Is the US Military able to defend us?

[RevDisk]

I'll take that bet.  Assymmetry has a power all its own.
Go toe to toe? I agree...but they don't have to, nor would have to for the aforementioned scenario.

I think means the scenario of "don't worry, that fleet is heading to Venezula....oops, typo, we meant LA, the keys are like right next to each other..."

For current regime/government survives, I'll cover that $1 bet. If they have a revolution, obviously, things will be different.

Sure, China could make a freighter with couple hundred or thousand of cruise missiles. Times a couple hundred, you'd have a lot of issues if they were all targeting power plants, bridges, dams, highways, etc. Or detonate a LNG carrier in a harbor. We could do exactly the same to China.

Doesn't answer the question of, with the current govt, why the hell would they want to do so? France could slip one of their nukes into the US and hit Wisconsin to neutralize our strategic cheese supply or hit Napa valley to ensure wine supremacy. It's just fairly unlikely to occur. While France or China would gain a momentary advantage at moderate costs, it wouldn't pay off in the long run.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

You could abolish all services but the Navy and still be able to defend the country easily. Fighting WW3, that would take time to ramp up numbers to curbstomp our enemies - but holding our own is doable.

As for invading Alaska, Japan tried that. As I recall the weather killed more than the enemy did.

[TommyGunn]

You could abolish all services but the Navy and still be able to defend the country easily. Fighting WW3, that would take time to ramp up numbers to curbstomp our enemies - but holding our own is doable.

As for invading Alaska, Japan tried that. As I recall the weather killed more than the enemy did.

Japan took a couple of Aleutian Islands.  It was a pretty pointless effort for them......they were never interested in invading America.

Had WW2 continued they would have possibly completed a  nuclear bomb and the ability to nuke San Francisco and make future hippies glow in the dark.   But by then our nuke arsenal would be greater than 2, so who knows?

[seeker_two]

One nuke in one container ship in each port would fatally cripple the US ability to respond to anything. China is more interested in scooping up Asian territory....and keeping the US out of the way.

I still could see a THE BEAR AND THE DRAGON scenario where China attacks Russia and we send the Rooskies aid via NATO....

[RevDisk]

One nuke in one container ship in each port would fatally cripple the US ability to respond to anything. China is more interested in scooping up Asian territory....and keeping the US out of the way.

I still could see a THE BEAR AND THE DRAGON scenario where China attacks Russia and we send the Rooskies aid via NATO....

There's 360 commercial ports in the US, according to American Association of Port Authorities. Canada has 18 major points, according to Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Mexico has 41 according to Coordinación General de Puertos y Mercante. So, that's 409 needed nuclear weapons. And that wouldn't necessarily take out our oil, coal and gas terminals that might be used for emergency port facilities. Or dry docks and repair yards. Oh, and Navy ports.  Let's low-ball and say 500 nukes.

Most serious people put China's nuclear arsenal at 450-600 warheads on the top end, with a more realistic number at 300 ish.  That includes warheads for 50-75 ish ICBMs. Going nuts and rounding up to a hundred, if China used every nuke not assigned to an ICBM (stripping their short range ballistic missiles) and nuked every port, they maybe could have enough nukes. Having 500 nuclear weapons delivered with no leaks or security violations, with perfect timing and placement, would be quite an achievement. That would literally last possibly an hour until we retaliated with at least twice as many nuclear weapons.

I hope it's popular here to bash Obama, but there's zero chance that we would not retaliate with nuclear weapons to such an attack. Not "one in a billion" we would fail to attack, absolutely zero.

And also make absolutely no sense. France pre-emptively nuking the hell out of Wisconsin and California is significantly more likely attack scenario with the current geopolitical climate. A unified French-British coalition could pull it off, and is just as likely/motivated to do so. Could the PRC govt be overthrown and get a new govt that is off the rails? Sure. But at the moment, it's as likely as the US successfully invading and occupying China.

I am legitimately curious. Why are any of y'all thinking this is remotely plausible with the existing governments?

[seeker_two]

There's 360 commercial ports in the US, according to American Association of Port Authorities. Canada has 18 major points, according to Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Mexico has 41 according to Coordinación General de Puertos y Mercante. So, that's 409 needed nuclear weapons. And that wouldn't necessarily take out our oil, coal and gas terminals that might be used for emergency port facilities. Or dry docks and repair yards. Oh, and Navy ports.  Let's low-ball and say 500 nukes.

