North Korea? Don't make me laugh.

[Wicky_42]

The people who bring up the abundance of sophisticated computerized weaponry that the US has to offer when talking about Home Front seem o be forgetting about the EMP attack. As I've stated before, on a different thread, an EMP attack would completely wipe out all electronics, from simple digital watches all the way up to our RADAR and communications networks. Without all of the long range missiles, aircraft (planes and helicopters), ships, armor, vehicles and communication systems America will be severely weakened. Add to that the seventeen years of economic collapse and a massive pandemic, then America will most likely be just barely above a third world nation. I think all of that makes an invasion of America plausible but not likely.

Why not likely? the very deployment of such a weapon would be the first step in an invasion; why else do it, knowing that if you don't act you're going to have a very pissed coutry come looking for you shortly, if they get their act together. I mean, if you have the capacity go all the way and if you've just crippled their entire military machine, go for the kill!

 

[Kortney]

snip

snip

Dear oh dear. Another one of you.

Ok. Let's have a look at why the Japanese could not have won and sustained their victory:

Grunt, you seem to love talking about aircraft carriers - so let's talk about aircraft carriers. Do you know how many the Japanese had during World War 2? They had 12. That was literally the best they could manage. They couldn't produce anymore with their resources.

Now, do you want to guess how many the USA had? 113? Correct! And guess what? Over 100 of them were built during the war.

I'll get back to this point in a minute, let me fill you guys in on some background information first.

Remember - the Japanese were trying to invade China at the time. This was eating up over 50% of their resources and manpower. And you are suggesting that an army - with only six million troops - could invade China and the United States of America, two of the biggest countries on Earth at the same time? With 12 aircraft carriers? That is mentally deranged. And remember too, the Japanese couldn't just leave China. Why? It was their only form of defence against the Russians.

But wait, it gets worse.

Japan would also have to take India and a large portion of the Middle East. India was serving as a stronghold for the Allies. It was a relatively safe place from enemy fire and they could throw as many troops at the Japanese occupied islands as they wanted. Not only that, but they would of had to contain Australia too - the most efficient troops per number in the entire war and, once again, one of the biggest countries on Earth.

So tell me guys, where in the World would Japan have gotten the resources to invade and hold the USA, China, Australia & The Pacific, India and the Middle East and still manage to fight off the British Empire & her Colonies, the USA, the Chinese & other small Asian forces and the Russians? That isn't rhetorical - I'm curious. Please tell me. For a country that could only manage to produce twelve aircraft carriers, I find it laughable to suggest that they could.

The country couldn't even feed it's own troops. When the Australians were kicking the Japanese's asses in 1942, the Japanese troops were found trying to eat bark. Yes, bark. Off trees. They then progressed to eating captured humans. So let me get this straight, you think a country that was so badly equipped it made it's own soldiers resort to eating human flesh could successfully invade the USA? Wow, guys.

And what's even worse, you think this would have all been prevented if the Japanese sunk three aircraft carriers in 1941? Please. Even ignoring the small little details, like the fact that the Allies had completely decoded the Japanese code without them knowing (so every piece of intelligence that went through Tokyo was already known to the Allies) and that Japanese diplomacy was so bad due to delusions of being a "superior race" - they still had no hope.

The only way the Japanese could have "won" the war was to defeat the USA politically and out smart them in diplomacy. Perhaps if they didn't strike first, and made the USA be the aggressors, they may have been able to survive on the skin of their teeth until the late 40s, when maybe the Allies may have been convinced it wasn't worth their bloodshed to continue fighting. But as I said earlier, judging from how bad the Japanese were at diplomacy at that time - that's a long shot.

The Japanese were an amazing army with arguably the most scarily dedicated troops of the war. The fact they lasted until 1945 is something they should be proud of. Not many countries could have done that.

 

[Czargent Sane]

That aside, it's my impression that they weren't advertising their setup as all that plausible, at least not as one of their main selling points.

Well, I think they were pushing it pretty heavily. All their advertising copy that I saw bore the words "frighteningly plausible." The writing staff were doing interviews about how they produced such a frighteningly plausible timeline. They really did stage a faux anti-NK demonstration as a publicity stunt at a recent trade show.

