Let's Invade the United States!

[Jimmy Higgins]

To stop America? Broadcast on CBC that the US is about to destroy every Tim Horton's. It'll be very ugly and massively violent, but it will be equally quick and the Canadians will be victors.

 

[barbos]

To stop America? Broadcast on CBC that the US is about to destroy every Tim Horton's. It'll be very ugly and massively violent, but it will be equally quick and the Canadians will be victors.

That's why CBC will be taken over first and then they broadcast that Tim Horton's will not be armed.

 

[OLDMAN]

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.
.

Run over Canada? Look at a map for god's sake.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the best way to defeat the US military is to tell them that Hillary Clinton has stashed a secret email server somewhere in Texas. Then every soldier in the country will be sent in to destroy everything in Texas in order to find it. Then tell them you were wrong and it's actually in Arkansas. Repeat 48 more times and the US will happily destroy itself.

 

[Jobar]

Of course no such war could conceivably be non-nuclear, and so no one could win. But it might be interesting to consider what would have happened in, oh, 1940 or a decade or two earlier; then a united Europe and Canada could probably have carried off an invasion of the continental US. But it would have been a bigger, costlier and more destructive war than WWII.

 

[barbos]

Run over Canada? Look at a map for god's sake.

I looked. Pretty run-overable

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Most of Canada's population and infrastructure and military power is in the south, right near the US border. The US would not have any difficulty conquering Canada and raising a US flag in Ottawa. But that would leave a VAST area of land to the north where world forces could easily make landfall and the USA would have difficulty blockading it all. Many troops would get onto North America. The issue would then be for these world troops to make their way through the frozen Canadian north and through lots and lots of forested areas with no roads. US satelite would see them coming and the land combat would probably take place in these empty areas of wilderness. The bears, moose, beaver, loons and deer would all be very surprised.

And while this land combat was happening in the north, the US would be pretty secure in the south, since it has such a small border with Mexico (and would have its wall ). The US Navy would probably focus there and keep that area pretty secure.

The other yuuuuge problem for emperor trump would be the American people themselves. His propaganda would work on many (as Hitler's did) but I expect there would be a pretty large number of rebels fighting from within.

 

[J842P]

Most of Canada's population and infrastructure and military power is in the south, right near the US border. The US would not have any difficulty conquering Canada and raising a US flag in Ottawa. But that would leave a VAST area of land to the north where world forces could easily make landfall and the USA would have difficulty blockading it all. Many troops would get onto North America. The issue would then be for these world troops to make their way through the frozen Canadian north and through lots and lots of forested areas with no roads. US satelite would see them coming and the land combat would probably take place in these empty areas of wilderness. The bears, moose, beaver, loons and deer would all be very surprised.

And while this land combat was happening in the north, the US would be pretty secure in the south, since it has such a small border with Mexico (and would have its wall ). The US Navy would probably focus there and keep that area pretty secure.

The other yuuuuge problem for emperor trump would be the American people themselves. His propaganda would work on many (as Hitler's did) but I expect there would be a pretty large number of rebels fighting from within.

How are these armies of the world going to make landfall without suffering massive, debilitating and demoralizing casualties, all to be stuck in desolate tundra? Surely not by sea, perhaps by air? That seems perhaps more achievable, but airborne invasions have been notoriously costly and ineffective in the past, and that is without having to face 5th generation stealth fighters and land-to-air missile-based defenses. Current air-transport is not designed to effectively counter these things.

Again, I don't think people appreciate how difficult an an amphibious invasion is.

 

[LordKiran]

Most of Canada's population and infrastructure and military power is in the south, right near the US border. The US would not have any difficulty conquering Canada and raising a US flag in Ottawa. But that would leave a VAST area of land to the north where world forces could easily make landfall and the USA would have difficulty blockading it all. Many troops would get onto North America. The issue would then be for these world troops to make their way through the frozen Canadian north and through lots and lots of forested areas with no roads. US satelite would see them coming and the land combat would probably take place in these empty areas of wilderness. The bears, moose, beaver, loons and deer would all be very surprised.

And while this land combat was happening in the north, the US would be pretty secure in the south, since it has such a small border with Mexico (and would have its wall ). The US Navy would probably focus there and keep that area pretty secure.

The other yuuuuge problem for emperor trump would be the American people themselves. His propaganda would work on many (as Hitler's did) but I expect there would be a pretty large number of rebels fighting from within.

