Who would want to invade USA?

[Kasterborus]

Would Iran just send over a few troops and claim the US as their own?

-They probably wouldn't, the Iraqi military is like preschool for 30 year-olds.

Where did you get Iraq from? The question was about Iran. They're different countries entirely....

This is IraQ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq]
This is IraN [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran]

Another reason I don't like Americans, they don't know what exists outside their country...Seriously, we got an exchange student who thought that Australia was as big as Texas.

-Kaster

 

[TheBlank]

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks that a bunch of civilian gun owners can repel a military force. Even if fully automatic weapons were legal, you're still fighting better trained, better equipped, and better organized foes. Not to mention their armoured forces, IFV's, tanks, helicopters, and bombers, would reduce resistance to rubble instantly. People like to think they can run up to enemy soldiers and gun them down and run away. But real combat often involves shooting at enemies 300+ yards away, while snipers pick off exposed soldiers. Insurgencies are not that successful. Look at Iraq, you hear about 5-15 fatalities a month, and it isn't like we're geing pushed away. Hell, 100 militants died to take a base, and the US lost 8. Being from the US does not give you super powers. Red Dawn is an awful representation of an invasion.

I think you should look Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War] before you go too far with that line of thought mate...

Sweden could.

Because who the hell would see that one coming.

Good God, "MOUNT THE BARRICADES! THE SWEDISH ARE COMING!!!"

-Kaster

but that was a war where visibility was mostly zero, there was little attempt to dig in and they were fighting an enemy that was willing to do anything to win

and casualties were still FOUR TIMES LARGER on the Vietnamese side

 

[Kaynus]

I think you should look Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War] before you go too far with that line of thought mate...
-Kaster

Dear god, are you serious? The North Vietmanese Army was made up of professional, well seasoned soldiers supported by Russia, and China. The Vietcong were armed farmers given military equipment. The US Insurgency in this case would not even be close to the North Vietnamese during the war.

 

[MaskedMori]

A better question would be, Who wouldn't take over the US? Plus since there is no consequence to it, it could be just for free land.

 

[Kasterborus]

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks that a bunch of civilian gun owners can repel a military force. Even if fully automatic weapons were legal, you're still fighting better trained, better equipped, and better organized foes. Not to mention their armoured forces, IFV's, tanks, helicopters, and bombers, would reduce resistance to rubble instantly. People like to think they can run up to enemy soldiers and gun them down and run away. But real combat often involves shooting at enemies 300+ yards away, while snipers pick off exposed soldiers. Insurgencies are not that successful. Look at Iraq, you hear about 5-15 fatalities a month, and it isn't like we're geing pushed away. Hell, 100 militants died to take a base, and the US lost 8. Being from the US does not give you super powers. Red Dawn is an awful representation of an invasion.

I think you should look Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War] before you go too far with that line of thought mate...

Sweden could.

Because who the hell would see that one coming.

Good God, "MOUNT THE BARRICADES! THE SWEDISH ARE COMING!!!"

-Kaster

but that was a war where visibility was mostly zero, there was little attempt to dig in and they were fighting an enemy that was willing to do anything to win

and casualties were still FOUR TIMES LARGER on the Vietnamese side

I think you should look Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War] before you go too far with that line of thought mate...
-Kaster

Dear god, are you serious? The North Vietmanese Army was made up of professional, well seasoned soldiers supported by Russia, and China. The Vietcong were armed farmers given military equipment. The US Insurgency in this case would not even be close to the North Vietnamese during the war.

Yes, the NVA was trained, seasoned soldiers. I was disputing the claim of:

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks that a bunch of civilian gun owners can repel a military force. Even if fully automatic weapons were legal, you're still fighting better trained, better equipped, and better organized foes. Not to mention their armoured forces, IFV's, tanks, helicopters, and bombers, would reduce resistance to rubble instantly. People like to think they can run up to enemy soldiers and gun them down and run away .... Insurgencies are not that successful.