Most serious people put China's nuclear arsenal at 450-600 warheads on the top end, with a more realistic number at 300 ish.  That includes warheads for 50-75 ish ICBMs. Going nuts and rounding up to a hundred, if China used every nuke not assigned to an ICBM (stripping their short range ballistic missiles) and nuked every port, they maybe could have enough nukes. Having 500 nuclear weapons delivered with no leaks or security violations, with perfect timing and placement, would be quite an achievement. That would literally last possibly an hour until we retaliated with at least twice as many nuclear weapons.

I hope it's popular here to bash Obama, but there's zero chance that we would not retaliate with nuclear weapons to such an attack. Not "one in a billion" we would fail to attack, absolutely zero.

And also make absolutely no sense. France pre-emptively nuking the hell out of Wisconsin and California is significantly more likely attack scenario with the current geopolitical climate. A unified French-British coalition could pull it off, and is just as likely/motivated to do so. Could the PRC govt be overthrown and get a new govt that is off the rails? Sure. But at the moment, it's as likely as the US successfully invading and occupying China.

I am legitimately curious. Why are any of y'all thinking this is remotely plausible with the existing governments?

Based on world anti-nuke, anti-American sentiment and the severe damage such an attack would cause (not to mention our current "leadership"), why do you think we'd retaliate?

[just Warren]

Like I said upthread, China is making an economic play not a military one. They are spending a lot of money in Africa all of which would be wasted if they acted in such a way.

However, for a very small amount of money funneled to think tanks and journalists, they can keep enough influential Americans in a chronic ague about what they might do.

This gets us to waste time, energy, and money and focusing on the wrong theater of operations.

[RevDisk]

Based on world anti-nuke, anti-American sentiment and the severe damage such an attack would cause (not to mention our current "leadership"), why do you think we'd retaliate?

We're Americans. Getting emotional and killings metric buttocks loads of people in foreign countries on light pretenses is kinda what we do.

The rest of the world is using the metric system. And yet, oddly we use miles on our signs and gallons for our gas. Tumblr, Berkeley and Princeton make tons of noise and are annoying as hell, but they'd be trampled by Americans doing what we do best. Oversimplification of complex situations, and responding by pouring utterly ridiculous amounts of money into delivering bombs into whichever Derkaderkastan pissed us off. China would be just another Derkaderkastan in a matter of hours.

Hell, Obama bombed nearly twice as many countries as Bush. Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. Bush, a measly Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia.

Besides, you can always get Lefties to support bombing a foreign country. Just have a Dem do it, and make a snazzy youtube video claiming some evil guy was opposing children or cute animals.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Japan took a couple of Aleutian Islands.  It was a pretty pointless effort for them......they were never interested in invading America.

Had WW2 continued they would have possibly completed a  nuclear bomb and the ability to nuke San Francisco and make future hippies glow in the dark.   But by then our nuke arsenal would be greater than 2, so who knows?

Yes,  the Aleutians were a diversion that didn't work, so it turned into a minor invasion.

[wmenorr67]

There's 360 commercial ports in the US, according to American Association of Port Authorities. Canada has 18 major points, according to Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Mexico has 41 according to Coordinación General de Puertos y Mercante. So, that's 409 needed nuclear weapons. And that wouldn't necessarily take out our oil, coal and gas terminals that might be used for emergency port facilities. Or dry docks and repair yards. Oh, and Navy ports.  Let's low-ball and say 500 nukes.

Only need to hit three to really hurt us, LA, NY and Houston.

[MechAg94]

Only need to hit three to really hurt us, LA, NY and Houston.

I haven't seen the others, but the ports and infrastructure around Houston stretch for many miles.  Even a large nuke would make a big hole, but I am not certain it would shut everything down for long.  I guess it really depends on the fall out and radiation afterwards. 

It wouldn't be a good thing at all.  A lot of those chemical plants and refineries pass materials back and forth and there are a whole mess of pipelines going through or under that area so there would be a great deal of damage.

[MechAg94]

If you had told me that our consul in Benghazi would be attacked, I would not have imagined our leadership would call off any response and leave those people hanging out to dry.  I am really not sure Obama would respond with Nukes if we were nuked. 