At any rate... I'm glad I was able to save a small child's face from the consequences of my own hastiness. That's an oddly fulfilling cap to my involvement in this thread!

you know bob, every time I think of something to post in this thread, all I have to do is scroll down to see that you've already said it.

 

[Grunt_Man11]

snip

snip

Dear oh dear. Another one of you.

Snip

Just keep living in your little fairy tale world.

I like how you said the Japanese were bad a diplomacy yet they were able to fool the US government into thinking they had no intention of attacking.

Also you keep claiming that Japan had a weak home front. However, if you ask any surviving veteran of the battle for Okinawa and they will tell you other wise.

There is a reason Truman decided to drop Fat Man and Little Boy, and it wasn't because he was a mustache twirling evildoer. It was because an invasion of Japan itself would of made Normandy look like beach party.

Numbers and statistics mean zero when the bullets start flying.

Real life isn't like Starcraft or Command and Conquer. You can't just thrown some shiny crystals in a big building and magically materialize soldiers/tanks/ships from another building in no time flat. It just doesn't work that way.

Claiming it was/is/always will be impossible to invade the US is not only naive, but also arrogant. The two types of people reality loves to bi%&$ slap across the face.

It's not impossible to invade the United States... it's just improbable.

 

[Kortney]

snip

snip

Dear oh dear. Another one of you.

Snip

Just keep living in your little fairy tale world.

I like how you said the Japanese were bad a diplomacy yet they were able to fool the US government into thinking they had no intention of attacking.

Also you keep claiming that Japan had a weak home front. However, if you ask any surviving veteran of the battle for Okinawa and they will tell you other wise.

There is a reason Truman decided to drop Fat Man and Little Boy, and it wasn't because he was a mustache twirling evildoer. It was because an invasion of Japan itself would of made Normandy look like beach party.

Numbers and statistics mean zero when the bullets start flying.

Real life isn't like Starcraft or Command and Conquer. You can't just thrown some shiny crystals in a big building and magically materialize soldiers/tanks/ships from another building in no time flat. It just doesn't work that way.

Claiming it was/is/always will be impossible to invade the US is not only naive, but also arrogant. The two types of people reality loves to bi%&$ slap across the face.

It's not impossible to invade the United States... it's just improbable.

Please respond to one of my many reasons why it would of been impossible for the Japanese to win, and I'll take you seriously.

Go ahead and give me a reason how a country that can't feed it's own troops, has only six million men for fighting and twelve aircraft carriers can invade the USA, China, Australia, India and the Pacific. Please, go ahead. You've got nothing.

Don't be ridiculous.

Also you keep claiming that Japan had a weak home front. However, if you ask any surviving veteran of the battle for Okinawa and they will tell you other wise.

I don't think you really know what homefront entails. It means production capability, sustainability, resources, workload, etc. Okinawa was an inevitable defeat for the Japanese soldiers, who fought viciously and bravely to try to defend every last metre. It has nothing to do with their homefront capabilities. Homefront doesn't mean how viciously your troops defend, it means how well (or in Japan's case) how badly they could supply their troops and their forces.

 

[Grunt_Man11]

Please respond to one of my many reasons why it would of been impossible for the Japanese to win, and I'll take you seriously.

Stop ignoring my responses and give me a timeline of when the "Japanese had to start eating people to survive" and maybe I'll take you serious.

You never once consider the cause of the "weak home front." It wasn't because they supply blocked themselves. It was because we still had all of our current carriers, which made Yamamoto decide not to press the attack on Pearl Harbor further, i.e. level the entire base, or press further west. This allowed us, and motivated us, to mount a swift counterattack which is what put the drain on Japan's home front.

If we had lost those three carriers, then chances are we would of hesitated with counterattacking for fear of losing even more. That hesitation could be seen as an opportunity for Japan to launch direct attacks on our mainland. Putting the drain on our home front, and thus causing us to "have to eat people to survive" or whatever. And that could open the way for an invasion.

Like I said, an invasion of the US in not impossible... it's just improbable. There's a difference.

