Uesugi Kenshin  | 27 Aug 2019 8:54 a.m. PST |
If China initiated an invasion of conquest as opposed to a punitive raid, would the US become militarily involved? |
 Flashman14 | 27 Aug 2019 9:22 a.m. PST |
No. There are no gains to be had there with a military fight with China. Likely the world would be on our side for sanctions, and whatever other diplomatic pressure we could put on them. |
| Frederick | 27 Aug 2019 9:40 a.m. PST |
Absolutely not – given the track record of Chinese invasions of Vietnam the best thing the US could do would be to sit back and wait for the Vietnamese to go Viet Cong on the Chinese |
| robert piepenbrink | 27 Aug 2019 9:40 a.m. PST |
Agree with Flashman to a point--much tut-tuttery at the UN and suchlike venues, followed by sanctions which would gradually fade away or be evaded. No direct US military response. We have no treaty obligation, and our Asian allies are more likely to be picked off one by one than to help out each other, let alone the Viets. BUT China has been annoying enough in other respects to the US, that I'd expect a flow of deniable weapons and trainers to any anti-Chinese resistance. As a wargamer, this would only interest me as a setting if I already owned troops and terrain for something else--which I don't. |
 aegiscg47 | 27 Aug 2019 9:55 a.m. PST |
I think it would greatly depend upon how fast the Chinese advanced towards the capital. I think the Vietnamese air force would be overwhelmed in a few weeks and their combat brigades would only be able to hold out for so long. This is not going to be a repeat of the abortive Chinese invasion of the late 70s. The Chinese are going to win, but the question would be in what time frame. |
John Leahy  | 27 Aug 2019 10:17 a.m. PST |
Winning and holding are two very different things. |
| Lion in the Stars | 27 Aug 2019 11:57 a.m. PST |
Well, the Chinese lost in 1979 because the US had spent the previous 20 years 'training' the Vietnamese military. The Chinese were facing the veterans of the 'American War'. Now, though, all those veterans are long, long retired and many are dead. The Vietnamese military hasn't had a real fight/high-intensity training since 1980. |
| coopman | 27 Aug 2019 3:49 p.m. PST |
No. We figured out that it wasn't worth a damn the first time. |
| Thresher01 | 27 Aug 2019 5:15 p.m. PST |
No need for "deniable weapons" supply. Adopt an in their face attitude like we did with the Russians during their Afghan invasion. Of course, our "allies" from that one that we aided proved to be a major issue, so we need to choose more wisely, who we aid, how, and with what. |
| Uesugi Kenshin | 28 Aug 2019 9:39 a.m. PST |
So no "Domino" defence like in Korea, S. Vietnam, and Kuwait? |
| Lion in the Stars | 28 Aug 2019 11:10 a.m. PST |
Well, if China did invade Vietnam, they'd be able to legitimately claim a whole lot more of the South China Sea. When 25% of the entire world's shipping moves through the SCS, you don't want someone getting uppity and trying to claim it as theirs alone. So that is probably the US primary interest in supporting Vietnam against China. |
| Striker | 28 Aug 2019 3:06 p.m. PST |
|
| von Schwartz | 28 Aug 2019 6:54 p.m. PST |
Haven't gone through that once before? |
| Waco Joe | 28 Aug 2019 7:47 p.m. PST |
I can't help but think that tgere might he a few artificial islands that might experience foundation "issues" |
| wardog | 01 Sep 2019 1:20 p.m. PST |
john leahy
"winning and holding are two very different things"
their rules of engagements are quite different to ours (whatever it takes) |
| Skarper | 01 Sep 2019 11:35 p.m. PST |
Since it would be part of a clash over the East sea [we have to call it that where I am] then the US would be staggeringly shortsighted to ignore it. That said – China has nuclear weapons and the means to attack the Continental USA. So – while the US probably should they might well chicken out. |
tries out the expansion roads set.