Could America be invaded?

[darkorion69]

Another invasion scenario came to mind. What if covert Mexican intelligence operatives made alliances with militias along the southern border of the US. In return for help getting Mexican forces into the country and ownership of Texas, they would agree to sweep the US and relocate all illegal immigrants to Mexican territory as forced labor. The once American citizens of Texas would be allowed to emigrate within 5 years or live in a country with ZERO gun laws.

 

[Jman58]

My thoughts first and foremost.
No other Navy in the world can project power (lack of super Carriers or ability to operate so far from logistics)to the degree that would allow a naval invasion, let alone the naval/transport capability to actually transport a sizable force to establish a beach head.

This translates to forcing the invasion coming through Alaska/Canada or Mexico again transporting a significant force to these staging areas with the Navy/Air Force in place would prove very difficult.

In the short term I don't think it would be possible.

Long term it might be feasible if the US was cut off from technology imports critical to much of the advanced technology it uses, over time it may not be able to maintain the advantage in naval/airpower. Possibly opening the door for some sort of invasion.

 

[BakaSmurf]

It'd be a very short invasion, but yes, America could be invaded.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

A good plan. As long as you could keep the government adhering to the constitution, that could work. You many want to remove a few amendments though. I would recommend the 2nd and the 22nd Amendments.

I can't say I know much about the 22nd, but there's no way I'd take away the 2nd. I simply would not want to ask the people to give up the power to overthrow any government that gets out of hand. That's one of Americas biggest checks in the balance of power.

Edit:

Why would I want to get rid of the 22nd Amendment? I WANT term limits.

The problem would be striking the fine balance between allowing people guns as a matter of personal freedom and trying to limit the number of people murdered with guns. Also, just out of curiosity, what would be your stance on censorship?

It has been my experience that the better armed the public is, the fewer gun related crimes actually happen. In fact, there are places around the country that require people to own guns and their crime rates plummeted. I wish I could come up with an article about it, but I heard about it a long time ago and can't remember the names of the cities. Think about it, are you more likely to rob a store when you know the clerk behind the counter has a gun? Or are you gonna go somewhere where the population isn't so armed? People will still kill people, even if they don't have guns.

My beliefs on censorship are that it shouldn't happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The only place I think it's reasonable to stop people from saying things is in the area of "shouting fire in a crowded room." Only when it can clearly result in physical harm.

That's bullshit. America isn't any better off because it has more guns. Since the clerk behind the counter is armed it might convince the robber to simply shoot the clerk before he/she has the chance to do so in return.

What's more your fetish for guns is causing problems for the rest of the world. Mexican drug cartels go north to the USA, stock up on assault weapons and then bring 'em south to shoot at police and arm the drug war. You are the only country in the world that has this fetish guns and the more you try and defend it the more the rest of the world laughs at you.

Perhaps you should redirect your anger to the people who give the money to the drug cartels. I know it's not as sexy as hating guns, but maybe if people stopped buying drugs from the cartels they wouldn't have any money to buy guns.

Na. Why would you want to stop breaking the law to enable other people to break worse laws?

 

[mendokusai]

It would probably turn out like Fallout: everybody loses.

 

[Cortheya]

I started wondering if it could be invaded while playing World in Conflict.

The main problems with invading any country are its geography, the population, and the Army.

1) The United States is a massive place, the third or fourth largest in the world, depending on which set of figures you use. This presents a problem as invading country's armies are often stretched too thinly to be effective. Unlike the two larger countries, America is relatively warm, compared to the freezing winters that defeated the French and Germans invading Russia and the Americans in their failed attempt to invade Canada in the war of 1812. The Rocky mountains would be a problem as well, but only if resistance fighters set up there and attacked the surrounding area.

Overall, I believe that with a large enough army, the size of the US would not present too great a problem.

2) The population of the US would be a massive problem. Thanks to the misinterpretation of the US constitution (It actually gives the right to bear arms to 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'), many Americans own guns and are very proficient in their use. The Americans in general have a very patriotic attitude, and the rabid patriotism in their media, which is especially noticable on FOX news, is reminiscent of the patriotism in Nazi Germany. This would likely motivate them to fight to defend their homeland. Their use of actual tactics would be debatable, as they might try to copy Rambo, but they would certainly gather into small groups of resistance fighters. Resistance fighters are always a headache for invading troops: The Eldelweiss Pirates in France killed the chief of the Cologne Gestapo in 1944, and many other groups sprang up in Europe during World War II. The American resistance fighters would be far better armed, and would likely join up with the local National Guard units.

In conclusion, the resistance would be a massive problem for an invading force.

3) The US Army is one of the best in the world, and one of the better equipped (This has improved vastly since Vietnam). They also have around a million soldiers, which could be put to great use and their numbers would be bolstered by Resistance fighters. They also know the are they'll be fighting in well, which is a massive benefit in urban combat.


In conclusion, I believe that if America was invaded, the invaders would face a massive struggle against the US Army forces currently in the country, but if they defeated them, they would be in their own Vietnam-esce war, with constant guerilla attacks. What do you think?

