Should the US (with UN aid) invade China?

[The American Free States]

I’m not saying it’s impossible, I’m just saying it’s extremely hard to invade the US

Opps! I read it wrong. I thought we were taking about invading China not the US. The US is pretty much immune from invasion.

Yep, except I don’t think China has a militia like the US does. Not like they wouldn’t get some though.

[The Two Jerseys]

Opps! I read it wrong. I thought we were taking about invading China not the US. The US is pretty much immune from invasion.

Yep, except I don’t think China has a militia like the US does. Not like they wouldn’t get some though.

Somehow I get the feeling that any Chinese militia training beyond "point Norinco toward Yankee imperialists and pull trigger" would be reserved for those who have demonstrated sufficient loyalty to the Party...

[Salus Maior]

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Clearly worked well for Japan in WWII trying to invade all of China, which proved to be an impossible task.

The Japanese did pretty dang well in China.

[Novus America]

Yep, except I don’t think China has a militia like the US does. Not like they wouldn’t get some though.

Somehow I get the feeling that any Chinese militia training beyond "point Norinco toward Yankee imperialists and pull trigger" would be reserved for those who have demonstrated sufficient loyalty to the Party...

True. Although the PRC has a draft on paper, it has not been used since 1949. Only a small percentage of the population has any access to arms, and the military is actually not large compared to the population. The PRC is very careful to keep weapons in the hands of those most loyal to the regime.
There is even a separate heavily armed police dedicated to the party, while the regular police are generally poorly armed with only a revolver or unarmed. As the PRC does not trust them enough.

So I seriously doubt it would give out arms to the general population, even if it had enough. At most only to CCP members. Which while only making up some 6% of the population is still a very large number.
Actually the PRC does have an 8 million man militia.

But it consists of party loyalists, not the general population.

Still while only 6% of the population the around 90 million man party is quite large, although only a minority of party members have access to arms.
I doubt it would even give out weapons to all party members, let alone the general population.

They no doubt saw that the massive Soviet military manned by general conscription was not loyal enough to the party, and do not want to repeat that.

[Novus America]

Clearly worked well for Japan in WWII trying to invade all of China, which proved to be an impossible task.

The Japanese did pretty dang well in China.

The only occupied a small portion of the country by land mass. They could never control the whol country, just the cities near the coast.

[Mushet]

Invasions are so passe', I say we team up with one of the cartels and flood them with dope. Opium wars won't have nothing on us.

[Byzconia]

I mean, can we just stop with the idea that the US needs to invade every place that isn't like us? Shitty as China's government is, they haven't launched any wars of conquest against anyone and are spreading their influence through purely economic means. Unlike us, they haven't decided to start toppling other country's governments to make them play nice (yet), so no matter how you try to spin it the US would invariably be seen as the aggressors in such a war. Regardless, what "UN aid"? Anything worthy of the name would have to be approved by the Security Council, which China is on. Not only would they veto such a proposal, but it's unlikely any of the permanent members would be particularly fond of the idea, either (invading a nation that, itself, hasn't invaded anyone is very much outside the UN's purview or desire).

[Cossack Peoples]

I mean, can we just stop with the idea that the US needs to invade every place that isn't like us? Shitty as China's government is, they haven't launched any wars of conquest against anyone and are spreading their influence through purely economic means. Unlike us, they haven't decided to start toppling other country's governments to make them play nice (yet), so no matter how you try to spin it the US would invariably be seen as the aggressors in such a war. Regardless, what "UN aid"? Anything worthy of the name would have to be approved by the Security Council, which China is on. Not only would they veto such a proposal, but it's unlikely any of the permanent members would be particularly fond of the idea, either (invading a nation that, itself, hasn't invaded anyone is very much outside the UN's purview or desire).

Tibet.
Taiwan is next if their hand plays out all right.

[Novus America]

I mean, can we just stop with the idea that the US needs to invade every place that isn't like us? Shitty as China's government is, they haven't launched any wars of conquest against anyone and are spreading their influence through purely economic means. Unlike us, they haven't decided to start toppling other country's governments to make them play nice (yet), so no matter how you try to spin it the US would invariably be seen as the aggressors in such a war. Regardless, what "UN aid"? Anything worthy of the name would have to be approved by the Security Council, which China is on. Not only would they veto such a proposal, but it's unlikely any of the permanent members would be particularly fond of the idea, either (invading a nation that, itself, hasn't invaded anyone is very much outside the UN's purview or desire).