I'm pretty sure the Guerrillas made a good stand against the US there. If you're gonna ***** about what you were fighting in, the visibility and such, maybe I should point out a few things:
The Australians didn't lose as many as the US, even in Percentage wise when you scale the force size against the number of battles. As a percentage, our losses were far lower.
My uncle is a 'Nam vet, and he said that the American's always had Rock Music, Heaps of Vehicles, and all the niceties of home. It's a war, you throw a pack on your back, a gun in your hand and walk out and fight. Don't bring a mechanized convoy with everything plus the kitchen sink.

No offence, the American's tend to overdo it. Soldiers join the military to fight in the mud, you get shit food, shitter equipment, and you have to gut it out. It would not be a surprise to me if on my first deployment they send me into the jungle for a month+ straight with maybe a Resup drop every few weeks. And that'll be as a regular soldier.

-Kaster

 

[Kaynus]

A better question would be, Who wouldn't take over the US? Plus since there is no consequence to it, it could be just for free land.

Freeland you need to Police, maintain, guard, and feed. You could get money by maybe exploiting our few national resources, but it woulden't be worth it. My guess is that the EU comes over and bails us out, they gave our current president a Peace Prize simply because he wasn't bush, so we're ok in their eyes now.

 

[Datalord]

Does the army dissolving include the national gaurd?

Oh, while civilians may not be as well trained as real soldiers, but of the 600,000 South Dakotans, most own guns, and at least 10,000 could handle lost distance firefights, (over 300 yards). i regularly hunt and i practice sharpshooting (for the zombie apocalypse), and when i save up enough money, i'm going to buy a handgun (the type i haven't decided yet), and get a concealed weapons permit.

Thats 1 state, and most of the midwestern states have a lot of guns.

tanks, helicopters, and artillery would be troublesome at first, but there would be an abandoned airbase near where i live with a fleet of fighters, bombers, and tanks. The planes would be almost worthless, with only a few civilian pilots available, but the tanks, MY GOD, the tanks are easy to use, the controls are so well labeled in the tanks that a mentally deficient 3rd grader could operate one, and i know because i've seen the insides of the tanks.

I also dislike the "fat" american stereotype, not all americans are fat, and health in the midwest is generally okay.

The heartland of the USA would not be easy to take, we have guns, ranging from air rifles to uzis (thank you grandfather clause), we know how to use them, and there are a lot of us. You could take the country if the army stepped down, but there would be MASSIVE casualties, so before you invade, ask yourself, is it worth it?

 

[Kasterborus]

tanks, helicopters, and artillery would be troublesome at first, but there would be an abandoned airbase near where i live with a fleet of fighters, bombers, and tanks. The planes would be almost worthless, with only a few civilian pilots available, but the tanks, MY GOD, the tanks are easy to use, the controls are so well labeled in the tanks that a mentally deficient 3rd grader could operate one, and i know because i've seen the insides of the tanks.

Well, OP said the Military Dissolves. Which to me indicates that the Soldiers, Pilots, etc. Get fired and go back to Civvie life...

Take those implications with you...

-Kaster

 

[S-Unleashed]

Someone who wanted to die.


I love the whole "americans are arrogant" argument. No we aren't, our elected officals are.
Also, If you want America to stop sticking it's giant dong into other countries, start being a little more effective when shit starts going down.

Spoken like a true American! High five!

 

[Kaynus]

Oh, while civilians may not be as well trained as real soldiers, but of the 600,000 South Dakotans, most own guns, and at least 10,000 could handle lost distance firefights, (over 300 yards).

That isn't long distance, 600 yards would be. But also know that sniper rifles like the light fifty can kill something from over a mile away. But you're assuming a conventional force would allow it's self to get into a firefight. Airstrikes and artillery will shred you before you even see their flag.

tanks, helicopters, and artillery would be troublesome at first, but there would be an abandoned airbase near where i live with a fleet of fighters, bombers, and tanks. The planes would be almost worthless, with only a few civilian pilots available, but the tanks, MY GOD, the tanks are easy to use, the controls are so well labeled in the tanks that a mentally deficient 3rd grader could operate one, and i know because i've seen the insides of the tanks.

