Invasion USA - possibility or myth?

Danger of ground invasion USA - reality?

  • No, there is no danger for USA to be invaded

    Votes: 43 39.4%
  • Yes, there is a threat for USA to be invaded

    Votes: 10 9.2%
  • No, there is no danger at the moment, however such threat can arise in a future

    Votes: 46 42.2%
  • USA is already invaded!!!

    Votes: 10 9.2%

  • Total voters
    109
Resistance fighters/insurgencies will only work in two situations.

1.) The war is still being fought by two sides, in which case the insurgency helps to reduce the occupying force's ability to fight.

2.) There is an amount of political uncertainty/doubt about the mission, in which case the cost in money, material, and lives becomes enough to tip the balance in favor of leaving.

Other than those two scenarios, it is very unlikely that resistance movements will do anything more than annoy the occupiers and bring reprisals against innocent civilians. The latter is quite effective in putting out insurgencies too, either the locals give up the insurgents or they all die along with the fighters, either way problem solved.
Agreed. Insurgencies have worked quite well in Vietnam and in Iraq, while they were less successful during the time of the romans. And it depends on how you're running your mission to take over, too.

If you're doing as the US did in Vietnam and Iraq, doing it for the sake of the people who live there, the Insurgency is highly effective, because you're trying to protect those who live there while they're secretly blowing you up. If you come in as conquerors, as say the Romans did, it's much more difficult to maintain an insurgency, because there's nothing stopping your conquers for going eye for an eye; you kill 10 of ours, we kill 100 of yours. That tactic completely removes the will to fight of most insurgents.
 
True, but the Romans used it, and it was greatly effective.

The only two ways to beat a insurgency are:

1. hearts and minds
2. genocide

Their are also a few ways to bend the rules on the second one like forcing the part of the population where most of the insurgents are coming from into camps or whatever you wanna call them. Unless you can launch a very effective genocide this method will often blow up in your face because as I said before the people you are trying to control will get angry and revolt.

Or if you are going with the first one... It will only work if the people can help themselves, in this case it is kinda a political campiagn that puts the home (insurgents) and away (invaders) against one another for popularity. The insurgents in Iraq are destroying themselves by going and attacking civilians. The whole thing in Iraq is going to be decided by who can gain favor of the people.
 
Two words that don't really fit with discussing humans, always and never. In this scenario, I wouldn't say that it would never happen because I don't think that could truly be the case. I would say yes it could happen. The weaker our military is the more in danger we are of having it happen. The folks that think it will never happen, that's dangerous. That's when we are most likely to get some folks brave enough to go all out and kill as many Americans as possible, right here in the States and try to overtake it. Let's not forget World War II, the Japanese were right off the North West Coast, Washington State area, if they had had more folks with them, we might have fighting on our West Coast, not only the Pacific or Europe.
 
What the... that will never happen, the first barrier will be europe and whatever force will come won't hold for long against so many different battle groups and special forces, just imagine more than 12 different special forces with guerilla tactics... such a pain in the ass ^^.
 
Last edited:
Assuming such power is part of the weakening process our enemies need. I'd rather assume weakness and train to get stronger, more potent, more prepared. Sitting back thinking all is hunky dory is bad for business.
 
Two words that don't really fit with discussing humans, always and never. In this scenario, I wouldn't say that it would never happen because I don't think that could truly be the case. I would say yes it could happen. The weaker our military is the more in danger we are of having it happen. The folks that think it will never happen, that's dangerous. That's when we are most likely to get some folks brave enough to go all out and kill as many Americans as possible, right here in the States and try to overtake it. Let's not forget World War II, the Japanese were right off the North West Coast, Washington State area, if they had had more folks with them, we might have fighting on our West Coast, not only the Pacific or Europe.


I agree with you on parts of that, the old "Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum" still stands, and the people who speaks about reducing the armed forces on the grounds that "It's so peacefull now" and "It could never happen again" has obvilously spendt their history lessons sleeping on the last row.

But the idea on anyone invading the USA is still too far fetched.

An amphibious landing on US beaches is peanuts, assuming you have the strength and manpower to do so and tolerate losses, those beaches are simply impossible to defend.
And that fact wouldn't change even if you lined up every shotgun owning redneck you can manage to sniff up.
The coastline is simply too long to hold, and so are the vast landscape behind it.

But the vast landscape behind it also make it impossible to invade, at least if the invader seeks to actually gain something.
The frontline would be to wide, the forces to spread out, and the supply lines too long.
Very much the same factors that has saved Russia/Soviet Union for centuries.