How are these armies of the world going to make landfall without suffering massive, debilitating and demoralizing casualties, all to be stuck in desolate tundra? Surely not by sea, perhaps by air? That seems perhaps more achievable, but airborne invasions have been notoriously costly and ineffective in the past, and that is without having to face 5th generation stealth fighters and land-to-air missile-based defenses. Current air-transport is not designed to effectively counter these things.

Again, I don't think people appreciate how difficult an an amphibious invasion is.

[Armchair_General]
Its not invading armies you'd have to worry about in Canada. Its the locals retreating into the north and bleeding your occupation forces of men through asymmetrical warfare, forcing you to keep men tied there even if invading forces choose to hit you from the south.

No wall built to keep out something as rudimentary as migrants will protect the American border. You'd need something comparable to the Maginot line which would mean easy targets for enemy bombardment.

Invasion would likely come from the Pacific anyway. Pacific coalition forces would focus taking major port cities and nullifying military bases in Alaska and across the Pacific Isles. The American Navy being tasked with defending two fronts would be hard pressed to defend it all, especially if American forces are unable to gain and hold Panama which would itself be difficult without also occupying central America north of the canal.

After accomplishing this goal, Pacific coalition forces would likely choose to take Panama and push up into occupied central America from there, with a smaller invasion somewhere north. If Panama is taken, what's left of the US fleet will be forced to retreat back into the Atlantic around the tip of south America and try to rejoin the rest without being captured or destroyed. This leaves the Pacific coastline at the mercy of coalition forces. From there America is on the defensive for the remainder of the war if they cannot maintain control of the sea. So can America's navy contend with the entirety of the rest of the world? I doubt for very long. If nothing else the rest of the world will simply outproduce us over the years of war.
[/Armchair_General]

 

[SLD]

Most of Canada's population and infrastructure and military power is in the south, right near the US border. The US would not have any difficulty conquering Canada and raising a US flag in Ottawa. But that would leave a VAST area of land to the north where world forces could easily make landfall and the USA would have difficulty blockading it all. Many troops would get onto North America. The issue would then be for these world troops to make their way through the frozen Canadian north and through lots and lots of forested areas with no roads. US satelite would see them coming and the land combat would probably take place in these empty areas of wilderness. The bears, moose, beaver, loons and deer would all be very surprised.

And while this land combat was happening in the north, the US would be pretty secure in the south, since it has such a small border with Mexico (and would have its wall ). The US Navy would probably focus there and keep that area pretty secure.

The other yuuuuge problem for emperor trump would be the American people themselves. His propaganda would work on many (as Hitler's did) but I expect there would be a pretty large number of rebels fighting from within.

How are these armies of the world going to make landfall without suffering massive, debilitating and demoralizing casualties, all to be stuck in desolate tundra? Surely not by sea, perhaps by air? That seems perhaps more achievable, but airborne invasions have been notoriously costly and ineffective in the past, and that is without having to face 5th generation stealth fighters and land-to-air missile-based defenses. Current air-transport is not designed to effectively counter these things.

Again, I don't think people appreciate how difficult an an amphibious invasion is.

[Armchair_General]
Its not invading armies you'd have to worry about in Canada. Its the locals retreating into the north and bleeding your occupation forces of men through asymmetrical warfare, forcing you to keep men tied there even if invading forces choose to hit you from the south.

No wall built to keep out something as rudimentary as migrants will protect the American border. You'd need something comparable to the Maginot line which would mean easy targets for enemy bombardment.

Invasion would likely come from the Pacific anyway. Pacific coalition forces would focus taking major port cities and nullifying military bases in Alaska and across the Pacific Isles. The American Navy being tasked with defending two fronts would be hard pressed to defend it all, especially if American forces are unable to gain and hold Panama which would itself be difficult without also occupying central America north of the canal.

After accomplishing this goal, Pacific coalition forces would likely choose to take Panama and push up into occupied central America from there, with a smaller invasion somewhere north. If Panama is taken, what's left of the US fleet will be forced to retreat back into the Atlantic around the tip of south America and try to rejoin the rest without being captured or destroyed. This leaves the Pacific coastline at the mercy of coalition forces. From there America is on the defensive for the remainder of the war if they cannot maintain control of the sea. So can America's navy contend with the entirety of the rest of the world? I doubt for very long. If nothing else the rest of the world will simply outproduce us over the years of war.
[/Armchair_General]

I certainly agree that the first step would be to defeat the US Navy and with a broad coalition it could be done. Once that is done you could effectively strangle the US. No oil. No particular metals. You could blockade their ports. You could support nascent resistance groups inside the US. You could even plant saboteurs around. You may then not need to engage in a large scale invasion which would just be too bloody. The military may then rise up against Trump as some military leaders did in Germany. Then a negotiated peace could be achieved.

