Is there any combination of nations that could invade the US?

[gtc]

There is a ridiculous website called Cleaves (http://cleaves.zapto.org/clv/newswire.php?story_id=175) which is advocating the invasion of the US to remove its nukes, before it can use them.

Is there any nation or combination of nations that could launch an invasion against the US (let us assume neither side used nukes)?

I know the chances of anyone agreeing to invade the US are as close to zero as the chance of the US not responding to an invasion with nukes.

'You want our nukes? Fine, you got them!'

I realise the linked article is dumb as:
The millions that would die as a result would have to be comparable to the number killed if the US actually used its nukes.

No nuclear power would restrict the USA's right to nukes for fear of losing their own right to nukes.

No military or economic partner of the US would go along with the plan.

[Bjorn]

I just noticed that the website you link to is saying this:

America will default on its foreign debt sooner or later if the actual trends remain unchanged. Consequently, the whole dollar-based world may crumble. And in the very next paragraph:

In actuality, the public have grown tired of numerous forecasts regarding an imminent collapse of the U.S. economy. The picture looks pretty grim this time around. Several factors will have an extremely detrimental effect on the dollar ...Disaster, disaster, disaster, the world may crumble, predicted too many times already, but this time is different ...

Sorry, I'm disgressing, invading the US might happen anytime now, it has been predicted before and we were wrong, but this time ... :rolleyes:

[bignickel]

Well, from the 'About us' tab, we get "About Cleaves open publishing... We are pleased to inform that the site is now a public publishing medium". So, the site just publishes articles; a writer posted to the site an article about 'disarming the US' or some such notion.

It doesn't look like 'Cleaves' advocated anything, anymore than a newspaper advocates the views of a letter that got published on the opinions page (or even a guest columnist).

[Orwell]

I realise the linked article is dumb as:
The millions that would die as a result would have to be comparable to the number killed if the US actually used its nukes.

No nuclear power would restrict the USA's right to nukes for fear of losing their own right to nukes.

No military or economic partner of the US would go along with the plan.

Why waste time on this then? Do you wanna debate that plan specifically, or is this just an excuse to debate extreme left-wing loonieness?

[shecky]

Time to call out the Minutement and mall ninjas everywhere. Bone up on your copies of Red Dawn. America will be under seige!

[gtc]

Why waste time on this then?
Because I am interested in whether anyone could invade the US.

Do you wanna debate that plan specifically
Yes, that is why I said:

Is there any nation or combination of nations that could launch an invasion against the US (let us assume neither side used nukes)?

or is this just an excuse to debate extreme left-wing loonieness?
No, which is why I said:

I know the chances of anyone agreeing to invade the US are as close to zero as the chance of the US not responding to an invasion with nukes.

'You want our nukes? Fine, you got them!'

I realise the linked article is dumb as:
The millions that would die as a result would have to be comparable to the number killed if the US actually used its nukes.

No nuclear power would restrict the USA's right to nukes for fear of losing their own right to nukes.

No military or economic partner of the US would go along with the plan.

And not:
Let us now debate extreme left-wing loonieness

Does this clear things up?

[Regnad Kcin]

...I am interested in whether anyone could invade the US...No.

[Orwell]

No.

I agree. It's debated then. Lets move on. ;)

[Giz]

I agree. It's debated then. Lets move on. ;)

Don't listen to them Quebecois gtc, they got their eyes set on Louisiana I tell yer!

[Zep]

Sorry, but I thought the invasion was already happening, and it was well nigh unstoppable and causing untold damage. At least according to some of the posters here. Hint: Mexico...

[gtc]

Don't listen to them Quebecois gtc, they got their eyes set on Louisiana I tell yer!

What is stopping a million Quebecois from simply driving down to Louisiana and refusing to budge. They could legally buy better weaponry en route than most armies would possess and its not like anyone could be bothered learning enough French to ask them to move.

[gtc]

Sorry, but I thought the invasion was already happening, and it was well nigh unstoppable and causing untold damage. At least according to some of the posters here. Hint: Mexico...

Well American liberals won't do anything about that because they are too wimpy and 'it would be, like, racist man' and conservatives won't do anything about because who would mow their lawns?

[Orwell]

Heck screw Louisiana! We already occupy large areas of Florida!

[Kerberos]

Is there any nation or combination of nations that could launch an invasion against the US (let us assume neither side used nukes)?
Not within a short time scale. Every non-US nation in the world has either an uterly insignificant military or insuficient transport capacity to transport a significant part of their military to the US. Over a longer period it might be possible. It would have to start with an embargo to degrade your economy and thereby your military.
You would probably be able to secure the oil resources in for exampel Venezuella, but occupying them would drain your resources. On the other hand I do not believe you could hold the Middle Eastern oil fields without local allies and in the face of military oposition from Europe, Egypt, Iran Trukey and so forth. I simply don't believe you'd be able to supply your forces.
While the embargo was being implementer The Anti-US coalition would have to build up our military, particuarly our navies and our transport capacity considerable. We should be able to gain naval supremacy given the embargo and our superior GNP.
When that was done we should build up land forces in the parts of South America that the US hadn't occupied (if any otherwise we'd have to invade amphibiously) and begin liberating the areas you'd occupied for the natural resources and only after you'd been totally cut of from natural resources could we try to invade the US itself.
So presuming an alliace of South America, more or less every significant power in the world other than the US and the natural resource rich countries and several decades years dedicated to this rather pointless enterprise I believe it would be possible to disarm the US of your nukes.

[El Greco]

I think the Vatican could invade US.

[geni]

Sure Mexio would probably be the best bet. See morroco vs southen sahara for how.

[Geckko]

Sure Mexio would probably be the best bet...

I thought that phase one was effectively complete.;)

[clarsct]

Probably not.

The US consumes some 75% of the world's output. A massive, worldwide trade embargo would likely hurt them more than us.

Just sayin'

And without that, you would never succeed. Ask the Germans about starting a land war on a massive continent. Even if you merely surgically struck the Nuke sites, provided you know where they ALL are, it would be a massive effort that would be detected long before you could strike.

Even for terrorist cells.


The logistics are impossible.

[geni]

Probably not.

The US consumes some 75% of the world's output. A massive, worldwide trade embargo would likely hurt them more than us.

Just sayin'

And without that, you would never succeed. Ask the Germans about starting a land war on a massive continent. Even if you merely surgically struck the Nuke sites, provided you know where they ALL are, it would be a massive effort that would be detected long before you could strike.

Even for terrorist cells.


The logistics are impossible.


Not really. Get the entire female population of mexico to line up along th boarder. Get the kids to line up as well. Give them little mexican flags. Tell them to walk forward.

[clarsct]

Send the Marines to shoot them.

Yes, the Marines WILL shoot women and children if so ordered....

They had few qualms in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq, so what makes you think they'd hold back now?

[geni]

Send the Marines to shoot them.

Yes, the Marines WILL shoot women and children if so ordered....

They had few qualms in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq, so what makes you think they'd hold back now?

Numbers. Shooting a few thousand is one thing but a few million? Throw in the issue that there are plently of southen politicians for whom such a move would be political suicide and you have a problem.

[MRC_Hans]

The question was about invasion. I don't think it is possible nowadays to successfully invade any country that possesses more than a mere token military striking ability.

In WW2, large invasion forces could be assembled and deployed without the enemy having any certain knowledge, thus retaining the advantage of surprise. Today, thanks to sattelite surveillance, free press, and the internet, you cannot line up as much as a division, much less a sea force, anywhere on the planet, without the other side being aware of it. In this situation, even a mediocre defensive striking force can inflict unsustainable losses to an invasion force.

The recent invasions staged by the US have all involved total air superiority, and a military superiority that have enabled the invasion force to gain a solid foothold on enemy territory before even encountering resistance.

I don't think you can realistically contemplate invading any Western country larger than, say, Denmark.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Not really. Get the entire female population of mexico to line up along th boarder. Get the kids to line up as well. Give them little mexican flags. Tell them to walk forward.

And what would that achieve? How far can an unorganized mass of women and children walk, in largely desert territory? 20 miles? Line up trucks 21 miles from the border, pick them up, give them food and water, and drive them back. End of invasion.

Hans

[rudar]

see, it's all about timing. All's you have to do is make sure you invade during a nuclear drill, and you're set (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/)

[3point14]

I thought the best time to invade was superbowl sunday?

(ETA - and with the vast gun ownership and the famous patriotism of the USAians, invading would be one thing, holding it in the face of civilian opposition would be an entirely different kettle of another colour)

[Dcdrac]

Why are US citizens seemingly scared of other people?

(Disregarding the obvious terrorist outrages, one of which was homegrown and 7/12/41)

There does seem to be an obsession with the OTHER i.e. the rest of the planet and what we might do to you.

[geni]

And what would that achieve? How far can an unorganized mass of women and children walk, in largely desert territory? 20 miles?

I was more thinking 10. It doesn't matter. You just establish your new boarder then repeat untill you have atchived your objectives.


Line up trucks 21 miles from the border, pick them up, give them food and water, and drive them back. End of invasion.

Hans

You've got to get them on the trucks. In practice it appears The US has been prepareing for this one for years. Just line up a simular number of 300 pound americans and those mexicans re not going anywhere.

The "human wave of civilians crossing the boarder" is quite an interesting problem since no standard militiry tactic appears to counter it effectively.

[Bindamel]

Not within a short time scale. Every non-US nation in the world has either an uterly insignificant military or insuficient transport capacity to transport a significant part of their military to the US. Over a longer period it might be possible. It would have to start with an embargo to degrade your economy and thereby your military.
You would probably be able to secure the oil resources in for exampel Venezuella, but occupying them would drain your resources. On the other hand I do not believe you could hold the Middle Eastern oil fields without local allies and in the face of military oposition from Europe, Egypt, Iran Trukey and so forth. I simply don't believe you'd be able to supply your forces.
While the embargo was being implementer The Anti-US coalition would have to build up our military, particuarly our navies and our transport capacity considerable. We should be able to gain naval supremacy given the embargo and our superior GNP.
When that was done we should build up land forces in the parts of South America that the US hadn't occupied (if any otherwise we'd have to invade amphibiously) and begin liberating the areas you'd occupied for the natural resources and only after you'd been totally cut of from natural resources could we try to invade the US itself.
So presuming an alliace of South America, more or less every significant power in the world other than the US and the natural resource rich countries and several decades years dedicated to this rather pointless enterprise I believe it would be possible to disarm the US of your nukes.

Nah,

You have to get Australia first so you can get the bonus, then build up armies in Kamchatka(?) and Mexico, then lay out a bunch of cards in one turn! You'll have all of North America in no time!

:D

[Charlie Monoxide]

Heck screw Louisiana! We already occupy large areas of Florida!Vive Le Quebec Libre (en Floride!) ...

Charlie (half-assed French) Monoxide

[Mike B.]

I was more thinking 10. It doesn't matter. You just establish your new boarder then repeat untill you have atchived your objectives.



You've got to get them on the trucks. In practice it appears The US has been prepareing for this one for years. Just line up a simular number of 300 pound americans and those mexicans re not going anywhere.

The "human wave of civilians crossing the boarder" is quite an interesting problem since no standard militiry tactic appears to counter it effectively.

An extreme right-wing French novel called, "The Camp of the Saints" from the 1970s covered this.

In it the third world invades the first due to the extreme disparity in wealth.

As the ships from the Ganges River head for the south of France, the French army is set to defend France. However, because it is women and children it is eventually let to the soldier's own decision to fire or not. Naturally, the humanity on the ships lead the soldiers to not defend the country.

Of course in a twist, some of the 2nd generation French immigrants and working class attempt to defend the country with hunting rifiles. The French army does turn its weapons on them.

The politics of the book are extreme xenophobia and racism. However, the question comes up. Would the armed forces of any liberal democracy be prepared to sink ships or mow down large number of civilians waiting to come in?

[aerocontrols]

The US consumes some 75% of the world's output. A massive, worldwide trade embargo would likely hurt them more than us.

75% of the world's output of what?

[Orwell]

75% of the world's output of what?

Bullflop. :D

[aerocontrols]

Bullflop. :D


Well, by all means please stop sending it to us.

[sackett]

Every spring when the ice breaks up on the Detroit River, I half-expect the Canadians to invade. Someday they will surely return to their ancestral lands!

I, of course, will greet them with flowers and smiles, these gallant liberators. I’m trying to learn the lyrics to “O Canada!” so that I can serenade them appropriately. (It goes to the tune of “The Irish Washerwoman,” right? No, no, don’t prompt me, I want to do this myself.)

[Orwell]

Well, by all means please stop sending it to us.

Ok, but you have to stop exporting it too!

[Kerberos]

Probably not.

The US consumes some 75% of the world's output.
I think the US GNP is around 25% of the total GNP of the world, unless the deficit rose to 200% while I wasn't looking your consumption will be in the same ballpark.
A massive, worldwide trade embargo would likely hurt them more than us.
No it wouldn't, all industry is reliant on natural resources. I believe that the US is actually fairly rich on natural resources, compared to other developed countries, but you're short of for examble oil, where you import 58.5% source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-5585809,00.html) of the oil you use. I'm sure there are many other important resources you'd be short of. On the other hand I can't think of anything that the US makes or has that the rest of the world couldn't either produce ourselves or do without. Perhaps the US product would be cheaper, perhaps it would be better, but can you mention any essential product the US makes that couldn't be made in Europe or Japan? Clearly an Embargo of the US would be very expensive, but it would hurt the US far more than the rest of the world.

And without that, you would never succeed. Ask the Germans about starting a land war on a massive continent. Even if you merely surgically struck the Nuke sites, provided you know where they ALL are, it would be a massive effort that would be detected long before you could strike.

Even for terrorist cells.


The logistics are impossible.
I'm perfectly aware of the logistic problems, there is a reason I proposed an embargo prior to the invasion, but an embargo would be possible. I cannot say what the exact effect would be, largely because I don't know what important natural resources the US lacks and couldn't realistickly conquer from you neighbours but it would undoubtebly be very significant.

