How many nations would it take to beat US?

[Jimexander the Mighty]

How many nations do you think it would take to successfully invade and occupy America? I would say if Russia, China,and all of Western Europe became allies they could do it.

Discuss

[The Super Pope]

Russia or China could on their own.
An alliance between Britain, germany and Israel could probably do it.
America is not invincible and I would say man for man the British Army is better than the US Army

[The Sundance Kid]

playing by the rules china would win 1-on-1 by sheer manpower
if the americans started breaking the human rights act and the time-honoured codes of war, etc, america might stand a chance. in a war of the magnitude we're talking about, i dont think america would care about international backlash if it upended agent orange and napalm over thousands of chinese soldiers

it depends entirely on how they'd go about it. america has such a large coastline its probably more likely for a straightforward sea invasion than the bomb first, invade later approach, because the star wars defense system is so damn good.

[Carach]

An alliance between Britain, germany and Israel could probably do it.

thats a very precise selection, why only those 3? including one which never leaves its own country for fear of being branded nazis again...

No one could ever defeat the US. Even if they wanted to invade the mainland, the first thing necessary would be a preemptive strike against US bases all over the world. Considering we have bases in several different continents at the moment, that itself would be difficult.

Things change, poisoner - you are as ignorant and arrogent as every other person who has thought as much of their empires in the past - "power corrupts" (not to be taken as a troll, just stating the facts ) The romans were once 'unbeatable', i dont see them around now? what about the british empire? oops yea, thats not really around anymore..the unstoppable mongols? nope, theyre not dominating eurasian continent these days either.

You must realize as well that the entire world's economy is intertwined with ours. It would simply not be in the best interest of anyone to attack the United States.

and before then the world was connected with Britains - you merely took it over (after completely ****ing britain over during and after ww2, hence why u are in that 'unbeatable' position today). Take a look at the world today and see how much of it is coloured British Red, and how influential and economically powerful the UK is now.

Nothing is forever, poisoner. Even the biggest and most powerful have collapsed, and America is most certainly not the strongest power (relatively speaking) to come up in the history of the world.

[danzig]

The romans were once 'unbeatable', i dont see them around now? what about the british empire? oops yea, thats not really around anymore..the unstoppable mongols? nope, theyre not dominating eurasian continent these days either.

The Brits however didnt lose their core homeland, they lost their expansionist empire. The original poster and his scenario goes beyond the "fall" of America the superpower and instead focuses America itself being occupied. Rome is a different story, its a different era and modern nations generally just dont poof and cease to exist, Germany didnt cease to exist after WW2 nor did Japan or Italy and the Russians didnt cease to exist after the fall of communism but that is exactly what is being proposed by talking about the occupation/defeat of the US in this thread. The disappearance of America as a nation.

Most certainly the US wont be the hyperpower it is today, no country can sustain that level of power indefinitely but it also wont one day simply not be there anymore then Brits, France, Germany etc didnt poof when their time in the sun disappeared and they still powerful nations in their own right. There is no reason to suspect the US will be any different.

I love this thread though, well if the EU and China or Russians and China or Israel, Brazil and Finland all unite then the US will be defeated....well yeah sure and if planet of the apes suddenly becomes reality the apes would defeat the US too. Far too many people reaching for what if scenarios that make no logical sense. Under what conditions would make the EU and China team up to invade America? Or Russians and China? As I said this thread is basically Superman vs Hulk, Spiderman vs Batman because it deals with so many what ifs.

Sure if half the world's population/political/military power united to take on the US it most likely would defeat it though it wouldnt occupy the US simply because it would take so much effort but the question is *why* would they unite and do it? The US isnt some all powerful entity sure if the world united against it it would be defeated. The question is would they have the stomach to do it, its not like it would be easy and it would results in death tolls that would make Stalin wince.

[Freddie]

Russia or China could on their own.
An alliance between Britain, germany and Israel could probably do it.
America is not invincible and I would say man for man the British Army is better than the US Army

Russia or China couldn't not win against the USA on their own, Russia doesn't have the economical means to do so and China although has great manpower lacks the hardware (mostly sourced from Russia).

