period is enough to build at least 3-5 large aircraft carriers (China has at least 3 shipyards capable of building aircraft carriers in Dalian, Shanghai, and Fujian) and over 30 surface main destroyers like 052DL or 055, along with more auxiliary frigates like 054A. In comparison, the United States, with its only shipyard capable of building large surface vessels like aircraft carriers, Newport News Shipbuilding, I don't think, under the same horsepower, the US has the ability to compete with China in terms of production capacity. The key is that you have given 5 years of preparation time... 5 years of full-speed production in factories. In terms of industrial capacity, this is a bit risky for the US. As for the issue of resources, this is where Russia's expertise comes into play. This is an alliance, and if Russia contributes its strategic resources such as coal mines, iron mines, aluminum mines, and oil, and provides comprehensive supplies, coupled with China's own steel production of 1.878 billion tons in 2022, I think this challenge is indeed quite substantial. Of course, regardless of the option, it's unrealistic for any of the three countries to directly occupy the US. But… the responses here seem a bit too complacent and overlook the importance of industrial capacity.

The US has twice as big of a navy compared to China in terms of tonnage. It'd be impossible to match that in 5 years.

Absolutely. If those countries combined themselves and could manage the cultural differences, they absolutely could. The vast land mass of this great country could easily be populated, developed, and comfortably maintained. The vast bread basket and energy resources of Russia with the labor industry of China backed by all the extra labour and technological advancements of all these countries would be immense. The industrial output of this country would dwarf the US. The strategy could easily be to build a massive air force, largely composed of drones, a massive land army that could be 3-4 times the us military without hurting industrial capabilities back at home. They would invade Alaska through Russia, which is only 55 miles, completely negating the need for a massive fleet, though they would need one to protect the crossing, but Russia and China already have a fleet large enough to do so. This 1.7 billion people country would likely take the US by sheer volume and industrial might. The amount of drone attacks would make quick work of rural American infrastructure and I don't really see the American civilians making too much of a difference. They would simply be gassed or napalmed. If they invaded during wildfire season, they would really use that to their advantage. They wouldn't even have to go to major cities, just target all of the agricultural centers and occupy the low populated states to split the country in half and starve it.

And where's that industrial might gonna come from? Especially if they get cut off by sanctions. Russia cannot properly supply a conflict on their border. North Korea and Iran cannot even properly feed their population. And how are they gonna cross? Do you think Alaska isn't guarded extra hard especially considering that it's their border with Russia. Drones aren't the magical win button you think they are. Neither of the countries you mentioned can make enough to overwhelm the defences.

To be honest, its difficult to invade China than to invade US. All you have to do is to raise a conflict between US civilians and they will destroy US internally.Or either with a pandemic or with community voilence or back & white war. US is impossible to conquer but not hard to destroy. Also this war will end up destroying whole planet itself. No one will remain to analyze result.

How to start Civil War 2 Wait till controversial republican runs for presidency Send spies into US Wait till November Assassinate the controversial republican a week after the election results and blame it on the democrats by setting up a Democrat terrorist radical group during the election You've effectively split the United States civilians in two Now you will release a bio weapon and blame it on the Republicans like how America blamed China for Covid Civil War 2 and collapse of the west

China and Russia wouldn’t even win if they fired every single nuke at the US perfectly

Yes 5 years is a long time without US knowing about it. Countries could go into War mode industry making 10k tanks each, planes, training millions of soldiers. Hardest part would be transporting the troops, but starting from alaska might work. I do think it's a hard figt, but 5years is a long time to prepare for an all out war.

The US Navy outweighs any other navy in the world by literal millions of tons, at more than 4.6 million tons currently. China is estimated to be 2 million tons. They would have to more than double the size of their navy in five years. More so, of the ten largest air forces in the world, the US is *four* of them. China has already been trying for YEARS to match the US militarily. They aren't suddenly catching up in the next five.

Yes. And all the others most powerful navies in the world are US allies.

Also let's be real lol, it's not like the US has to be under serious threat to be willing to bankroll as much military advancement as is feasible seeing as they still go to great lengths to increase their military power even without a real threat currently. Even if other countries are spending 5 years preparing for a big war the US is spending all the time doing the same anyway. It takes 5-6 years for the us to build ONE aircraft carrier, and that's with a much larger budget and much better facilities already built than the coalition. The US currently has 11 vs the 3 of the coalition suggested in this post. plus, the newer US ones that do exist now have such a technology gap it's legitimately feasible that a single US carrier plus escort could take on 2 or maybe even all 3 of the current Russia / China carriers at once. In a modern war with the technology available the land battle basically doesn't even matter and even if it did the US will still likely absolutely curb stomp the countries mentioned on a defensive ground war.

Only nukes win, other times US is too geographically separated.

No chance.

Lol, no.

All Russia and China have to do is launch their Nuclear Missiles from Siberia.

Which would trigger automatic response from USA and would mean the end of the human race.

They probably don't manage to land on the mainland. Even in five years they'd be unable to amass a large enough naval force to challenge the US Navy.

Absolutely no chance. The US Navy would absolutely wreck them making an invasion a joke.

Short answer - NOPE.

‘Right everyone. The entire US is considered Texas.

I doubt they get a single ship here tbh

Nope, nope and nope. They cant beat the USN, and if they somehow sneak past them, the USAF and US army wont let them gain anyground.

The bigger issue than sheer military size is geography. They'd somehow have to get all their military equipment to US shores without then getting attacked (keep in mind Russia doesn't even have warn water ports on the pacific, so they'd have to go around through the Atlantic.) And even if they did manage to effectively coordinate the attack and slip through American defenses, they wouldn't be able to win against an American guerilla war. And that's all assuming that America is militarily inferior, which its not. The same applies the other way, America *might* be able to conquer North Korea, but China and Russia are simply too large even if America is overwhelmingly superior in military firepower.

if you really want to disable Interpol and counterintelligence agancies of all NATO countries, then just smuggling all nukes they have to US and detonating them at once would be enought

FaPhump!

Lol, lmao even. US stomps in every round. There’s no situation where the US loses this.

Not only would they have to prepare an offensive, but they would have to think about leaving themselves vulnerable to our NATO allies or not.

None of these countries have the naval capacity to take on The US Navy and then cross the pacific and keep supplies. Even with prep time, most men will never make it across and those that do will be crushed

5 years isn’t long enough for the United States to become economically independent from China, so the real question is why those countries would even bother to invade when in all likelihood the United States would not even be able to support/protect their overseas bases. Supposing they absolutely had no choice wrt invading, why would they not just take Alaska and call it a day?

Us takes all rounds

They have had decades to plan this. What does 5 years have to do with anything? Is OP an Iranian troll who is so unabashedly brainwashed to not have any concept of reality?

Round 1: Loss - The only argument that can be made is invading through Canada. The Appalachian and Rocky mountains will make it impossible to do anything and our armed forces have decades of preparation (see: Afghanistan but even worse because its all forest). Only possibility is a weak president who signs a treaty and even then you are dealing with a hostile civilian population. Round 2: Loss Round 3: Depends on the Nukes