It does if you make it painfully obvious who you're talking about.
i.e.
A super power known as the Union of States led by an all powerful dictator known as Graham W Buchanan.
Ooooooooo.....
Kind of like what Star Wars III did.

As for the invasion of Liechtenstein... come on seriously. Let's do this thing! The first website to colonize a country. We're gonna be in a lot of history books!

Originally Posted by bulldogg

^^^ But faceless coalitions wouldn't fit the "I Hate America" agenda.

Well he can always have the "North American Confederation" attacking the "European Alliance" and then back fill information about the NAC being dominated by the former USA I don't know I just make some claptrap up.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

As for the invasion of Liechtenstein... come on seriously. Let's do this thing! The first website to colonize a country. We're gonna be in a lot of history books!

I have always thought a story about a Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra and Monte Carlo forming a military alliance and going on a rampage through western Europe would be a good read.

Swiss accidentally invade Liechtenstein

Monty B, I will personally lead the Andorran Army. With 5 men under my command I will have enough manpower to occupy Paris.

Originally Posted by EagleHammer

Hi, i whant to Write a story about Sweden in war and kind of like an swedish resistance, i whant to write about war against som great power (not russia) preferaly US, but i can't come up with a reason for it, anyone that can help me.?

Seems like Russia is really the only nation that would be likely to want to pursue a pathway of conquest going into Scandinavia. Reasons:
1.) They are instable currently.
2.) Their people feel that they have something to prove.
3.) Russia seems to look back on their USSR "glory days" longingly, wishing they could have that level of power and influence in the world again.
4.) Scandinavia is relatively isolated, weak and abutts Russian territory, so a "Russia on the warpath" scenario would see Scandinavia as a prime target.
I know you said that's the direction that you don't want to go, but it certainly seems to be the most likely.

You're preference of the USA? That's pretty tricky. Stable government, no perceivable need to invade Scandinavia and a very real need on the USA's part to maintain good relations will Europe as a whole. An amphibious invasion has an entire ocean to cross with lots of European navies in it to notice, then go through the Danish straights. For running with a USA invasion scenario, you'd have to:
1.) Come up with a reasonable scenario for WHY the USA would invade. What's in it for us silly Americans? Did the USA go through some drastic change in government or something? If not, there would have to be a very good perceivable reason (In other words, what does Sweden do to severely piss off the USA?).
2.) The entirety of Western Europe would have to throw their support (passive support at bare minimum) for the USA's invasion, so you'd need an explanation and/or scenario of why all of Western Europe would have it in for Sweden. Otherwise, circumstances would likely degrade into a "most of Europe vs the USA" before any invasion could be landed.
3.) This is really part of of number 2, but how does a USA invasion force waltz past Denmark and Danish waterways and on into Sweden?

The Swedish sub sinking a US carrier scenario ... needs about 100 years of geo-political development to make it realistic. The USN tends to stay out of the Baltic. The Russian Navy is really the biggest presence there, has been for a long time and I don't believe that has changed even with recent events being considered. Russia would see a US presence in the Baltic as a direct challenge and the USN has nothing to gain by creating a presence there.

Frankly, I think that Sweden is more likely to be invaded by China the the USA ... barring some very significant geo-political changes.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

1.) Come up with a reasonable scenario for WHY the USA would invade. What's in it for us silly Americans? Did the USA go through some drastic change in government or something? If not, there would have to be a very good perceivable reason (In other words, what does Sweden do to severely piss off the USA?).

Actually Sweden pissing off the USA severely to unforgivable levels could of course, if you need a US strike on Sweden, involve cruise missiles and nothing more.
You'd need something to gain economically or strategically to warrant a full take over.
But forget it godofthunder, the guy's beyond reason.

Afganistan is an example of a country pissing off the USA enough for an invasion to happen, but without much to be gained by the USA in terms of resources. And that took something HUGE to make it happen.

Now for the USA to confront the diplomatic and military nightmare of trying to launch an invasion of Sweden? ... How many cities did Sweden have to wipe off the map of the USA? And of course, if Sweden managed to do something so completely nasty to the USA, not even their own citizens are going to support them. So yeah, trying to make a USA invasion of Sweden work ... doesn't work. You could FORCE it to work, but that involves turning Sweden into something absolutely terrible ... at which point, well who wants to hear a story about the bad guy winning, even if it IS agains all odds.

The US invades and holds Afghanistan for strategic purposes.
I didn't say invasion is out of the question, but this guy wants a full blown resistance story. You don't get a resistance story if the aggressors show up, blow everything up then pack up and leave.
And yes, that's what we've been saying.
USA vs Sweden? Only in a sporting event.

Point worth noting on Afganistan: the USA's invasion and occupation received the FULL COOPERATION or even outright participation of every single one of Afganistan's neighbors, with the sole exception of Iran. That same sort of cooperation would be needed for the hypothetical conquest of Sweden by the USA.

Now I'm willing to try to work with him and his projected scenario, figuring that ANYTHING is possible, given time and change. But in the next 50 years? Extremely unlikely. Something drastic and completely unforeseen would have to happen. Current world climate = no go.