And how did you come up with "man for man the British Army is better than the US Army", what do you base that on? I'm British and proud but my left brain knows that there is no reason why a US solider shouldn't be as good as the average British trooper.

There is know country in the world that can defeat the USA and occupy it, however the combined EU GDP is greater then that of the US, the EU also has more manpower then the US but lacks the combined military force.

[Last Roman]

Russia or China could on their own.

No way, no how. The US is far too big to be successfully occupied, not to mention a huge well-armed population. It's the same reason the US could never successfully occupy Russia or China. Unless you're taking into consideration nuclear war where China and Russia would just blast the hell out of us, but we could easily do the same.

An alliance between Britain, germany and Israel could probably do it.

Even less likely than the above scenario.

[Silo]

Even less likely than the above scenario.

defeating the army...yes...occupy....no....and thats just because I think NO military in the world is at the moment capable of succesfully occupying a nation with more than 40 million inhabitants....best example is iraq...ok you can argue about that but suicide bombings/ mortar attacks / *fill in what you like* every day isn't quite succesfully occupied to me....and iraq has only about 26 million inhabitants!

[Caelius]

defeating the army...yes...occupy....no....and thats just because I think NO military in the world is at the moment capable of succesfully occupying a nation with more than 40 million inhabitants....best example is iraq...ok you can argue about that but suicide bombings/ mortar attacks / *fill in what you like* every day isn't quite succesfully occupied to me....and iraq has only about 26 million inhabitants!

Sure an army could, how do you think Germany conquered all of mainland Europe? The US has been fighting with both hands tied behind it's back in Iraq, especially in terms of keeping civilian casualties at a minimum.

[Holger Danske]

Russia or China could on their own.
An alliance between Britain, germany and Israel could probably do it.
America is not invincible and I would say man for man the British Army is better than the US Army

Most North European soldiers are better than their American counterparts because they are trained to be much more independent in any situation, but the Americans got numbers, firepower, and technology on their side.

As for the numbers of nation needed... Don't know, and the 10,000 nukes would make it a hell for anyone trying to do it. But a very unlikely alliance between EU, Russia, and China could do it in a conventional war if well coordinated, which I don't believe is possible as all 3 will think themselves as the ringleader of the coalition. I'm more interrested in a US/EU vs Russia/China war, even though Russia and China aren't obvious allies.

BTW: How would the USN counter the Swedish and German AIP submarines which are small, cheap, and well capable of sinking your aircraft carriers?

[Phoebus]

Most North European soldiers are better than their American counterparts because they are trained to be much more independent in any situation, ...

I hear this all the time, but always in an opinion format. I'm not trying to bait or be rude... but would you elaborate on your position?

BTW: How would the USN counter the Swedish and German AIP submarines which are small, cheap, and well capable of sinking your aircraft carriers?

Well, if the carrier's actual strike group (which includes destroyers, anti-submarine aircraft, etc.) doesn't do the job... Off the top of my head? Sheer disparity of numbers.

The German navy has 4 of the new Type 212 submarines (the rest being coastal), while the Swedes only have a total of 5 submarines. The British navy has 13 (of which 9 are attack subs), the French navy has 10 (6 attack), the Greeks have 9, the Italians have 7, the Norwegians have 6, the Dutch have 4, the Spaniards have 4, and the Portuguese have 1.

The US, by contrast, has 42-45 attack subs alone (I'm not sure what the status is on the Virginia-class subs). To that, add 18 SSBNs and SSGNs. Far from striking our aircraft carriers unopposed, an opposing submarine force would actually be fighting to survive.

Now, there is a caveat to all this. Obviously, the numbers above, as well as those from previous posts, represent the total US Navy--which include forces traditionally stationed in the Pacific, the Middle East, etc.

[Jimexander the Mighty]

I don't think the Chinese could beat the US one on one. They wouldnt even be able to invade america probably they dont really have a navy.....

[William the Bastard]

Invade??? What would be the point when you can kill every US citizen with nuclear weapons? Invasion with troops is so passe (I don't know how to put the little slanting line above the "e").