This ignores the PRC’s past imperialist wars of conquest against Vietnam and India, and current annexing islands in the South China Sea belonging to other countries. And the threats to invade Taiwan.

Obviously I do not support an invasion, but we should not pretend the PRC is not using its military muscle to get more territory.

[Byzconia]

I mean, can we just stop with the idea that the US needs to invade every place that isn't like us? Shitty as China's government is, they haven't launched any wars of conquest against anyone and are spreading their influence through purely economic means. Unlike us, they haven't decided to start toppling other country's governments to make them play nice (yet), so no matter how you try to spin it the US would invariably be seen as the aggressors in such a war. Regardless, what "UN aid"? Anything worthy of the name would have to be approved by the Security Council, which China is on. Not only would they veto such a proposal, but it's unlikely any of the permanent members would be particularly fond of the idea, either (invading a nation that, itself, hasn't invaded anyone is very much outside the UN's purview or desire).

Tibet.
Taiwan is next if their hand plays out all right.

Tibet was in the 1950s. By that logic, why shouldn't the UN invade the US for annexing Hawaii in the 1900s? (Or is there a convenient, China-sized 50-60-year time limit?)

Also, Taiwan and China have been at each other's throats for decades. There's literally zero reason to think the PRC would want to change the status quo (they're authoritarians, not idiots).

This ignores the PRC’s past imperialist wars of conquest against Vietnam and India,

As I mentioned to the OP, what do "past imperialist wars" have to do with anything? You could literally use that same logic to argue in favor of invasion of most (or at least a lot of) countries. Let's focus on the current government actually in power.

and current annexing islands in the South China Sea belonging to other countries.

Gotta an article I can read about this? I'm unsure of what you're referring to, specifically.

And the threats to invade Taiwan.

Like I also said to OP, those threats are empty and have been for decades (Mao might very well have intended to do it, but later governments have clearly had other priorities). The Chinese government knows an invasion of Taiwan would cause an international uproar that they're not interested in dealing with.

Obviously I do not support an invasion, but we should not pretend the PRC is not using its military muscle to get more territory.

Annexing some disputed islands in the Pacific =/= invading a whole country, overthrowing its government, and annexing it (e.g. Tibet). The PRC absolutely uses soft power to get things they want, but that's not abnormal in great power politics. Let's not act like China is Argentina and this is the Falklands War.

Believe me, if China actually did something that outrageous, I'd fully support UN intervention (not unilateral action by the US), but as it currently stands this whole proposal smells to me like just using the UN as a tool for US foreign policy, which is absolutely not why it exists.

[Salandriagado]

This to me reads like someone just wants to make sure the US stays the top dog in the world. Newsflash: all empires fall someday and the American Empire will be no exception. Powers come and powers go, such is the nature of society.

Ok.

But China's literally acting like Nazi Germany at the moment. What with the whole concentration camps where ethic minorities get sent to have their organs harvested for China's organ black market.

Declaring an existential war against a nuclear power is still not a viable response. I'm fucked if I know what the best response is, but it sure as fuck isn't nuclear war.

[Novus America]

Tibet.
Taiwan is next if their hand plays out all right.

Tibet was in the 1950s. By that logic, why shouldn't the UN invade the US for annexing Hawaii in the 1900s? (Or is there a convenient, China-sized 50-60-year time limit?)

Also, Taiwan and China have been at each other's throats for decades. There's literally zero reason to think the PRC would want to change the status quo (they're authoritarians, not idiots).

This ignores the PRC’s past imperialist wars of conquest against Vietnam and India,

As I mentioned to the OP, what do "past imperialist wars" have to do with anything? You could literally use that same logic to argue in favor of invasion of most (or at least a lot of) countries. Let's focus on the current government actually in power.

and current annexing islands in the South China Sea belonging to other countries.

Gotta an article I can read about this? I'm unsure of what you're referring to, specifically.

And the threats to invade Taiwan.

Like I also said to OP, those threats are empty and have been for decades (Mao might very well have intended to do it, but later governments have clearly had other priorities). The Chinese government knows an invasion of Taiwan would cause an international uproar that they're not interested in dealing with.

