Invasion USA - possibility or myth?

[MontyB]

Is it possible we areforgetting the most obvious. Not china or india, the one political and economic bloc with the industrial strength, population base and military knowledge and history. The european union.

You know the problem of invading the USA is not one of military short comings, nor is it the threat of militia's and the "rifleman behind every blade of grass" dribble we get fed, well lets face it any military capable of taking on and defeating the the US military on its home soil is going to take about 20 minutes to sort out a rag tag militia, that is a scenario of a nation that has watched Red Dawn once too often.

There are two issues any nation would face (apart from the conventional military manpower requirements) invading the USA:
1) Logistics and Supply.
2) A nuclear response.

Until an nation can find a way around those two issues no invasion is possible.

Here is a more likely scenario, the EU/China/India/[Insert any possible threat here] simply bankrupts the USA, the strength of the United States and the one thing that makes an invasion almost impossible is its industrial base but it is also its weakness and as is being shown currently it is the most vulnerable target when a nation is in debt up to its armpits.

 

[A Can of Man]

Those Afghan insurgents are by far more skillful than any militia in the US and they get their clocks cleaned on a pretty regular basis.
Either way, currently no one has the strategic reach to land enough troops in the US to take it over, even after softening it up by bankrupting the United States.

 

[BootStomp]

Your forgeting Norfolk being one of the biggest Naval Bases in the east coast.

Also, landing in the south would be not so smart, since true miltia would be sweeped aside but you gotta remember entering the south(no offense) is entering another nation unto itself. Moments of a land invasion gurrllia warfare would take place from the good ole country boys of the south in the mountains. As a product of such a place dont think it will be easy. I would say it would be like hte french or US in vietnam then pressure fromt he army, and navy...boom. As for the destruction of our aircraft carriers that may happen, but also, remember our nuke subs would target and destroy the invasion force which would take a week or to even get insiht of the coast line.

Also, remember German and British political stances with the United States are relativly well standing. Since there is a majority of us German and since ew and the british kinda fight back to back instead of head to head.

My input however.

Is it possible we areforgetting the most obvious. Not china or india, the one political and economic bloc with the industrial strength, population base and military knowledge and history. The european union.

Obviously not at the moment, but in twenty years time. The EU will have moved up to the borders of Russia, possibly including Russia, it will have some kind of close status with with Turkey, it may include Israel. The northern african states will have some kind of associate status ( morocco actually applied to join in the 1980s, it was rejected, because it wasn't in the EU, but that resulted in special status for the north african countries.

effectively a modern industrial state of close to 800 million people with borders stretching from the pacific to the atlantic and economic strength and ties stretching deep into africa, the middle east and central asia.

why would it attack the USA. well what if we don't make the breakthrough in new energy sources. The EU and the USA jockeying for influence over the oil rich states of the middle east or the vast mineral resources of antartica.

Imperial overstretch could do for the USA what it has done for every empire( for the US is an empire, just a land empire, in my opinion) . The cost of enforcing its will across the known world. Will a combination of the war on terror and the financial crisis do what world war 1 did to the british empire, bankrupt it?

Here is one scenario

A civil disaster or bloodbath in south east europe, maybe the algerian civil war starts up. The europeans discover they have no military depth, and the US has to step in and solve the problem. perhaps india and pakistan have major conflict and the EU discovers it hasn't got the ability to send help.

It starts to retask and re arm, instead of having 25 small armed forces it has integrated armed forces. It may build aircraft carriers, more than just the possible 3 of france and the UK. It has the best of german engineering, quality british and french and german military soldiering ( no cracks about the french please), and the sheer weight of numbers of young men from places like turkey looking for military employment. That is ignoring Russian soldiering and Israeli ingenuity( if they join)
If countries from the middle east join the EU, that could produce a huge supply of underemployed young men who need jobs.

back to the scenario

as the US is overextended, financially and militarily, it cuts defence spending, which is still greater than the next 10 countries combined, whilst the EU finally enacts its plan for military integration.