[Kerberos]

Well, by all means please stop sending it to us.
It's not as if we force you to buy it, if your domestic producers can't compete they should shape up, not begin whining for trade restriction. Face it, you import from us because we simply make a better product.

[drkitten]

No it wouldn't, all industry is reliant on natural resources. I believe that the US is actually fairly rich on natural resources, compared to other developed countries, but you're short of for examble oil, where you import 58.5% source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-5585809,00.html) of the oil you use. I'm sure there are many other important resources you'd be short of. On the other hand I can't think of anything that the US makes or has that the rest of the world couldn't either produce ourselves or do without. Perhaps the US product would be cheaper, perhaps it would be better, but can you mention any essential product the US makes that couldn't be made in Europe or Japan?

Um, you can't have it both ways. The United States is certainly capable of providing its own oil out of its own resources -- the reason 60% of the oil burned in the US is because it's cheaper to buy foreign oil than it is to extract the US reserves. If Europe could survive without cheap imported US food, so could the US survive without cheap imported mideast oil.

[Jon_in_london]

However, the question comes up. Would the armed forces of any liberal democracy be prepared to sink ships or mow down large number of civilians waiting to come in?

Yes.

Germany. Liberal Democracy. Hitler. Dictatorship. 6 million jews, gypsies, retards etc. dead.

Never mind all the eastern european civillians the Nazis killed.

never underestimate the power of man to kill his fellow man.

[Kerberos]

Um, you can't have it both ways. The United States is certainly capable of providing its own oil out of its own resources -- the reason 60% of the oil burned in the US is because it's cheaper to buy foreign oil than it is to extract the US reserves. If Europe could survive without cheap imported US food, so could the US survive without cheap imported mideast oil.
Actually I believe that the EU is a net producer of foodstuff, leaving that aside however the US according to this source (http://images.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fotw336.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2004/fcvt_fotw336.shtml&h=407&w=510&sz=33&tbnid=7qNPo-4e9Vy5QM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=128&hl=da&start=2&prev=/images%3Fq%3DUS%2Boil%2Breserves%26svnum%3D10%26hl %3Dda%26hs%3DRW0%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:da-DK:official%26sa%3DN) the US pertrolium consumption is 19.8 million barrels/day while your reserves of crude oil is 22.7 billion. That gives you about 3 years assuming 100% extraction. Secondly is US food is 5% cheaper and US oil is 100% more expensive then the effect isn't really the same. Do you really believe that there wouldn't be a huge negative impact on the US economy if you could import no natural resources whatsoever?

[Jon_in_london]

I was more thinking 10. It doesn't matter. You just establish your new boarder then repeat untill you have atchived your objectives.

Ho Ho!

And what makes you think a few million women and children are going to keep marching after the first burst of automatic weaponry from the US armed forces? What makes you think that women and children wont just turn and run, screaming for their lives?

In the 1930s pacifists belived that there was no way the Germans could invade France because they would all lie down in fornt of the Panzers- who would then be halted in their tracks, scratching their heads because Von Clasuewitz hadnt said anything about this! Didnt quite work that way did it? Nor did those pathetic "human shields" who traveled to Iraq in 2003 but left because "it was too dangerous" :rolleyes:

[Doubt]

Every spring when the ice breaks up on the Detroit River, I half-expect the Canadians to invade. Someday they will surely return to their ancestral lands!

I, of course, will greet them with flowers and smiles, these gallant liberators. I’m trying to learn the lyrics to “O Canada!” so that I can serenade them appropriately. (It goes to the tune of “The Irish Washerwoman,” right? No, no, don’t prompt me, I want to do this myself.)

You're that guy? Sorry about splashing mud on you when I drove by last spring.

And no, there still is no Canadian army brigade composed only of women who for you to surender to.

[Beerina]

the US pertrolium consumption is 19.8 million barrels/day while your reserves of crude oil is 22.7 billion. That gives you about 3 years assuming 100% extraction.

And since we import about half our oil, the US will run dry of domestic reserves in 6 years?

If you believe that...

Anyway, screaming "the sky is falling" about "known reserves" is a well-known error environmental woo-woos have been using since the '70's, misunderstanding what it means. It doesn't mean "all the oil there is in the ground", but merely "all that anybody has bothered to look for and found". Oil companies are constantly looking for and finding new fields. They are developing more technology to more easily extract the more difficult stuff. Etc. etc. etc. As such, the estimated time before the world will run dry keeps extending further and further into the future, even as usage grows. We're still not even at the point where investment in true alternative fuels is really worth it -- said alternatives being a well-known economic response to an expensive commodity.

[sackett]

...there still is no Canadian army brigade composed only of women for you to surender to.

There isn't? Aw heck. I hoped summa them apple-cheeked Ontario farm-girls would defeat me in hand-to-hand combat and then WASH MY WOUNDS. And they can MAKE IT HURT just as much as they WANT.

[Beerina]

Let's see. Throwing back an invasion would be more akin to invading Iraq rather than placating Iraq. The US needed 100,000 troops for a country of 25,000,000, or a ratio of 250 to 1. Assuming average military tech level is about that of what Iraq bought and held, and the Earth has 6.4 billion people, not counting the US, that's 6.4 billion / 250, so the US would need about 25 million soldiers to go out and invade the entire rest of the world. More for England per person, less for India or China (neglecting nukes.)

But to merely defend against them invading, I'd estimate only a 50/50 chance of even needing an involuntary draft. :jaw-dropp

Nah, a few days of riveting CNN viewing, then back to Survivor: Gobi Desert

[Orwell]

And since we import about half our oil, the US will run dry of domestic reserves in 6 years?

If you believe that...

Anyway, screaming "the sky is falling" about "known reserves" is a well-known error environmental woo-woos have been using since the '70's, misunderstanding what it means. It doesn't mean "all the oil there is in the ground", but merely "all that anybody has bothered to look for and found". Oil companies are constantly looking for and finding new fields. They are developing more technology to more easily extract the more difficult stuff. Etc. etc. etc. As such, the estimated time before the world will run dry keeps extending further and further into the future, even as usage grows. We're still not even at the point where investment in true alternative fuels is really worth it -- said alternatives being a well-known economic response to an expensive commodity.

I think you are mischaracterising the subject... I suggest you read the wiki on it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

[geni]

Ho Ho!

And what makes you think a few million women and children are going to keep marching after the first burst of automatic weaponry from the US armed forces? What makes you think that women and children wont just turn and run, screaming for their lives?


It does help if you make sure they are all religious or iderlogical fanatics first.

[jj]

Nah,

You have to get Australia first so you can get the bonus, then build up armies in Kamchatka(?) and Mexico, then lay out a bunch of cards in one turn! You'll have all of North America in no time!

:D


Boy, you really could "risk" something there, couldn't you?

Actually, it's the northern country in south america, not mexico :)

[Withnail]

It would only take a very small force from a very small country. Didn't anyone see "The Mouse That Roared"?

[Grammatron]

It does help if you make sure they are all religious or iderlogical fanatics first.

Well you said "entire female population" somehow I doubt they are all, or even most of them, religious fanatics.

[Molinaro]

The invasion began a few decades ago. More and more Canadians have infiltrated the US entertainment industry. It includes actors, singers, comedians and even talking heads on the news.

The goal is to shift American interests until they exactly match those of Canada.

At which point the invasion will be over, and we will have won!

[Grammatron]

The invasion began a few decades ago. More and more Canadians have infiltrated the US entertainment industry. It includes actors, singers, comedians and even talking heads on the news.

The goal is to shift American interests until they exactly match those of Canada.

At which point the invasion will be over, and we will have won!

Maybe you should have focused on your hockey skills (http://www.hockeycanada.ca/1/9/1/3/1/index1.shtml) instead.

[geni]

Well you said "entire female population" somehow I doubt they are all, or even most of them, religious fanatics.

Cults of personality can be extreamly powerful. We know that there appears to be no difference between the sexes when it comes to relgious belife.

[Grammatron]

Cults of personality can be extreamly powerful. We know that there appears to be no difference between the sexes when it comes to relgious belife.

Your theory that entire country's female population could be brainwashed to that degree along with children, is highly unlikely.

[Molinaro]

Maybe you should have focused on your hockey skills (http://www.hockeycanada.ca/1/9/1/3/1/index1.shtml) instead.

All our loss at the Olympics goes to show is how wonderfull a job we did of being so much better than everyone else over the years, that they rightly became sufficiently motivated to better themselves enough to make the tournaments interesting.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[Kerberos]

And since we import about half our oil, the US will run dry of domestic reserves in 6 years?

If you believe that...

Almost 10 years actually, why is that a particuarly absurd claim? this source (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html) incidentially gives roughly the same number. Do you have another one?
Anyway, screaming "the sky is falling" about "known reserves" is a well-known error environmental woo-woos have been using since the '70's, misunderstanding what it means. It doesn't mean "all the oil there is in the ground", but merely "all that anybody has bothered to look for and found". Oil companies are constantly looking for and finding new fields. They are developing more technology to more easily extract the more difficult stuff. Etc. etc. etc. As such, the estimated time before the world will run dry keeps extending further and further into the future, even as usage grows. We're still not even at the point where investment in true alternative fuels is really worth it -- said alternatives being a well-known economic response to an expensive commodity.
Thank you for that pointless rant. Now do you have any evidence that US oil reserves grows by 20 million barrels a day, which can be extracted sufficiently cheaply that it wouldn't have a major negative impact on the US economy? New oil finds in Saudi Arabia aren't really relevant.

[Kerberos]

Let's see. Throwing back an invasion would be more akin to invading Iraq rather than placating Iraq. The US needed 100,000 troops for a country of 25,000,000, or a ratio of 250 to 1. Assuming average military tech level is about that of what Iraq bought and held, and the Earth has 6.4 billion people, not counting the US, that's 6.4 billion / 250, so the US would need about 25 million soldiers to go out and invade the entire rest of the world. More for England per person, less for India or China (neglecting nukes.)
Yes truly it's fascinating what insight can be gained by combining bullsh*t math, wrong numbers, ridiculious assumptions and flawed anologies. Can you spot the absurdities yourself or do you need help?

[Rob Lister]

Almost 10 years actually, why is that a particuarly absurd claim? this source (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html) incidentially gives roughly the same number. Do you have another one?

Thank you for that pointless rant. Now do you have any evidence that US oil reserves grows by 20 million barrels a day, which can be extracted sufficiently cheaply that it wouldn't have a major negative impact on the US economy? New oil finds in Saudi Arabia aren't really relevant.

The point is not oil, as it exists/is used now.

The point is oil, as it would exist/would be used in a wartime environment.

If the U.S. was being engaged/invaded by one or more (or all other) nations then both our oil procurement process and distribution process would change iaw the war machine needs

iow, could we outlast the embargo? Certainly.

Our first military objective would be to go on the offense so as to secure the necessary war-sustaining defensive resources, such as oil.

Not only would we still have oil, we'd have it for the price of the military taking.

Oil would not be a concern.

[Rob Lister]

Yes truly it's fascinating what insight can be gained by combining bullsh*t math, wrong numbers, ridiculious assumptions and flawed anologies. Can you spot the absurdities yourself or do you need help?

You're right. His numbers are BS. He's assuming we'd be as nice during an active invasion of the US as we were in Iraq. That 'niceness' cost us a lot of military human resources that we wouldn't need if we actually were fighting for our very survival. We could probably have done Iraq with 25,000 troops if we decided to do it ... politically incorrectly.

In seriousness, I think he was just being glib but feel free to post your numbers keeping my caviot in mind.

[Soapy Sam]

Invasion can be done in several ways.
Sending longboats up the Delaware probably wouldn't work.

However, a religious meme might be targeted at the bible belt- something that would take over the minds of the majority of Blue- collar American families; something requiring total , unthinking devotion to a male sky god of some sort. Something able to take reproductive advantage of the pre-existing woo-woo mindset. Something that involves righteous indignation, assault rifles and humourlessness.

It's right on the tip of my tongue...

[Ed]

Have a bunch of Limeys dress in camoflage red. Let them land in Chesapeake Bay and march on Washington. Burn the Capital (leaving GW and Hillary and Ted Kennedy and Gore and Kerry and Rove and Friske in at their discretion.

March on New Orleans.

[CapelDodger]

(ETA - and with the vast gun ownership and the famous patriotism of the USAians, invading would be one thing, holding it in the face of civilian opposition would be an entirely different kettle of another colour)
During the Kosovo crisis I was watching for NRA/etc statements pointing out that, had Kosovan villages been as well-armed as an average US suburb, the Serbs would have been repelled without any outside intervention. I didn't see any such comments, but I may have missed them.

[CapelDodger]

Burn the Capital ...
Freud, thou art avenged. :)

[CapelDodger]

No-one could invade the New World across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans today, nor vice-versa, without local complicity. An invasion force might be built-up in South America and launch, say, across the Gulf of Mexico. That's vaguely feasible. More likely would be invasion across land borders, involving the complicity (or prior conquest) of Mexico and/or Canada.

Would the Canadians be so rude, or be easily conquered? I doubt it. Were the US to invade Canada, Canada would no doubt embrace any ally (I'm thinking China) even if that ally intended a counter-invasion. (The US can only be that rude so often before the Canadians cut them completely.) Given that scenario, the US could be invaded by China if the US invades Canada first.

When we look south things seem more promising. So to speak. While Canada has no particular reason to love the US, Mexico used to be a lot bigger than it is now. South and east of them (let's not ignore the Caribbean) are many other folk who aren't knee-jerk Yanqui-lovers. Colombia seems to be the current fair-weather friend, but they haven't forgotten Panama. Were some nation (I'm thinking China) to offer them Panama back, and a seriously large potential market for cocaine, that alliance would disintegrate. China could then build-up an invasion force and launch it across a long US-Mexican border.

None of this would be imminent, of course. I'm thinking 10, 20 years down the line.

[Mike B.]

No-one could invade the New World across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans today, nor vice-versa, without local complicity. An invasion force might be built-up in South America and launch, say, across the Gulf of Mexico. That's vaguely feasible. More likely would be invasion across land borders, involving the complicity (or prior conquest) of Mexico and/or Canada.