Or you could use brains and not brawn.

[shibbieNIS]

Invade??? What would be the point when you can kill every US citizen with nuclear weapons? Invasion with troops is so passe (I don't know how to put the little slanting line above the "e").

ctrl+alt+e = é

but on topic, it wouldn't really matter. America would panic and nuke everybody, game over...It's not a very fun game when americas ruins it all

[Darsh]

ctrl+alt+e = é

but on topic, it wouldn't really matter. America would panic and nuke everybody, game over...It's not a very fun game when americas ruins it all

It would be stupid because Europe and Russia had also nuclear weapon and if one country use the nuclear weapon it would be the end of the world.

[mightyfenrir]

I don't think the Chinese could beat the US one on one. They wouldnt even be able to invade america probably they dont really have a navy.....

In all honesty I don't think they'd need an enormous navy... if China was hellbent on conquering the US they probably wouldn't mind stepping on Russia in the process and could therefore confiscate their Pacific naval bases and ferry troops quite quickly into Alaska and over Canada and then south into America. I'm sure the American military wouldn't expect it either.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

I don't think the Chinese could beat the US one on one. They wouldnt even be able to invade america probably they dont really have a navy.....

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...lan/index.html
China's Submarine Challenge
by John J. Tkacik, Jr.
WebMemo #1001

Sea-power trends in the Pacific Ocean are ominous. By 2025, China’s navy could rule the waves of the Pacific. By some estimates, Chinese attack submarines will outnumber U.S. submarines in the Pacific by five to one and Chinese nuclear ballistic missile submarines will prowl America’s Western littoral, each closely tailed by two U.S. attack submarines that have better things to do. The United States, meanwhile, will likely struggle to build enough submarines to meet this challenge.

A misplaced diplomacy leaves some U.S. Navy commanders reluctant to admit publicly that China’s rapidly expanding submarine force in the Pacific is a threat, but if the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the latest Pentagon “Report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China” (MPPRC Report) are any indication, they are undoubtedly thinking it. In a speech sponsored by the Asia Society in Washington earlier this month, for example, Admiral Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, commented,

I’m always asked about the Chinese threat and I say, ‘It’s not a threat,’ because you have to have two things to have a threat, and that’s capability and intent. There is no question that the PLA navy is modernizing and building its capability and is moving very quickly, but what is the intent?

The Pentagon has already begun to answer this question, but it has yet to do so in a way that shows it takes this threat seriously.

China’s Intent
The QDR addresses the question of China’s intent:

Chinese military modernization has accelerated since the mid-to-late 1990s in response to central leadership demands to develop military options against Taiwan scenarios. The pace and scope of China’s military build-up already puts regional military balances at risk. China is likely to continue making large investments in high-end, asymmetric military capabilities, emphasizing electronic and cyber-warfare; counter-space operations; ballistic and cruise missiles; advanced integrated air defense systems; next generation torpedoes; advanced submarines; strategic nuclear strike from modern, sophisticated land and sea-based systems; and theater unmanned aerial vehicles…

According to the MPPRC Report’s executive summary, China’s specific intent is to “build counters to third-party, including potential U.S., intervention in [Taiwan] Strait crises.” The report continues, “Deterring, defeating, or delaying foreign intervention ahead of Taiwan’s capitulation is integral to Beijing’s strategy.” To this end, China is expanding its “force of ballistic missiles (long-range and short-range), cruise missiles, submarines, advanced aircraft, and other modern systems.”

China’s Sea-Power Goals
If they are curious about China’s intent, Pentagon planners might look to comments by General Wen Zongren, Political Commissar of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s elite Academy of Military Science. The MPPRC Report quotes General Wen as asserting that China must “break” the “blockade [by] international forces against China’s maritime security… Only when we break this blockade shall we be able to talk about China’s rise… [T]o rise suddenly, China must pass through oceans and go out of the oceans in its future development.” In fact, it is the explicit goal of the Chinese Communist Party to “increase the comprehensive strength of the nation.”