( I think there was british tv drama about future EU/ US war over resources, a couple of years ago)

the next generation of weapons is developed. Star wars finally works, meaning nuclear holocausts aren't credible. new ships, new planes, electronic warfare, maybe EMP weapons ( i think i read something about very early planning for them)

relations are sharp between the EU and the USA, over resources, political views -whatever. The EU has developed its new aircraft carriers to project its power, once again the US is not the only superpower. The EU believes its only a matter of time before war and decides to strike first

the EU sends an armada to the south atlantic as a dummy, the US sends a fleet to shadow and observe, whilst the major fleet readies in across EU ports.

the first day, EU special forces, launch attacks across USA, at pearl harbour, at major naval and airforce installations, in space. cruise missiile strikes at targets across the US.

by the end of the first day, several US carriers have been sunk by EU submarines.
A large invasion force sails across the atlantic.
the special forces have been successful in partially cripplying the ability of USAF to ready large numbers of planes.

The EU invasion force lands... in canada, the canadians are brushed aside ( sorry but your army is 22,000 strong, the last time I read numbers)
the US army rushes to meet the invasion.

The EU drops several divisions of parahute troops into jacksonville as part of its attempt to form a bridgehead. ( yes I know its a little far fetched, but hey)

suddenly the US is facing an army from canda and heavily armed light infantry(I am thinking something on the lines of the british parachute regiment, someone described them to me as the kind of soldiers you throw into a battle to beat the hell out of your enemy, very very aggressive). it has to direct two separate attacks.

the EU has aircraft carriers against a vastly reduced numbers of planes which are on home soil. Very large air battles.
EU armoured divisions rush into new york state as US armoured forces rush up to meet them.

whilst the jacksonvile is destroyed in the battles between US and EU soldiers.

Jacksonville is also a major USN base. which is why it was taken.

the EU and US armadas in the south atlantic have a major battle, which I give to the US, and the remnants of the us fleet steam north to and attack the EU fleet and supply ships in the atlantic.

thats so far.

let me know what you think.

I've no idea how effective or not effective special forces might be in crippling a country. I'm predicating my invasion on the fact that they could cause major disarray not just to military bases, but transport links, power supply etc.

 

[johnmacadam]

I know norfolk is a massive naval base, but i chose jacksonville, but its both a naval base and city. and it would cause the us to send forces to try to push out the invaders, city fighting is messy and bloody and slow.

All those guys in the mountains, could stay there. militias are no match for trained soldiers. discipline, training, command and control, these take time to develop. look at iraq, despite huge numbers of soldiers having had military training, it didn't aid either the sunni or shia militias. they had no real knowledge of tactics to use against the us forces there( as I understand, they had to develop them and even then they were never a real threat to the usa, small attacks never became platoon sized, which never became company sized and then battalion sized)

just having lots of guns, isn't the same as being well trained. (otherwise things in afganistan would be a lot worse). I also understand that there are limits on what people can actually have. i.e semi automatic not automatic and you can't have rpgs etc.

it would take at least 14 days to cross the atlantic, but I speeded it up for dramatic licence. I had imagine lots of anti submarine warfare and submarines to combat us atlantic subs. I don't know how many are kept at sea at any one time.


the british being part of the EU forces is based on the idea, it doesn't want to be part of declining US influence, and rather having a controlling influence in the EU, (france, germany and the UK being the dominant powers in it)


in my scenario, the us is damaged by the at least partially succesfful special forces attacks. So EU forces can invade the US.
Jacksonville only has to be held long enough to take the naval base to allow EU naval forces to launch a second invasion

As an earlier chap pointed out, getting logistics non stop to the US, would require a massive merchant navy and for diego garcia to have been knocked out / taken. Or the UK could have given it back to the chagossians( the people it took the island from - its actually in the courts at the moment).

Invasion forces are now having a vast pincer movement from the south coast and the north from canada. The US hasn't been invaded for more than 200 years, does it even remember how to fight a war on its own soil and are its armed forces in the right place, especially with forces spread across the globe...

 

[BootStomp]

I know norfolk is a massive naval base, but i chose jacksonville, but its both a naval base and city. and it would cause the us to send forces to try to push out the invaders, city fighting is messy and bloody and slow.