 

[Kortney]

Stop ignoring my responses and give me a timeline of when the "Japanese had to start eating people to survive" and maybe I'll take you serious.

Argh. You obviously haven't read my post. I already have given you a date. 1942. The Japanese were eating bark and human captives by 1942.

You never once consider the cause of the "weak home front." It wasn't because they supply blocked themselves. It was because we still had all of our current carriers, which made Yamamoto decide not to press the attack on Pearl Harbor further, i.e. level the entire base, or press further west. This allowed us, and motivated us, to mount a swift counterattack which is what put the drain on Japan's home front.

And, after stating all those huge reasons why Japan couldn't have won, you should realise that the Japanese didn't have the capacity to wage an international war and hold territory. They couldn't even hold little sections of the Phillipines against the Australians without being driven to cannibalism.

As I said before, destroying the three aircraft carriers they beleived at Pearl Harbor would have been nothing but a delay. It would have given them more breathing space - but the result still would have been the same. The USA created over one hundred aircraft carriers in the space of a few years during the war. That's how huge their industry was. The Japanese industry could only manage to make twelve. How is this huge difference not getting through to you? It's pretty damn alarming my friend. If the Japanese could only produce twelve aircraft carries, and the USA could produce over one hundred - what does that say about the difference between the homefronts of the two countries?

If the Japanese were to have sunk the American aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor, the USA would have simply have built even more at an even quicker rate. The Japanese wouldn't have been able to press the US coast because they were invading China and the Pacific at the same time. If they were to have let off, the British Empire and the Russians would have crushed them through China and the Australians would have taken back every island in the pacific.

I don't think you realise how many troops you would need to take the USA in 1941. The Japanese would have had to literally abandon their territory and lose it all to do so.

If we had lost those three carriers, then chances are we would of hesitated with counterattacking for fear of losing even more.

I completely disagree and would go as far to say you are wrong there. If the US would have lost those carriers, they would have been filled with even more rage and their production levels would have gone even more through the roof. Once again - it would only cause a delay.

That hesitation could be seen as an opportunity for Japan to launch direct attacks on our mainland. Putting the drain on our home front, and thus causing us to "have to eat people to survive" or whatever. And that could open the way for an invasion.

And where the hell would they have gotten the men to do that? China? Well then they lose China and the Russians kill them all. The Pacific? Well then they lose all the progress they made. You are like a bad accountant . The numbers don't justify your theory!

To be safe, you'd need at least a force of twenty million to take the USA in the 1940s. The Japanese had six million at their peak. And that's all up. If we are talking about available forces, the Japanese would have only have had about one and a half million. Even then, the amount of resources to sustain a US invasion would be too much for the Japanese to produce. Remember, the Japanese couldn't even provide enough resources for an invasion of the Phillipines.

Like I said, an invasion of the US in not impossible... it's just improbable. There's a difference.

The invasion of the US today certain isn't impossible, and it wasn't impossible in the 40s either. However, it was impossible for the Japanese army to carry out. They couldn't have done it - and I've given you plenty of reasons as to why.

 

[Grunt_Man11]

Stop ignoring my responses and give me a timeline of when the "Japanese had to start eating people to survive" and maybe I'll take you serious.

Argh. You obviously haven't read my post. I already have given you a date. 1942. The Japanese were eating bark and human captives by 1942.

Source? No wait... it doesn't matter. I believe you anyway.

However, the fact that the Japanese were "eating bark" and resorting to cannibalism doesn't change the fact that Japan invading, or even attacking, the US mainland wasn't impossible.
It just meant that it was highly improbable. Doubly so, if want to add the adjective, "successful," to that invasion/attack.

However, it's still wasn't impossible.

Remember, impossible means that something has an absolute 0% chance of happening. No one can truly say something has an absolute 0% chance of happening. Even if the chance is a mere 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% the task is not impossible.
The only thing that can really be labeled "impossible" is something being impossible.

I've given at least two examples of a "lower power" invading, attacking, or doing damage to a "higher power". So, I believe I have still made my point.

 

[Kortney]

Source? No wait... it doesn't matter. I believe you anyway.