Would the Canadians be so rude, or be easily conquered? I doubt it. Were the US to invade Canada, Canada would no doubt embrace any ally (I'm thinking China) even if that ally intended a counter-invasion. (The US can only be that rude so often before the Canadians cut them completely.) Given that scenario, the US could be invaded by China if the US invades Canada first.

When we look south things seem more promising. So to speak. While Canada has no particular reason to love the US, Mexico used to be a lot bigger than it is now. South and east of them (let's not ignore the Caribbean) are many other folk who aren't knee-jerk Yanqui-lovers. Colombia seems to be the current fair-weather friend, but they haven't forgotten Panama. Were some nation (I'm thinking China) to offer them Panama back, and a seriously large potential market for cocaine, that alliance would disintegrate. China could then build-up an invasion force and launch it across a long US-Mexican border.

None of this would be imminent, of course. I'm thinking 10, 20 years down the line.

You must remember Zimmerman and the Germans tried that offer to Mexico in 1917, and it really didn't get them anywhere.

[CapelDodger]

You must remember Zimmerman and the Germans tried that offer to Mexico in 1917, and it really didn't get them anywhere.That was then - and after all, I stand on the shoulders of giants - and Germany, this is now and other stuff. The Zimmerman letter was intended to divert US military attention from Europe for a while, and was successful in that. That's why it was leaked. It wasn't meant to be a serious venture, it was meant to provoke a response. You 'Murricans are such rubes ... You don't even realise when you've been played.

The Germans knew perfectly well that the Wilson Administration had decided to get into the Great War before it was all over. On the winning side, which wasn't going to be the Austro-Germans unless the Yanks got their timing wrong. If they were delayed a few months by a Mexican War distraction - which they were - Austro-Gemany might be able to win on the Western Front with forces released from post-Revolutionary Russia. They thought they could. As it turned out the German offensive failed without significant US involvement, but the Zimmerman Letter was one reason why the US wasn't involved.

[Rob Lister]

That was then - and after all, I stand on the shoulders of giants - and Germany, this is now and other stuff.

The point, well made before, is that such a ruse worked then but wouldn't work now. Now we'd know each and every position of every tank, every division. Our deployed capability takes but months to establish a rain of destruction on any choosen target. Our more domestic capability drawfs that.

There is no way to defeat the US by conventional means.

A cooler means, however, could work. Just as we in the west did to the USSR. A very slow, bloodless (except for the proxy wars) war of economic attrition.

Less chilly is slow infiltration of our social and educational resources. I don't want to start that argument.

Warming a bit, a terrorist war with a casulity ratio in the order of 10000/1 and with hope we'll just say cum bi la (sorry I can't spell tonight)

[Mike B.]

That was then - and after all, I stand on the shoulders of giants - and Germany, this is now and other stuff. The Zimmerman letter was intended to divert US military attention from Europe for a while, and was successful in that. That's why it was leaked. It wasn't meant to be a serious venture, it was meant to provoke a response. You 'Murricans are such rubes ... You don't even realise when you've been played.

The Germans knew perfectly well that the Wilson Administration had decided to get into the Great War before it was all over. On the winning side, which wasn't going to be the Austro-Germans unless the Yanks got their timing wrong. If they were delayed a few months by a Mexican War distraction - which they were - Austro-Gemany might be able to win on the Western Front with forces released from post-Revolutionary Russia. They thought they could. As it turned out the German offensive failed without significant US involvement, but the Zimmerman Letter was one reason why the US wasn't involved.

As just another 'Merican rube, I am not sure, but I do not think that your chronology holds.

The US was involved in Mexico, Pancho Villia and all that, long BEFORE the Zimmerman telegram. True the Germans intended it to be a distraction for the 'Murricans, but it backfired. It sped up US entry into the war without significantly causing America to shift forces, etc. to Mexico.

BTW, a betting man in 1917 might have bet on the Austro-Germans since they were knocking the Russians out of the war, and had just about destroyed the Italians at Corperetto and were transferring troops to the Western Front. Soon unrestricted U-Boat warfare would really threaten Britian.

The reason the US took so long to field an effective and sizeable force in Europe has far more to do with the fact that the US was militarily a joke in 1917 as compared to Europe, than anything going on in Mexico. Remember the US had to use French artilliary and tanks because they could not gear up to manufacture them in time.

Remember despite the perception of inherent 'Merican miltiarism, until after 1945 the US peace-time military was not exactly a priority of the US government.
To really see incompetency look at the inane attempts of America to invade Canada in 1812. I think something like five or six British regulars and some natives were able to repel the whole US.

[CapelDodger]

As just another 'Merican rube, I am not sure, but I do not think that your chronology holds.I apologise for the slur. Sometimes exasperation gets the better of me.

The US was involved in Mexico, Pancho Villia and all that, long BEFORE the Zimmerman telegram. True the Germans intended it to be a distraction for the 'Murricans, but it backfired. It sped up US entry into the war without significantly causing America to shift forces, etc. to Mexico.It kept Pershing in Mexico. Every week he's there, he's not building - or even planning the building - of a US Expeditionary Force in Europe. As long as any officers in his staff are still in Mexico, he's operating below par. As to whether the Letter sped up US entry into the Great War, the US had cause for war in the Atlantic every month since 1915. The letter didn't precipitate anything that wasn't going to happen anyway.

[a_unique_person]

And since we import about half our oil, the US will run dry of domestic reserves in 6 years?

If you believe that...

Anyway, screaming "the sky is falling" about "known reserves" is a well-known error environmental woo-woos have been using since the '70's, misunderstanding what it means. It doesn't mean "all the oil there is in the ground", but merely "all that anybody has bothered to look for and found". Oil companies are constantly looking for and finding new fields. They are developing more technology to more easily extract the more difficult stuff. Etc. etc. etc. As such, the estimated time before the world will run dry keeps extending further and further into the future, even as usage grows. We're still not even at the point where investment in true alternative fuels is really worth it -- said alternatives being a well-known economic response to an expensive commodity.

Forgetting the woos, there are serious environmentalists saying the same thing, and you can see the effects of ignoring those warnings right now.

[WildCat]

The reason the US took so long to field an effective and sizeable force in Europe has far more to do with the fact that the US was militarily a joke in 1917 as compared to Europe, than anything going on in Mexico. Remember the US had to use French artilliary and tanks because they could not gear up to manufacture them in time.
But they had these guys!

http://www.blackbetsy.com/imagefarm/1917soxwardrills-d.jpg

That is actually the 1917 Chicago White Sox doing war drills before a game. They won the World Series that year.

Bet you all didn't think I could get a gratuitous Sox reference (however tangentially related) into a post in the Politics section! ;)

[geni]

Your theory that entire country's female population could be brainwashed to that degree along with children, is highly unlikely.

Never ever underestimate peer pressure. You don't need them all to be totaly true belivers. Just enough. Every read about the hitler youth sent into battle in the last months of WW2? The level of indoctination is terrifying.

This tactic has been used in the real world. It worked.

[clarsct]

Ok.

In answer to some folks:
75% of what?

Well, if you took all the consumer goods in the world and divided up the loot, right now the US takes up 75% by value. Or so. We command a 1 trillion dollar consumer market. The EU is the closest after that, but second by quite a bit. Japan does well, and China is catching us, slowly.

There isn't a whole lot of resources the US lacks, in its own territory. We can even make gasoline from coal, were the motivation sufficient. It helps that many military vehicles run on a form of kerosene. It's a different distillation fraction, and high in sulfur, which means the high sulfur content in US coal wouldn't matter as much. Not to mention our grain excesses can be turned to ethanol, and thus, gasahol.

We would make it, but we'd be hurt. However, the other countries and corporations in the world would have a hell of a time trying to make up for that 1 trilion dollar loss in consumer goods.


As for the 'human wave' strategy, it can work, if you have sufficient people. Mexico doesn't. China does. Thus, it worked for the Koreans..erm..yeah, those people weren't Chinese..not at all, but for Mexico it would a horrifically bad idea. They simply can't sustain all the losses.

And, then again, you must also factor in the technology.


And, once again, you must FEED everyone who crosses our borders. You must house and clothe them. Care for the wounded. The logistics FAR outweigh the strategy in this case. Factor in a population that is armed and enjoys torturing others for funs and sport, and it gets worse. A nightmare.

[delphi_ote]

Is there any combination of nations that could invade the US?

Yes. China, Great Britian, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, France, Israel, Iran, Australia, South Korea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Germany, India, Pakistan, Taiwan, Kuwait, Greece, Canada, Egypt, Japan, Mexico, Vietnam, Belgium, Turkey, and Russia.

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes. China, Great Britian, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, France, Israel, Iran, Australia, South Korea, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Germany, India, Pakistan, Taiwan, Kuwait, Greece, Canada, Egypt, Japan, Mexico, Vietnam, Belgium, Turkey, and Russia."You forgot Poland!" -- George W. Bush

[Kerberos]

The point is not oil, as it exists/is used now.

The point is oil, as it would exist/would be used in a wartime environment.

If the U.S. was being engaged/invaded by one or more (or all other) nations then both our oil procurement process and distribution process would change iaw the war machine needs

iow, could we outlast the embargo? Certainly.

Our first military objective would be to go on the offense so as to secure the necessary war-sustaining defensive resources, such as oil.

Not only would we still have oil, we'd have it for the price of the military taking.

Oil would not be a concern.
Yes your Oil consumption would change in war time but the point would be to slowly degrade your economy, some oil savings could be implemented without hurting the economy but others couldn't and war itself costs oil.

As for securing new oil sources you say you'd have them for the price of military taking. Sure, but do you seriously believe that price wouldn't be significantly higher than beying it of the Sauds? Canada has large oil reserves, but they're hard to extract so there'd be significant costs associated with relying on those.

Venezuelle has more easilly extracted oil reserves, but you might have trouble supplying an army i Venezuella if The World could establish naval supremacy since the land corridor is very thin. There also might be other important resources you lack that I don't know about.

I don't expect that the results of an imbargo would be as large as the results of the embargo against Iraq, but I don't think it would be insignificant either.


You're right. His numbers are BS. He's assuming we'd be as nice during an active invasion of the US as we were in Iraq. That 'niceness' cost us a lot of military human resources that we wouldn't need if we actually were fighting for our very survival. We could probably have done Iraq with 25,000 troops if we decided to do it ... politically incorrectly.

In seriousness, I think he was just being glib but feel free to post your numbers keeping my caviot in mind.
I could obviously give better numbers than him, since more or less every single fact and spoken or unspoken assumption he used, is flat out wrong or grossly misleading.

I won't however since I don't have the data to make any kind of reliable estimate either. I will however go out on a limb and say you'd need far more troops than you have or could possibly hope to get.

Iraq was a country that had been economically crushed by well over a decade of sanction: Do you really think such a country represents the average military level of the world?

Also you invaded after using several months to build up you military in an allied country, and using air support coming from bases in other allied countries. By the very nature of this hypothetical you have no allies. Also you used more than 200.000 American soldiers in Iaq (and 50.000 non-Americans), only about 100.000 were ground combat troops, but they might not have performed so well without ammo or air support.

US could defend themselves against the entire rest of the world for a significant period of time, perhaps you could even do it indefinetly without being worn down by embargoes and the military spending, I doubt it, but then I'm hardly an expert. You would however not have a snowballs chance in hell, of succesfully conquering the entire rest of the world, or even a significant potion of it that wasn't located in the Americas - no matter how much you disregarded the Geneva convention. The World has around 3 times you GDP and outside the Americas you'd have equal or greater supply problems than we'd have.

[Kerberos]

Ok.

In answer to some folks:
75% of what?

Well, if you took all the consumer goods in the world and divided up the loot, right now the US takes up 75% by value. Or so. We command a 1 trillion dollar consumer market. The EU is the closest after that, but second by quite a bit. Japan does well, and China is catching us, slowly.
First of all 75% of the worlds outpu does not equal 75% of the consumer goods. Secondly I'd like to see a source for that because I'm still skeptical that US use of cusumer goods should be 3 times that of the rest of the world combined?


We would make it, but we'd be hurt. However, the other countries and corporations in the world would have a hell of a time trying to make up for that 1 trilion dollar loss in consumer goods.
One thing about major wars: You can ALWAYS find use for excess production capacity.

[delphi_ote]

"You forgot Poland!" -- George W. Bush

Sure. Throw in Poland, just for kicks. I compiled that list trying to find countries whose total annual military expenditure would equal that of the United States'. An invading army usually needs a lot more resources, but I figure they could all team up with some economic warfare prior to the invasion.

[CapelDodger]

That is actually the 1917 Chicago White Sox doing war drills before a game. They won the World Series that year.I bet they sold a major parcel of War Bonds as well. :)

[CapelDodger]

BTW, a betting man in 1917 might have bet on the Austro-Germans since they were knocking the Russians out of the war, and had just about destroyed the Italians at Corperetto and were transferring troops to the Western Front. Soon unrestricted U-Boat warfare would really threaten Britian.Unrestricted submarine warfare was coming - as part of the "One Last Push" strategy - and would lead to war with the US regardless of the Letter.

The US was well aware that the Germans only had one more push in them. Germany's population and industry were taking a terrible beating from the Blockade. Even the famous Ukrainian Grain Harvest was out-of-reach across a devastated Poland, which had paltry infrastructure in the first place. Hindenberg and Ludendorff were taking a huge gamble, but out of desperation, not because of good odds. The Western Offensive in 1918 made breakthroughs, but they quickly bogged-down. They could not destroy the Allied armies or France's will to resist. Were I a betting man, I'd have bet on the Allies at the time, and I'd have been right, so score one for me. :) (The Italian front was a distraction, a side-issue with no real significance. The Med was closed to Austro-Germany whatever happened to Italy.)