The Chinese navy—and its submarine fleet, in particular—is a key tool in achieving that goal. The September 2004 promotion of Admiral Zhang Dingfa, a career submariner, to Chief of Staff of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and a full seat on the Central Military Commission was a clear signal of the primacy of submarine warfare in China’s strategy for the Asia-Pacific region.

Growing Submarine Force
Admiral Zhang led PLAN’s submarine modernization program and oversaw the acquisition of four modern Russian-built KILO subs, including the stealthy Type-636. Orders for eight more are on the books, with the first new boats to be delivered this month. That three Russian shipyards are at work to fill China’s orders for new submarines betrays this build-up’s urgency.

Admiral Zhang isn’t relying solely on the Russians. He has also increased production—to 2.5 boats per year—of China’s new, formidable Song-class diesel-electric submarine. China is also testing a new diesel-electric that the defense intelligence community has designated the “Yuan.” The Yuan is heavily inspired by Russian designs, including anechoic tile coatings and a super-quiet seven-blade screw. The addition of “air-independent propulsion,” which permits a submarine to operate underwater for up to 30 days on battery power, will make the Song and Yuan submarines virtually inaudible to existing U.S. surveillance networks—and even to U.S. subs.

These new submarines will be more lethal when armed with Russian SKVAL (“Squall”) torpedoes, which can reach 200 knots. There are reports that the SKVAL is already operational on some Chinese subs. As well, Russia has also transferred the Novator 3M-54E three-stage anti-ship cruise missile to China’s submarine fleet for use against aircraft carriers. Each Chinese KILO is armed with four of these missiles.

America’s Endangered Submarine Supremacy
In February 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld commented that the size of the Chinese fleet could surpass the United States Navy’s within a decade. “It is an issue that the department thinks about and is concerned about and is attentive to.” Indeed, the U.S. Navy will hold a series of major naval exercises in the Pacific this summer that will involve four aircraft carrier battle groups, including a carrier normally based on the U.S. East Coast. This will be the first time the Navy has deployed an Atlantic Fleet carrier to a Pacific exercise since the Vietnam War.

However, there is little indication that the Pentagon is taking the Chinese submarine challenge seriously. If it were, the QDR issued earlier this month would have recommended that the erosion of the U.S. submarine fleet come to an end.

But the QDR envisions a “return to a steady-state production rate of two attack submarines per year not later than 2012 while achieving an average per-hull procurement cost objective of $2.0 billion.” This means that the U.S. sub fleet will continue to decline for another six years, during which time America’s industrial base for constructing subs will further diminish and the per-unit cost of submarines will jump past $2 billion, impelling further cuts in the fleet.

Of the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s 35 submarines (including three nuclear attack submarines based in Guam during 2006), about a dozen are underway at sea on operational duties at any one time. Under the QDR’s most optimistic estimates, Pacific Command’s sub fleet will diminish to about 30 by 2025.

Electric Boat (EB), the nation’s preeminent submarine contractor, has announced plans to lay off 900 of its 1,700 designers and marine draftsmen engineers over the next three years. This is a crisis. It will mark the first time in 50 years that the U.S. has not had a new submarine design on the drawing board. EB laid off nearly 200 submarine engineers and machinists in early February—and EB is the only shipbuilder in the nation that maintains submarine designers. As the build-rate for subs collapsed, EB used maintenance and repair work to pay designers’ salaries and maintain its staff of highly-skilled steelworkers. But without new orders, EB will lay off almost half of its workforce of over 5,000 over the next three years

U.S. Navy combatant commanders already require 150 percent of the attack submarine days currently available, and these requirements will only increase as the submarine force dwindles. If the United States allows production to dwindle further, expertise will be lost and costs will skyrocket for any new classes of submarines contemplated for the post-2012 period.

Meanwhile, China’s fleet of modern attack submarines is growing: China already has ten Song/Yuan/Kilo submarines in the Pacific today, over 50 older Ming-class and Romeo boats, five Han class nuclear attack submarines, and one Xia-class ballistic missile submarine. In addition, China has 25 new boats under contract now; 16 are under construction today, including a new class of nuclear attack submarine designated the Type-093 and a new nuclear ballistic missile sub, the Type-094.

