Could the United States be invaded?
- Thread starter Lord George
- Start date
It can be done, but only if "Mad" Jack Churchill is brought back from the dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
Could my lasers count?wwjdftw said:agreed, but here you go. I'm not a "redneck" persay, but i have6PrinceofDarkness6 said:
3 12gauge shotguns- 2 pump- 1 semi-auto
2 20 gauge shotguns - 1 semi-auto - 1 bolt
3 kimber 45. pistoles
1 savage 270. rifle burris scope
1 remington 30-06 riffle wiht scope
1 taurus "judge" fires 45.longcolt/.410 shotgun shell
2 22. pistols- 1 semi auto- 1 single action
1 .357 magnum
3 22.LR rifles
6-7 pellet/bb guns
and the grand finnale
MAK-47 with 6-7 30 round clips, 2 75 round drums, and a full auto kit at the ready.
lets see who can take my town >
EDIT: LOLOLOL right after the guy who said guns are irresponsible
Could it? yes.
Would it? hell to the no. (sadly so, it should learn the experience of a foreign incursion.)
Would it? hell to the no. (sadly so, it should learn the experience of a foreign incursion.)
only if they can burn shit >6PrinceofDarkness6 said:Could my lasers count?wwjdftw said:6PrinceofDarkness6 said:agreed, but here you go. I'm not a "redneck" persay, but i have
3 12gauge shotguns- 2 pump- 1 semi-auto
2 20 gauge shotguns - 1 semi-auto - 1 bolt
3 kimber 45. pistoles
1 savage 270. rifle burris scope
1 remington 30-06 riffle wiht scope
1 taurus "judge" fires 45.longcolt/.410 shotgun shell
2 22. pistols- 1 semi auto- 1 single action
1 .357 magnum
3 22.LR rifles
6-7 pellet/bb guns
and the grand finnale
MAK-47 with 6-7 30 round clips, 2 75 round drums, and a full auto kit at the ready.
lets see who can take my town >
EDIT: LOLOLOL right after the guy who said guns are irresponsible
Probably as most of the equipment the U.S have is over in afganistan. But there still is alot of military equipment and troops stationed throughout the country. Who would want to invade it anyway the amount of ungratefull crap the leader of that nation would have to deal with would be beyond my limit.
M1A2 Is outdated nowadays compared to the newer challenger models the challenger I was a better tank proven in battle tests .TheMatt said:
Most of the techs the "yanks" have so do the rest of the NATO forces. Aside from the stunning F-22A Raptor. (last time I checked it was a US only plane.)
sgtshock said:
I live in arizona. But I am from ohio and my dad had guns in the house when I was little, I grew up with guns in the house, I learned to shoot at a young age and how to take care of and how serious a gun is. Owning a gun is not irresponsible, even with children around, its how you handle the ownership of that gun that makes the difference, so yes if you leave it around, unlocked and loaded then yes, bad things can happen.
My dad for instance never left the gun anywhere me or my brother could get to it, I didnt even know where he kept it till I was 15 and even then it was locked up.
If a large-scale invasion is what you're taking about...
Invading the West Coast would be a fool's errand. You'd only get a thin strip of land before running into the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada, and you only have to look at Switzerland's plan to resist the Nazis to see how easy that would be to overcome. I'd also love to see anyone try to pacify Los Angeles and San Diego counties while still getting supplies through an increasingly vulnerable support column.
The East Coast is more vulnerable, but it also has a far denser patchwork of roads, forests, and small towns than the West has, so far more bases and routes for counterattacks, insurgencies, etc. The Appalachians would be a formidable barrier as well, and are an easy position to fall back to (and drive from) to the major population centers of the Northeast.
This is assuming that the invasion force could establish air superiority over an appreciable fraction of the United States. Air superiority is absolutely vital in modern warfare-the Nazis couldn't invade Britain because they didn't defeat the RAF (although they still hadn't done much to prepare for the Royal Navy either). AS over the coastlines alone would be either impossible or very difficult due to the presence of dozens of inland air force bases.
But a large-scale invasion would be unnecessary anyway. Just capture New York and Los Angeles, and you would bring the economy to its knees. Capture California, and that's 13% of the US' GDP gone. Capture the Texas coast, and that's the majority of the US' oil refinery capability gone. You wouldn't have to fight rednecks or even subdue a large fraction of the US population-capture the important bits, and the US would not be able to go on. It's like what happened in France-capture Paris and you have France. The United States is a bit more decentralized politically speaking, but economically speaking it's quite concentrated in a few key points.