The reason the US took so long to field an effective and sizeable force in Europe has far more to do with the fact that the US was militarily a joke in 1917 as compared to Europe, than anything going on in Mexico. Remember the US had to use French artilliary and tanks because they could not gear up to manufacture them in time.The Germans would probably have expected the US to be able to mobilise much more quickly than it did. It's what they would have expected of a serious European power, after all. They would also have expected US divisions to go into the line, or at least into reserves, as they were raised. I doubt anybody foresaw Pershing's actual policy. So, to the Germans, any distraction of US attention from the crucial sector - the Western Front - was to be welcomed.

Remember despite the perception of inherent 'Merican miltiarism, until after 1945 the US peace-time military was not exactly a priority of the US government.This is what changed so drastically during WW2. The US had always gone into war by 1) build an army 2) win the war 3) disband the army and withdraw from the world. This didn't happen in 1945.

To really see incompetency look at the inane attempts of America to invade Canada in 1812.The Fenian invasion of Canada (1866? 67?) was a real hoot as well.

[CapelDodger]

Any invader would try to exploit internal divisions. Could they perhaps be found in the US? Would New York fight (and pay) for Texas? Just how cohesive is the US?

[aerocontrols]

Any invader would try to exploit internal divisions. Could they perhaps be found in the US? Would New York fight (and pay) for Texas? Just how cohesive is the US?


More cohesive than the EU.

Certainly more cohesive than an EU-China-Japan-Russia alliance.

[CapelDodger]

More cohesive than the EU.And more robust than a paper bag, but that doesn't say a lot. Europe has a long history of being invaded. In between invasions Europeans keep in practice for them by invading each other.

Certainly more cohesive than an EU-China-Japan-Russia alliance.That would be a thing to see. Japan would obviously be a junior partner of China (geography dictates) but Europe, Russia and China are dispersed enough to get along without friction. Especially if they were dividing up the rest of the world between them, and perhaps Mars as well later on. Bad luck for India, of course. Three's a Company, four's a crowd.

[Vagabond]

It's utterly impossible. As was pointed out it wouldn't be possible to move any decently sized force to an invasion point without our knowing about it. Since we have total naval superiority we would just sink any transports or supply ships en route. They would never get to us.

Granting you could get to us. In 24 hours you could probably get a million armed civilians to defend any place in the US. You wouldn't even need the army. The force required to take out all the armed civilians would be massive. Then granting you could beat them. It would take decades to infinity to conquer the US and we would be using scorched earth and everything else.

The amount of military we currently HAVE and the amount we COULD have in a couple years of mobilizing isn't even a comparison. We would have a ten million man heavily armed and equipped force. Those might even be low estimates and probably are. If they use some sort of economic factors to try and "weaken" us first that is just going to give us time to mobilize. It wouldn't work. We truly are the only superpower on earth in every manner possible militarily. All the countries on earth put together could not successfully invade us. Or even get close.

[Vagabond]

Any invader would try to exploit internal divisions. Could they perhaps be found in the US? Would New York fight (and pay) for Texas? Just how cohesive is the US?

No state or group of states could ever be coerced under any condition to turn traitor on the rest of the country. I find Canada and Mexico equally as far fetched. They might not like everything we do but they don't have any reason to expect any better from anybody else who might take over. Particularly enough better to be worth the cost to their countries. There is nothing favorable enough for them to consider it. Where the invasion took place would be irrelevant. You would get a million armed defenders in a day in Texas just as readily as anyplace else.

[aerocontrols]

And more robust than a paper bag, but that doesn't say a lot.


I thought it was obvious that what I was saying is that it would be far easier for the US to exploit internal divisions between the hypothetical alliance of invaders than for said hypothetical alliance to exploit internal divisions in the US.

But I suppose what you really wanted to know is whether Texas is as loyal to California as... say... Northern Ireland is to the UK? Tibet is to China? Taiwan is to China? Or Quebec is to Canada? Or Chechnya is to Russia?

Yeah, there surely exist ripe pickins for any internal schism hunters.

[CapelDodger]

No state or group of states could ever be coerced under any condition to turn traitor on the rest of the country.
I'm not personally comfortable with absolutes, but I can appreciate their attraction.

The US is an unusual nation, and I'm reluctant to call it a nation at all. A "country" is something else, and the US is definitely not a country, it's a whole bunch of countries. Even Virginia's at least two countries, and that's one of the originals. The US is a treaty-organisation of sovereign states. The meaning of that was not absolutely established in 1865, by any means.

Divisions can be exploited without coercion. The process is known as "diplomacy".

I find Canada and Mexico equally as far fetched. They might not like everything we do but they don't have any reason to expect any better from anybody else who might take over."So far from Heaven, so close to the United States". So far from China. Mexico or Canada allying with the Chinese (for instance) does not pre-suppose a Chinese take-over, either before or after the invasion. The objective of any such invasion is unspecified, and does not necessarily involve long-term occupation. A Chinese occupation force could easily become hostage to a local ally if they get above themselves.

Particularly enough better to be worth the cost to their countries. There is nothing favorable enough for them to consider it. Where the invasion took place would be irrelevant. You would get a million armed defenders in a day in Texas just as readily as anyplace else.
Send up some flares and shout "Boo!" and half of them will shoot half of the rest for you.

[Vagabond]

I thought it was obvious that what I was saying is that it would be far easier for the US to exploit internal divisions between the hypothetical alliance of invaders than for said hypothetical alliance to exploit internal divisions in the US.

But I suppose what you really wanted to know is whether Texas is as loyal to California as... say... Northern Ireland is to the UK? Tibet is to China? Taiwan is to China? Or Quebec is to Canada? Or Chechnya is to Russia?

Yeah, there surely exist ripe pickins for any internal schism hunters.

I disagree. This countries major strength is the fact it doesn't have a primary nationality that dominates the country. We have so many people from so many different places that place no longer has any meaning anymore. In order to have dissent you have to be lacking something. Basically anybody who really wants to can move to where there are those like them. Like Salt Lake City, or Chinatown, Miami, San Antonio and gain a measure of autonomy. This said there isn't any reason for dissent on a let's leave the country sort of scale. This is not true any place else I am aware of. With our freedom, everybody is already as "free" as they want to be already.

[Vagabond]

I'm not personally comfortable with absolutes, but I can appreciate their attraction.

The US is an unusual nation, and I'm reluctant to call it a nation at all. A "country" is something else, and the US is definitely not a country, it's a whole bunch of countries. Even Virginia's at least two countries, and that's one of the originals. The US is a treaty-organisation of sovereign states. The meaning of that was not absolutely established in 1865, by any means.

Divisions can be exploited without coercion. The process is known as "diplomacy".

"So far from Heaven, so close to the United States". So far from China. Mexico or Canada allying with the Chinese (for instance) does not pre-suppose a Chinese take-over, either before or after the invasion. The objective of any such invasion is unspecified, and does not necessarily involve long-term occupation. A Chinese occupation force could easily become hostage to a local ally if they get above themselves.


Send up some flares and shout "Boo!" and half of them will shoot half of the rest for you.

Eh, no you aren't even from here. You have no clue what it is like and you couldn't be further from the truth. After 911 people from all over this nation from every state and every concievable creed sent aid to New York. After the latest Hurricane, billions and billions of dollars were given to those who suffered from it. You would be stunned how this nation is capable of coming together in a time of need. Our unity is our strength, the divisions that exist are very minor ones. The states that exist aren't like separate countries in any way shape or form. It's more like going to the next city over, where nearly everything is identical to the one you left. The laws of all the states are virtually identical. They aren't independent like you think they are.

[aerocontrols]

I disagree. This countries major strength is the fact it doesn't have a primary nationality that dominates the country. We have so many people from so many different places that place no longer has any meaning anymore. In order to have dissent you have to be lacking something. Basically anybody who really wants to can move to where there are those like them. Like Salt Lake City, or Chinatown, Miami, San Antonio and gain a measure of autonomy. This said there isn't any reason for dissent on a let's leave the country sort of scale. This is not true any place else I am aware of. With our freedom, everybody is already as "free" as they want to be already.

It appears to me that you do not, in fact, disagree with anything I've said.

To sum up my post:

1) Any hypothetical invasion force would have more, and more serious, exploitable schisms than exist in the US.

2) For example, look at these countries that have been mentioned in this thread as possible members of a coalition to invade the US that have real separatist movements, or unwillingly conquered territories, etc.


With which point do you disagree?

[egslim]

We truly are the only superpower on earth in every manner possible militarily.
True
All the countries on earth put together could not successfully invade us.
They could after a prolonged war. The simple fact is that the US commands about 25% of the worlds' GDP, and some 5% of its population. Japan and several Western-European countries are technologically just as advanced. The US would be matched or significantly outnumbered in all area's that matter - GDP, population and technology. The eventual outcome would be inevitable.

One can also argue the modern US Navy is significantly overrated, as is done in this paper: http://www.geocities.com/usnavyindanger/
A few facts to indicate the gist of the article:
Chilean Air Force pilots, flying the relatively unsophisticated but nimble F-5E, had trounced an American carrier air group (including F-14s) from the USS Independence in air combat exercises. The kill ratio was 56:16 in favor of the Chileans,Burns, who retired in 1999, says that when he last served on the Eisenhower in the Mediterranean, the carrier was ‘undermanned’ by 450 to 500 sailors. ‘They didn't have enough people to keep the [approach] radar fully manned at all times.’Israeli F-16s squared off against American F-14s and F-18s. The final results were astonishing. The Israelis shot down a whopping 220 US aircraft while losing only 20 themselves.“During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the US screen and ‘sinks’ many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away.

[CapelDodger]

I thought it was obvious that what I was saying is that it would be far easier for the US to exploit internal divisions between the hypothetical alliance of invaders than for said hypothetical alliance to exploit internal divisions in the US.
My post referred a generic "any invader", not your hypothetical alliance, and my questions were intended to elicit opinions on the cohesiveness of the US. Hence my dismissive response.

I thought it was obvious that my repetition of "I'm thinking China" in a previous post left the EU entirely out of the picture. I was thinking China, before you brought up this intriguing Triple Alliance. If anything could encourage European cohesion it would be that rather Orwellian scenario.

But I suppose what you really wanted to know is whether Texas is as loyal to California as... say... Northern Ireland is to the UK? Tibet is to China? Taiwan is to China? Or Quebec is to Canada? Or Chechnya is to Russia?Actually I mentioned New York and Texas as what would appear to be extremes to an outside observer. At first glance Texas and California would stand or fall together against a Mexican-Chinese alliance, but were California offered independent nationhood while Mexico got the rest of the old Mexico and the Chinese marched on Washington to coerce whatever it was they were trying to coerce ... I wonder how committed Californians would feel to the current arrangement in North America.

Yeah, there surely exist ripe pickins for any internal schism hunters.There surely do.

[Vagabond]

It appears to me that you do not, in fact, disagree with anything I've said.

To sum up my post:

1) Any hypothetical invasion force would have more, and more serious, exploitable schisms than exist in the US.

2) For example, look at these countries that have been mentioned in this thread as possible members of a coalition to invade the US that have real separatist movements, or unwillingly conquered territories, etc.


With which point do you disagree?

Neither, I disagreed with "Yeah, there surely exist ripe pickins for any internal schism hunters."

[aerocontrols]

Neither, I disagreed with "Yeah, there surely exist ripe pickins for any internal schism hunters."


Ok. I was talking about the US hunting for schisms in/among the invaders.

Thus my several examples.


Capel asks: "I wonder how committed Californians would feel to the current arrangement in North America."

My answer? Far more committed than Tibetans feel to the current arrangement in Asia.

[Vagabond]

True

They could after a prolonged war. The simple fact is that the US commands about 25% of the worlds' GDP, and some 5% of its population. Japan and several Western-European countries are technologically just as advanced. The US would be matched or significantly outnumbered in all area's that matter - GDP, population and technology. The eventual outcome would be inevitable.

One can also argue the modern US Navy is significantly overrated, as is done in this paper: http://www.geocities.com/usnavyindanger/
A few facts to indicate the gist of the article:

That might be true but it's also completely irrelevant. The Japanese during WW2 had superior Naval technology to us and still lost. Because they built one carrier during the war and we built 100. The real question is how many countries even have a heavy bomber design they can produce or any place to build them? What percentage of the world heavy industry does the US have? What percentage of it's shipyards? How many have an aircraft carrier design? It takes a decade to come up with something like that from scratch and actually get one in the water. It would take decades for any country or group of countries to challenge our navy and that is granting we sit on our hands and watch.

The wargames are also meaningless when we go up against Chile or Israel it is their superbowl. They send the best 5 pilots in the entire country to go up against our regular carrier pilots. We are also not allowed to use our carrier or surface ships to help spot them or even shoot them down because, well because they don't have any to use. We aren't allowed to use long range missles because with our spotting and long range missle tech they wouldn't get close. It's much harder to hit something the further away it is.

A sub commander can be as bold as the situation allows because he isn't risking anything. We don't need to man the radar on a carrier in peacetime. The carrier doesn't have any air to air defenses anyway. The Aegis cruiser is the one that is gonna feed you a missle snack and it's radar is always going. No country on earth has a ship anywhere near as effective and none have any carriers like we have either. Not to mention our huge fleet of attack and ballistic subs. Which nobody has anywhere near the anti sub tech or ships to even slow down any.

Not to mention like most armchair generals who don't really know anything about war you ignored logistics which is the primary reason it's impossible. There is no way they could supply a large enough force across an ocean to attack us. Doesn't matter what they do or how many or for how long. You were right about one thing. The result would be inevitable allright they would lose badly. Although keep believing that we are always happy to have our enemies underestimate us.

[Regnad Kcin]

Eh, no you [CapelDodger] aren't even from here. You have no clue what it is like and you couldn't be further from the truth.Hmm. I find CD's musings quite considered. He certainly could be "further from the truth."

After 911 people from all over this nation from every state and every concievable creed sent aid to New York. After the latest Hurricane, billions and billions of dollars were given to those who suffered from it. You would be stunned how this nation is capable of coming together in a time of need.Or divided if certain personal insecurities were exploited.

"All politics is local." -- Tip O'Neil, former Speaker of the House.