Ok, you can pilot a tank, can you hit a target over a mile away with out seeing it? Can you hit one a mile away seeing it? Regardless, Airstrikes my friend, are how things are done in modern warfare. Or artillery, either way, they will hit you from beyond your range. But also think, do you think that a base's worth of tanks (not sure how many that is) piloted by civilians would work against a company of highly drilled tank crews?

I also dislike the "fat" american stereotype, not all americans are fat, and health in the midwest is generally okay.

I said nothing of the sort, so I'll assume that wasn't directed at me.

The heartland of the USA would not be easy to take, we have guns, ranging from air rifles to uzis (thank you grandfather clause), we know how to use them, and there are a lot of us. You could take the country if the army stepped down, but there would be MASSIVE casualties, so before you invade, ask yourself, is it worth it?

It wouldn't be worth it, but it if were, the battle will be one sided against the militia.

 

[MaskedMori]

A better question would be, Who wouldn't take over the US? Plus since there is no consequence to it, it could be just for free land.

Freeland you need to Police, maintain, guard, and feed. You could get money by maybe exploiting our few national resources, but it woulden't be worth it. My guess is that the EU comes over and bails us out, they gave our current president a Peace Prize simply because he wasn't bush, so we're ok in their eyes now.

I suppose, they could keep the managment there til' they're done assimilating. It only really said the military was gone. Or they could just change nothing and leave the country the way it is, while siphoning it's resources and money. Really depends who takes it over. Well, since other countries would be jumping at the chance aswell, the US would most likely get taken over, other countries will band together and try and take it. It'd start the next world war. The winning side (If we don't blow up the planet) would probably just split the land equally. That would be my guess atleast.

 

[Shaoken]

I'd say Canada Annex's them if they are completely broken and works on rebuilding the country. The US population is hesitant at first, but with their national government broken they would come around.

 

[G1eet]

Hey, assholes, remember that large country right above yours? The one that's BIGGER THAN YOURS and could REALLY use 50 more provinces? Yeah, you're ours. Fuck the [Iranians/Chinese/North Koreans/Russians/Saudi's/Muslims/Mexicans/Texans/Alaskans].

You're right, Canada is really big. We Yanks have our tanks, and the Swiss have their banks.

And I doubt that Canada would win in the event of war with the U.S. Unless you guys decided to be sneaky and invade while we're sending most our troops halfway 'cross the world. But that'd just be a dick move.

 

[Kaynus]

Did I neglect to mention that 1 Leopard II can take on two M1 Abrams and win? Yeah, you have tanks, but so do we, and even IF civilians get their hands on your tanks, they wouldn't be able to use them properly and would be easily dispatched with Carl Gustav's.

Leopards 2 are that effective? As a half-krautling I am proud that our tanks are once again made of awesome.

 

[kotorfan04]

First of all I highly doubt we would be invaded because someone didn't like us, most potential invaders would attempt to off us to solve a problem, be it competition for resources or as a way to gain more territory to solve a population density problem. The big threats of China and sort of Russia might try to take us out because we are a bit of a resource hog, however that seems unlikely because nuclear weapons = fantastic deterrent.

Okay that is a bit of a tough sell, so I ask a few questions to prove my point. How many big wars have there been since oh say 1947? If you said zero you are wrong, third world nations fight each other rather frequently and there are at least one or two attempted genocides a decade. (Thanks Africa) New question though how many times since 1947 have two superpowers duked it out? If you said twice (Vietnam and Korea) you are still wrong because although we and Russia had some fantastic proxy battles, they were purely for ideological reasons (Well our intervention was.) and of course an attempt to prevent the dreaded domino effect, which failed to materialize after we lost Vietnam. So right why don't two superpowers duke it out? Because one of them would lose, and if any nuclear power thought that they were going to lose the temptation to nuke the fuck out of the winner would be overwhelming, and if one country nuked the fuck out of a country that had nukes, well they would share the love and then both countries would lose a hell of a lot.

