Afghanistan as a Western Front against China

**rory_20_uk** · 12-18-2010, 21:55

Yes, it's a beachhead. And one of the most notable thing of beachheads is that one has to move off them as soon as possible lest one is destroyed.

So, you'd have to be sniffing glue to set up shop in a vast wasteland that is landlocked, surrounded by enemies and friends who have to be bought.

America has enough bases in the area to keep an eye on Iran already.

**Devastatin Dave** · 12-18-2010, 21:58

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

America has enough bases in the area to keep an eye on Iran already.

But not next door to Iran. Sniffing glue does not take away the ability to examine a map.

**rory_20_uk** · 12-18-2010, 22:09

Sigh. More useful countries:

Pakistan: has a coastline, more stable, already receiving aid.
Turkey - wanting to be member of EU, again has coastline and is an ally
Kuwait - practically next door and an ally has a coastline
Iraq - already invaded and is an ally. Has a coastline.

Are you sure you were looking at the right Iran? Were you getting mixed up with Tajikistan?

**Devastatin Dave** · 12-18-2010, 22:51

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Are you sure you were looking at the right Iran? Were you getting mixed up with Tajikistan?

I did go through the United States public education system you know....

**Beskar** · 12-19-2010, 20:39

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I did go through the United States public education system you know....

So you was looking at Tajikistan then?

**Fragony** · 12-20-2010, 02:47

It's a tiny mountainpass that leads to China from Afghanistan, would be suicide

**Devastatin Dave** · 12-20-2010, 03:06

Originally Posted by Beskar

So you was looking at Tajikistan then?

**quadalpha** · 12-29-2010, 04:24

The premise of this topic is rather undermined by the fact that the Chinese leadership will have no intention of starting a war with the US, and that there is no way the US can gain any advantage at all from a war with China at acceptable cost.

Having established this, the overland path to Xinjiang is irrelevant because, in addition the reasons given by others, it's a politically insignificant part of China that would easily soak up whatever infantry the US has left over from Afghanistan and Iraq to occupy.

**HoreTore** · 12-18-2010, 23:15

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Sigh. More useful countries:

Pakistan: has a coastline, more stable, already receiving aid.
Turkey - wanting to be member of EU, again has coastline and is an ally
Kuwait - practically next door and an ally has a coastline
Iraq - already invaded and is an ally. Has a coastline.

Are you sure you were looking at the right Iran? Were you getting mixed up with Tajikistan?

Allow me to build on that list...

Georgia - has been scheming for US military aid this entire decade.
Armenia - friendly state, would probably love a US presence.
Aserbadjan - corrupt as all hell, give the lovable tyrant a few billions and he'd do whatever the US wants him to do
Any of the -stan's - same as Aserbadjan. Would also allow access to China like OP wants

Also, I'm agreeing with PJ, though I was talking about Saddam's when I referred to Iraqs army... And I'm quite sure that you agrees that an invasion of China would take more than 50-100k troops.... ~500k would be a minimum to beat the original army I'd think, if you leave occuption forces out of the picture....

**rory_20_uk** · 12-18-2010, 23:58

In Gulf War I, Saddam radically underestimated the power of the USA's army. Fighting a tank war in the desert was not wise.

Most other countries were shocked by this and have been trying to deal with this.

China would probably fight in depth in a guerilla war with all the nasty toys they can - IEDs with no metal in them, lots of hand held missile launchers to make helicopters a flying coffin and so on. I doubt they'd be sending phalanxes of tanks to the border, but they do have enough missiles to destroy any American concentrations that develop, such as ammo dumps or even runways.

**CBR** · 12-19-2010, 17:11

Fighting a land war with China through Afghanistan would be a logistical nightmare. Since all the interesting stuff is like on the other side of China, it would be easier to use naval superiority and do a naval invasion. Of course currently USA only has the ability to do the superiority and not the invasion bit so whatever.

**gaelic cowboy** · 12-19-2010, 17:52

If you want to invade by land you would probably be better doing just like everyone has done and follow the ancient routes from mongolia and manchuria.

Vietnam is an ally for the future there more politically secure and historically not too fond of China.

**rory_20_uk** · 12-19-2010, 18:59

Originally Posted by CBR

Fighting a land war with China through Afghanistan would be a logistical nightmare. Since all the interesting stuff is like on the other side of China, it would be easier to use naval superiority and do a naval invasion. Of course currently USA only has the ability to do the superiority and not the invasion bit so whatever.

If America decided to get its fleet close to the mainland they'd find the fact that you can build bigger more missiles on land than you can on a ship. And the horror of having enough ships to hold the men to storm the beaches... well, best choose a different route.