[lupinus]

If you had told me that our consul in Benghazi would be attacked, I would not have imagined our leadership would call off any response and leave those people hanging out to dry.  I am really not sure Obama would respond with Nukes if we were nuked. 

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest, particularly if we're talking small scale/isolated attack.

I also have to wonder what size an attack would have to be, and how much indifference POTUS would have to show, before local commanders/units or perhaps .mil in general gave POTUS a different form of salute than is customary and went about taking care of business while congress sorts out the paperwork. Not nukes, per say, but in general. I have to wonder how much would be enough before someone high enough up the chain says "*expletive deleted*ck this ahole, load up and go kill something". I would imagine that point is SOMEWHERE, I'd just be interested to know where that breaking point is.

[Hutch]

Yeah, 30 or 40 years from now things, might be very different. No way China is catching up to USN within 20 years. Not happening, and China isn't making the moves politically to get their Navy up to snuff. They really don't need to, aside from prestige gigs. Because we're spending the money to chase pirates and patrol the seaways.


Random question, why would we remotely have justification for attacking China providing theoretical aid to Venezuela? Or want to attack even without justification?

Or do you mean, if PRC was occupying Venezuela? Even then, I'm still having difficulty seeing why it would be our problem.

My hypothetical had to do with an imaginary armed incursion, camouflaged as relief.  You're right about "Not our problem".  How about this?  An epidemic is reported in Baja Cali, and the Chinese deploy "humanitarian aid" that looks like a budding coup de main.  Ro-ro's are strung out along the Pacific with follow-on "relief forces".  Cross-border incursions ramp up, and shots are exchanged.  (Obviously I'm not a good fiction writer). Elements of the Mexican Army are identified as engaged, with Chinese support forces spinning up at the debarkation point.  They want to control the source of the contagion, said to be inside the US border.  (This gets more and more shaky).  Would a (D) President order US forces to repel the invasion by force of arms?  Without regard to my non-existent skills as a narrator, my point (originally) was that I don't think the current president, or Bernie, and maybe not Hillary, would be willing to "draw the sword and throw away the scabbard" in actual defense of the homeland.

[MechAg94]

Who would believe the Chinese would send boat loads of humanitarian aide to anyone much less Mexico? 

[Hutch]

Who would believe the Chinese would send boat loads of humanitarian aide to anyone much less Mexico? 

The same people who think the Prez would fold.  The same folks who think the Chinese have done this before, in Africa, in order to extend their sphere of influence.  The same folks who are apprehensive about a country of 1.2 billion where the men of fighting age outnumber marriageable women by about a hundred million, and who have a rapidly imploding economy.  That's who.

[MechAg94]

I guess I should have put a smiley on my last post.  It was more of a joke. 

However, if we sent a bunch of ships (even military ships) toward a disaster area, no one assumes we are there to cause trouble.  Making that assumption with China is bit foolish.  However, who knows what can happen 10 or 15 years from now. 

[Hutch]

I'm not singling out China as the monster under the bed, and I've lost the track I was trying to make.  My point is not that China has designs of conquest in the Western Hemisphere, but that the current president would be unwilling to oppose, by force of arms, any who did.

[Ron]

Is the US Military able to defend us?

Yes

[KD5NRH]

I haven't seen the others, but the ports and infrastructure around Houston stretch for many miles.  Even a large nuke would make a big hole, but I am not certain it would shut everything down for long.  I guess it really depends on the fall out and radiation afterwards.

Don't forget the human factor; you're going to have a lot of people not wanting to sail into a port that's been hit that hard for years afterward.  Think about vacationing in Beirut and what's the first thing that comes to mind even now?  Also, in many cases, that will extend to nearby ports; Houston would affect Freeport, Texas City, Galveston, maybe even out to Port Arthur and Beaumont for that mater.

[roo_ster]

OK, taking this seriously:
Is the US Military able to defend us?

1. Against peer or near-peer nation-states in a non-WMD war with similar hardware and CONOPS?  Yes. 

2. Against 4th gen / insurgency on our soil?  No.

3. Against our own gov't when it oversteps the bounds set by the COTUS?  No.

[RocketMan]

Is the US Military able to defend us?  Part of the answer to this question really is, "Will the military be allowed to defend us?"