Obviously I do not support an invasion, but we should not pretend the PRC is not using its military muscle to get more territory.

Annexing some disputed islands in the Pacific =/= invading a whole country, overthrowing its government, and annexing it (e.g. Tibet). The PRC absolutely uses soft power to get things they want, but that's not abnormal in great power politics. Let's not act like China is Argentina and this is the Falklands War.

Believe me, if China actually did something that outrageous, I'd fully support UN intervention (not unilateral action by the US), but as it currently stands this whole proposal smells to me like just using the UN as a tool for US foreign policy, which is absolutely not why it exists.

Well it is not the the islands can be legitimately dispute as the PRC’s claims, as found by the Permanent Court of Arbitration have no legal basis whatsoever.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China

It should be noted the PRC is almost certain to become even more aggressive as its military and economic power grow. It clearly has no moral qualms against invasion and gives zero shits about international law.

Sure it cannot currently invade Taiwan BUT is working to fix that. It will be able to in the future.
Lack of current capabilities should not be confused with lack of desire or plans to do so once said capabilities are acquired.

But I agree with you that I do NOT support an invasion.
But rather a containment effort like we used with the Soviets.

[Byzconia]

Well it is not the the islands can be legitimately dispute as the PRC’s claims, as found by the Permanent Court of Arbitration have no legal basis whatsoever.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China

Interesting, though according to that page Taiwan also rejected the ruling, so one could also use that as argument to invade Taiwan, no?

Either way, I still don't think it's worth military intervention. The cost-benefit analysis is very much negative on that. Worth keeping an eye on, though.

It should be noted the PRC is almost certain to become even more aggressive as its military and economic power grow.

Historically, yes, that does tend be true. However, it's also irrelevant. The UN isn't going to intervene in a country based on things they "could do in the future." Their job is to react to things country actually do.

It clearly has no moral qualms against invasion and gives zero shits about international law.

Neither do a lot of other countries (up to, and including, the US). Again, if that's the argument we're going to use, it can just as easily be used against us.

Sure it cannot currently invade Taiwan BUT is working to fix that. It will be able to in the future.

Source?

Lack of current capabilities should not be confused with lack of desire or plans to do so once said capabilities are acquired.

What "capabilities" are they lacking? They're a nuclear power with a large, technologically-advanced military. They're not not-invading Taiwan because they physically can't, they aren't invading it because it's geopolitically impractical to do so.

You're probably correct that they would if they could get away with it (if only to back up all of their bluster over the decades), but the fact of the matter is they can't get away with it, hence why they haven't already invaded.

But I agree with you that I do NOT support an invasion.
But rather a containment effort like we used with the Soviets.

Yes, because that worked so well.

I should also note that George Kennan, whose Long Telegram influenced the Containment policy, went on to become one of the biggest critics of US foreign policy in regards to the USSR and basically felt that the US's obsession with Containment as an ideology was undermining its ability to make well-formed foreign policy decisions--almost saying as much during his testimony on the Vietnam War.

[Rio Cana]

I mean, can we just stop with the idea that the US needs to invade every place that isn't like us? Shitty as China's government is, they haven't launched any wars of conquest against anyone and are spreading their influence through purely economic means. Unlike us, they haven't decided to start toppling other country's governments to make them play nice (yet), so no matter how you try to spin it the US would invariably be seen as the aggressors in such a war. Regardless, what "UN aid"? Anything worthy of the name would have to be approved by the Security Council, which China is on. Not only would they veto such a proposal, but it's unlikely any of the permanent members would be particularly fond of the idea, either (invading a nation that, itself, hasn't invaded anyone is very much outside the UN's purview or desire).

This ignores the PRC’s past imperialist wars of conquest against Vietnam and India, and current annexing islands in the South China Sea belonging to other countries. And the threats to invade Taiwan.

Obviously I do not support an invasion, but we should not pretend the PRC is not using its military muscle to get more territory.

Seems you missed that interview with Arthur Waldron who is a US China scholar. He says China is going to implode politically and that it will catch the US off guard. This is the interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-2cArChw5M

They mention that the Hong Kong Human rights and democracy act was passed by the US senate. Yes its true but the Pres., since he is in trade talks with China, is said not to have signed it.