There are hundreds of sources I can get for you if you please. My internet is incredibly slow here, so I'd advise you to just Google "japanese cannibalism kokoda".

However, the fact that the Japanese were "eating bark" and resorting to cannibalism doesn't change the fact that Japan invading, or even attacking, the US mainland wasn't impossible.

Yes it does. The Japanese couldn't supply their own troops to fight the Australians without nearly starving to death. How could they have taken the USA?

However, it's still wasn't impossible.

For all intelligent debating purposes, it was. The only way the Japanese could have invaded the USA successfully was if a meteor hit the USA, China, Russia, Australia and India and killed everyone there.

Remember, impossible means that something has an absolute 0% chance of happening. No one can truly say something has an absolute 0% chance of happening. Even if the chance is a mere 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% the task is not impossible.
The only thing that can really be labeled "impossible" is something being impossible.

Your argument is getting weaker and weaker man. Now you are just debating what the word impossible means. Like I said before, for all intelligent and sane purposes, it was impossible. The Japanese could never have beaten the Americans in a full scale war - even the Japanese knew this. The Japanese thought their only chance was to strike first and strike fast - and convince the USA not to attack. They knew as soon as the US declared war, they were screwed. It was an inevitable defeat.

You are, literally, the only person I have ever heard even suggest that the Japanese could have invaded the USA. Even the Japanese themselves, with all their arrogance and views on their superior race, would never have done such a thing.

 

[Grunt_Man11]

However, the fact that the Japanese were "eating bark" and resorting to cannibalism doesn't change the fact that Japan invading, or even attacking, the US mainland wasn't impossible.

Yes it does. The Japanese couldn't supply their own troops to fight the Australians without nearly starving to death. How could they have taken the USA?

However, it's still wasn't impossible.

For all intelligent debating purposes, it was. The only way the Japanese could have invaded the USA successfully was if a meteor hit the USA, China, Russia, Australia and India and killed everyone there.

Remember, impossible means that something has an absolute 0% chance of happening. No one can truly say something has an absolute 0% chance of happening. Even if the chance is a mere 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% the task is not impossible.
The only thing that can really be labeled "impossible" is something being impossible.

Your argument is getting weaker and weaker man. Now you are just debating what the word impossible means. Like I said before, for all intelligent and sane purposes, it was impossible. The Japanese could never have beaten the Americans in a full scale war - even the Japanese knew this. The Japanese thought their only chance was to strike first and strike fast - and convince the USA not to attack. They knew as soon as the US declared war, they were screwed. It was an inevitable defeat.

You are, literally, the only person I have ever heard even suggest that the Japanese could have invaded the USA. Even the Japanese themselves, with all their arrogance and views on their superior race, would never have done such a thing.

You just proved my statement that it wasn't impossible for Japan to have invaded the US correct with your meteor comment, and you call my argument weak? Try again.

Here's another scenario that would of made it quite possible for Japan to invade the US. They never attack Pearl Harbor. Instead, they do their best to bide their time and wait for Germany to defeat the wounded Britain. Conquering Britain gives the Germans the resources and time needed to take down Russia. Caught between the encroaching German army and Japan, China falls. Australia decides it can't take on both the German and Japanese navy and retreats, or is possibly crushed by them. Leaving the US wide open for two invading armies.

I would ask what you think of that, but I think know what you would say.
Something along the line of throwing your hands in the air and crying "ridiculous."

I know the idea of the US being invaded or attacked is scary, but get over it.
I know the idea of how different history could of played out if just one, or a few, variables are changed is scary, but get over it.
I know the idea of how nothing is truly impossible is scary, but get over it.

 

[Kortney]

You just proved my statement that it wasn't impossible for Japan to have invaded the US correct with your meteor comment, and you call my argument weak? Try again.

Don't play me for an idiot. We both know this wasn't your original point. You seriously believed, with zero proof, that Japan had intentions of invading the US after Pearl Harbor and you seriously believed that they could do it successfully. As I've made incredibly clear, that's mental. But if that's all, then you win! An meteorite could of won the war for Japan! What insight!