All those guys in the mountains, could stay there. militias are no match for trained soldiers. discipline, training, command and control, these take time to develop. look at iraq, despite huge numbers of soldiers having had military training, it didn't aid either the sunni or shia militias. they had no real knowledge of tactics to use against the us forces there( as I understand, they had to develop them and even then they were never a real threat to the usa, small attacks never became platoon sized, which never became company sized and then battalion sized)

just having lots of guns, isn't the same as being well trained. (otherwise things in afganistan would be a lot worse). I also understand that there are limits on what people can actually have. i.e semi automatic not automatic and you can't have rpgs etc.

it would take at least 14 days to cross the atlantic, but I speeded it up for dramatic licence. I had imagine lots of anti submarine warfare and submarines to combat us atlantic subs. I don't know how many are kept at sea at any one time.


the british being part of the EU forces is based on the idea, it doesn't want to be part of declining US influence, and rather having a controlling influence in the EU, (france, germany and the UK being the dominant powers in it)


in my scenario, the us is damaged by the at least partially succesfful special forces attacks. So EU forces can invade the US.
Jacksonville only has to be held long enough to take the naval base to allow EU naval forces to launch a second invasion

As an earlier chap pointed out, getting logistics non stop to the US, would require a massive merchant navy and for diego garcia to have been knocked out / taken. Or the UK could have given it back to the chagossians( the people it took the island from - its actually in the courts at the moment).

Invasion forces are now having a vast pincer movement from the south coast and the north from canada. The US hasn't been invaded for more than 200 years, does it even remember how to fight a war on its own soil and are its armed forces in the right place, especially with forces spread across the globe...

True, but when you say look at iraq, well sure lets look at iraq but lets also look at other conflicts Vietnam being one. Just having lots of guns true, but they "Know" how to use them because most are ex military or trained by the national guard are the state milita. The state milita actually trains on the same line as the army. This I know because I have friends in the virginia state Milita which is a state funded army. True the National Guard is more of a threat.

I understand that yes, the troops are well trained but with ex military guerllia trainers they could just train others to be just as well taught as the EU soldiers. Speical forces would probably do a good amount of damage but what of america speical forces? Also, you are considering this as if it happened now. I know that the US forces are being slowly withdrawn from iraq. Thus shortening the line we have to strengthen.

I see and understand what you are saying but to me while it is possibly and it would be hard to do, it could easily get backfired on the EU. Only time will tell and what would happen.

 

[zhaldev]

only if the democracy is just like INDIA(local support for islamic terrorist by section of people) then situation like this may occur.

 

[Zastava-Arms]

The USA can be invaded, but the invadors will most likely not stay there for long.

 

[wolfen]

The USA can be invaded, but the invadors will most likely not stay there for long.

Or live for long.

 

[major liability]

The militia could never repel a military force, that's a fantasy. Their job would be to make life as miserable as possible for occupiers with bombs and random sniping.

 

[Big_Z]

Spec ops would not make a dent. What is it exactly you think they would do? The media and public focus so much on the ground aspects of war that they forget about the US navy. Our navy is the most dominant branch to ever exist. No number of nations could get past that brick wall. At best they could drop paratroopers but most of them would be wiped out by air forces and what hit the ground would be mopped up within days. If our entire military was at home we would push any number of nations/men out into the sea. You would have some of the best trained, battle hardened and equiped troops in the world enraged that someone would dare attack thier nation.

 

[wolfen]

The militia could never repel a military force, that's a fantasy. Their job would be to make life as miserable as possible for occupiers with bombs and random sniping.

Not if we get the street gangs involved

 

[Guaporense]

The Mexicans are cooking a massive army of doom to invade the US and recover the territory lost in the 19th century. :lol:

 

[Guaporense]

Talking serious:

I imagine that China is the most likely country to invade the US:

1- In the next years China will emerge as a competitor to the US as the world's premier military power.

2- They have the raw industrial capabilities to outproduce the US in military hardware and the capabilities to make a massive invasion fleet capable of transporting tens of millions of soldiers across the pacific. For example, China produces 500 million tons of steel, while the US produces 90 million.

3- The manufacturing capacity ranking, China was second in 2007, but will reach first place before 2015. By 2020, China will be able to conquer the US nearly as easily as Germany conquered Poland in 1939.

 

[Guaporense]

Thinking BIG!

To invade the US, China would have to build a fleet of 100 aircraft carriers of 100.000 tons each. Protected by thousands of smaller ships.

