Let's Invade the United States!

[SLD]

Supposing el cheato really really went off the deep end and a majority of the US went with him so he had the support of the military. He withdraws from NATO and talks about conquering the rest of the world. He tries to start with Canada. The remaining NATO members respond.

How do you defeat the United States? Assuming no one uses nukes.

SLD

 

[LordKiran]

Supposing el cheato really really went off the deep end and a majority of the US went with him so he had the support of the military. He withdraws from NATO and talks about conquering the rest of the world. He tries to start with Canada. The remaining NATO members respond.

How do you defeat the United States? Assuming no one uses nukes.

SLD

Pretty easily. Mighty though our military may be, it is not limitless or insurmountable. We'd be fighting an uphill battle from the word go, despite any early gains made while other nations make plans and build their strength.

 

[barbos]

That's easy - Russian Hackers!

 

[SLD]

That's easy - Russian Hackers!

Cyber warfare would be an important component of any such conflict but I don’t think alone it would be sufficient. The US cyber command has worked hard to protect our infrastructure from such attacks.

It seems to me that you have to stop the flow of oil to start with. And that’s very easy to do from Europe. But the US could develop alternative energy sources and severely restrict personal travel to compensate for the loss of oil.

But as a starter you would have to defeat the US Navy before any full scale invasion. And that would be very difficult. There aren’t enough aircraft carriers or nuke subs out there to really threaten the US. It would take years to build up such a Naval Force.

I think also at a minimum you would have to encourage dissident groups in the US to revel and savatoge the US effort. There is no way that anyone can control the US the way the Nazis controlled Germany.

SLD

 

[barbos]

That's easy - Russian Hackers!

Cyber warfare would be an important component of any such conflict but I don’t think alone it would be sufficient. The US cyber command has worked hard to protect our infrastructure from such attacks.

It seems to me that you have to stop the flow of oil to start with. And that’s very easy to do from Europe. But the US could develop alternative energy sources and severely restrict personal travel to compensate for the loss of oil.

But as a starter you would have to defeat the US Navy before any full scale invasion. And that would be very difficult. There aren’t enough aircraft carriers or nuke subs out there to really threaten the US. It would take years to build up such a Naval Force.

I think also at a minimum you would have to encourage dissident groups in the US to revel and savatoge the US effort. There is no way that anyone can control the US the way the Nazis controlled Germany.

SLD

But we all know russian hackers created this problem, so they surely can solve it too

But seriously, there is no way US can be defeated or even hurt without nukes. US is pretty much invincible

 

[braces_for_impact]

Bubba Gump and his AR-15 would save the day, obviously.

 

[OLDMAN]

Invade Canada...you know they have parks bigger than Vietnam...right?

 

[LordKiran]

Invade Canada...you know they have parks bigger than Vietnam...right?

The issue isn't just the size but the terrain. Lots of snowy tundra/ice that the US would be hard pressed to secure even on a good day, nevermind taking on the whole world.

 

[SLD]

Cyber warfare would be an important component of any such conflict but I don’t think alone it would be sufficient. The US cyber command has worked hard to protect our infrastructure from such attacks.

It seems to me that you have to stop the flow of oil to start with. And that’s very easy to do from Europe. But the US could develop alternative energy sources and severely restrict personal travel to compensate for the loss of oil.

But as a starter you would have to defeat the US Navy before any full scale invasion. And that would be very difficult. There aren’t enough aircraft carriers or nuke subs out there to really threaten the US. It would take years to build up such a Naval Force.

I think also at a minimum you would have to encourage dissident groups in the US to revel and savatoge the US effort. There is no way that anyone can control the US the way the Nazis controlled Germany.

SLD

But we all know russian hackers created this problem, so they surely can solve it too

But seriously, there is no way US can be defeated or even hurt without nukes. US is pretty much invincible

Oh I must disagree. The US against the whole world, or even just a united Europe, would be in serious trouble. It might take a while. It wouldn't be easy, but it could be done.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Supposing el cheato really really went off the deep end and a majority of the US went with him so he had the support of the military. He withdraws from NATO and talks about conquering the rest of the world. He tries to start with Canada. The remaining NATO members respond.

How do you defeat the United States? Assuming no one uses nukes.

SLD

It won't happen, but if it did, he'd be impeached, and President Pence would call off the attack.