Here's another scenario that would of made it quite possible for Japan to invade the US. They never attack Pearl Harbor.

Oops. Already a problem. The USA already hates the Japanese and vice versa. The diplomacy between the two nations was nothing next to violent. The USA wanted Japan to get out of China and was doing everything in its power to bully them without actually declaring war. There is tons of evidence (that I won't post in fear of making my post too long - considering you didn't even take in any of the things I mentioned in my earlier post it would be a lost cause) that suggests the US and Japan were bound for war.

I don't think you know this, but the USA were putting seriously heavy restrictions on the Japanese that prevented them from expanding their empire. See, the Japanese wanted fuel that they didn't have. The USA were being very clever and sneaky and were placing as many obstacles in the way of the Japanese to do so.

You see, this is why the Japanese attacked them. No one in Japan wanted to attack the US, because they all realised they would be squashed like bugs. They were forced into attacking them and taking a huge risk - because their expansion depended on the US leaving the picture. So what is the best hope of that? A quick attack that sends the US flying. The Japanese all knew this was a gamble and most of them, I imagine, probably knew it wasn't going to work. However, they had to do it. They couldn't get enough resources to keep China and take the Pacific unless they knocked America out.

The weird thing about you is that you are arguing in favour of Japan in a way that no Japanese commander would agree with. You'd be laughed out of Tokyo if you brought up this theory in the war room.

But, for the sake of this, I'll pretend - in some weird universe - the USA and Japan never fought. Although, if the USA and Japan never fought Japan would have lasted an even shorter amount of time.

Instead, they do their best to bide their time and wait for Germany to defeat the wounded Britain.

Another problem. Germany fighting the USA was pretty much inevitable. The USA was supplying Great Britain's navy with resources and was actually already sending troops (Marines I beleive) to occupy island and prevent German attacks. In 1941 (before the "war" was official) US Marines occupied Iceland and were ready for combat if Germany came their way. You can talk about the theory of splendid isolationism all you like, but the facts show the USA was ready to fight.

Also, Germany were sinking US supply boats on their way to England. So I have a really hard time America were going to sit this one out. But once again, I'll agree with your poor reasoning for the sake of it.

Conquering Britain gives the Germans the resources and time needed to take down Russia.

This is a really tricky one, because relations between Russia and Germany were really quite complex and fragile. Whilst they had somewhat of a "peace" treaty in 1941, both sides hated each other and both sides knew they were about to fight.

If Germany placed their sole attention on the UK and left the Balkans, the Russians would have undoubtedly sped through into Berlin and destroyed them. Undoubtedly. Hitler knew this, and that's why he couldn't "conquer" Britain.

I don't think you realise how much effort it is to invade a country. It takes millions of men and it takes serious amounts of time. You can't just win a battle and take over the country. It would take years and years to take Britain, and it would take around 60%-70% of the German army to do so. They would be leaving their Eastern flank open to a bloodthirsty enemy who they knew wanted to slit their throats (Russia).

This is the reason the Germans didn't do this. They seriously considered it. Believe it or not, this actually isn't alternate history. This has already been discussed and was considered by the Germans. The reality was however, they couldn't afford to invade England because it would be a guaranteed victory for Russia. So no, I'm not accepting this one.

Caught between the encroaching German army and Japan, China falls.

China had already fallen mate. Due to domestic problems.

Australia decides it can't take on both the German and Japanese navy and retreats, or is possibly crushed by them. Leaving the US wide open for two invading armies.

You are forgetting the Middle East, India and the Dutch. To do this, Japan would have had to wiped them all out. This would take ten years.

I would ask what you think of that, but I think know what you would say.
Something along the line of throwing your hands in the air and crying "ridiculous."

Says the guy who thinks you can invade the most powerful and industrious country on Earth with 1.5 million men and just spent a full hour, without any proof, trying to convince me that Japan could have invaded the USA, China, India, South Africa, Australia, the Middle East, The Pacific with a few million men and only twelve aircraft carriers.

Yep. I'm the naive one. Despite all the effort I've gone through to give you bucket loads of 100% valid reasons as to why this is all mental (none of which you have even remotely tried to debunk).