Our unity is our strength, the divisions that exist are very minor ones. The states that exist aren't like separate countries in any way shape or form. It's more like going to the next city over, where nearly everything is identical to the one you left. The laws of all the states are virtually identical. They aren't independent like you think they are.Perhaps you haven't traveled the nation as I have. Differences are plenty, and sometimes plenty startling.

By the way, this nation of sovereign states was once quite divided against itself. And much blood shed. You do remember that, yes?

[Vagabond]

Ok. I was talking about the US hunting for schisms in/among the invaders.

Thus my several examples.


Capel asks: "I wonder how committed Californians would feel to the current arrangement in North America."

My answer? Far more committed than Tibetans feel to the current arrangement in Asia.

Ahhh, sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the US.

[Vagabond]

Hmm. I find CD's musings quite considered. He certainly could be "further from the truth."

Or divided if certain personal insecurities were exploited.

"All politics is local." -- Tip O'Neil, former Speaker of the House.

Perhaps you haven't traveled the nation as I have. Differences are plenty, and sometimes plenty startling.

By the way, this nation of sovereign states was once quite divided against itself. And much blood shed. You do remember that, yes?

Of course I remember. Nearly every country on the planet has had a civil war. Hell England has had about ten of them. The Romans had quite a few too, The Chinese were in a constant state of civil war for several hundred years. So were the Japanese. This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the possiblity that modern day Italy, England, China or Japan would have one now.

But hell if you and Tip O'Neil think so it's gotta be true!

I have traveled enough to know if you floated the idea of California becoming it's own country to anybody the only result would be people falling over in laughter.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Of course I remember. Nearly every country on the planet has had a civil war. Hell England has had about ten of them. The Romans had quite a few too, The Chinese were in a constant state of civil war for several hundred years. So were the Japanese. This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the possiblity that modern day Italy, England, China or Japan would have one now.

Emphasis mine.Again with the absolutes?

My point, which you skipped blithely past, is that it is quite easy to imagine scenarios in which certain Americans could be persuaded to take up arms against certain other Americans. That it has already happened is ample proof that it could happen again.

But hell if you and Tip O'Neil think so it's gotta be true!A claim I didn't make.

I have traveled enough to know if you floated the idea of California becoming it's own country to anybody the only result would be people falling over in laughter.

Emphasis mine.I'm mystified by your reliance on absolutes. Flinging them around doesn't strengthen your position.

And yes, I'm aware that the Tip O'Neil quote is an absolute. However, it's one that is easily justified in that it deals with basic human nature: One takes care of one's immediate, personal matters before all else.

[Vagabond]

Again with the absolutes?

My point, which you skipped blithely past, is that it is quite easy to imagine scenarios in which certain Americans could be persuaded to take up arms against certain other Americans. That it has already happened is ample proof that it could happen again.

A claim I didn't make.

I'm mystified by your reliance on absolutes. Flinging them around doesn't strengthen your position.

And yes, I'm aware that the Tip O'Neil quote is an absolute. However, it's one that is easily justified in that it deals with basic human nature: One takes care of one's immediate, personal matters before all else.

It's easy to imagine scenarios in which certain board posters could be persuaded to clean my bathroom with their tongue because they are so dazzled by my posting too. Didn't think so. Anything can be imagined. It's meaningless. As is if I made the same statement without it being an absolute. The fact there is one person who doesn't fall over from laughter at the thought doesn't mean my point is any less valid. You don't discuss you ramble.

[Regnad Kcin]

It's easy to imagine scenarios in which certain board posters could be persuaded to clean my bathroom with their tongue because they are so dazzled by my posting too. Didn't think so. Anything can be imagined. It's meaningless.Of course. But I'm not suggesting "anything;" I'm proposing a scenario that has already happened once. When has yours ever?

As is if I made the same statement without it being an absolute. The fact there is one person who doesn't fall over from laughter at the thought doesn't mean my point is any less valid.Your point is empty of validity insofar as it is exaggeration based on experiences you've not supported.

You don't discuss you ramble.Never mind you're mistaken, if you choose to get personal the "rambling" will be concluded.

[Achán hiNidráne]

I think the Vatican could invade US.

"The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"

Joseph Stalin,
May 13, 1935, to French Foreign Minister Pierre Laval

[Kerberos]

That might be true but it's also completely irrelevant. The Japanese during WW2 had superior Naval technology to us and still lost. Because they built one carrier during the war and we built 100.
So the US defeated Japan due to superior longterm armnement potential that is a greater GDP. That's not exactly a point in you favour.

The real question is how many countries even have a heavy bomber design they can produce or any place to build them?
Only the US but Heavy bombers are no where as important in modern warfare as they were in the past ehich is the reason they're so uncommon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_bombers
What percentage of the world heavy industry does the US have? What percentage of it's shipyards? How many have an aircraft carrier design?
United Kingdom, France, India, Russia, Spain, Brazil, Italy and Thailand all have carriers also China has an old Soviet one which apparently they're using to develop their own. Also France, India, the Uk, China, Russia and Itally are developing new ones. Such decelopments would obviously be speeded up and coordinated in wartime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Carrier#Aircraft_carriers_today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Carrier#Aircraft_carriers_todayIt takes a decade to come up with something like that from scratch and actually get one in the water. It would take decades for any country or group of countries to challenge our navy and that is granting we sit on our hands and watch.
And the source of this information is where?

Not to mention like most armchair generals who don't really know anything about war you ignored logistics which is the primary reason it's impossible. There is no way they could supply a large enough force across an ocean to attack us. Doesn't matter what they do or how many or for how long. You were right about one thing. The result would be inevitable allright they would lose badly. Although keep believing that we are always happy to have our enemies underestimate us.
Ehh, you are aware that this is a strictly hypothetical situation right? "Your enemies" are not actually spilling the sinister plans for an attack on the US by an Alliance between every other country on the planet.

As for the logicstics yes they are a problem, but on the other hand we'd have significantly superior long term arnment potential. I'm honestly don't know enough about military logistics to asses that, and let's just sya that you haven't given me any reason to be so impressed with you military expertise (a million armed civilians, seriously :rolleyes: ) that I'm willing to accept your opinion as authoritative.

[egslim]

Because they built one carrier during the war and we built 100.
Which brings us back to the matter of GDP. Note that before WWII the US had very poor millitary production capability. Almost all its industry was dedicated to consumer goods, only during the war did it switch to millitary production. For example, Ford built huge numbers of aircraft. What matters in a prolonged conflict is industrial capability, not how much of that during peacetime is devoted to millitary production.



The real question is how many countries even have a heavy bomber design they can produce or any place to build them?
Try the Tupolev Tu22ME Backfire. The UK is working on a modern aircraft carrier design, the French already have one. More generally, from the previous link:Captain Larry Seaquist, US Navy (Retired) said in the 1993 book War and Anti-War that the United States “has no technological monopoly in virtually anything… I’ve never found anyone to respond to my challenge to name three technologies which are under the exclusive control of the U.S. military.Most US weapon systems have a foreign equivalent which is at least competative or superior to the US design. And new designs are a matter of technology - in which the US has no appreciable advantage.



It would take decades for any country or group of countries to challenge our navy and that is granting we sit on our hands and watch.Actually:The Late Admiral Hyman Rickover, US Navy (Retired) didn’t think much of his own carrier-centered navy, either. When asked in 1982 about how long the American carriers would survive in an actual war, he curtly replied that they would be finished in approximately 48 hours.



The wargames are also meaningless when we go up against Chile or Israel it is their superbowl.Do you have any evidence for those claims? From the article:While not always the case, the standard, blanket explanation employed by US Navy apologists that all defeats (even in free play or unscripted exercise evolutions) are purely because the U.S. ships or aircraft involved were operating under some sort of artificial restriction, limitation or handicap is also often rather spurious, exaggerated, overly convenient, deceitful, and just a cop-out,
[...]
Several Canadian ASW senior officers I consulted (with almost 70 years of combined service) indicated that they had never conducted an exercise with a US nuclear submarine using NAUs or operating under a handicap.



A sub commander can be as bold as the situation allows because he isn't risking anything.Not to mention the fact that the loss of a carrier is much more expensive than the loss of a cheap conventional submarine.



The Aegis cruiser is the one that is gonna feed you a missle snack and it's radar is always going. No country on earth has a ship anywhere near as effective and none have any carriers like we have either.
How about this:Aegis was built to simultaneously track up to two hundred aerial targets and to control thirty killer missiles. But in sea tests against sixteen easy targets – easy because they were lobbed in one after another instead of all at the same time, as they would arrive in combat – the supershield missed all but five…”



Not to mention our huge fleet of attack and ballistic subs. Which nobody has anywhere near the anti sub tech or ships to even slow down any.Hold your horses!Rear Admiral W. J. Holland, US Navy (Retired) who maintained if the US Navy had to deal with a hostile diesel submarine today, “It would take a month to handle that problem, including two weeks of learning.”
[...]
In a 1998 article, Robert Holzer, the Outreach Director at the Office of Force Transformation, provided more detail: “a Chilean diesel sub penetrated the perimeter of a U.S. Navy battle group and moved among its ships for several days. U.S. forces knew the sub, participating in an exercise with the Navy, would operate in an attack mode. Yet the Pacific Fleet could not find it.



There is no way they could supply a large enough force across an ocean to attack us.
Gee, that sure stopped the US from being able to invade Japan in WWII.

[Orwell]

I just looove armchair general type of debates... :rolleyes:

"Prediction is very hard, especially when it's about the future" - Yogi Berra

[Vagabond]

So the US defeated Japan due to superior longterm armnement potential that is a greater GDP. That's not exactly a point in you favour.


Only the US but Heavy bombers are no where as important in modern warfare as they were in the past ehich is the reason they're so uncommon.

United Kingdom, France, India, Russia, Spain, Brazil, Italy and Thailand all have carriers also China has an old Soviet one I'm honestly don't know enough about military logistics to asses that, and let's just sya that you haven't given me any reason to be so impressed with you military expertise (a million armed civilians, seriously :rolleyes: ) that I'm willing to accept your opinion as authoritative.

The "carriers" these countries have are for primarily anti sub operations they are not equipped with the offensive aircraft to take on a US carrier battle group. GDP is not an estimate of how many Tanks somebody can build. In a war you build them and worry about paying for them later. Heavy bombers aren't useful in the kind of regional conflict we are currently fighting but in an all out war they sure as hell would be. What the hell country are you from? Certainly not the US. Otherwise you would know there are over 50 million armed civilians in this country most of them hunters who would love nothing better than to take a pot shot at somebody who was bad mouthing the US much less invading it. Last I heard just the NRA has over 3 million members. Most of those are paramilitary, ex army and extreme hunters. A million is nothing, that is an extremely low estimate. Not to mention I am not including in the 50 million of gun owners or in the NRA, but I would sure as hell have a gun and be there if somebody attacked us. I don't have any basis for knowing for sure. Except my knowledge of how people are. That is far better than any information you have. You don't have enough knowledge of the subject to even have an opinion much less one of any factual value.

[Vagabond]

Which brings us back to the matter of GDP. Note that before WWII the US had very poor millitary production capability. Almost all its industry was dedicated to consumer goods, only during the war did it switch to millitary production. For example, Ford built huge numbers of aircraft. What matters in a prolonged conflict is industrial capability, not how much of that during peacetime is devoted to millitary production.

Gee, that sure stopped the US from being able to invade Japan in WWII.

Sure, we made the conversion but we had the industry to convert. Japan didn't. My original point was we have most of the worlds heavy industry and shipyards. Japan has a lot of it, but they have no raw materials whatsoever. The first thing we would do in the war is isolate them and cut them off from their raw materials. Then they can't build anything. Also most of the plants that make Japanese cars and add to their GDP are actually LOCATED in the US. They will be making tanks for us not them. As are most of the cars from all the other countries.

I would like to point out we didn't actually invade Japan during WWII either. Mainly because we were having supply problems too with the most massive and organized supply system that has ever existed in the history of the world. And without our enemy being able to to anything to hinder us whatsoever. A luxury anybody fighting us is not going to have.

If the war hadn't ended it would have been sometime in 46 probably before we would have been able to stage enough supply. You are looking at things from the most simplistic point of view possible. You are using opinions in place of facts too.

[Vagabond]

Of course. But I'm not suggesting "anything;" I'm proposing a scenario that has already happened once. When has yours ever?

Your point is empty of validity insofar as it is exaggeration based on experiences you've not supported.

Never mind you're mistaken, if you choose to get personal the "rambling" will be concluded.

Yeah, happened once 130 years ago. Which is perhaps when your brain stopped thinking? I don't have to provide support for the fact air exists. Some things are just obvious. Well obvious to anybody with a brain anyway.

[egslim]

My original point was we have most of the worlds heavy industry and shipyards.
Do you have any actual figures to support that? I do know China is building the worlds largest shipyard in the world (in Shanghai), and Shanghai and Rotterdam were the world's two largest ports.

I would like to point out we didn't actually invade Japan during WWII either.
The plans were there, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
Operation Downfall was the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan at the end of World War II. It was scheduled to occur in two parts: Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, set to begin in November 1945; and later Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu near Tokyo, scheduled for the spring of 1946.

You are using opinions in place of facts too.
I've used a few opinions from various senior officers in the US millitary, but mostly hard facts from realistic exercises. Whereas you have made a lot of assertions, but given no hard data to support them. For example, define 'heavy industry' and give some hard figures for the US' share.

Here is some hard data concerning shipyards, from your own government: http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/07-23-02mcalear.html
This is not a new phenomenon, and the effects of these disparities have produced a decline in the U.S. share of world commercial shipbuilding from almost 10% in 1979 to 0.4% in 2001.
[...]
In 1979, Asia maintained a 38% share. By 2001 Asian Builders increased their share to 80% of all new vessel construction. Europe, despite its subsidy regimes, has declined from a 39% market share to 14% today.

[Orwell]

This dumb debate is predictably slowly degenerating into jingo nationalistic chest-beating.

Hell, the OP was already pointing that way!

[Mycroft]

This dumb debate is predictably slowly degenerating into jingo nationalistic chest-beating.