SLD

 

[Harry Bosch]

How are these armies of the world going to make landfall without suffering massive, debilitating and demoralizing casualties, all to be stuck in desolate tundra? Surely not by sea, perhaps by air? That seems perhaps more achievable, but airborne invasions have been notoriously costly and ineffective in the past, and that is without having to face 5th generation stealth fighters and land-to-air missile-based defenses. Current air-transport is not designed to effectively counter these things.

Again, I don't think people appreciate how difficult an an amphibious invasion is.

[Armchair_General]
Its not invading armies you'd have to worry about in Canada. Its the locals retreating into the north and bleeding your occupation forces of men through asymmetrical warfare, forcing you to keep men tied there even if invading forces choose to hit you from the south.

No wall built to keep out something as rudimentary as migrants will protect the American border. You'd need something comparable to the Maginot line which would mean easy targets for enemy bombardment.

Invasion would likely come from the Pacific anyway. Pacific coalition forces would focus taking major port cities and nullifying military bases in Alaska and across the Pacific Isles. The American Navy being tasked with defending two fronts would be hard pressed to defend it all, especially if American forces are unable to gain and hold Panama which would itself be difficult without also occupying central America north of the canal.

After accomplishing this goal, Pacific coalition forces would likely choose to take Panama and push up into occupied central America from there, with a smaller invasion somewhere north. If Panama is taken, what's left of the US fleet will be forced to retreat back into the Atlantic around the tip of south America and try to rejoin the rest without being captured or destroyed. This leaves the Pacific coastline at the mercy of coalition forces. From there America is on the defensive for the remainder of the war if they cannot maintain control of the sea. So can America's navy contend with the entirety of the rest of the world? I doubt for very long. If nothing else the rest of the world will simply outproduce us over the years of war.
[/Armchair_General]

I certainly agree that the first step would be to defeat the US Navy and with a broad coalition it could be done. Once that is done you could effectively strangle the US. No oil. No particular metals. You could blockade their ports. You could support nascent resistance groups inside the US. You could even plant saboteurs around. You may then not need to engage in a large scale invasion which would just be too bloody. The military may then rise up against Trump as some military leaders did in Germany. Then a negotiated peace could be achieved.

SLD

?? The US has the most amount of Oil reserves in the world. BTW: Russia is second; Saudi Arabia is third. Some of our reserves are more expensive to drill out and take to market though...

 

[barbos]

?? The US has the most amount of Oil reserves in the world. BTW: Russia is second; Saudi Arabia is third. Some of our reserves are more expensive to drill out and take to market though...

And most of US oil import is from Canada and Mexico and Venezuela, pretty damn close to guard against World Navy.

And as it stands right now, US Navy is ridiculously more capable than the World navies combined. Yes, United Rest of the World could build more ships but it would take decades to do it, meanwhile US Navy will have total control of the oceans and oil supplies through the sea.

 

[bilby]

?? The US has the most amount of Oil reserves in the world. BTW: Russia is second; Saudi Arabia is third. Some of our reserves are more expensive to drill out and take to market though...

And most of US oil import is from Canada and Mexico and Venezuela, pretty damn close to guard against World Navy.

And as it stands right now, US Navy is ridiculously more capable than the World navies combined. Yes, United Rest of the World could build more ships but it would take decades to do it, meanwhile US Navy will have total control of the oceans and oil supplies through the sea.

It's much easier to gain parity with a larger enemy navy by sinking their ships than it is to do by building your own.

Sinking big warships, plus merchant shipping, faster than they can be replaced isn't particularly difficult - the Kriegsmarine manged to do it (but not quite fast enough) in WWII with a relatively small U-boat fleet, while their surface ships were not really engaged at all with the Royal Navy, and so might as well not have existed.

As the Argentinians demonstrated in the sinking of the HMS Sheffield, by the 1980s, the formula was two aircraft with a total of four crew, firing one air-to-surface anti-ship missile each, beats a destroyer with 250-300 crew. Finding replacement seamen rapidly becomes difficult in such a lopsided equation, even if your shipyards can build and fit-out the replacement hulls.