I know the idea of the US being invaded or attacked is scary, but get over it.

What? It doesn't scare me one little bit. I would still have been born and my life may have even been better today. I have a Japanese parent and have no US blood in me at all. I wouldn't be affected.

I know the idea of how different history could of played out if just one, or a few, variables are changed is scary, but get over it.

It's not scary, it's incredibly interesting. I have proven why I'm right in saying Japan had no hope of doing anything lasting in World War 2. All the reasons are right here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.271074-North-Korea-Dont-make-me-laugh?page=3#10430132

The only response you've given me is "IMPOSSIBLE MEANS 0% CHANCE SO YOU ARE WRONG!".

And really, judging from the fact that instead of discussing with me where you disagree with my statements you are just putting words in my mouth and making straw men - I'd say you are just about done here.

 

[twistedmic]

You are, literally, the only person I have ever heard even suggest that the Japanese could have invaded the USA. Even the Japanese themselves, with all their arrogance and views on their superior race, would never have done such a thing.

Just because Japan couldn't have won the war does not mean that they couldn't have invaded America. Keep in mind that invade and occupy are not the same thing. There can be an invasion without occupation.
Here is the definition of Invade which would best fit in this thread
1.
to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.

And here is the definition of Occupy, again, the one that would best fit.

4. To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.

If, after successfully sinking the American aircraft carriers, Japan had been able to land even a single platoon or squad of troops, then they had invaded America. That single platoon could be slaughtered in less than two hours, but that wouldn't change the fact that they had invaded American soil.

 

[Grospoliner]

I think the basic premise is that in the future, with dwindling resources, economic collapse, and internal strife, the power base the US is built on will have eroded away to the point where we're little better than bickering nation-states loosely affiliated with some quasi-interim-governmental authority that really doesn't have the strength to enforce itself, leaving the majority of the "United States" to mostly fend for itself.

Given said economic collapse would naturally result in skyrocketing food prices, medical shortages, and total infrastructure collapse (see current events), which would put the majority of heavily populated states urban areas somewhere between the living conditions of Mogadishu and Detroit. This would naturally schism social and philosophical groups along their respective lines (such as Shiite vs Sunni Muslims / Catholics vs Protestants / Protestants vs Protestants / Evangelical Protestants vs EVERYONE).

This scenario is not that far fetched. It hearkens back to the very fall of the Roman Empire and even not so recently in post-war Germany (World War 1) and the collapse of the Soviet Union. If anything the decay of a once indomitable super power is a very real and potential threat. Especially when a government sells off its military assets to make some cash (Russian submarine anyone?) which would increase the potential ease for foreign powers to invade.

Would it be the North Koreans? Not likely. Trans-oceanic invasions are risky affairs (read up on the Normandy Invasion and the African Theater). It takes a lot of good planning and execution, as well as resources to pull it off. You also need forward positions to embark from. Given North Korea's physical position in the world, their current lack of significant industrialization, manpower, and resources (they're hemmed in on all sides by more powerful nations) it makes them a highly unlikely candidate for superpower.

A more likely situation would be a pan-Asia coalition (similar to the EU) that would pool its resources to form an expeditionary force. Since the US economy would have collapsed, most of the rest of the world markets would follow suit and the rest of the world would be recovering from severe economic depression, inflation, and civil unrest.

This of course would assume the North American countries didn't follow suit to stave off economic ruin.

While it might seem implausible, all one has to do is tweak the plot a little, at it becomes a much more likely scenario. I would say if anything, this game is less of a Red Dawn style nationalism promoting shoot em up, as it is a cautionary tale about bad banking and globalization.

You're right, except that in this game N.Korea has become "The Greater Korean Republic" and has annexed South East Asia as more and more countries turn to it as a source of military and economic security (even as the Republic is run by Kim Jong Il's son (Kim Jong Un) and turns all the conquered territories into vassal states).

The backstory was supposedly researched and received guidance from an Ex-CIA operative (he's Korean ironically enough). It was also cowritten by the same guy who did "Red Dawn".I think it's a plausible concept if you ignore the part about it being an invasion by the Korean People's Army.