Of course your deep insight helps a lot! :oldroll:

[Orwell]

Of course your deep insight helps a lot! :oldroll:

Here's my insight: countries that have ballistic missile and nuclear technology can't be invaded. The possible cost of invading them is too high. Happy now? No go back to bashing the UN, Muslims, Europeans or whatever it was you were doing, 'k?

[Vagabond]

I've used a few opinions from various senior officers in the US millitary, but mostly hard facts from realistic exercises. Whereas you have made a lot of assertions, but given no hard data to support them. For example, define 'heavy industry' and give some hard figures for the US' share.

"exercises" being the key word there. Eh, no I got better things to do than dig up facts to try and support an arguement largely based on supposition for a topic that is purely fantasy.

Now if you want to discuss who would win a war between OZ and the munchkins I am in.

Munchkins! the only superpower in OZ!

[Orwell]

If Spiderman fought Batman, who would win?

[Vagabond]

Here's my insight: countries that have ballistic missile and nuclear technology can't be invaded. The possible cost of invading them is too high. Happy now?

Well, of course that is a given, but his original question specified that nukes would not be used. There is nothing wrong with a discussion of a hypothetical question, nor a bit of jingo nationalistic chest-beating.

Although I think that term should be jingoistic nationalist chest-beating. If you are going to make shallow comments at least make them accurate.

[Vagabond]

If Spiderman fought Batman, who would win?

Spiderman would so kick Batman's ass. All he has to do it catch Batman taking a dump with his belt around his ankles! ;)

[egslim]

"exercises" being the key word there. Eh, no I got better things to do than dig up facts [...]
Really? Personally I prefer to gather the facts first and form an opinion second, but to each his own.

As for the exercises, apparently the U.S. Navy doesn't agree with your disregard of them.
Exercise Tandem Thrust 99, an unscripted multinational “free-play” exercise, was “as close to war as we can possibly get,” said Commander Al Elkins, U.S. Navy. “We’re in this exercise like we’re in a hot war.

[Vagabond]

Really? Personally I prefer to gather the facts first and form an opinion second, but to each his own.

As for the exercises, apparently the U.S. Navy doesn't agree with your disregard of them.

As do I, but the key to that is obtaining "facts" that actually have some basis to the topic at hand. Otherwise you are just wasting time. This is a skill you obviously lack. "As close to a war as we can get." Supports my arguement and not yours, but you lack the sophistication necessary to see that. Although, I was in another discussion recently with people of an equal lack of sophistication that thought "sparring" somehow prepared them for actual combat. Considering I was actually IN the US navy I would say that means I know far more about it than you are ever likely to.

[hammegk]

Yeah, there surely exist ripe pickins for any internal schism hunters.
Any attempt that seemed to be suceeding might move us USAians more quickly to oligarchic fascism rather the "democracy" of a Republic we pretend to have now.

[Mycroft]

Here's my insight: countries that have ballistic missile and nuclear technology can't be invaded. The possible cost of invading them is too high. Happy now? No go back to bashing the UN, Muslims, Europeans or whatever it was you were doing, 'k?

If all you're interested in doing is making the most shallow observations while simultaneously bashing anyone who dares discuss an opinion different from yours, why do you bother coming here?

[Vagabond]

If all you're interested in doing is making the most shallow observations while simultaneously bashing anyone who dares discuss an opinion different from yours, why do you bother coming here?

Hey, I said he was shallow first, quit copying offa my paper! ;)

[Orwell]

If all you're interested in doing is making the most shallow observations while simultaneously bashing anyone who dares discuss an opinion different from yours, why do you bother coming here?

:rolleyes: You know, "what the hell am I doing here?" is exactly what I ask myself each time I read one of your bashing posts...

[Vagabond]

:rolleyes: You know, "what the hell am I doing here?" is exactly what I ask myself each time I read one of your bashing posts...

Hey mycroft tends to the arguementive side, but at least he has a horse in the race at the time. Unlike others like you, who are equally "bashing" but just doing it from the safety of the sidelines.

[Regnad Kcin]

Yeah, happened once 130 years ago.Well then, that supports my suggestion that varied Americans can indeed be turned against each other.

Which is perhaps when your brain stopped thinking?HAR HAR HAR! (Psst: the war was over 140 years ago.)

I don't have to provide support for the fact air exists. Some things are just obvious. Well obvious to anybody with a brain anyway.Say, anyone want to invade Vagabond? Though a fellow American, you can have him.

See? Just proved you wrong again!

[Mycroft]

Hey, I said he was shallow first, quit copying offa my paper! ;)

I so totally copied you. :)

[CapelDodger]

It's easy to imagine scenarios in which certain board posters could be persuaded to clean my bathroom with their tongue because they are so dazzled by my posting too.Do share one with us. Come on, I've shown you my scenario ...

Re shipyards, it doesn't seem obvious that the US has more capacity than Japan, Korea and China combined. I don't have the figures, though. Re heavy industry, it wasn't long ago the US steel industry was begging for tariffs so it could survive. Fighting a modern war without a modern steel industry doesn't strike me as a good idea.

[Beerina]

Do share one with us. Come on, I've shown you my scenario ...

Re shipyards, it doesn't seem obvious that the US has more capacity than Japan, Korea and China combined. I don't have the figures, though. Re heavy industry, it wasn't long ago the US steel industry was begging for tariffs so it could survive. Fighting a modern war without a modern steel industry doesn't strike me as a good idea.

Actually, I believe the US is producing about the same amount of steel that it did in the 1970's, but with about 1/3 the workers. In any case, spinning up the capacity would take time in any society, but the more powerful the economy, the faster it can be accomplished, especially if they brush aside environmental or OSHA or other regulations in an emergency (you know, the kind of flostam that rises to the top as important in the absence of things of real importance.)

[a_unique_person]

:rolleyes: You know, "what the hell am I doing here?" is exactly what I ask myself each time I read one of your bashing posts...

Mycroft is actually a nice, polite, intelligent and friendly guy, except towards the people he abuses.

[CapelDodger]

Actually, I believe the US is producing about the same amount of steel that it did in the 1970's, but with about 1/3 the workers.Volume is good, no doubt, but the tariffs caused outcry from US manufacturers who couldn't get the grades of steel they required from home producers. Steel is, by nature, an alloy and customers can be terribly picky about its make-up. Such much carbon, such much molybdenum, no more than such arsenic, it's a complex business. Production has to be flexible and dependable, and that's where the US industry was lagging behind, at least a few years ago. Whether they've raised their game since, I don't know.

[gtc]

This dumb debate is predictably slowly degenerating into jingo nationalistic chest-beating.

Hell, the OP was already pointing that way!

wtf? I am Australian. Recieving confirmation that one's country couldn't invade the US, even with the help of everyone else is hardly jingoistic chest beating.

If I wanted to 'chest-beat' I could point out that Australia could repel a Canadian invasion unlike some ethno linguistic groups not a million miles from Vermont.

[CapelDodger]

Eh, no you aren't even from here.I am, indeed, from Out Of State. :eye-poppi Sometimes, though, a little distance and a lack of personal investment in a subject gives one a better perspective.

[Vagabond]

Do share one with us. Come on, I've shown you my scenario ...

Re shipyards, it doesn't seem obvious that the US has more capacity than Japan, Korea and China combined. I don't have the figures, though. Re heavy industry, it wasn't long ago the US steel industry was begging for tariffs so it could survive. Fighting a modern war without a modern steel industry doesn't strike me as a good idea.


Well, freak and Kevin lowe seem extremely simple minded and thus very suseptible to the power of suggestion. Also tempted to add Regnad to my scheme. My bathroom awaits! ;)

Shipyards are measured in tonnage. Most of the modern shipyards are created to build those monster oil tankers and the like. This is going to look good on the tonnage scale but each slip can only build one ship. So larger numbers of smaller slips would be what you would want. Since they make few naval ships and we make many I would expect we are better equipped for that than they are. Also they have a lot of ground to make up, if we just matched their production we would be fine. We also have literally hundreds of our old ships in mothballs which could be put into service to provide sheer numbers relatively quickly

[Vagabond]

Volume is good, no doubt, but the tariffs caused outcry from US manufacturers who couldn't get the grades of steel they required from home producers. Steel is, by nature, an alloy and customers can be terribly picky about its make-up. Such much carbon, such much molybdenum, no more than such arsenic, it's a complex business. Production has to be flexible and dependable, and that's where the US industry was lagging behind, at least a few years ago. Whether they've raised their game since, I don't know.

Well, I think the problem with the steel industry had much more to do with other countries using unfair trade practices and dumping cheap steel on the market than any inherent flaw in the industry itself. We have the industry, we have plenty of iron ore and coal. That is all you really need. Since our tanks armor is made from a ceramic material, I would think we would need less steel than anybody we were fighting against tank for tank. Ships don't require nearly as much steel as years past either. They aren't armored and the superstructures are usually made of aluminum.

[Vagabond]

wtf? I am Australian. Recieving confirmation that one's country couldn't invade the US, even with the help of everyone else is hardly jingoistic chest beating.

If I wanted to 'chest-beat' I could point out that Australia could repel a Canadian invasion unlike some ethno linguistic groups not a million miles from Vermont.

Oh, yeah Aussies would so kick Canada's butt. ;) Unless of course they got big rations of Fosters. Damn the canadians could drop cases of it on your troop concentrations! Dirty bastards! I am changing my vote. ;)

[Vagabond]

I am, indeed, from Out Of State. :eye-poppi Sometimes, though, a little distance and a lack of personal investment in a subject gives one a better perspective.

With perhaps some topics. But, not the nature of people or a culture. That you need to be close up.

[gtc]

I can't say I have ever met anyone who would choose Fosters. I have heard the recipe is different overseas, but I haven't been game to drink it.

[RandFan]

If I wanted to 'chest-beat' I could point out that Australia could repel a Canadian invasion unlike some ethno linguistic groups not a million miles from Vermont.Now that's just mean sprited. :D

BTW, if it hasn't been mentioned yet the Canadians kicked American butt in 1812.

[Vagabond]

I can't say I have ever met anyone who would choose Fosters. I have heard the recipe is different overseas, but I haven't been game to drink it.


Nor would I, but my implication was they would drop good Canadian beer on your troops. Granting their taste buds haven't been totally fouled by the Fosters. ;)

[Vagabond]

Now that's just mean sprited. :D

BTW, if it hasn't been mentioned yet the Canadians kicked American butt in 1812.

Hey wait a minute we won that war! And the Canadians were getting unfair help from the Brits!

[RandFan]

Hey wait a minute we won that war! And the Canadians were getting unfair help from the Brits!Yes, we won but we didn't gain any ground in Canada.

[Kerberos]

The "carriers" these countries have are for primarily anti sub operations they are not equipped with the offensive aircraft to take on a US carrier battle group.
I don't think anybody has denied that reanament and restructing of the armed forces would be necessary. There is of course a gap to close.

GDP is not an estimate of how many Tanks somebody can build. In a war you build them and worry about paying for them later.
GDP is a measure of how much you can produce, obviously the economy's of France, Japan etc. aren't geared towards producing tanks or ships, but then again neither is the US.
Heavy bombers aren't useful in the kind of regional conflict we are currently fighting but in an all out war they sure as hell would be.
Acturally the primary reason heavy bombers are uncommon is, per the wikipedia article that due to technological progress medium or light bombers can do what required heavy bomber in the past. The engines have gotten better and the materials lighter.

What the hell country are you from? Certainly not the US. Otherwise you would know there are over 50 million armed civilians in this country most of them hunters who would love nothing better than to take a pot shot at somebody who was bad mouthing the US much less invading it. Last I heard just the NRA has over 3 million members. Most of those are paramilitary, ex army and extreme hunters. A million is nothing, that is an extremely low estimate. Not to mention I am not including in the 50 million of gun owners or in the NRA, but I would sure as hell have a gun and be there if somebody attacked us. I don't have any basis for knowing for sure. Except my knowledge of how people are. That is far better than any information you have. You don't have enough knowledge of the subject to even have an opinion much less one of any factual value.
I'm from Denmark, not that is matters since I'm perfectly aware of the fact that many Americans own guns. My rolleyes wasn't for the notion that there are a million armed civilians in the US. It wasn't even for the notion that one million of your armed civilians would be dumb enough to stand in the way of an army. It was for the notion that a million bozzos with at best assault rifles, are going to be any obstacle to a modern army with tanks, artillery and air support. "A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house" - Socrates. Perharps an armed population can make life difficult for an occupying army, though you'd need to be far more effective than the Iraqis for it to matter, but if they attempt to stop an invasion it won't be a battle, it will be a massacre, whether there is 1, 2 or 50 million of them.

[Vagabond]

GDP is a measure of how much you can produce, obviously the economy's of France, Japan etc. aren't geared towards producing tanks or ships, but then again neither is the US.

Acturally the primary reason heavy bombers are uncommon is, per the wikipedia article that due to technological progress medium or light bombers can do what required heavy bomber in the past. The engines have gotten better and the materials lighter.


I'm from Denmark, not that is matters since I'm perfectly aware of the fact that many Americans own guns. My rolleyes wasn't for the notion that there are a million armed civilians in the US. It wasn't even for the notion that one million of your armed civilians would be dumb enough to stand in the way of an army. It was for the notion that a million bozzos with at best assault rifles, are going to be any obstacle to a modern army with tanks, artillery and air support. "A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house" - Socrates. Perharps an armed population can make life difficult for an occupying army, though you'd need to be far more effective than the Iraqis for it to matter, but if they attempt to stop an invasion it won't be a battle, it will be a massacre, whether there is 1, 2 or 50 million of them.

GDP is a measure of how much "money" a country makes not it's production. Every country has a GDP but the vast majority of them can't build even one tank.

The greatest advantage of heavy bombers is their range. We for example could fly our bombers form California all the way to Japan and bomb their shipyards while they could do little to prevent it. Heavy bombers are also much harder to stop particularly the those pesky stealth ones which only we possess. If you think this doesn't matter you are stupid.

