Alternate History / Timeline: Invading the US

khorboth · 04-17-2018, 09:22 AM

I tend to think of things in terms of late 1980s or early 1990s because that's when I was playing microprose games.

So...

1) Something in SE Asia melts down. Let's call it Korea. The U.S. commits a lot of troops. Vietnam sides with Korea. China supports Korea, but doesn't directly fight.

2) A surprise invasion of the U.S. is launched. A whole bunch of Chinese-trained Chinese-equipped Vietnamese and Korean troops in Chinese equipment ship into the Atlantic northeast where they don't think we'll expect them. They're right, and of the nearly million-man invasion force, almost 20% make it to land. Cut off from supplies, the the invaders are hopelessly outnumbered, outmaneuvered, and outgunned. They establish a foothold and it lasts a few weeks because the U.S. is trying to minimize further collateral damage as well as negotiate for hostage/POW release. The U.S. captures a few surviving invaders. Victory!

3) While U.S. attention is elsewhere, the USSR (I suppose this puts us prior to 1992) is preparing their invasion as covertly as possible. They launch a four-pronged invasion.
a) Amphibious assault from Cuba. With secret stockpiles of supplies on the island built up over a decade, there are now sufficient supplies to keep an invasion force going for years.
b) Steamroll up through central America. Quickly capture Mexico City and then move into Texas over the poorly fortified border. With stores similarly built up in South America, an invasion force can be put together quickly.
c) Air drop/Amphibious assault on the West Cost. This is the most problematic. Supply lines are tough. They will seek to form a foothold and tie up U.S. resources until the other fronts join.
d) Northern assault. Attack across the Bering strait and move by land through Canada. The USSR has plenty of troops well-suited to this kind of terrain.

This strategy maximizes the one advantage the USSR forces always had. They had more. More tanks, more troops, more planes, more of everything. They were generally more able to hold a multi-front conflict going due to their superior numbers. Supply lines would still be tricky, but with allies in central America it would be sustainable for a while. Also note the willingness to attack "US puppet states" like Mexico and Canada. During the invasion, there would also be a psychological attack on the populous. I would guess that this would be focused on looting and crime followed by propaganda saying that in soviet states, the people are safe from such degenerate behavior. Probably also indications that the mere fact of the invasion is proof that the U.S. is a failure.

04-17-2018, 09:22 AM	#2
khorboth Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Denver, CO	Re: Alternate History / Timeline: Invading the US I tend to think of things in terms of late 1980s or early 1990s because that's when I was playing microprose games. So... 1) Something in SE Asia melts down. Let's call it Korea. The U.S. commits a lot of troops. Vietnam sides with Korea. China supports Korea, but doesn't directly fight. 2) A surprise invasion of the U.S. is launched. A whole bunch of Chinese-trained Chinese-equipped Vietnamese and Korean troops in Chinese equipment ship into the Atlantic northeast where they don't think we'll expect them. They're right, and of the nearly million-man invasion force, almost 20% make it to land. Cut off from supplies, the the invaders are hopelessly outnumbered, outmaneuvered, and outgunned. They establish a foothold and it lasts a few weeks because the U.S. is trying to minimize further collateral damage as well as negotiate for hostage/POW release. The U.S. captures a few surviving invaders. Victory! 3) While U.S. attention is elsewhere, the USSR (I suppose this puts us prior to 1992) is preparing their invasion as covertly as possible. They launch a four-pronged invasion. a) Amphibious assault from Cuba. With secret stockpiles of supplies on the island built up over a decade, there are now sufficient supplies to keep an invasion force going for years. b) Steamroll up through central America. Quickly capture Mexico City and then move into Texas over the poorly fortified border. With stores similarly built up in South America, an invasion force can be put together quickly. c) Air drop/Amphibious assault on the West Cost. This is the most problematic. Supply lines are tough. They will seek to form a foothold and tie up U.S. resources until the other fronts join. d) Northern assault. Attack across the Bering strait and move by land through Canada. The USSR has plenty of troops well-suited to this kind of terrain. This strategy maximizes the one advantage the USSR forces always had. They had more. More tanks, more troops, more planes, more of everything. They were generally more able to hold a multi-front conflict going due to their superior numbers. Supply lines would still be tricky, but with allies in central America it would be sustainable for a while. Also note the willingness to attack "US puppet states" like Mexico and Canada. During the invasion, there would also be a psychological attack on the populous. I would guess that this would be focused on looting and crime followed by propaganda saying that in soviet states, the people are safe from such degenerate behavior. Probably also indications that the mere fact of the invasion is proof that the U.S. is a failure.