Post-apocalypse planning

[Maf54]

They don't have enough weapons to overcome us with sheer numbers.

[RICoder]

The only place that China poses a threat is in a blue-water war, as their nuke subs outnumber us 5-1. PERHAPS if the war was fought in asia they'd have a good chance of winning with a war of attrition, but the excercise of logistics required to invade the U.S. is overwhelming. Don't underestimate natural protection like being on the opposite side of the planet seperated by an ocean with allies on the north and south.

[sandmann]

Chad, even though you're half-joking, just about everything you've said is totally incorrect.

China invading Russia? Riiiiight. Then Japan? Those two nations are a LITTLE BIT more powerful than you think. Do not forget how the people of Stalingrad held off the Nazis despite having few supplies, relying on a limited population, and starving to death. The Chinese army is nowhere near as organized as the Nazis were.

Further, to assume that China wants to spread Communism "just like the old commies" is stupid. They've let Shanghai go completely capitalist -- do you think they're really as ideologically convinced in communism as you say?

Additionally, invading the US is a FAIRLY daunting proposition. If you believe the Chinese armed forces will be able to completely decimate the entire American military, what makes you think you'd be able to hold them off with a few of the guns you fawn over?

Finally, you severely overestimate the difficulty of maintaining an empire as large as that. As Machiavelli said, it's not even worth trying to conquer any strong republic, much less three of the strongest to ever have existed, because they will inevitably revolt. And the general population in Machiavelli's time didn't have comprehensive communications connectivity and advanced education.

So, bottom line, I do not expect China to conquer Russia, Japan, and the United States anytime soon.

[Chad]

I don't either, give it ten years.

[sponge]

sandmann: What about a full-scale war vs. China? I don't care how little weapons they have, a land invasion will result in massive American losses.

[Maf54]

What would they do? Land and punch everyone?

[sponge]

No one is able to use sharp objects, or set up traps like the Vietnamese, or make small explosives like MacGuyver? It's not like we're talking about a billion people punching US troops like some bad Zerg rush.

[Maf54]

Oh, you mean us invading them?

[sponge]

Yes, much like the Afghani/Iraqi wars in which eliminating the leader was only half the battle - securing lands is neccecary.

[Maf54]

I thought you were talking about them invading us on rafts.

[Chad]

I think you underestimate the power of an enourmous land army. They have a formidable navy capable of launching their whole ground army on our shores, and enough subs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships to cripple our fleets. Even though they are armed with aging SKSes and early Automats, sheer numbers are enough to overrun our army. Put 200,000,000 soliders in PRC against our army of less than a million, we would be bound to lose.

The French lost battle after battle becuase they underestimated the enemy. We don't want to be like France do we?

[Maf54]

You keep on saying sheer number but you ignore a major fact. They don't have a sheer number of weapons.

[Chad]

Weapons are not a hard thing to get en masse, especially when your a country. They sell AK-47s in Chad for 7 dollars a piece...

[Maf54]

Yes, and China will buy out all the street vendors in Chad!

[sandmann]