Are you truly that naive? The Vietcong ran off the armies of two countries without much more than assault rifles. The Yugoslavians during WW2 put up such a fight against the Italians the Germans had to send their own crack troops down there. They never controlled the vast majority of the country ever during the war. The Chinese prevented the Japanese from overrunning their country during WWII. When China drove back the UN forces during the Korean war they didn't have a single tank and not much anti tank, they took out tanks with satchel charges. Or how about the Afghans holding out against the Russians for ten years? You are full of it up to your eyeballs.

You truly have no clue about the US either. There are national guard armory's all over the place. With tanks, heavy artillery, mortars, heavy machine guns and many of them even have their own jet fighter squadrons.

They would not be a mob either. As I said before most of them are ex-military and while I think they could probably take on a few divisions toe to toe they would probably fight a guerilla campaign. They would sniper away all the infantry and then take out the tanks with explosives and captured anti tank and artillery. They wouldn't be mob anyway these are people who have been shooting and handling guns their whole life. If you think a million men with sniper rifles who know how to shoot isn't going to matter you are a moron. They didn't have high powered rifles in Socrates time. There are probably only perhaps 20-30 THOUSAND Iraqis fighting. If it was a million we would be gone already. They will ultmately drive us out anyway.

That was one of the most ill-informed pile of garbage I have ever seen posted. Although you are from Denmark a country that throws it's guns away and surrenders when attacked. They put up such pathetic resistance to the Germans during WW2 you must assume everybody is so inept.

"an armed populace is the best defense against tyranny" Thomas Jefferson

[gtc]

I'm from Denmark, not that is matters since I'm perfectly aware of the fact that many Americans own guns. My rolleyes wasn't for the notion that there are a million armed civilians in the US. It wasn't even for the notion that one million of your armed civilians would be dumb enough to stand in the way of an army. It was for the notion that a million bozzos with at best assault rifles, are going to be any obstacle to a modern army with tanks, artillery and air support. "A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house" - Socrates. Perharps an armed population can make life difficult for an occupying army, though you'd need to be far more effective than the Iraqis for it to matter, but if they attempt to stop an invasion it won't be a battle, it will be a massacre, whether there is 1, 2 or 50 million of them.

I don't think that the armed American population would be able to stop an invasion necessarily, but I think they could make the price of invasion and occupation too high.

[Vagabond]

I don't think that the armed American population would be able to stop an invasion necessarily, but I think they could make the price of invasion and occupation too high.

That is precisely how you "stop" an invasion. They don't get stopped by killing every single invader. I don't see how you can say something like that without even having a clue as to the numbers that might invade. It would take tens of millions to a hundred million to even have a shot. But, there is no way anybody could muster and supply that number to attack with in the first place.

[gtc]

I am sorry if my post wasn't clear.

My argument is this.

There are three possibilities.

The American civillians could repel an attack.

The American civillians could grind down an occupying army so that they were forced to quit.

The American civillians could not stop an invasion or occupation.

All are possibilities, depending on the strength of the invading army. The second is by far the most likely, on the basis of the limited knowledge I have.

I suspect no one could supply enough troops to successfully occupy America. However, I started the thread to see what people with more knowledge than I possess think.

[Vagabond]

I am sorry if my post wasn't clear.

My argument is this.

There are three possibilities.

The American civillians could repel an attack.

The American civillians could grind down an occupying army so that they were forced to quit.

The American civillians could not stop an invasion or occupation.

All are possibilities, depending on the strength of the invading army. The second is by far the most likely, on the basis of the limited knowledge I have.

I suspect no one could supply enough troops to successfully occupy America. However, I started the thread to see what people with more knowledge than I possess think.

That makes sense I don't disagree with that. I think you agree that the armed populace would be a significant factor in even deciding to attempt such a thing.

[gtc]

That makes sense I don't disagree with that. I think you agree that the armed populace would be a significant factor in even deciding to attempt such a thing.

Sure.

Get past the army, navy and airforce and you are still left with a porcupine.

America might be the only country that could disband its armed forces and still not be able to be occupied. Perhaps Switzerland too?

[Vagabond]

Sure.

Get past the army, navy and airforce and you are still left with a porcupine.

America might be the only country that could disband its armed forces and still not be able to be occupied. Perhaps Switzerland too?

Switzerland has survived because they don't have anything anybody would want. I think this protects them more than any actual defense. But, mountains are the best terrain for guerrilla combat. So it depends on what you mean by "occupy". Just to gain control or to eliminate all resistance.

You said not to use nukes, but how about thermobaric weapons? We have a crapload of those too. Those create nearly the same diliemnas for an attacker as nukes do. You can't concentrate force and you can't protect your supply.

[3point14]

Considering I was actually IN the US navy I would say that means I know far more about it than you are ever likely to.

An honest question:-

You believe there's no possibility that the strength of your unit, and of your navy might have been misrepresented to you by your CO's? I figure militarily, it's never wise to tell the rank and file they're (rule 8) ed.


Also, isn't it going to be incredibly tricky to cross the ocean? one plane with one missile can take out an entire ship, can't it? Transporting troops across the atlantic or the pacific, either way, is just going to be a recipe for mass burial at sea, surely?

[kittynh]

oh but that would require a lot of cooperation between nations that simply won't.

Look at the EU. Really united there. On a more personal scale, the European office of the company my husband works for had to bring in people from the US because no one could work together! You never heard such stereotypes. Just what the French speaking Belgiums said about the Flemish speaking Belgiums was horrible! There is a town where they actually built a community where you can't buy a house unless you are a FLEMISH speaker. The FRENCH speakers have their own community nearby. The Germans and ITalians were into the "They work too hard" "they don't work at all" complaint. The UK office manager was set upon in the parking lot by thugs hired by his coworkers that didn't want anyone from the UK "ordering us around". Didn't even do to try to hire someone from one of the Eastern nations (they are members of the EU, right?). The company was told a riot might ensue!

Finally they just put a bunch of Americans in charge of the facility and went back to having only Belgiums in Belgium, and Germans in Germany, and French in France. Their thought was to make each large corporate area a real EU facitility with people from all the nations. With an American in charge, everyone could quite happily complain about HIM, and yet somehow kept from hiring hit men to take all the Americans out.

Heck, I don't even want to go into what the office thought when they hired someone from the GERMAN speaking area of Belgium. Only time the French and Flemish speakers united.

Look, the Chinese are going to invade and take out the EU too while they are at it.

I think what seems to be happening in Europe is a shame in that to "compete" people are being asked to give up their really decent working conditions. For goodness sake, hold on to your vacation days! STand up for time off! Strike for you health benefits! It's quality of life that counts, not can it be made cheaper in Bulgaria?

[kittynh]

It's the CHINESE people. A super power with people willing to work for a dollar a day. Nobody can beat that.

[3point14]

Ooh, and when can we get onto the 'who's special forces are harder' argument??

[Orwell]

As I said before:
Here's my insight: countries that have ballistic missile and nuclear technology can't be invaded. The possible cost of an invasion is too high.

[delphi_ote]

As I said before:

If you have your own nuclear arsenal and soften up the target first, maybe.

[Orwell]

If you have your own nuclear arsenal and soften up the target first, maybe.

That's why people, in their infinite wisdom, designed things like nuke proof missile silos and nearly undetectable nuclear powered submarines carrying thousands of kilotons of instant nuclear retaliation.

[Vagabond]

An honest question:-

You believe there's no possibility that the strength of your unit, and of your navy might have been misrepresented to you by your CO's? I figure militarily, it's never wise to tell the rank and file they're (rule 8) ed.


Also, isn't it going to be incredibly tricky to cross the ocean? one plane with one missile can take out an entire ship, can't it? Transporting troops across the atlantic or the pacific, either way, is just going to be a recipe for mass burial at sea, surely?

Certainly it's possible, but I doubt they would deliberately exaggerate. It's more dangerous to be overconfident than to lack confidence. Also with our forces having such an obvious superiority normally, we don't lack confidence that needs to be built up.

During wartime it would be more possible, like they exaggerated the effectiveness of the patriot missle defense during the first gulf war, but this was more to keep the enemy from knowing not our own troops.

You have to have a realistic opinion of your own abilities otherwise how can you know how to use them properly in combat? Exactly how many ships does it take to provide an adequate defense? Too many you waste ships that could be used elsewhere, too few and worse news.

This said you can't really know how something will work in combat without fighting. The US hasn't had to repel any serious naval threats. That is primarily because nobody is able to. If you are too strong to be challenged you win by default.

Yes, one plane with a missle can take out a ship. If it can get close enough, but that is a big IF. The Russians didn't have our level of missle accuracy so they built naval designs based on firing masses of missles at once hoping to overwhelm our defenses. We never got to see how that would have panned out. But, anything you DO, also has weaknesses attached to it. The Russians once they fired their missles were done, they were running back to resupply. Our ships can reload and stay in the battle area far longer. This might matter far more than just how many missles you can fire in a minute. Depends on the battle situation and just who gets who first.

This ship I was on, a guided missle destroyer's primary mission was to defend the carrier in the battle group. If we could not shoot down a missle we had the capability to make ourselves look like a carrier to a missle so it would hit us instead of the carrier. So it's not as easy as it sounds. Nothing would be able to get within missle range of a carrier battle group without meeting it's end. You would need waves of planes with missles to even have a shot and chances are they wouldn't get you the carrier. During WW2 planes were expendable but now they are so expensive and complex you wouldn't want to sacrifice a bunch of them for a destroyer or two.

In late 81 I was in the med when Anwar Sadat got assassinated. He was the president of Egypt and was killed for making peace overtures to Israel. Our first intel reports said that the Libyans might have done it. So we sortied every ship in the med to the Egyptian border. Within a day we had two aircraft carriers, 3 helicopter carriers with 2000 marines on each and 30-40 other ships. The captain came on the intercom and said. "We now have total air superiority over the North African continent." We owned the skies and all the air forces of all the countries in the region couldn't do anything about it. That makes you feel badass.

I was also in shouting distance when two Libyan jets fired short range missles at our F-14's. The F-14 turned and ran from the missles until they ran out of fuel then turned back around and shot down the two planes who had been fleeing as fast as they could. If you get enough superiority you become invulnerable to attack.

Lastly, if you sent unescorted ships across yes. But nobody would do that unless they had no alternative. If we sent an invasion fleet anyplace we would screen it with a carrier battle group and maybe two. Hope I answered your question.

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, freak and Kevin lowe seem extremely simple minded and thus very suseptible to the power of suggestion. Also tempted to add Regnad to my scheme. My bathroom awaits! ;)Your lack of manners is unfortunate. Your belligerence is comical. But please keep it up. We all of us need a jolly laugh.

[Vagabond]

Your lack of manners is unfortunate. Your belligerence is comical. But please keep it up. We all of us need a jolly laugh.

Right back at ya pal. Although I would add lack of intelligence to the unfortunate side. You have my sympathy.

[Vagabond]

That's why people, in their infinite wisdom, designed things like nuke proof missile silos and nearly undetectable nuclear powered submarines carrying thousands of kilotons of instant nuclear retaliation.

There is no such thing as a nuke "proof" silo. Hardened certainly but a close enough hit will take them out. It's actually better to keep your silos close not because more will get taken out by nukes, but because later missles will hit the fireballs of the ones you already launched. Actually protecting your silos. You have to time them all to hit at once, which is very problematic. Although chances are by that point the silos would be empty anyway.

[Orwell]

There is no such thing as a nuke "proof" silo. Hardened certainly but a close enough hit will take them out. It's actually better to keep your silos close not because more will get taken out by nukes, but because later missles will hit the fireballs of the ones you already launched. Actually protecting your silos. You have to time them all to hit at once, which is very problematic. Although chances are by that point the silos would be empty anyway.

Whatever... I'm don't pretend to be an expert on this kind of crap. Does this invalidate my point? No, I don't think it does. You only need a few to survive, plus the nukes in the subs, and you have a retaliatory force.

[Vagabond]

Whatever... I'm don't pretend to be an expert on this kind of crap. Does this invalidate my point? No, I don't think it does. You only need a few to survive, plus the nukes in the subs, and you have a retaliatory force.

Nope, I was just clarifying what you said. We also have a substantial bomber force that can drop nukes anywhere on the planet, you would need to deal with too. Some of them are always in flight at all times and the rest would be in very short notice.

[Orwell]

I think the argument works for the US, China, Russia and other nations that have ballistic missiles and nukes.

[Vagabond]

I think the argument works for the US, China, Russia and other nations that have ballistic missiles and nukes.

I disagree. There are many countries that have nukes. But, only the US has the ability to detect a missle launch anywhere on the planet right after it happens and the global communications to notify all our units wherever they might be in the world in seconds. If India fires a nuke at Pakistan they don't know about it until it hits them.

[Orwell]

I disagree. There are many countries that have nukes. But, only the US has the ability to detect a missle launch anywhere on the planet right after it happens and the global communications to notify all our units wherever they might be in the world in seconds. If India fires a nuke at Pakistan they don't know about it until it hits them.

Yeah, but once it hits them, they will pretty much know, won't they? If you assume that it is virtually impossible to disable all of the opponents nukes on a first strike, retaliation is inevitable.

[Vagabond]

Yeah, but once it hits them, they will pretty much know, won't they? If you assume that it is virtually impossible to disable all of the opponents nukes on a first strike, retaliation is inevitable.

Probably, but with countries that have only a handfull of them. The only thing you would need is their location. Which isn't "impossible" to get.

[Orwell]

Probably, but with countries that have only a handfull of them. The only thing you would need is their location. Which isn't "impossible" to get.

No, but there's always a chance of getting it wrong. It's a huge risk, one that few leaders are willing to take. Assuming, of course, that these "leaders" aren't psychopaths.

[Vagabond]

No, but there's always a chance of getting it wrong. It's a huge risk, one that few leaders are willing to take. Assuming, of course, that these "leaders" aren't psychopaths.

Or pressed to the point they feel war is inevitable anyway. Or their death or removal from power is immient. Or just paranoid enough to believe so.

[gtc]

Yeah, but once it hits them, they will pretty much know, won't they? If you assume that it is virtually impossible to disable all of the opponents nukes on a first strike, retaliation is inevitable.