It takes about 45 days to cross the pacific and return and estimating that each soldier needs 10 tons of shipping to be transported, an initial landing force of 10 million soldiers (with 200.000 tanks!) to be landed in 90 days would need 50 million tons of transport ships.

Overall, I think that 50 million soldiers with 1 million tanks would be more than enough to occupy the US and destroy any resistance there, those 50 million would need 15 months to be transported.

So, China would have to maintain a military of about 60-70 million men (including the 50 million men army plus millions in the navy and air force). A navy of 25 million tons would do the job (10 million tons of aircraft carries plus 15 million tons of support ships). Considering that Germany in WW2 maintained a military of 9.5 million with a population of 90 million, China today has a population of 1.3 billion, so a military of 70 million would be piece of cake.

The US made 1.5 million tons of warships in 1943 and 10 million tons of transport ships, with a steel capacity of 80 million tons, China, with 7 times that capacity, can build a fleet of 25 million tons in 2.5 years and a transport fleet of 50 million tons in 1 year. An air force of 5 thousand stealth fighters launched from the carriers would be able to maintain air superiority over the country.

 

[lurker]

To invade the US, China would have to build a fleet of 100 aircraft carriers of 100.000 tons each. Protected by thousands of smaller ships.

It takes about 45 days to cross the pacific and return and estimating that each soldier needs 10 tons of shipping to be transported, an initial landing force of 10 million soldiers (with 200.000 tanks!) to be landed in 90 days would need 50 million tons of transport ships.

Overall, I think that 50 million soldiers with 1 million tanks would be more than enough to occupy the US and destroy any resistance there, those 50 million would need 15 months to be transported.

So, China would have to maintain a military of about 60-70 million men (including the 50 million men army plus millions in the navy and air force). A navy of 25 million tons would do the job (10 million tons of aircraft carries plus 15 million tons of support ships). Considering that Germany in WW2 maintained a military of 9.5 million with a population of 90 million, China today has a population of 1.3 billion, so a military of 70 million would be piece of cake.

The US made 1.5 million tons of warships in 1943 and 10 million tons of transport ships, with a steel capacity of 80 million tons, China, with 7 times that capacity, can build a fleet of 25 million tons in 2.5 years and a transport fleet of 50 million tons in 1 year. An air force of 5 thousand stealth fighters launched from the carriers would be able to maintain air superiority over the country.

You make it sound like building 100 super carriers, let alone the thousands of ships to go with it, the millions upon millions of landing craft, the associated ships to defend those landing craft, the many thousands of planes necessary, let alone making them stealthy. The million tanks (which would be particularly less effective than intended at the landing due to the cities around the coast), while training 70 million soldiers, equipping them with modern weaponry, producing the guns, bullets, missiles, food, uniforms, and building the logistics supply chain to constantly supply this is easy, cheap, quick, and immune to disruption. All this while having zero experience in the related logistics, let alone small scale invasions, let alone large scale invasions. They have no combat experience at deep sea combat, marine invasions, and no combat experience with an air force. They would have to at that time have already nationalized all factories, including those owned by foreign companies, which would also be a heads up.

This sort of build up would also cause havoc with the rest of the countries in the region, yes including Russia. The Chinese would have no allies in this endeavor that could help them, no Russia would not, though I wouldn't be surprised if they took advantage to bring the baltics under their control once again (depending on the state of Europe).

This scenario would necessitate a breaking of ties with a number of the countries in the region upon which we have good to fair relations with. Australia, Japan, India, and the Phillipines, (lets assume Taiwan was already taken, that would be a must before this as well) because the troops, US and allied, based in those regions would be an unacceptable threat to Chinese supply lines. The out and out Imperialism that would be shown by this buildup, which would be impossible to hide, would necessitate more calls for US troops in the region, not less. This would more than likely result in a war against these countries. India would almost certainly take advantage of the stretch in Chinese supply lines to lay claim to the disputed territories, while Japan would lay claim to those disputed islands (the name of both escape me).

Most certainly NATO would be involved. If not for the United States, than for Canada, which would be involved in the fight.

Some points you fail to point out is that by ww2 the United States was an industrial nation everywhere. at least Half of China's population is not out of place 300 years ago. Also American factories were effectively immune from attack, thus being able to pump out material relatively unchecked. Not so with China, but still true with the East Coast with regards to China.