Ok now im curious to know about this "Misinterpretation of the Constitution" Are you against the universal right to bear arms? Because that is what it intended NOT for the militia or other grop alone.

 

[Styre]

you do know the us has been invaded before and the white house was burnt down right, by the canadians in 1812 OH YEAH!

 

[Darkblader01]

you could easily invade and conquer america, all you really need is delivery vans, nuclear warheads, and one army

Get a few suicide bombers to drive to key locations around America, Detonate the nukes in their trucks all at once wiping out their main infrastructure, then send in your troops to "help" the country with poisoned rations and supplies

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Well, Georgia was invaded not too long ago so that answers your question.

=P

Badum Tish.

But no. 50% of global military spending has seen to that.

 

[kFox]

not hard to invade, just the surviving part that would be the kicker to it all

America could be invaded with wads of money due to the financial crisis...
To invade Australia... a motorcade with the Canadian Flags would do. Doesn't that make you glad to be a Canadian right now?

 

[Shock and Awe]

The chinese could do it. The red guard would crush the US army.

I doubt it since an army that large presents a logistical NIGHTMARE. China also does not have a navy to speak of. It is large, but it mostly consists of patrol boats and smaller vessels. They have no way of effectively moving that army.

They can send them over on commercial flights

First class?

No, send them on coach. That's when the U.S. will strike the killing blow by showing 'Twilight' and '13 going on 30' as the only two inflight movies - on repeat.

Im pretty sure thats against the geneva convention, but like we give a fuck at this point.

 

[pantallica95]

i really didnt want to read 9 pages, so sorry if this was already mentioned but:

All these people are talking about how hard it would be to occupy America. The goal probably wouldnt be invasion. Whoever was attacking woul probably just be in it to destroy our government and army. Not to take land. So nukes are a viable option. No government invades to take land anymore. Not that i hear of here in the USA about anyway.

 

[Shock and Awe]

simple, fire a catalyst into America's nuclear supplies and you have destroyed America's main defense, after which you can proceed to watch as the radioactive fallout from their nuclear supplies strangles most of their armed forces, then just bomb them with nukes until there's a smoking crater shaped like America. either that or you could do the China approach and make America build up a large debt from you and then call it back from them forcing them to surrender and become part of your country

You really don't know how nuclear reactions work, or how many different stockpiles they have do you?

Shh. Don't tell him about the nuclear sub-marines that would be charged with nuking whatever country got us so there's little to no chance of getting out of a nuclear war alive.

So long as the french aren't driving the subs

/satire

But really, radar and depth charges > Your subs.

I'm not 100% sure that's really as fool proof as you might think. I'll grant you that the depth charges are scary, terrifying, and painful as a suppository, but I have faith that the best funded military on earth has figured out a way around that. At the very least, many subs would be in a good position to start letting fly at the first sign of aggression.

America - Your weapons built by the lowest builder! I doubt the Americans have hidden subs THAT close to chinese cities... you need to be within something like thirty miles of the coast to fire a nuke from a sub and the chinese are very good with patrols and such.

Its actually 7000 miles for a trident 2

 

[blatantly]

My thoughts first and foremost.
No other Navy in the world can project power (lack of super Carriers or ability to operate so far from logistics)to the degree that would allow a naval invasion, let alone the naval/transport capability to actually transport a sizable force to establish a beach head.

This translates to forcing the invasion coming through Alaska/Canada or Mexico again transporting a significant force to these staging areas with the Navy/Air Force in place would prove very difficult.

In the short term I don't think it would be possible.

Long term it might be feasible if the US was cut off from technology imports critical to much of the advanced technology it uses, over time it may not be able to maintain the advantage in naval/airpower. Possibly opening the door for some sort of invasion.

My thoughts exactly. No other nation could defeat US naval power, which would be vital to invasion, unless Canada invaded . Think of this as being similar to the problem the Japanese would have faced if they had come up against Australia. There was no way the Japanese, thousands of miles from home could have taken over Australia.

America - Your weapons built by the lowest builder! I doubt the Americans have hidden subs THAT close to chinese cities... you need to be within something like thirty miles of the coast to fire a nuke from a sub and the chinese are very good with patrols and such.

Dude.... you really need to read up on your Cold War arms race (I've got a history exam on the Cold War tomorrow as it happens). The US weapons developers deliberately overstated the power of Soviet ICBM's so that they could build stronger ones. The actual power of Soviet ICBM's was shown by the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

[Evilbunny]

The War of 1812 had forces of British Regulars; not a bunch of random militias.

Dude, I'm agreeing with you. Armed forces could get into the country. All I'm saying is that they just wouldn't be able to stay there for very long.

 

[Flying-Emu]

The War of 1812 had forces of British Regulars; not a bunch of random militias.

Dude, I'm agreeing with you. Armed forces could get into the country. All I'm saying is that they just wouldn't be able to stay there for very long.

Oops, misinterpreted you. My bad.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

This thread was done a couple of weeks ago. With the exact same title. Please use the search button.

I believe it could.

War of 1812.

It WAS invaded.

We burn the CANADIAN PARLAMINT BUILDINGS, and york. The BRITISH come and burn the white house. You know what happens? Not a day later, a hurricane comes and tells them to GTFO and their invasion only lasted 26 hours. 26.