[Novus America]

Well it is not the the islands can be legitimately dispute as the PRC’s claims, as found by the Permanent Court of Arbitration have no legal basis whatsoever.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China

Interesting, though according to that page Taiwan also rejected the ruling, so one could also use that as argument to invade Taiwan, no?

Either way, I still don't think it's worth military intervention. The cost-benefit analysis is very much negative on that. Worth keeping an eye on, though.

It should be noted the PRC is almost certain to become even more aggressive as its military and economic power grow.

Historically, yes, that does tend be true. However, it's also irrelevant. The UN isn't going to intervene in a country based on things they "could do in the future." Their job is to react to things country actually do.

It clearly has no moral qualms against invasion and gives zero shits about international law.

Neither do a lot of other countries (up to, and including, the US). Again, if that's the argument we're going to use, it can just as easily be used against us.

Sure it cannot currently invade Taiwan BUT is working to fix that. It will be able to in the future.

Source?

Lack of current capabilities should not be confused with lack of desire or plans to do so once said capabilities are acquired.

What "capabilities" are they lacking? They're a nuclear power with a large, technologically-advanced military. They're not not-invading Taiwan because they physically can't, they aren't invading it because it's geopolitically impractical to do so.

You're probably correct that they would if they could get away with it (if only to back up all of their bluster over the decades), but the fact of the matter is they can't get away with it, hence why they haven't already invaded.

But I agree with you that I do NOT support an invasion.
But rather a containment effort like we used with the Soviets.

Yes, because that worked so well.

I should also note that George Kennan, whose Long Telegram influenced the Containment policy, went on to become one of the biggest critics of US foreign policy in regards to the USSR and basically felt that the US's obsession with Containment as an ideology was undermining its ability to make well-formed foreign policy decisions--almost saying as much during his testimony on the Vietnam War.

It did work, we won. The Soviet Union was stopped. We never fought a open, full scale war with them.

Sure it was not pretty and a lot of people died, but a lot less than would have died from an outright war. Now of course we should learn and do it better than we did before. We can and should avoid another Vietnam. The containment policy existed both before and after Vietnam, Vietnam was more an aberration than anything.

But it is empirically proven it worked long term.
The Cold War was, in the end a success.
It is the only option to control PRC expansionism, outside of a full on war with them.
And again I am NOT advocating we invade the PRC.

[Novus America]

This ignores the PRC’s past imperialist wars of conquest against Vietnam and India, and current annexing islands in the South China Sea belonging to other countries. And the threats to invade Taiwan.

Obviously I do not support an invasion, but we should not pretend the PRC is not using its military muscle to get more territory.

Seems you missed that interview with Arthur Waldron who is a US China scholar. He says China is going to implode politically and that it will catch the US off guard. This is the interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-2cArChw5M

They mention that the Hong Kong Human rights and democracy act was passed by the US senate. Yes its true but the Pres., since he is in trade talks with China, is said not to have signed it.

Trump did already sign the Hong Kong act.

I will believe the CCP rule is actually going to collapse when I see it. Regardless of what might happen we must not assume it will happen. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
Besides a policy of economic, political and propaganda actions are a way to make it more likely.

[UniversalCommons]

I think it would create a bizarre power dynamic where Turkey and Russia would align with China as well as North Korea and Iran, plunging the United States into a war where the United States and its allies are vastly outnumbered.

I think the money and industrial power would head to Canada, Indonesia, Australia, and the Scandinavian countries if it was a true land war and the end result would be a mess and loss of economic power.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

This ignores the PRC’s past imperialist wars of conquest against Vietnam and India, and current annexing islands in the South China Sea belonging to other countries. And the threats to invade Taiwan.

Obviously I do not support an invasion, but we should not pretend the PRC is not using its military muscle to get more territory.

Seems you missed that interview with Arthur Waldron who is a US China scholar. He says China is going to implode politically and that it will catch the US off guard. This is the interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-2cArChw5M

They mention that the Hong Kong Human rights and democracy act was passed by the US senate. Yes its true but the Pres., since he is in trade talks with China, is said not to have signed it.

He signed it.

Just by the fact both sides support it, you can tell it doesn't do much.