Invading the West Coast would be a fool's errand. You'd only get a thin strip of land before running into the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada, and you only have to look at Switzerland's plan to resist the Nazis to see how easy that would be to overcome. I'd also love to see anyone try to pacify Los Angeles and San Diego counties while still getting supplies through an increasingly vulnerable support column.
The East Coast is more vulnerable, but it also has a far denser patchwork of roads, forests, and small towns than the West has, so far more bases and routes for counterattacks, insurgencies, etc. The Appalachians would be a formidable barrier as well, and are an easy position to fall back to (and drive from) to the major population centers of the Northeast.
This is assuming that the invasion force could establish air superiority over an appreciable fraction of the United States. Air superiority is absolutely vital in modern warfare-the Nazis couldn't invade Britain because they didn't defeat the RAF (although they still hadn't done much to prepare for the Royal Navy either). AS over the coastlines alone would be either impossible or very difficult due to the presence of dozens of inland air force bases.
But a large-scale invasion would be unnecessary anyway. Just capture New York and Los Angeles, and you would bring the economy to its knees. Capture California, and that's 13% of the US' GDP gone. Capture the Texas coast, and that's the majority of the US' oil refinery capability gone. You wouldn't have to fight rednecks or even subdue a large fraction of the US population-capture the important bits, and the US would not be able to go on. It's like what happened in France-capture Paris and you have France. The United States is a bit more decentralized politically speaking, but economically speaking it's quite concentrated in a few key points.
Yes, quite easily. Go to Mexico, buy a gun, cross the boarder, declare America yours, let the invasion begin.
As I said in this threads sister thread, "It's really a question of weather or not it can be conquered." Which I still think it can but that not really important.
As I said in this threads sister thread, "It's really a question of weather or not it can be conquered." Which I still think it can but that not really important.
Absolutely f*ck all.gh0ti said:
He just got the terminology wrong in a bad way.
Anyway, it's generally more acceptable to discriminate on the grounds of nationality than on race. If you make fun of black people, you get cold stares but when you make fun of the French, it's all laughter and jokes.
The simple answer is no the the U.S. could not be "successfully" invaded, even with the use of nuclear weapons. The simple reason for this is that any nuclear launch against the U.S. would result in our own own nuclear missiles being launched (we have at least 4,900 strategic and non-strategic nukes kept just for unforeseen threats that are not limited by any treaties). Once a nuclear attack is conducted against the United States the only thing that would result is mutually assured destruction of the United States and any countries that attacked us (also most likely the rest of the world). Read about mutually assured destruction and you will see that nuclear war is essentially useless.
I misread the question. I thought it said "with" the aid of nuclear weapons. I still don't think there could be a successful invasion of the U.S. due to land mass and the fact that so many Americans have guns of their own. There is no way that we would allow foreign armies to be on our land and I have a feeling that we would run a pretty successful guerilla war if we needed to.
I misread the question. I thought it said "with" the aid of nuclear weapons. I still don't think there could be a successful invasion of the U.S. due to land mass and the fact that so many Americans have guns of their own. There is no way that we would allow foreign armies to be on our land and I have a feeling that we would run a pretty successful guerilla war if we needed to.
Beyond the patriatism, most other countries seemt o forget sometimes that citizens here have the right the bear arms. I myself have 4 guns, my grandfather was a WW2 POW, so he had a few guns before he died. The initial invasion would be suicide if we had a concept it'd happen, though we could be overwhelmed, sure. Not like we are a country of tactical geniuses. Let us say that our armed forces got beaten. The surviving forces would scatter, and group civies to join the fight, and yes, that would be harsh. The U.S. found out what can be achieved by a handful of civilians using guriella combat in Korea, Vietnam, and in our current bout of idiocy "War on terror" in Iraq/Afghanistan. Many lives would be lost on all sides, and I imagine at least one contingiency plan for the U.S. might have at least one nuke being sent at least in the case of the country being lost. Of course, I'm the vengeful type, so that part might be a bit outside reality....
It's a land mass, it has borders, therefore it can be invaded.george144 said:
As for needing the rest of the world, not likely, China by themselves could do it. Americans as a society feel far too safe, with one (big) exception their mainland has never been attacked in the last century and a half and the US feels itself to be invincible.
An attack on the mainland would seriously damage US that, not to mention the reputation of it's military. Vietnam showed ably that once the public question their military everything starts going downhill. I think invading a country as large as the US would hinge as much on propaganda as it would actual battles.
Also the US is a massive space, it would be very difficult to prevent a large attacking force as there's so many points they could land at.
As for an invading force staying put for any length of time, or how much of the US they could claim if they did, that's impossible to tell.