In retaliation, and Canadian/British forces even destroyed Washington DC.

Just nuke them. Easy and cheap.

Well yea, but we shoot back.

How can you when your entire country is a bomb site? It's not about who drops the bombs on who, it's about who drops the bombs first.

You lack common sense? We have bombers that you couldn't detect even if you were looking for them, and 20 more nuclear armed submarines to back them up. Hell, we even have the largest stockpile of weapons to.

The War of 1812 had forces of British Regulars; not a bunch of random militias.

Dude, I'm agreeing with you. Armed forces could get into the country. All I'm saying is that they just wouldn't be able to stay there for very long.

That you are right. The british invasion only lasted 26 hours.

 

[black lincon]

Look, I'm not going to go through the 10 pages of text to find out that what I'm about to say has been said, so just ignore me if What I say has been said.

There are two problems in invading America, and both have to do with entering the country.

first and foremost, it is impossible to invade by sea. if you rank the top navy's in the world, the US has the largest navy, larger than the next 17 combined, so unless were getting into one of those stupid scenarios where its the US vs the world, that's not happening.

next, why would Canada of Mexico invade, or let anyone invade America? Once again barring US vs the world, not happening.

then you could just assume that you just wanted to blow us up, and you got your hands on nukes. no other country would stand for someone using nukes. the only way that you get into one of those 1 vs world scenarios is if some country launches a nuke. meaning, once that country nukes the US, they have the rest of the world to deal with, not to mention an incredibly pissed off US.

over all, it is currently impossible to invade the US, the same could be said about lots of countries, like England or maybe France.

 

[Grahwo]

Been thinking of this..

There is a few possible solutions.

1. Russia invents some way to protect their homeland from being nuked to the stoneage, and then summons vast forces for an suprice attack. In my eyes, no other faction other than Russia, Or EU/UN could summon such a force in our days.

2. A large submarine attack at the US navy that protects US's costal lines needs to be assebled to clear the way for the landing parties. But still, US subs will be hell due to hunting nuclear subs is nearly impossible.

3. Once that out of the way, the land attacks can begin. this will be rather easy in the beginning if the previous points have gone smoothly, Because of: 1. the unbeatable US army/navy/airfoce is sortof bogged down in the middleast ( or some other provice they attack when the get bored, which incedently is about every 20th year.)

Attacking from either the west or East side would result in the same things.. (yes, attacks could come from canada or mexico.. buuut probably this major military activety.. russians landing troops there would most certainly -not- go unnnoticed)
the first days would go rather smoothly, as the attacker has the element of (hopefully for them) suprice. There will ofc be minor resistance as the home guard manuage to scramble some small forces to put up a little fight, but most likely will be swept away by the sheer size of the attacker that requiered.

Now. Things will go a little slower. As the attacker begins to work its way inland (judgeing by us patrotism nationalism etc etc etc and crazy gun laws) 1. the forces that attacks will get smaller and smaller as they have to leave folks behind in every godforsaken town to keep these rebellious civilians with freakin miniguns in place! And due to the massive size of the country, it takes tiiiime. and that is something you dont have when attacking the US.

Because within a week or so. The forces bogged down in the middleeast would be on its way to save the day.


And even IF! the attacker manuages to somehow destroy this force that comes... the invasion faces some problems.

1. Logistics.
Making war is all about logistics, and invadeing a country potentially full of millions of civilians with loads of weapons, partisan attacks -will- accour, -all the time- at the attackers supply convois.. This never fails to happen in wars, and especially if the invaded countrymen does -not- want the attacker there. And how are you going to keep such a massive attacking force going without fresh gear, food, ammo.. and whatever they might need?

2. its a freaking massive country!!!!
By a week or so, the attacking force will meet an ever growing resistance. Home guard, reserves. Armies have been scrambled to fight off the invader.. the attacks will go slower and slower through desert, steppes, mountains and swamps, cities.. Slower and slower, until the offencive dies..

Conclusion..
this is just a rough sketch of what I would beleave is major points..
But I would say it would be Impossible, or atlest Freakin hard. to invade the US because of the massive size of the country, and the "crazy" people that live there.

There lacks a coutnry that could pull it off. To steamroll through the country, a few could pull that off I beleave. France, germany, england (ive made no research into that, just suggestions of larger miliatary forces.. perhaps all of them together?)..
But without millions of men to station all over the country and strike down at resistance, and military forces that got spared in the initial invasion.. you cant pull it off.

Russia could do it, they have the numbers, but there is no chanse they would do it, they got enough problems as it is allready.


So, I would say.. Maaaaaaybe.. uhm.. yes America could be invanded But you cant hold all of it.

----edit---

Theres one scenario it might work.

Obama turns out to become some evil overlord that rules the US with its rain of terror.
And some country manuages to steamroll over the us, would be greeted as liberators rather than invaders = win?

And to all the fans of the nuke coutner attack..

Lockhead martin and boing has allready invented a way to shoot down long distance missiles as they are still over friendly territory with an sick freaking lazer onboard a boieng 747.