Would it be possible to invade the US?

[meltdown75]

Invading the US would surely mark the beginning of the end of the world. It would be easier to just cut to the chase and kill everyone on the planet. I'm assuming that's what would happen once the mighty US was provoked anyway.

"One does not simply walk into Mordor..."

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Cleaner

Originally posted by: sjetexas

Originally posted by: Cleaner
You don't take over a country by defeating its army. You take it over by delegitimizing its government. Without a central gov. all hell will break loose. No control. Then they just take over the rest of the country at will. First strikes to all of the 50 state capitals and washington would do it. Then mopping up exercises after that.

Except thats just not possible. At BEST, an enemy is looking at mutally assured destruction. Annhiliate all of the government, you're still dead. Think of all the nuclear subs out there whose purpose is to make sure nothing is left of an enemy if we are hit with the force you describe. We will get that order out before our chain of command goes down....ICBMs aren't invisible.

Who said anything about ICBM's? A brief case nuke would do the trick. Idea isn't to destroy the goverment in said cities just incapaciate them while the invasion gets under way.

I think were playing by the rules of conventional war, not terrorism.

In converntional warfare there is very little chance of the US effectively being invaded.

As FOBOT mentioned there is enough firepower in the seas at all times to effectively wipe out life on this planet.

yes, there are more than 2500 nuclear warheads at sea all the time, enough to neutralize all the major population centers on the planet and start a nuclear winter

2500? Nuclear winter x4! :Q

Why do we even have that much firepower??? It seems kinda counter productive..... Obviously an all-out nuclear war would be no fun for anybody.

 

[Phoenix86]

Reading this thread I didn't realized how important out navy is... GO NAVY!

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Eli
Why do we even have that much firepower??? It seems kinda counter productive..... Obviously an all-out nuclear war would be no fun for anybody.

Redundancy, redundancy, redundancy.

Also, it's nice to have nukes near your target to minimize their retalliation time, so multiple moblie delivery platforms are nice (read plenty of subs spread out). 2 here, 4 there, 3 over here, and move them around a lot.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Eli
Why do we even have that much firepower??? It seems kinda counter productive..... Obviously an all-out nuclear war would be no fun for anybody.

Redundancy, redundancy, redundancy.

Also, it's nice to have nukes near your target to minimize their retalliation time, so multiple moblie delivery platforms are nice (read plenty of subs spread out). 2 here, 4 there, 3 over here, and move them around a lot.

Plus it's nice bragging rights. The US has the largest penis on the planet.

 

[Kadarin]

Damn, there's some rampant stupidity and ignorance in this thread.

Neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 was an invasion. An invasion is a large scale military operation that is designed to hold and control territory: Allied forces invaded mainland Europe during D-Day. William the Conqueror's forces invaded England in 1066.

Is is possible for mainland US to be invaded? Certainly. However, I doubt very many if any countries besides the US itself have the ability to project that kind of military force at this time.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Topic Title: Would it be possible to invade the US?
Topic Summary: edit: and occupy (for those who need it spelled out )
[/b]

I can't make a comment on this here in OT as it would touch off another Firestorm.

How come this is not in P&N???

I would think the answer would be obvious

Because I didn't mean for this to be a serious discussion/I don't like to post in P&N.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Reading this thread I didn't realized how important out navy is... GO NAVY!

:thumbsup:

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: Thera
A classic invasion under the current conditions would probably fail. Change a few elements and it could easily be pulled off. For example block or sanction fuel and imports and America will fall under it's own girth. A resistance movement that is starving and immobile is pretty easily invaded, up keeping the invasion would be another matter though. But that can worked around with a "hearts and minds" campaign.

If it came down to not having enough fuel to move food to feed the people, you better believe that the government would send the military to secure resources. It would be a really crappy thing to do, but it would be better than having to put down riots and coup attempts.

R

 

[SagaLore]

Considering that I have a Eastern Shawnee heritage, I would have to say yes.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: Eli
Why do we even have that much firepower??? It seems kinda counter productive..... Obviously an all-out nuclear war would be no fun for anybody.

Redundancy, redundancy, redundancy.

Also, it's nice to have nukes near your target to minimize their retalliation time, so multiple moblie delivery platforms are nice (read plenty of subs spread out). 2 here, 4 there, 3 over here, and move them around a lot.

Plus it's nice bragging rights. The US has the largest penis on the planet.

That and survivability. The nuclear Triad ensures that at least one system would survive a surprise attack and preserves our ability to retaliate.

The Russians have a similar system.

 

[ironcrotch]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Topic Title: Would it be possible to invade the US?
Topic Summary: edit: and occupy (for those who need it spelled out )
[/b]

I can't make a comment on this here in OT as it would touch off another Firestorm.

How come this is not in P&N???

I would think the answer would be obvious

Because I didn't mean for this to be a serious discussion/I don't like to post in P&N.

serious discussion.... P&N... buahahahaa..

Good thing this discussion is here not in puss & nips..

 

[SonicIce]

are we talking about Google taking over the US? i mean world.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Well I was talking about it in more isolated terms - without the US being involved. If Canada has its big brother coming in to protect it then it would be hard to conquer it.

Canada by itself would probably be conquered within a day or two.

lol, Canada probably wouldn't even know for a week or two. The prime minister would get a phone call one day from the enemy leader.

Here's a reenactment- (Phone rings)

Prime Minister: Hello?

Enemy leader: Do you surrender?

Prime Minister: Surrender what?

Enemy leader: Our forces have conquered all the northern territories, we have control of 75% of your land mass. We've taken some losses but emerged victorious.