A concerted, coordinated and well timed air and submarine attack on the USA's Carrier Battle Groups could rapidly level the playing field; The US can, as they showed after Pearl Harbor, build a new navy pretty fast when pressed, but I doubt that they could keep up with the other 95% of the world - if Russia, China and Europe were all in a grand alliance against the USA, the big US advantage in naval assets would likely be gone pretty rapidly. Warships are big targets; Aircraft and subs are far harder to hit. And I reckon the Chinese alone could outdo the Americans in terms of the rate at which new tonnage could be built and launched, if all the stops were pulled out to try to make it happen. In the 1940s, the Americans did most of the world's heavy manufacturing, and so going over to war production was fairly easy - but today, the manufacturing strength is in South East Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

 

[barbos]

?? The US has the most amount of Oil reserves in the world. BTW: Russia is second; Saudi Arabia is third. Some of our reserves are more expensive to drill out and take to market though...

And most of US oil import is from Canada and Mexico and Venezuela, pretty damn close to guard against World Navy.

And as it stands right now, US Navy is ridiculously more capable than the World navies combined. Yes, United Rest of the World could build more ships but it would take decades to do it, meanwhile US Navy will have total control of the oceans and oil supplies through the sea.

It's much easier to gain parity with a larger enemy navy by sinking their ships than it is to do by building your own.

Sinking big warships, plus merchant shipping, faster than they can be replaced isn't particularly difficult - the Kriegsmarine manged to do it (but not quite fast enough) in WWII with a relatively small U-boat fleet, while their surface ships were not really engaged at all with the Royal Navy, and so might as well not have existed.

As the Argentinians demonstrated in the sinking of the HMS Sheffield, by the 1980s, the formula was two aircraft with a total of four crew, firing one air-to-surface anti-ship missile each, beats a destroyer with 250-300 crew. Finding replacement seamen rapidly becomes difficult in such a lopsided equation, even if your shipyards can build and fit-out the replacement hulls.

A concerted, coordinated and well timed air and submarine attack on the USA's Carrier Battle Groups could rapidly level the playing field; The US can, as they showed after Pearl Harbor, build a new navy pretty fast when pressed, but I doubt that they could keep up with the other 95% of the world - if Russia, China and Europe were all in a grand alliance against the USA, the big US advantage in naval assets would likely be gone pretty rapidly. Warships are big targets; Aircraft and subs are far harder to hit. And I reckon the Chinese alone could outdo the Americans in terms of the rate at which new tonnage could be built and launched, if all the stops were pulled out to try to make it happen. In the 1940s, the Americans did most of the world's heavy manufacturing, and so going over to war production was fairly easy - but today, the manufacturing strength is in South East Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

I think US Navy will be doing all the sinking, using their submarines. Surface ships on both sides will be useless in open ocean.
And since it's US against World then US will have no use for merchant shipping they will not be hurt by stopping it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

We are not in ancient times. The world is not ruled by nation-states anymore but instead hedge funds and monied aristocrats. Such persons and groups have interest and undue influence in all the nations in question. So the path to defeating Trump would be to convince such persons that Trump's conquest of the world is not in their financial self-interest. They, then, would use their influence to engage in media campaign and deep state campaign to take down Trump.

 

[LordKiran]

And most of US oil import is from Canada and Mexico and Venezuela, pretty damn close to guard against World Navy.

And as it stands right now, US Navy is ridiculously more capable than the World navies combined. Yes, United Rest of the World could build more ships but it would take decades to do it, meanwhile US Navy will have total control of the oceans and oil supplies through the sea.

It's much easier to gain parity with a larger enemy navy by sinking their ships than it is to do by building your own.

Sinking big warships, plus merchant shipping, faster than they can be replaced isn't particularly difficult - the Kriegsmarine manged to do it (but not quite fast enough) in WWII with a relatively small U-boat fleet, while their surface ships were not really engaged at all with the Royal Navy, and so might as well not have existed.

As the Argentinians demonstrated in the sinking of the HMS Sheffield, by the 1980s, the formula was two aircraft with a total of four crew, firing one air-to-surface anti-ship missile each, beats a destroyer with 250-300 crew. Finding replacement seamen rapidly becomes difficult in such a lopsided equation, even if your shipyards can build and fit-out the replacement hulls.

A concerted, coordinated and well timed air and submarine attack on the USA's Carrier Battle Groups could rapidly level the playing field; The US can, as they showed after Pearl Harbor, build a new navy pretty fast when pressed, but I doubt that they could keep up with the other 95% of the world - if Russia, China and Europe were all in a grand alliance against the USA, the big US advantage in naval assets would likely be gone pretty rapidly. Warships are big targets; Aircraft and subs are far harder to hit. And I reckon the Chinese alone could outdo the Americans in terms of the rate at which new tonnage could be built and launched, if all the stops were pulled out to try to make it happen. In the 1940s, the Americans did most of the world's heavy manufacturing, and so going over to war production was fairly easy - but today, the manufacturing strength is in South East Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

I think US Navy will be doing all the sinking, using their submarines. Surface ships on both sides will be useless in open ocean.
And since it's US against World then US will have no use for merchant shipping they will not be hurt by stopping it.

