Quite frankly the U.S. will be bought out before actually being invaded, which means the US will belong to someone else and all that jazz.
Poll: USA Invaded...by whom?
- Thread starter Happy_Mutant
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think it's far more likely that the US is invaded by itself than anyone else, and that would be succesively rather than all at once. I mean, in such an event that the federal union has ended and one state succseively conquers all the other states through a series of wars. Like most nations that doesn't have "union of" anywhere in the name were forged.
The likeliest scenario though is that their economy eventually collapses for natural reasons and it loses it's position as top econimical (not counting EU) and military power. People seems so attached to the idea that the US is either top dog or a broken third world country torn apart by civil war. Most likely it'll just join the ranks of every other "ordinary" first world countries on this planet.
Basically all countries larger than a baseball court and older than 50 years has been an empire at some point. It isn't all or nothing.
The likeliest scenario though is that their economy eventually collapses for natural reasons and it loses it's position as top econimical (not counting EU) and military power. People seems so attached to the idea that the US is either top dog or a broken third world country torn apart by civil war. Most likely it'll just join the ranks of every other "ordinary" first world countries on this planet.
Basically all countries larger than a baseball court and older than 50 years has been an empire at some point. It isn't all or nothing.
I'm willing to call an invasion of the USA impossible. That is, if we are talking about a successful ground, air and sea breach that results in the enemy possessing control of the country and holding it for more than a short period of time.
With that criteria, it's impossible. The country is too big, they have too many allies, they have a deadly military and the population is too large and would oppose it.
With that criteria, it's impossible. The country is too big, they have too many allies, they have a deadly military and the population is too large and would oppose it.
They're just... there! Like the fat kid in the class at school. Just obliviously sits there trying to be all friendly while blissfully unaware that the rest of the kids in the class hate his guts.yuval152 said:
He can offer us all the slices of pie he wants, he has slowly awoken a sleeping giant!
Why is there is this paranoid fascination that someone's going to invade America? It would be impossible, and if not, pointless. There is nothing in America that it wouldn't be cheaper to get by conquering some some other chunk of land or, better yet, simply buying. And that's setting aside the fact that America (not to mentioned it's hypothetical attacker) is likely to be a radioactive craterscape when it's over.
Beyond all that, there's also a key couple points when comparing the occupation of America vs. Afghanistan, Vietnam, or Iraq. In those wars, the goal was to eventually end up with a functioning country friendly to the occupier.
That may necessarily be the case in this scenario. An attacker willing to take and shoot fifty or a hundred nearby civilians for every IED or potshot taken at a patrol. People are more willing to turn in their guns or rat out insurgents if they can keep themselves and their loved ones off the hostage list. Leveling a city with a nuclear bomb, or dosing it with nerve gas, is a lot more appealing than try to clean guerillas out of it a block at a time. Then there's the issue that the vast majority of the food is produced in areas where there are few people and poor terrain for defense. The advantages of controlling who eats should be obvious.
Beyond all that, there's also a key couple points when comparing the occupation of America vs. Afghanistan, Vietnam, or Iraq. In those wars, the goal was to eventually end up with a functioning country friendly to the occupier.
That may necessarily be the case in this scenario. An attacker willing to take and shoot fifty or a hundred nearby civilians for every IED or potshot taken at a patrol. People are more willing to turn in their guns or rat out insurgents if they can keep themselves and their loved ones off the hostage list. Leveling a city with a nuclear bomb, or dosing it with nerve gas, is a lot more appealing than try to clean guerillas out of it a block at a time. Then there's the issue that the vast majority of the food is produced in areas where there are few people and poor terrain for defense. The advantages of controlling who eats should be obvious.