The U.S. has three submarines under construction today. Although the Navy’s new 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for 48 nuclear attack submarines in the fleet by 2035, the Navy’s top submarine commander, Vice Admiral Charles L. Munns, has testified before Congress that the Navy needs at least 54 boats to fulfill current critical missions. This number will rise as China’s navy expands.

If the Navy does not start launching new subs at the rate of two per year until several years after 2012, the force would dip to a low of 40 in 2028, or 17 percent below the Navy’s stated needs. And that rate will not even permit the Navy to reach its sub-minimal target of 48 attack submarines until 2034. All of this assumes that the Navy does not decommission ships faster than expected due to expanded operations in coming years.

Recommendations for the Administration and Congress
The United States must return to building at least two, and preferably two-and-a-half, new attack submarines per year beginning in FY 2009. The U.S. must begin procurement for long lead-time components, such as nuclear reactors, in FY 2007 and 2008. These steps are necessary just to hold U.S. subsurface strength steady.

The Administration should also work with key strategic partners in Asia to bolster their fleets. Japan and India are potential submarine warfare partners. Japan must also be encouraged to upgrade its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and surveillance systems.

Congress should hold hearings into reports on the editorial pages of DefenseNews (February 13, 2006) and Jane’s Defence Weekly (February 15, 2006) that the U.S. Navy has sabotaged Taiwan’s efforts to procure modern diesel-electric boats from U.S. shipyards by hyper-inflating prices in order to keep U.S. yards from building anything but nuclear boats. A robust Taiwanese fleet would be a welcome relief as the U.S. Navy attempts to counter increasing Chinese sub-surface fleet pressures in Asian littoral waters. The United States and Japan also need an enhanced partnership with Taiwan in airborne and subsurface ASW reconnaissance and surveillance in waters under Taiwanese administration.

China’s Navy, According to the U.S. Navy
ONI Publishes Detailed Portrait of Chinese Service
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS



Those who argue for an increase in U.S. naval spending often point to China and the rapid and extensive growth of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, but good reference material on the PLAN has been scarce. Now, the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) has stepped in to fill that gap, producing a 144-page handbook on the world’s fastest-growing navy.
“China’s Navy 2007,” released in early March, is intended to “foster a better understanding” of the PLAN, according to William Tarry, director of the Naval Analysis Directorate.
In the handbook’s preface, Terry says that the handbook is not an analysis of trends or intent, but is meant to educate and inform readers “during this time of greater contact” between the U.S. Navy and the PLAN.
The book, available as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file, does not include the many illustrations and multiple lists of ships or ship types found in standard reference works. But it is packed with information on the PLAN’s leadership and bureaucratic organization, how its personnel system works, where its forces are based and organized and how its political system works. A concise history of the Chinese Navy is included, along with separate chapters on submarines, surface forces, naval aviation, coastal defense forces, marines and weapon systems. One chapter is devoted to quality of life, and a handy six-page glossary of Chinese terms is included.
This is a sophisticated description of a naval service that can inform the ongoing debate regarding the capabilities and intentions of China’s leaders.

[OTZ]

Given the US spends more on its military than the next ten nations combined, I'd say it would take a helluva lot more than Russia, China, and Western Europe to invade and occupy the US. You first have to get there, and I don't think there's any nation in the world that has the same Naval/amphibious power the Americans have. The US should be able to win a conventional war against pretty much any one or multitude of countries in the world. Granted, if by some miracle of chance, all the armies of the aforementioned countries find a way to the American mainland, then, yeah, maybe they stand a chance, otherwise the notion of an American defeat is kinda redonkulous.

Non-conventional warfare - well, pretty much anyone would have a chance....not too many defenses against nuke/chem/bio.

[William the Bastard]

if by some miracle of chance, all the armies of the aforementioned countries find a way to the American mainland, then, yeah, maybe they stand a chance

If this miracle did happen then you have the second amendment to deal with. I guess there would be an "insurgency" of US citizens who were already armed to the teeth running around pretending they are Rambo on drugs!

[hellheaven1987]

Ok, I have a question, how do any of nations in Old World invade United States today?