Chinese factories would more than likely be harassed by US fighters based out of South east Asia, or perhaps central Asia, as well as Alaska.


In line with the plausibility of this scenario, the United States occult corp will summon dragons to annihilate these 100 carrier groups.

 

[wolfen]

Ant yet if Chine built enough to come over here and attack us they would probably all die of lead poisoning before they got here.

Just remember this, I forget who said it I think it was Einstein...."I don't know how WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones".

 

[Guaporense]

You make it sound like building 100 super carriers, let alone the thousands of ships to go with it, the millions upon millions of landing craft, the associated ships to defend those landing craft, the many thousands of planes necessary, let alone making them stealthy. The million tanks (which would be particularly less effective than intended at the landing due to the cities around the coast), while training 70 million soldiers, equipping them with modern weaponry, producing the guns, bullets, missiles, food, uniforms, and building the logistics supply chain to constantly supply this is easy, cheap, quick, and immune to disruption.

It would not be easy. But I believe that China's gargantuan industrial capabilities are more than capable of churning 50 Nimitz carriers per year.

I based my numbers on the US industrial production in WW2 and multiplied by China's economic size (China is in physical terms, about 3 to 5 times the size of the American industry in 1944).

All this while having zero experience in the related logistics, let alone small scale invasions, let alone large scale invasions.

They will train in the invasion of Taiwan, of course.

They have no combat experience at deep sea combat, marine invasions, and no combat experience with an air force.

As did the US in 1941.

They would have to at that time have already nationalized all factories, including those owned by foreign companies, which would also be a heads up.

No, they have the resources to build up this industrial military complex and the civilian economy will run as normal. Just reduce the growth in private consumption for a few years.

Also, Ford can produce tanks and trucks that would occupy the US. Companies sell products if the buyer would pay the price, nationalism is not rational.

This sort of build up would also cause havoc with the rest of the countries in the region, yes including Russia. The Chinese would have no
allies in this endeavor that could help them,

Yes. I am thinking about a one on one.

no Russia would not, though I wouldn't be surprised if they took advantage to bring the baltics under their control once again (depending on the state of Europe).

Taking the geopolitics in consideration, it will be a Ru+China vs US+EU.

Some points you fail to point out is that by ww2 the United States was an industrial nation everywhere. at least Half of China's population is not out of place 300 years ago.

1- China has a 750 million strong workforce, if only 400 million are modern, that would be enough.

2- China's economy grows 10% every year. So, in a few years they will be fully modern.

Also American factories were effectively immune from attack, thus being able to pump out material relatively unchecked. Not so with China, but still true with the East Coast with regards to China.

Sure, but they will build up at peace: In 2-3 years they can make the doom armed forces. I think that nobody would try to declare war on them in 2-3 years. Like happened to Ger in 1934-1939.

Chinese factories would more than likely be harassed by US fighters based out of South east Asia, or perhaps central Asia, as well as Alaska.

Them you are talking about war. Well, in that case the Chinese would be occupying LA by them.

In line with the plausibility of this scenario, the United States occult corp will summon dragons to annihilate these 100 carrier groups.

It is this feeling of invulnerability that makes an invasion of the US relatively easy.

 

[Partisan]

Guaporense, you raise some very valid points, but there are several factors that come into play when taking your argument into consideration.

1. There were no satellites during WWII, the kind of build up you are talking about would take time and become obvious sooner or later. Probably sooner as there are a number of different communication methods which could leak out such a ramping up of forces and equipment.

2. The US learnt a lot of lessons the hard way, as did all countries during WWII, given the capability of modern weapons and the capacity of modern ships, you would need to build in a lot of inbuilt redundancy to cover the casualties, this is not taking into account the supply line for reinforcements and replenishment.

3. Russia and China v USA & EU? Aren't you aware that the Russians are pathologically afraid of their big red neighbour, they may have the same idealogical label but they are so far apart racially and practically. The Russians now regard the Chinese as far and away their biggest land and strategic threat.

4. I don't think that the US regards itself as invulnerable, 11 Sep, proved that, in fact I think it woke many Americans up to the fact they are vulnerable to the outside world, and as such they need to be aware of their standing in the world and who their friends are (perhaps the trickiest game of all).