 

[barbos]

But we all know russian hackers created this problem, so they surely can solve it too

But seriously, there is no way US can be defeated or even hurt without nukes. US is pretty much invincible

Oh I must disagree. The US against the whole world, or even just a united Europe, would be in serious trouble. It might take a while. It wouldn't be easy, but it could be done.

Well, maybe eventually, but as it stands right now, whole does not stand a chance.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Oh I must disagree. The US against the whole world, or even just a united Europe, would be in serious trouble. It might take a while. It wouldn't be easy, but it could be done.

Well, maybe eventually, but as it stands right now, whole does not stand a chance.

Not of invading, but thwarting an invasion isn't the same. Countries like Russia or China, or even Turkey, UK, etc., could choose not to invade, but to defend against an attempted invasion, and there is no way the US would have the capability to invade them all (or even most), let alone keep an occupation force.

 

[barbos]

Well, maybe eventually, but as it stands right now, whole does not stand a chance.

Not of invading, but thwarting an invasion isn't the same. Countries like Russia or China, or even Turkey, UK, etc., could choose not to invade, but to defend against an attempted invasion, and there is no way the US would have the capability to invade them all (or even most), let alone keep an occupation force.

Well, I meant whole world does not stand a chance if it wants to invade US. But I agree, armies of civilized armies (EU/US) are incapable of large scale invasions anymore. Even Russia, despite all that propaganda, is not capable to invade Europe.

 

[OLDMAN]

But you have to remember, you started out with an easy target...the second largest country in the world. Now with only 29 million people, they would soon run out of soldiers. Except for the millions and millions of troops flying in from Russia, China, India, the Common Wealth and African nations. Also remember the war is in North America, and that is where the bombs will fall, and with every bomb NA becomes less and less able to recover it's infrastructure and continue the fight.

First problem is the power grid between Canada and the US is both connected and open. Pipe lines are an easy target and without oil sands oil America runs out in about two years, if not sooner. Pounding Canada doesn't stop the world from resupplying both troops and arsenal. There is no way to blockade all of the Canadian shorelines or north.

It would be a brutal long four or five years, but in the end, because of attrition the US would loose. There is an old barroom saying: "I don't care if you want to fight but take it outside"

 

[J842P]

But you have to remember, you started out with an easy target...the second largest country in the world. Now with only 29 million people, they would soon run out of soldiers. Except for the millions and millions of troops flying in from Russia, China, India, the Common Wealth and African nations. Also remember the war is in North America, and that is where the bombs will fall, and with every bomb NA becomes less and less able to recover it's infrastructure and continue the fight.

First problem is the power grid between Canada and the US is both connected and open. Pipe lines are an easy target and without oil sands oil America runs out in about two years, if not sooner. Pounding Canada doesn't stop the world from resupplying both troops and arsenal. There is no way to blockade all of the Canadian shorelines or north.

It would be a brutal long four or five years, but in the end, because of attrition the US would loose. There is an old barroom saying: "I don't care if you want to fight but take it outside"

I think it is very hard to say since modern armies have never faced off against each other in such a way (and are hardly designed to). Amphibious assault ain't so easy. It is *much* easier to defend from an entrenched position rather than attack one. There's a reason why Unternehmen Seelöwe was never undertaken. The US has a vast population and vast access to resources, and a battle-hardened military. Especially if we stick to non-nuclear, the US has a sizeable military-technological advantage. It is hardly clear that such an invasion of the US would be feasible. Ship-based transport seems unfeasible to me, in an age of rockets and stealth bombers, and nuclear submarines (where I believe the US still reigns supreme). So how are the armies of the world suppose to land armor and troops without suffering *massive* casualties?

I don't think it is nearly as clear-cut to say what would happen in a 5-10 year war of attrition, if we are sticking only to conventional weapons.

 

[Elixir]

Well, maybe eventually, but as it stands right now, whole does not stand a chance.

Not of invading, but thwarting an invasion isn't the same. Countries like Russia or China, or even Turkey, UK, etc., could choose not to invade, but to defend against an attempted invasion, and there is no way the US would have the capability to invade them all (or even most), let alone keep an occupation force.

Well, I meant whole world does not stand a chance if it wants to invade US. But I agree, armies of civilized armies (EU/US) are incapable of large scale invasions anymore. Even Russia, despite all that propaganda, is not capable to invade Europe.

Maybe just Ukraine, then...

 

[barbos]

Maybe just Ukraine, then...