So thanks to the glory of fission anyone who poses a threat to us won't take us on directly and will most likely attempt to solve shit diplomatically, (Which explains why we didn't attack Russia in the 60s, and why China hasn't rocked our shit these past few years.) Sure they might think a world without us would be nice, but a world that isn't blown back to the stone age is even nicer.

Now then as to your questions of why do the Taliban and Al-Qaeda bomb us even though it isn't efficient, the answer is simple. THEY WANT TO SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF US! If they scare us we might acquiesce to their demands they get a small victory and the cycle continues. Luckily the U.S. responded by invading not one but two countries and totally fucking up the Taliban while mussing up Al-Qaeda's hair. On the other hand one of those wars turned out to be a giant money pit and derailed a presidency.

Now if I were to take a guess the future of warfare will be much more guerilla, no big battles, not many invasions, much more along the lines of small guy tries to bleed big guy dry, while big guy tries to exterminate small guy.

In fact it seems the biggest threat a superpower has to face is itself. The U.S.S.R was crushed due to a deadly cocktail of bad economic policies, public dissatisfaction and Chernobroyl. (Popular theory states that the catastrophic nuclear melt down forced the U.S.S.R. to be a bit more open and talk about how they royally screwed the pooch, and that level of fuck up really undermines the propoganda.)

Meanwhile the U.S. has certainly been stagnating, citizens are dissatisfied with the government, Nationalistic pride is on the decline thanks to the partisan devide gripping the country, and of course the economy took a bit of a nosedive about a year ago. So while I hardly think we are going to break up the possibility of us losing that killer edge is certainly present unless drastic action is taken soon.

Now for a bit of hypocracy, while I think the U.S. is safe from the threats mentioned by the moderator, I have to give a special shout out to North Korea, which has the precise mixture of crazy ass leader, lack of oversight on crazy ass leader, hatred of the U.S., and coming soon the ability to develop nukes to be a risk to anyone on Kim Jhong's bad side.

So hooray there is my threat assessment at this time sorry if it was long winded, but the topic required me to right a lengthy post because anything short and pithy wouldn't adequately cover the situation.

 

[kotorfan04]

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks that a bunch of civilian gun owners can repel a military force. Even if fully automatic weapons were legal, you're still fighting better trained, better equipped, and better organized foes. Not to mention their armoured forces, IFV's, tanks, helicopters, and bombers, would reduce resistance to rubble instantly. People like to think they can run up to enemy soldiers and gun them down and run away. But real combat often involves shooting at enemies 300+ yards away, while snipers pick off exposed soldiers. Insurgencies are not that successful. Look at Iraq, you hear about 5-15 fatalities a month, and it isn't like we're geing pushed away. Hell, 100 militants died to take a base, and the US lost 8. Being from the US does not give you super powers. Red Dawn is an awful representation of an invasion.

Yeah sorry to add to the TL;DR post I just wrote, but history is full of examples of the little guy beating the shit out of the guy invading your homeland.
Examples include but are not limited to:
Revolutionary War (Oh yeah Redcoats were the shit yet they got pwned by a bunch of farmers)
Vietnamese conflict. (We sent a shitload of people there, yet still had to retreat.)
Afghanistan vs Russia.
Iraqi War. (Okay I am kind of cheating on this one, but still the people rallied and made holding on to Iraq a right ass, and the problems continue to this day.)

So the lesson here is if you have guns, the ability to make bombs and other fun traps and somebody invades your nation you have a good chance of taking them down because people can act really funny if someone triest to destroy your way of life, and most people will do anything to protect their property, their family, and their way of life.

 

[Ghost1800]

The planes would be almost worthless, with only a few civilian pilots available, but the tanks, MY GOD, the tanks are easy to use, the controls are so well labeled in the tanks that a mentally deficient 3rd grader could operate one, and i know because i've seen the insides of the tanks.