That is one thing the US has going for it, a theoretical autarky. With the exception of rubber, the US doesn't lack in any major strategic resource I can think of, so even if cut off from the rest of the world, the US would be able to keep its factories up and running, but again we have to look at WW2. the third reich didn't lose because it was outplayed particularly, at its head were some pretty brilliant military minds. It lost because in the end the allies out-produced them. Some say that volume cannot make up for a lack of ability. I say that those people are stupid and don't know what they're talking about.

 

[bilby]

It's much easier to gain parity with a larger enemy navy by sinking their ships than it is to do by building your own.

Sinking big warships, plus merchant shipping, faster than they can be replaced isn't particularly difficult - the Kriegsmarine manged to do it (but not quite fast enough) in WWII with a relatively small U-boat fleet, while their surface ships were not really engaged at all with the Royal Navy, and so might as well not have existed.

As the Argentinians demonstrated in the sinking of the HMS Sheffield, by the 1980s, the formula was two aircraft with a total of four crew, firing one air-to-surface anti-ship missile each, beats a destroyer with 250-300 crew. Finding replacement seamen rapidly becomes difficult in such a lopsided equation, even if your shipyards can build and fit-out the replacement hulls.

A concerted, coordinated and well timed air and submarine attack on the USA's Carrier Battle Groups could rapidly level the playing field; The US can, as they showed after Pearl Harbor, build a new navy pretty fast when pressed, but I doubt that they could keep up with the other 95% of the world - if Russia, China and Europe were all in a grand alliance against the USA, the big US advantage in naval assets would likely be gone pretty rapidly. Warships are big targets; Aircraft and subs are far harder to hit. And I reckon the Chinese alone could outdo the Americans in terms of the rate at which new tonnage could be built and launched, if all the stops were pulled out to try to make it happen. In the 1940s, the Americans did most of the world's heavy manufacturing, and so going over to war production was fairly easy - but today, the manufacturing strength is in South East Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

I think US Navy will be doing all the sinking, using their submarines. Surface ships on both sides will be useless in open ocean.
And since it's US against World then US will have no use for merchant shipping they will not be hurt by stopping it.

That is one thing the US has going for it, a theoretical autarky. With the exception of rubber, the US doesn't lack in any major strategic resource I can think of, so even if cut off from the rest of the world, the US would be able to keep its factories up and running, but again we have to look at WW2. the third reich didn't lose because it was outplayed particularly, at its head were some pretty brilliant military minds. It lost because in the end the allies out-produced them. Some say that volume cannot make up for a lack of ability. I say that those people are stupid and don't know what they're talking about.

Indeed.

The US contains 5% of the world's land, and 5% of its population; so in principle the rest of the world has them seriously under the hammer on both a mineral and manpower resources front. Add to that the fact that actual manufacturing facilities are, today, largely concentrated in SE Asia, and it looks like the US is going to be seriously up against it.

 

[barbos]

The US contains 5% of the world's land, and 5% of its population; so in principle the rest of the world has them seriously under the hammer on both a mineral and manpower resources front. Add to that the fact that actual manufacturing facilities are, today, largely concentrated in SE Asia, and it looks like the US is going to be seriously up against it.

Most of that manufacturing can be moved back to US in very short time. Certainly US is better in that regard than the rest of the world.

 

[bilby]

The US contains 5% of the world's land, and 5% of its population; so in principle the rest of the world has them seriously under the hammer on both a mineral and manpower resources front. Add to that the fact that actual manufacturing facilities are, today, largely concentrated in SE Asia, and it looks like the US is going to be seriously up against it.

Most of that manufacturing can be moved back to US in very short time. Certainly US is better in that regard than the rest of the world.

They need to be twenty times as good, just to maintain their present relative position.

 

[barbos]

The US contains 5% of the world's land, and 5% of its population; so in principle the rest of the world has them seriously under the hammer on both a mineral and manpower resources front. Add to that the fact that actual manufacturing facilities are, today, largely concentrated in SE Asia, and it looks like the US is going to be seriously up against it.

Most of that manufacturing can be moved back to US in very short time. Certainly US is better in that regard than the rest of the world.

They need to be twenty times as good, just to maintain their present relative position.

True, but in case of the war americans will scale back on luxury.