Well, not according to Ukrainian patriots.

 

[LordKiran]

Not of invading, but thwarting an invasion isn't the same. Countries like Russia or China, or even Turkey, UK, etc., could choose not to invade, but to defend against an attempted invasion, and there is no way the US would have the capability to invade them all (or even most), let alone keep an occupation force.

Well, I meant whole world does not stand a chance if it wants to invade US. But I agree, armies of civilized armies (EU/US) are incapable of large scale invasions anymore. Even Russia, despite all that propaganda, is not capable to invade Europe.

Maybe just Ukraine, then...

Standing armies don't need to be built up during peace time. Europe is still perfectly capable of fielding such forces.

 

[OLDMAN]

But you have to remember, you started out with an easy target...the second largest country in the world. Now with only 29 million people, they would soon run out of soldiers. Except for the millions and millions of troops flying in from Russia, China, India, the Common Wealth and African nations. Also remember the war is in North America, and that is where the bombs will fall, and with every bomb NA becomes less and less able to recover it's infrastructure and continue the fight.

First problem is the power grid between Canada and the US is both connected and open. Pipe lines are an easy target and without oil sands oil America runs out in about two years, if not sooner. Pounding Canada doesn't stop the world from resupplying both troops and arsenal. There is no way to blockade all of the Canadian shorelines or north.

It would be a brutal long four or five years, but in the end, because of attrition the US would loose. There is an old barroom saying: "I don't care if you want to fight but take it outside"

I think it is very hard to say since modern armies have never faced off against each other in such a way (and are hardly designed to). Amphibious assault ain't so easy. It is *much* easier to defend from an entrenched position rather than attack one. There's a reason why Unternehmen Seelöwe was never undertaken. The US has a vast population and vast access to resources, and a battle-hardened military. Especially if we stick to non-nuclear, the US has a sizeable military-technological advantage. It is hardly clear that such an invasion of the US would be feasible. Ship-based transport seems unfeasible to me, in an age of rockets and stealth bombers, and nuclear submarines (where I believe the US still reigns supreme). So how are the armies of the world suppose to land armor and troops without suffering *massive* casualties?

I don't think it is nearly as clear-cut to say what would happen in a 5-10 year war of attrition, if we are sticking only to conventional weapons.

Yeah, I have to agree when it comes to air, the US is way ahead. But in the end, Canada becomes just a place to launch rockets from, while planning and staging the invasion. Here is the real number you have to remember. World population 7 billion....USA population 350 million.

 

[barbos]

But you have to remember, you started out with an easy target...the second largest country in the world. Now with only 29 million people, they would soon run out of soldiers. Except for the millions and millions of troops flying in from Russia, China, India, the Common Wealth and African nations. Also remember the war is in North America, and that is where the bombs will fall, and with every bomb NA becomes less and less able to recover it's infrastructure and continue the fight.

First problem is the power grid between Canada and the US is both connected and open. Pipe lines are an easy target and without oil sands oil America runs out in about two years, if not sooner. Pounding Canada doesn't stop the world from resupplying both troops and arsenal. There is no way to blockade all of the Canadian shorelines or north.

It would be a brutal long four or five years, but in the end, because of attrition the US would loose. There is an old barroom saying: "I don't care if you want to fight but take it outside"

I think it is very hard to say since modern armies have never faced off against each other in such a way (and are hardly designed to). Amphibious assault ain't so easy. It is *much* easier to defend from an entrenched position rather than attack one. There's a reason why Unternehmen Seelöwe was never undertaken. The US has a vast population and vast access to resources, and a battle-hardened military. Especially if we stick to non-nuclear, the US has a sizeable military-technological advantage. It is hardly clear that such an invasion of the US would be feasible. Ship-based transport seems unfeasible to me, in an age of rockets and stealth bombers, and nuclear submarines (where I believe the US still reigns supreme). So how are the armies of the world suppose to land armor and troops without suffering *massive* casualties?

I don't think it is nearly as clear-cut to say what would happen in a 5-10 year war of attrition, if we are sticking only to conventional weapons.

Yeah, I have to agree when it comes to air, the US is way ahead. But in the end, Canada becomes just a place to launch rockets from, while planning and staging the invasion. Here is the real number you have to remember. World population 7 billion....USA population 350 million.

World would have to get to Canada first And the first thing US would do is to run over Canada, so there will be noting to launch or stage from. Same with Mexico.
.