There's alway a next line of defence behind the one the defenders are leaving, and there's no relief for the invaders who are short of supplies and in constant fear of being outflanked.

And for the Japs, they didn't have the manpower, even if they were crazy enough to attempt anything like it.
Only brutal force and total disregard for humanity as such left them in control of southeast Asia for the time they were.

But you better prepare for an invation of USA, if nothing else, it makes you sleep better. :)
 
I agree with you on parts of that, the old "Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum" still stands, and the people who speaks about reducing the armed forces on the grounds that "It's so peacefull now" and "It could never happen again" has obvilously spendt their history lessons sleeping on the last row.

But the idea on anyone invading the USA is still too far fetched.

An amphibious landing on US beaches is peanuts, assuming you have the strength and manpower to do so and tolerate losses, those beaches are simply impossible to defend.
And that fact wouldn't change even if you lined up every shotgun owning redneck you can manage to sniff up.
The coastline is simply too long to hold, and so are the vast landscape behind it.

But the vast landscape behind it also make it impossible to invade, at least if the invader seeks to actually gain something.
The frontline would be to wide, the forces to spread out, and the supply lines too long.
Very much the same factors that has saved Russia/Soviet Union for centuries.

There's alway a next line of defence behind the one the defenders are leaving, and there's no relief for the invaders who are short of supplies and in constant fear of being outflanked.

And for the Japs, they didn't have the manpower, even if they were crazy enough to attempt anything like it.
Only brutal force and total disregard for humanity as such left them in control of southeast Asia for the time they were.

But you better prepare for an invation of USA, if nothing else, it makes you sleep better. :)

Well it's similar to the issue of Australia being invaded by a near Northern neighbour (with a much bigger population). It'll be the desert that kills the invaders and the thousands upon thousands of kilometers of the desolate red centre that takes the biggest toll. Man-power wont do it, logistics wont do it and tenacity wont do it.
 
Well it's similar to the issue of Australia being invaded by a near Northern neighbour (with a much bigger population). It'll be the desert that kills the invaders and the thousands upon thousands of kilometers of the desolate red centre that takes the biggest toll. Man-power wont do it, logistics wont do it and tenacity wont do it.

Thing is would any invader need to control the centre of Australia?

The population and industry is almost entirely around the coast and I imagine the desert would be just as formidable to defend as attack.
 
An amphibious landing on US beaches is peanuts, assuming you have the strength and manpower to do so and tolerate losses, those beaches are simply impossible to defend.
And that fact wouldn't change even if you lined up every shotgun owning redneck you can manage to sniff up.
The coastline is simply too long to hold, and so are the vast landscape behind it.

And of course this assumes that the United States Navy has already been defeated, no easy task when one considers it's by far the largest, most powerful in the world.
 
And of course this assumes that the United States Navy has already been defeated, no easy task when one considers it's by far the largest, most powerful in the world.

I think the point is that even if you relegate the US military to a shadow of its current capability the logistics required invading the USA still make it a massive undertaking, realistically the only way it could be done would be from Mexico or Canada and even then it would require huge amounts of infrastructure development in both countries to provide enough support material to launch a successful assault.

Think about it even if you took the US nuclear arsenal, Navy and Air force out of the picture and just made it a one on one land battle how much of a supply train would the attacking need to keep an army in the field in the USA.
 
Invasion?

A student of history once told me,

“Invading a country is the easy part, holding it is another thing altogether.”

Simplistic, but I got his point.
 
Look at western Europe it is being colonized by Islamists. Invaded no but the second Colonisation of America is very possible.
 
Look at western Europe it is being colonized by Islamists. Invaded no but the second Colonisation of America is very possible.
We even have a Muslim-Forum at the University of the German federal armed forces :), saying that this is not necessarily a bad thing- if that is what you mean because i don't think fundamental islamists would try to immigrate or colonise- and don't forget that fundamental islamists are a very small minority in the whole muslim world...
 
We even have a Muslim-Forum at the University of the German federal armed forces :), saying that this is not necessarily a bad thing- if that is what you mean because i don't think fundamental islamists would try to immigrate or colonise- and don't forget that fundamental islamists are a very small minority in the whole muslim world...

Heard one "expert" say that fundamentalists made up at most 100,000 people but they are leaving the whole Muslim world with a black eye. I think the Muslims that are leaving North Africa and the Middle East are the ones trying to get away from such attitudes and beliefs, Western Cultures have a way of integrating new beliefs into the mainstream while purging the less desirable, usually more radical elements, from their minority groups while still allowing them to maintain religious autonomy.
 
Back
Top