Really, as far as I can tell, the Abrams is really not all it's cracked up to be in this country. This is all based on stuff I've heard but it apparently can only run for 4 hours before requiring refueling (which requires a LOT of fuel), requires extensive maintenance, and puts out so much heat that it would be more easily identified by enemy air cover then most tanks in the world. Sure it can take some good hits and it is pretty fast, but you need an army of logistical support just to keep them running... and no they won't be any more resilient against heavy AT weapons or air strikes then other armored vehicles unless the military has some very highly classified information pertaining to it (eh, what do I know, it's possible, very likely even)... this applies especially to any models you would find on a military base in the heartland of the US, they probably won't be decked out with all the latest upgrades and add-ons they might add to tanks deployed elsewhere.

That all aside, you would need 4 people to crew the damned things, and the coordination and teamwork required to make the vehicle something more then a "Drop bombs here please" marker on some foreign commander's map would require a lot of training. Training that won't be possible due to the fuel limitations.

 

[Perryman93]

are you really that fucking dumb that you cant see the sources of aggression come from the us policy, the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the wars in Vietnam, Korea and the cold war. everyone hates the US because you yanks think its your right to go fuck with everyone else's shit and 'stop the advance of 'evil' communism' well thats a load of crap, if the people of a country want communism let them have it, if they want to become an more advanced country, let them enrich uranium etc. the US interfere in situations that are nothing to do with them! the main reason Muslim extremist want to bomb America is due to America interfering in there countries and trying to change their ways of life, if the US hadnt dome so much screwing around in the middle east and had just left it alone none of them would blme the us for any problems they have now, but because the us did invade etc, they do. Another main factor is israel, israel is a jewish nation set up on land that was in the 1950's taken from its rightful muslim owners by british and americans, thanks to influences in that area, to give to the jewish faith as a 'homeland' this took away A)one of the most holy cities in the muslim world, jerusalem, many wars have already been fought over the place. B) muslim/arab lands that were taken from them long ago by the Israelites (jews) but the land was later gained back, until the time which america and britain took it away again, and that was only because we felt sorry for what hitler had done to the jews!!! the other problem with israel is that it has turned the jewish faith into a people rather than a religion which it is, its a religion people not a race of people, thy dont need their own country, especially if it involves taking land sacred to others, and yes i know it was also sacred to jewish and christian faiths but if you trace history back the original inhabitants of the land where arabic/muslim . And it is largely due to Americas support of israel, which ,many muslims view as a land that was unjustly taken from them, that the muslim extremists want to bomb/destroy america, also some of the more extremist sections of the faith believe that america is a puppet being 'controlled' by the jews for their own ends, but that is obviously untrue, although there are a large amount of jewish people high up in american government and big business.

Suppose an Alternate universe where the American military just said, Ok I give up.

Who would try to take over the US? Could they?

Why does the Taliban/Al Queda/Terrorist want to bomb the US anyway? It's not really efficient and they don't get anything out of it.

Would Iran just send over a few troops and claim the US as their own?

I can only imagine China and Russia possibly sending over forces, everyone else would be a small fry.

There must be a reason for the source of aggression against the US today and it has nothing to do with wanting their resources right?

 

[Kaynus]

Examples include but are not limited to:
Revolutionary War (Oh yeah Redcoats were the shit yet they got pwned by a bunch of farmers)

The French supported, and trained many of our forces, and we were a considerable distance away. This is NOT in any way like modern warfare where you can fly anywhere on the planet in 23 hours. Also note that the British lost interest after France declared war against them

Vietnamese conflict. (We sent a shitload of people there, yet still had to retreat.)

See my previous post.

Afghanistan vs Russia.

We were constantly supplying the Mujahedin with weapons. Ironically the Taliban was formed due to us supporting these groups.

Iraqi War. (Okay I am kind of cheating on this one, but still the people rallied and made holding on to Iraq a right ass, and the problems continue to this day.)

Again, see my previous posts, they barely do anything to our forces. Not to mention if a nation that spat on the Geneva convention invaded it would be even worse.

So the lesson here is if you have guns, the ability to make bombs and other fun traps and somebody invades your nation you have a good chance of taking them down because people can act really funny if someone triest to destroy your way of life, and most people will do anything to protect their property, their family, and their way of life.

And fail