Prime Minister: We weren't even aware that you invaded us. Those territories consist of mostly rocks, ice, and bears, and it's January. Where did your losses come from?

Enemy leader: Mostly from falling rocks, ice, and bears.

ROFL! :laugh:

That made my day!

 

[meltdown75]

:laugh:

 

[LordMorpheus]

I'm going to build an army of killer-death robots and take over the world in 20 years or so. Until then, the US is safe.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: Taggart
Well, there is a difference btwn 'invasion' and 'conquered.' You mean conquered? Invaded, yes, conquered, yes, if nuclear weapons and/or other WMD's were involved.

Conquered would be asking too much for the invaders. I'll give them credit if they can hold California for over a year.

They would give it back in 2 days. Too much of a headache.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
I'm going to build an army of killer-death robots and take over the world in 20 years or so. Until then, the US is safe.

My solar powered bugbots will pwn j00!

 

[RadioHead84]

I really think there is no way for anyone really to invade the US unless it was liek someone said before..the World vs US. If that was the case then yeah..we would be screwed but when on earth is that going to happen..if two countries cant agree how are hundreds?

WMD is kinda out of the quesiton to since if anyone were to shoot a missle at our cities surely we would fire back..which is less of an invasion..and more of the end of the world.

We have a very strong navy and airforce that would stop any armada or ships that would try to reach us from the pacific or atlantic oceans.

Canada is out of the question because A. We could go and help them if they came under attack. and B. They arnt easy either as others have said. True i dont know a lot about the Canadian armed forces but i believe they HAVE an army. They DID fight in WW2 so its not like they dont have a single gun in the entire country.

Mexico..I guess is possible but again we woudl notice if something like an invasion was building...

an lastly yeah....our country is way to big for a occupancy. The sure thought of having to supply an army as it moved accross the USA trying to conquer it while citizens had firearms doesnt seem possible.

my 2pc

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli
No, but society would still at least begin to crumble at that point, and it would crumble more and more the longer we were in that situation.

That's all I was saying. If people can't get gasoline to get to work.. yeah, we're fscked.. We could certainly pull out of it though... it would just be some hard times. Obviously for society to completely collapse, that would have to happen and it would have to escalate and get worse, instead of better... for an extended period of time.

I think a misconception is that if the situation prevented us living our normal lives, our society would crumble. It wouldn't. We would adapt just as we have in the past. During WW2 people changed jobs, conserved fuel, saved money... they had to alter their lives to support the war effort. But they did it. We'd have no problem adapting again if the situation arose.

You're right... the survivors would adapt, but not likely over through the invasion force. We live different than we did then. Pre-WW2 we had a huge steel industry for example. I dare you to compare US industry of today to pre-WW2 industry. It would take America decades to reach that production level if imports were cut off. Half due to the limit of raw supplys, half because of the economic wasteland that we'd go through without cheap goods and services.

"Freedom" to protect yourself with guns was great when horses were transportation and you didn't require energy to live your daily life. The right to own guns means nothing to modern warfare. If you wanted to mount a civil defense you'd be better off stocking up on bomb making material.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Taggart
Well, there is a difference btwn 'invasion' and 'conquered.' You mean conquered? Invaded, yes, conquered, yes, if nuclear weapons and/or other WMD's were involved.

Wrong. Nobody can win a nuclear war. At least not with the USA or any other country that also posesses nuclear arms. Retaliation would be on a scale sufficient to probably "defeat" human existence on earth. You would have to smuggle all your nukes in and detonate them without us knowing. Possibly a couple of few nukes could be smuggled in but not enough to "conquer" the US without drawing notice.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
I'm going to build an army of killer-death robots and take over the world in 20 years or so. Until then, the US is safe.

My solar powered bugbots will pwn j00!

Solar eclipse :evil:

 

[StageLeft]

As things are now, no not really. It's military is too powerful and defense is typically easier than offense.

 

[RadioHead84]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Eli
No, but society would still at least begin to crumble at that point, and it would crumble more and more the longer we were in that situation.

That's all I was saying. If people can't get gasoline to get to work.. yeah, we're fscked.. We could certainly pull out of it though... it would just be some hard times. Obviously for society to completely collapse, that would have to happen and it would have to escalate and get worse, instead of better... for an extended period of time.

I think a misconception is that if the situation prevented us living our normal lives, our society would crumble. It wouldn't. We would adapt just as we have in the past. During WW2 people changed jobs, conserved fuel, saved money... they had to alter their lives to support the war effort. But they did it. We'd have no problem adapting again if the situation arose.

You're right... the survivors would adapt, but not likely over through the invasion force. We live different than we did then. Pre-WW2 we had a huge steel industry for example. I dare you to compare US industry of today to pre-WW2 industry. It would take America decades to reach that production level if imports were cut off. Half due to the limit of raw supplys, half because of the economic wasteland that we'd go through without cheap goods and services.

"Freedom" to protect yourself with guns was great when horses were transportation and you didn't require energy to live your daily life. The right to own guns means nothing to modern warfare. If you wanted to mount a civil defense you'd be better off stocking up on bomb making material.

Any force that would try to invade the US would need a massive amount of people. Do you think that a army of that size could equip their soldiers and vehicles with the best of the best? No a army of that size would not be very well equiped and rely on the sure numbers of people. So iI dont think it would be modern warfare where guns that we have wouldnt matter it..it would be a bloody fight.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Thera
"Freedom" to protect yourself with guns was great when horses were transportation and you didn't require energy to live your daily life. The right to own guns means nothing to modern warfare. If you wanted to mount a civil defense you'd be better off stocking up on bomb making material.

Fertilizer bombs