So is the invasion of the US feasible? Not in a major way, but current events and history, show us that insurgency can be very effective when elements of civilian population are motivated to rebel against the standing govt / leadership - that could be the way to start an attack, but it would be a slow burn.

 

[Guaporense]

Guaporense, you raise some very valid points, but there are several factors that come into play when taking your argument into consideration.

Hi Partisan. Sure, let's see:

1. There were no satellites during WWII, the kind of build up you are talking about would take time and become obvious sooner or later. Probably sooner as there are a number of different communication methods which could leak out such a ramping up of forces and equipment.

Sure: China will build up forces. People all over the world will press China. The situation will become tense. Based on past experiences, like Ger in ww2, for a good 4-5 years this massive buildup can be effected without war.

2. The US learnt a lot of lessons the hard way, as did all countries during WWII, given the capability of modern weapons and the capacity of modern ships, you would need to build in a lot of inbuilt redundancy to cover the casualties, this is not taking into account the supply line for reinforcements and replenishment.

Sure. In a war of China vs US, will start out as an pacific war. After China achieves control over the pacific, them they will mass the invasion fleet. This process can be fast: I think that in a few months China can conquer the pacific if Japan and other countries stay neutral. Them they invade the country. To supply the invasion force China will have thousands of massive transport ships over the Pacific. After they take the states in the East coast, then they will be able to extract supplies from local resources.

3. Russia and China v USA & EU? Aren't you aware that the Russians are pathologically afraid of their big red neighbour, they may have the same idealogical label but they are so far apart racially and practically. The Russians now regard the Chinese as far and away their biggest land and strategic threat.

Well: It would not be realistic to make these coalitions.

In fact, if China invaded the US, then they maybe would take the country, but every other country in the world would declare war on china, including the EU, Russia, Japan, etc. Then, a massive attrition war would take place, and China would succumb after about 5 years, like the case of Germany in ww2.

4. I don't think that the US regards itself as invulnerable, 11 Sep, proved that, in fact I think it woke many Americans up to the fact they are vulnerable to the outside world, and as such they need to be aware of their standing in the world and who their friends are (perhaps the trickiest game of all).

Well, the strategic planners in the Pentagon know the limitations of the American armed forces better than anyone. Invulnerability is more of a popular perception, a perception that was wounded in 09/11.

So is the invasion of the US feasible? Not in a major way, but current events and history, show us that insurgency can be very effective when elements of civilian population are motivated to rebel against the standing govt / leadership - that could be the way to start an attack, but it would be a slow burn.

Thinking realistically China doesn't have any interests in conquering the US. But ww3 is a good mental masturbation. :rockin:

 

[Britney]

Can't rule out the possibility, but no single military force would be able to mount a successful attack and gain a beachhead long enough to bring in reinforcements. Our navy is extremely powerful and the only way to get to us is to get past it ( without invading Mexico or Canada first)

The enemy would really have to be ruthless and achieve total surprise to even the fight against it. I would need to sink the Nimitz class carriers, and put up a effective ASW shield to protect it's shipping so it can keep its army supplied and protected from our submarines.

I just dont see how it's possible though, the US mainland is a natural fortress that overwhelmingly favors defensive positions. You have massive mountain ranges on both coasts with large cities that would need to be taken to reach the industrial heartland in Ohio and the surrounding states.

Ohio itself would be impossible to take, any foreign force would instantly become lost in endless miles of cornfields and have no idea witch way it is to get out of them! Even us natives of the state get lost in them more often then not.

Facing a utterly hostile population attacking it's logistics- armed by the national guard and normal army with laws and Javelins ( if the civilian doesn't already friggin own them, i tell you i know a few people that owns barratts, RGPs, and other large firearms! It wouldn't surprise me if people did own them!) Combined with submarine activities would make logistics a nightmare for any army.

The only way i see a army making a successful landing is the detonate a large EMP device above the North American continent, possibly a satellite. Then follow that up with a ICBM strike on US surface vessels and airbases, radar installations and manufacturing facilities. At the same time trying to land a large force several times larger than the Dday landings . Even then they would still need a lot of luck, and a lot of political backing to achieve even moderate success.

Anything can happen in the future though, i bet if you told the continental congress that they would be a hyper power representing 40% of the global economy and 50% of military expenditures they would have laughed you into oblivion.