[Byzconia]

It did work, we won. The Soviet Union was stopped. We never fought a open, full scale war with them.

This is, quite possibly, the most massive oversimplification of the end of the Cold War I've ever seen. What did Containment have to do with the USSR losing the Cold War? The USSR lost because their economy and political system both imploded, the former because it wasn't capable of handling the type of military spending the USSR was doing during the War in Afghanistan (which, yes, did involve US aid to the rebels, but it'd be difficult to say that was the sole reason they managed to hold off the Soviets) and the latter because it was already dead in the water by the time Gorbachev tried to reform it (and only managed to speed up the process of killing it). The US didn't cause either of these things to happen.

And as for never fighting an "open, full scale war," pretty sure that had just as much to do with the idea of mutually assured destruction. The Soviet government had exactly as much interest in blowing up the world as the US government did (that is, zero).

Sure it was not pretty and a lot of people died, but a lot less than would have died from an outright war.

Except the issue is that the Vietnam War was completely unnecessary and in no way served to prevent a direct US-USSR conflict (and, again, was based in a flawed understanding of Kennan's ideas about 'Containment'). The fact that the US eventually failed in its goal to prevent the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia (with Loas and Cambodia eventually falling as well) should even further demonstrate the flaws in the plan.

Now of course we should learn and do it better than we did before. We can and should avoid another Vietnam. The containment policy existed both before and after Vietnam, Vietnam was more an aberration than anything.

An "abberation" that killed tens of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese in a pointless war that ultimately failed at accomplishing its goal. And, yes, Containment did exist after Vietnam, but the lessons of the war taught the US government to move back towards the original concept of fighting the spread of Communism through the economy rather than direct, open warfare against Communist movements (not that it didn't still happen later, but the US did learn its lesson, if only for awhile).

Personally, I'm not keen on sending thousands of people to die in wars that don't need to happen in the first place.

But it is empirically proven it worked long term.

By what measure? This is a scientific claim, but you haven't provided any evidence for it.

The Cold War was, in the end, a success.

Because the USSR killed itself through its own incompetence.

It is the only option to control PRC expansionism, outside of a full on war with them.
And again I am NOT advocating we invade the PRC.

Or we could actively negotiate with the Chinese and treat them like the government of another state (which they are). It's not the US's job to police other countries' behavior. This adversarial approach will only backfire in the long-term (like it usually does--*cough*Russia*cough*). I know it's hard for some people in this country to grasp, but the Cold War is over (and regardless, China isn't the USSR, so even if one accepts the argument that Containment actually was instrumental in the latter's downfall, that wouldn't necessarily mean it could be used as effectively against China).

The current Chinese government doesn't care about "spreading Communism" (they haven't even really been devoted to the idea since Mao's death--Xi Jinping's posturing notwithstanding), they want to spread their markets and bring more countries into their sphere of influence. Their ultimate goal is less, "The destruction of the economic and political structure of the West," and more, "China is destined to become the new world hegemon." The is not an unimportant distinction.

[Novus America]

It did work, we won. The Soviet Union was stopped. We never fought a open, full scale war with them.

This is, quite possibly, the most massive oversimplification of the end of the Cold War I've ever seen. What did Containment have to do with the USSR losing the Cold War? The USSR lost because their economy and political system both imploded, the former because it wasn't capable of handling the type of military spending the USSR was doing during the War in Afghanistan (which, yes, did involve US aid to the rebels, but it'd be difficult to say that was the sole reason they managed to hold off the Soviets) and the latter because it was already dead in the water by the time Gorbachev tried to reform it (and only managed to speed up the process of killing it). The US didn't cause either of these things to happen.

And as for never fighting an "open, full scale war," pretty sure that had just as much to do with the idea of mutually assured destruction. The Soviet government had exactly as much interest in blowing up the world as the US government did (that is, zero).

Sure it was not pretty and a lot of people died, but a lot less than would have died from an outright war.

Except the issue is that the Vietnam War was completely unnecessary and in no way served to prevent a direct US-USSR conflict (and, again, was based in a flawed understanding of Kennan's ideas about 'Containment'). The fact that the US eventually failed in its goal to prevent the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia (with Loas and Cambodia eventually falling as well) should even further demonstrate the flaws in the plan.