I wish someone would have the balls to make a game about internal strife and seeing the US deteriorate into something you'd see in third world nation. You could even tweak the "Homefront" story as you said.

-US Government collapses, resorts to martial law to maintain order (just like in the game)

-paranoia, fear and anger grips US society.

-internal strife breaks out, anti-government militias/state police/military-government groups rebel, and seize the opportunity by break away from the union. Begin to enforce "constitutional" law as they interpret it in the areas under their control, may start fighting other militias for control.

-religious terrorism and zealotry by Evangelicals/protestants starts, claiming that the "end times are upon us". Political and ethnic tensions between communities throws what's left of stability and normalcy into further chaos.

- The weak, federal government begins to abuse its power as the situation gets worse and conducts a desperate (albeit "dirty") war against domestic para-military forces to regain control and citizens rights are curtailed in a feeble attempt to provide security.


Just my two cents of course, not that anyone would have the courage to produce such a game: after all we are stupid, mindless consumers who can't handle controversial material.


EDIT: Throw in foreign powers trying to bring aid, "cookie cut" segments of the US for their own benefit and interfere in the internal conflicts much as world powers have in formerly third world nation states.

Well Pop Cap did make a turn based strategy game called Shattered Union where the US fragments into countries, but there was no narrative and the game was buggy.

 

[Kortney]

You are, literally, the only person I have ever heard even suggest that the Japanese could have invaded the USA. Even the Japanese themselves, with all their arrogance and views on their superior race, would never have done such a thing.

Just because Japan couldn't have won the war does not mean that they couldn't have invaded America. Keep in mind that invade and occupy are not the same thing. There can be an invasion without occupation.
Here is the definition of Invade which would best fit in this thread
1.
to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.

And here is the definition of Occupy, again, the one that would best fit.

4. To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.

If, after successfully sinking the American aircraft carriers, Japan had been able to land even a single platoon or squad of troops, then they had invaded America. That single platoon could be slaughtered in less than two hours, but that wouldn't change the fact that they had invaded American soil.

That's obviously not what he was talking about. Besides, it depends on your definition of the word.

"to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's home."

Is an official definition on dictionary.com

You are just nitpicking now. As I said, he was talking about an occupation and Japanese victory.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

If, at the end of World War One, someone said Germany would suddenly invade and conquer a gigantic portion of Europe

... it would have been a sight more plausible than this business, because they were a major industrial state that had in fact just done that very thing and come close to winning. There has never been any precedent for Korean regional or world conquest and no reason to expect it of NK; comparisons like this are essentially close kin to the silly comparisons of Saddam to Hitler that were used prior to the Iraq War.

But anyway. In the spirit of constructiveness, let me try a positive suggestion (anyone on this board making tomorrow's great FPS franchise?):

Yeah, it is kinda crazy, but honestly who else would they have? China and Russia don't have much of a motive, Iran is too politically charged, and everyone else is even more unrealistic.

The problem is that they were trying to recapture the Red Dawn spirit, America-against-the-commie-menace, and those days are just gone. If you're willing to do something with the complexity of the world that's replaced it, you might have something with legs.

Off the top of my head, there's a far likelier way to have foreign troops get involved on US soil: foreign intervention on behalf of different sides in a new American civil war. Give American political culture another few decades of spiraling into craziness, and a shift of right wing secessionist fantasies from pie-in-the-sky rhetoric to actual action might become plausible. Pro- and anti-secessionist factions could then get involved from around the world as auxiliaries to American factional troops, each side painting the other as a stooge of foreign conquest. It could all be part of a much broader global catastrophic upheaval brought about as people migrate in masses away from flooding coastlines and the world's governments try to cope with a shifting climate and a chaotic political landscape.

Very fast and dirty, of course. But if someone sold that scenario to me as "frighteningly plausible," I'd bite.

Alright, that scenario does sound interesting. I'll give you that.

But in Homefronts fictional universe, they annex China and a bunch of other Asian countries. Fucking China. If you look industrial up in a dictionary, there's a picture of china. Also, Germany was in utter shambles after WW1, maybe not as bad as NK, but still.