Lets go over the three possible battlefields for a invasion of America.

1. BY AIR - seeing as how there is no Air Force that can stand up to that of the US I not try this method.

2. BY SEA - seeing as how there is no naval force that can stand up to that of the US I would not try this method.

3. BY LAND - seeing as how there is no ground force that can that of the US I would not try this method.

There is currently no military that can invade the US, at least not yet.

Yeah it is an extremely unlikely scenario... Still, I don't see what's fantastical about attempting to fight an invading force as a civilian. Better than just getting raped.

Originally Posted by major liability

Yeah it is an extremely unlikely scenario... Still, I don't see what's fantastical about attempting to fight an invading force as a civilian. Better than just getting raped.

I maintain it just won't happen. There will be no levee en masse. There will be no mass revolt against the invaders. Most people are fat and happy and comfortable. Most people are far too worried about their own happy content lives to risk it by fighting an invader.

Originally Posted by Easy-8

Lets go over the three possible battlefields for a invasion of America.

1. BY AIR - seeing as how there is no Air Force that can stand up to that of the US I not try this method.

2. BY SEA - seeing as how there is no naval force that can stand up to that of the US I would not try this method.

3. BY LAND - seeing as how there is no ground force that can that of the US I would not try this method.

There is currently no military that can invade the US, at least not yet.

This is a very noble and patriotic sentiment. However it has little to do with the facts. For a start, you have left yourself wide open by breaking the Golden Rule of warfare, "Never... Ever underestimate your enemy" (or potential aggressor).

Politicians and their military advisors since time immemorial have been infamous for their inability to predict the strengths, weaknesses and intentions of the opposition.

"It'll be all over by Christmas"... Does this sound familiar?

Originally Posted by senojekips

This is a very noble and patriotic sentiment. However it has little to do with the facts. For a start, you have left yourself wide open by breaking the Golden Rule of warfare, "Never... Ever underestimate your enemy" (or potential aggressor).

Politicians and their military advisors since time immemorial have been infamous for their inability to predict the strengths, weaknesses and intentions of the opposition.

"It'll be all over by Christmas"... Does this sound familiar?

Well I was under the impression that no current force could match the US. And you are right underestimating the enemy is something that can cost you the war. But as of now the US is the hyperpower (sole superpower) of the world and our military seems based on my research to be the most powerful military on the planet at this day and age. I am not say this couldn't change but I am merely saying that CURRENTLY our military is unmatched.

I have studied military history long enough to know that the enemy is more often than not politicans and military advisors to not be able to predict the moves of the enemy. This is due largely to the fact that most people focus on their own military rather than studying their enemy.

The whole "home by christmas" has been said time and time again... And it never happens, its like a jinx.

The real question is WHY would anyone want to invade the continental United States? That's a serious question, what would anyone possibly stand to gain from such a monumental undertaking? I very much doubt the losses would be worth it in the end.

Originally Posted by major liability

The real question is WHY would anyone want to invade the continental United States? That's a serious question, what would anyone possibly stand to gain from such a monumental undertaking? I very much doubt the losses would be worth it in the end.

Looking for a bit of a blue perhaps

Originally Posted by Easy-8

Well I was under the impression that no current force could match the US.

Yes, I personally feel that you are probably pretty close to the mark, however I also feel that it would be tempting fate to rely on it as a defence, even only in a debate.

The world is changing and many other considerations need to be taken into account, like a prospective crippling shortage of oil. The Russkies have huge stocks of natural gas which in time of need can be synthesised into fuel. All of the weaponry in the world is of little use if you can't move it about, (ask the WWII Germans)

The outcome of any possible large war of the future, might well be decided by the availability of commodities such as this. if fact I think there is a better than even chance that the next big war will be fought over oil.

senojekips, you got me. if we lose our fuel source - we lose pretty much all our military power. I am pretty sure the WWII era Germans know all about that. Which is why we are in Iraq today. Not because we WANT the oil but because we NEED the oil. Lets face it, the west needs oil in order keep life as we know it going. Without oil we would be living like cavemen and our military would be issued sticks and stones rather than the high tech stuff we have today.

I could see a world war over oil in the near future. Another possible and very much unrated issue is food. Prices for food at least in the US have been slowly going up. Now I am in great shape and can walk or ride a bike, but damnit I gotta have food! When there isn't enough food - people become animals very quickly.

I try to keep and open mind and you made a real great point about the fuel shortage and how it could affect our military. We would end up like the Germans at the end of WWII - the best technology in the world and tough as nails troops. But what good is that when they can't run due to a lack of fuel?

Our domestic production is six million barrels a day, we have 640 million barrels in strategic reserves and untapped reserves in ANWAR, granted that could be difficult to get in a war with Russia. Our current oil usage is 21 million barrels per day, I would bet barely 5% of that is for military uses. with strict rationing the US could be energy independent and with every day that passes it becomes less likely we will fight a war over oil as we expand our uses of renewable energy sources.

All of Germany's fuel came from Eastern Europe and the Balkans with very, very little in the form of domestic sources. Our domestic supply is stored in/drilled from Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakota's (granted that isn't much), Colorado, California, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. We also have the Gulf of Mexico (easily secured by the USN with a large amount of active wells) and Canadian oil sands. We can be energy independent in wartime and with some of the flexfuel vehicles the Army is experimenting with, engines that can run on kerosene and even certain proofs of alcohol, we could even keep our army moving on the stuff we can siphon from Jim Bob's still in the back country of the South.

This idea of food being an issue for the US is ludicrous, not even Canada or Russia can cultivate more farmland in a given year than the United States, keep in mind the US only has 300,000,000 people but we're currently feed far more than that, if we're at war with the world we can stop feeding Africa, Asia and Central America. Just let the market catch up with the prices, the reason prices are so high right now are because the new requirements on ehtanol went into effect last fall well after planting season and just before the harvest, farmers didn't have time to make the proper changes. The people who grow the food won't be the ones to suffer in a shortage, plus soon the oil Sheiks in the Middle East will have to start cooperating once they realize that the US has them by the balls when it comes to food supplies. They're more reliant on us than we are on them, it's pretty hard to grow plants out of sand.