Now of course we should learn and do it better than we did before. We can and should avoid another Vietnam. The containment policy existed both before and after Vietnam, Vietnam was more an aberration than anything.

An "abberation" that killed tens of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese in a pointless war that ultimately failed at accomplishing its goal. And, yes, Containment did exist after Vietnam, but the lessons of the war taught the US government to move back towards the original concept of fighting the spread of Communism through the economy rather than direct, open warfare against Communist movements (not that it didn't still happen later, but the US did learn its lesson, if only for awhile).

Personally, I'm not keen on sending thousands of people to die in wars that don't need to happen in the first place.

But it is empirically proven it worked long term.

By what measure? This is a scientific claim, but you haven't provided any evidence for it.

The Cold War was, in the end, a success.

Because the USSR killed itself through its own incompetence.

It is the only option to control PRC expansionism, outside of a full on war with them.
And again I am NOT advocating we invade the PRC.

Or we could actively negotiate with the Chinese and treat them like the government of another state (which they are). It's not the US's job to police other countries' behavior. This adversarial approach will only backfire in the long-term (like it usually does--*cough*Russia*cough*). I know it's hard for some people in this country to grasp, but the Cold War is over (and regardless, China isn't the USSR, so even if one accepts the argument that Containment actually was instrumental in the latter's downfall, that wouldn't necessarily mean it could be used as effectively against China).

The current Chinese government doesn't care about "spreading Communism" (they haven't even really been devoted to the idea since Mao's death--Xi Jinping's posturing notwithstanding), they want to spread their markets and bring more countries into their sphere of influence. Their ultimate goal is less, "The destruction of the economic and political structure of the West," and more, "China is destined to become the new world hegemon." The is not an unimportant distinction.

See this is just a straw man. You are assuming that the Cold War would exactly repeat, that we would have learned nothing. But I am not advocating that. I am advocating we focus on economic, diplomatic and political actions and deterrence over actual large scale military actions anyways.

What I am advocating is what we did in the Cold War AFTER Vietnam.

I explicitly said we should learn from our mistakes and do it better this time.

The Soviet Union might not have imploded if not for our actions. Our actions played a role. So long as it could keep expanding it could keep its political system and economy afloat.

Our political and economic actions against it accelerated its problems.

The Cold War is NOT over and it is delusional to think so.
Yes it has changed. And as a result while we can use the same overall strategy, yes obviously the strategy would and should have to be adjusted accordingly.

And a non adversarial approach is literally impossible as our goals are mutually exclusive.
Negotiation is only possible when you both have a common end goal.

If your end goals are mutually exclusive it cannot happen.

And we do not have a common end goal. Our goals and purposes are irreconcilable. Sure they are not about spreading Communism, which they do not even believe in. But their goal to become the global hegemon is one we should oppose.

Besides we NEED an adversary. See the Hong Kong act for example. And external enemy is the only way to unite our political parties.
You run better in a race than you do on your own. Having a competitor drives you to excel, gives you a purpose and provides a benchmark.

Once the Soviet Union fell the US massively cut spending on R&D and STEM education, and our politics became more divisive.

We need NEED an external adversary. If people do not have an external adversary to unite against they turn against each other. Create internal enemies instead.

[Katganistan]

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Or go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

[Rojava Free State]

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Or go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

Or go in against a Sicilian when his first name is Tony

[Senkaku]

well we do need a quick and visually spectacular way to speed up the end of civilization i suppose, so

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

In ww3 scenario Russia has to deal with Europe

And will loose, both sides have nukes and Europe has a much higher population and economy.


Perhaps Latvia Estonia Lithuania and Poland would be temporarily occupied, but that would be the full extent

Also China’s economy doesent consist of resources but of cheap manufacturing. If all of that were to go away, short term loss and long term gain and self dependence for many countries most notably the USA

Russia could buttfuck Europe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc49Zot93QQ

Europe’s population and economy are bigger. Both have nukes.

Europe vs Russia, Russia looses .

Most likely scenario are that some Baltic nations and perhaps Poland would be occupied and then Europe liberated them some time later, without us intervention...

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Opps! I read it wrong. I thought we were taking about invading China not the US. The US is pretty much immune from invasion.

Yep, except I don’t think China has a militia like the US does. Not like they wouldn’t get some though.

The us is the only major power projector