Retaliation is, I think inevitable.

That said, I believe the international community has fears about the ability of these new nuclear powers to manage any such crisis.

In short you need to be able to:
1) Detect that an incident has occured.
2) Determine what it was. Nuclear attack, accidental explosion of one of their own nukes, maybe even an earthquake etc.
3) Determine how to respond.
4) Communicate orders to the people who will actually launch the retaliation.
5) Be confident that those people will respond appropriately.

My understanding is that such systems are less developed in these countries.

Furthermore, any retaliation will be limited as they lack the firepower and range to do too much damage. India could detonate a nuke over the Pakistani capital I believe, but I am not sure that Pakistan currently has the ability to reach the Indian capital with missiles. Either side could take out major cities and to seriously impede conventional forces massed on the borders but I do not think they could completely destroy each other.

Pakistan views the bomb as a way to offset India's superior conventional forces, not as a way to destroy India completely.

[CapelDodger]

I can't say I have ever met anyone who would choose Fosters. I have heard the recipe is different overseas, but I haven't been game to drink it.Original Fosters is OK, and can be bought in huge tinnies, which is good. I wouldn't choose it over Dos Equis or San Miguel. UK Fosters is (perhaps was) made in a Courage's fizz-factory near Reading. Need I say more?

[Orwell]

Or pressed to the point they feel war is inevitable anyway. Or their death or removal from power is immient. Or just paranoid enough to believe so.

Now we're kind of getting outside of the primary debate...

[CapelDodger]

Well, freak and Kevin lowe seem extremely simple minded and thus very suseptible to the power of suggestion. Also tempted to add Regnad to my scheme. My bathroom awaits! ;)Oh dear ... You're at the young end of this happy band, I think?

Shipyards are measured in tonnage. Most of the modern shipyards are created to build those monster oil tankers and the like.That solves the logistics problem then.

[CapelDodger]

Well, I think the problem with the steel industry had much more to do with other countries using unfair trade practices and dumping cheap steel on the market than any inherent flaw in the industry itself.Not the case that was made by the steel industry or the US gumment, and not in fact the case. The steel-industry asked for 3 years of tariffs so that they could catch-up on the quality front, which naturally prompts the question : why had they fallen behind? Because they'd been sweating their assets to feed the bottom line and keep Wall Street happy, that's why. When the chickens came home they went clucking to gumment. Capitalism, doncha love it?

We have the industry, we have plenty of iron ore and coal. That is all you really need. Since our tanks armor is made from a ceramic material, I would think we would need less steel than anybody we were fighting against tank for tank.
New materials are surely a coming thing, and assuming there's nothing in them to challenge the Bible the US is at no particular disadvantage in the field. A ceramic chassis strikes me as a bit unlikely, but I'm no expert. (Ceramic armour absorbs energy by shattering.) Also, it's not all about tanks. It has been in the past. It's been about heavy cavalry or the bow in the past.

The factories the ceramics are made in have steel frames, the machines have steel components, the machines that make the machines have ...

Ships don't require nearly as much steel as years past either. They aren't armored and the superstructures are usually made of aluminum.A word of warning, following the loss of HMS Sheffield : aluminium ignites when hot enough.

[CapelDodger]

With perhaps some topics. But, not the nature of people or a culture.Very much and most definitely with that topic. I'd no more trust a person's opinion of their nation than their opinion of themselves.

[Vagabond]

I believe you are confusing aluminum and magnesium.

[Vagabond]

Oh dear ... You're at the young end of this happy band, I think?

That solves the logistics problem then.

Funny, I was going to say the same about you.

Not if you can't keep them from getting sunk.

[aerocontrols]

A word of warning, following the loss of HMS Sheffield : aluminium ignites when hot enough.


You're right about aluminum being flammable, (while I'm not so certain about that property ever having contributed to the loss of a warship) but the Sheffield was made out of steel.

[Vagabond]

Very much and most definitely with that topic. I'd no more trust a person's opinion of their nation than their opinion of themselves.

Ahhh, but any facts are better than no facts at all. Which seems to be your current method of forming an opinion.

[CapelDodger]

Here's my insight: countries that have ballistic missile and nuclear technology can't be invaded. The possible cost of an invasion is too high.
It depends on whether the invaders have their own nuclear response, and on the reason for the invasion. The nuclear option could cancel out. The invasion would then be, at first, a threat - to coerce a policy-change or deter an action - the seriousness of which would be decided on by the threatee/US. If the response is "bring it on", the invader has to put up or shut up.

Invasion is not necessarily about occupation or the extinction of the invaded country. Denmark was invaded in 1940 to facilitate the invasion and occupation of Norway, and to prevent its invasion and occupation by the British and French. The Germans left the Danish government and civil administration in place, they occupied some strategic points, put civilian liaison officers in the port authorities and Customs. Occupation-lite. Norway was only invaded to prevent the same thing. Whether or not they were going to be, it was a sound strategic move to secure the Baltic and the German right wing before the real face-off west of the Rhine.

The US is not on the way to anywhere, unless the Australians invade Canada via Chile (armchair strategy is so deliciously unconstrained), but it's a Pacific power with no border concerns. A potential Chinese invasion force in Mexico or Canada would change that. A Chinese presence in Maryland while Taiwan was being invaded would have an influence on the White House response. Even without a Texan President.

[CapelDodger]

I believe you are confusing aluminum and magnesium.And there's another problem to go with your absolutism, belief. No, I'm not. HMS Sheffield was hit by an Exocet and the heat ignited an aluminium fire. Aluminium oxidises readily, and forms an oxide skin impermeable to oxygen. If the aluminium melts, all hell breaks loose.

[Vagabond]

It depends on whether the invaders have their own nuclear response, and on the reason for the invasion. The nuclear option could cancel out. The invasion would then be, at first, a threat - to coerce a policy-change or deter an action - the seriousness of which would be decided on by the threatee/US. If the response is "bring it on", the invader has to put up or shut up.

Invasion is not necessarily about occupation or the extinction of the invaded country. Denmark was invaded in 1940 to facilitate the invasion and occupation of Norway, and to prevent its invasion and occupation by the British and French. The Germans left the Danish government and civil administration in place, they occupied some strategic points, put civilian liaison officers in the port authorities and Customs. Occupation-lite. Norway was only invaded to prevent the same thing. Whether or not they were going to be, it was a sound strategic move to secure the Baltic and the German right wing before the real face-off west of the Rhine.

The US is not on the way to anywhere, unless the Australians invade Canada via Chile (armchair strategy is so deliciously unconstrained), but it's a Pacific power with no border concerns. A potential Chinese invasion force in Mexico or Canada would change that. A Chinese presence in Maryland while Taiwan was being invaded would have an influence on the White House response. Even without a Texan President.

From one of your fellow countrymen. "An important difference between a military operation and a surgical one is that the patient is not tied down. But, it is a common fault of generalship to assume that he is."
Basil Henry Liddell Hart Thoughts on war

What exactly do you think the US is going to be doing while China invades somebody in their hemisphere? If they won't let them attack Taiwan we sure as hell aren't going to sit still while they attack Canada either.

So let me get this straight the Germans attacked Denmark so they could attack Norway so the British couldn't attack it? To me this is one of the biggest blunders the Germans made during the war. It did nothing and they wasted alot of manpower to do it. Norway tied down 10 divisions for the duration of the war. They would have been better off had the British attacked it, they didn't have ten divisions around to spare to occupy it.

[Vagabond]

And there's another problem to go with your absolutism, belief. No, I'm not. HMS Sheffield was hit by an Exocet and the heat ignited an aluminium fire. Aluminium oxidises readily, and forms an oxide skin impermeable to oxygen. If the aluminium melts, all hell breaks loose.

You have already been told the Sheffield wasn't made of aluminum. Aluminum burns, but it's magnesium that sets everything else on fire and all hell breaks loose. It's also extremely difficult to extinguish.

[aerocontrols]

And there's another problem to go with your absolutism, belief. No, I'm not. HMS Sheffield was hit by an Exocet and the heat ignited an aluminium fire.


Saying it twice doesn't make it true, despite what you believe.

[aerocontrols]

You have already been told the Sheffield wasn't made of aluminum. Aluminum burns, but it's magnesium that sets everything else on fire and all hell breaks loose. It's also extremely difficult to extinguish.

I've no idea why you're bringing magnesium into this. Do you believe that magnesium construction or components have caused some ships to sink?

[Vagabond]

I've no idea why you're bringing magnesium into this. Do you believe that magnesium construction or components have caused some ships to sink?

Not at all I am just trying to figure out what he is talking about when he doesn't even know. ;)

I did see magnesium fires a couple times we were able to push them over the side and into the ocean. As you already pointed out, such fires might be dangerous to people but they aren't going to sink a ship. Neither are aluminum ones which are less common and less dangerous.

[CapelDodger]

Saying it twice doesn't make it true, despite what you believe.
Ah crap ...

I really should stick to the principle of always going back to what I was responding to and reading on. There was this magnesium thing that hit my eye and that bumptious "I believe ...", hey, am I gonna see an ass that big and not kick? I didn't catch your post.

I never said that HMS Sheffield was lost due to an aluminium fire. My word of warning followed that loss. I set the trap, Vagabond wandered off and made poisoned-ivy soup all by himself, and you poked a branch in my trap.

I vow to be more disciplined in future. It's not as if there isn't an involved audience.

So, are you going to tell me that no aluminium fire occured in the bowels of the Sheffield, where so many people died? Steel hull, steel deck, it's a furnace design. Plastics, paper, people, all fuel, and who know how much magnesium or what-all else in out-sourced workstations? Aluminium melts at 660C. It oxidises readily at room-temp, it burns like buggery at 660C.

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, but once it hits them, they will pretty much know, won't they? If you assume that it is virtually impossible to disable all of the opponents nukes on a first strike, retaliation is inevitable.
There is something other-worldly about nukes. Move the game into that realm, and all other considerations are meaningless. It was done once, conceived as a better weapon in the ordinary domain of kicking someone until they give in, but even the wielders recoiled from it.

Use of nukes is either nothing, or the only thing. 0 or 1. It's not human.

[aerocontrols]

So, are you going to tell me that no aluminium fire occured in the bowels of the Sheffield, where so many people died? Steel hull, steel deck, it's a furnace design. Plastics, paper, people, all fuel, and who know how much magnesium or what-all else in out-sourced workstations? Aluminium melts at 660C. It oxidises readily at room-temp, it burns like buggery at 660C.


I wouldn't say that there was no aluminum fire at all in the Sheffield. Just that it wasn't made out of aluminum. No doubt some of the soldiers had aluminum effects that could have been burned up, but google around - you'll find your belief debunked at various websites. It seems that aluminum contributing to the Sheffield fire is a fairly common misconception.

If you want an example where aluminum design contributed to the destruction of a warship, try the HMS Amazon.

[Vagabond]

There is something other-worldly about nukes. Move the game into that realm, and all other considerations are meaningless. It was done once, conceived as a better weapon in the ordinary domain of kicking someone until they give in, but even the wielders recoiled from it.

Use of nukes is either nothing, or the only thing. 0 or 1. It's not human.

I am more curious about Thermobaric weapons. The US seems to be pursuing a policy of not using those either. Not sure why. So far the only serious use of them was against the Chechen's in Grozny by the Russians. I wonder if we used Thermobaric against somebody who didn't have any but had nukes if they would feel obliged to use them?

[gtc]

I am more curious about Thermobaric weapons. The US seems to be pursuing a policy of not using those either. Not sure why. So far the only serious use of them was against the Chechen's in Grozny by the Russians. I wonder if we used Thermobaric against somebody who didn't have any but had nukes if they would feel obliged to use them?

I have read the wikipedia article on this. They seem to be more powerful for a given sized bomb and to kill/injure those protected from the blast through a vacumn effect. How do you (or the US) see these as being different to (say) a larger traditional bomb with similar 'power'.

[Vagabond]

I have read the wikipedia article on this. They seem to be more powerful for a given sized bomb and to kill/injure those protected from the blast through a vacumn effect. How do you (or the US) see these as being different to (say) a larger traditional bomb with similar 'power'.

I don't know that is kind of my question too. They are obviously regarded differently otherwise they would be using them. I haven't heard anything specific as to policy that would explain why. It might be the poison gas, nerve weapon, napalm distain? They don't want to use things likely to maim people or cause them extraordinary pain? I don't remember there being any outcry about the Russians using them. They would seem to be extremely useful against a dug in enemy or troop concentrations.

The pressure at the center of the explosion can reach 30 kilograms per square centimeter, with a temperature of 4,532-5432 Fahrenheit. This is 1.5 to 2 times greater over pressure than caused by conventional explosives. Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area the blast wave travels at some 3000 meters per second. The resultant vacuum pulls in objects to fill the void which will cause severe casualties.

They sound pretty nasty.

[Kerberos]

GDP is a measure of how much "money" a country makes not it's production. Every country has a GDP but the vast majority of them can't build even one tank.
What on Earth do you think money represents? It doesn't grow on trees you know.

Are you truly that naive? The Vietcong ran off the armies of two countries without much more than assault rifles.
Apparently you don't read to well. The thread is about an invasion of the US, not about a subsequent occupation. The Vietcong never repelled any invasions and is therefore irrelevant. Whether the American resistance could eventually send an occupying force packing by launching guerrilla attacks from the deep jungles of the US is another matter entirely.

The Yugoslavians during WW2 put up such a fight against the Italians the Germans had to send their own crack troops down there. They never controlled the vast majority of the country ever during the war. The Chinese prevented the Japanese from overrunning their country during WWII. When China drove back the UN forces during the Korean war they didn't have a single tank and not much anti tank, they took out tanks with satchel charges.
I'll let you in on a few secrets. first of all there a shockingly few civilians in the Chinese army, god knows why. Also military technology develops over time. If we go far enough back you could resist an occupation with swords or perhaps even pitchforks, do you think that would still work?
Or how about the Afghans holding out against the Russians for ten years?
Long ago, more favourable terrain, American assistance, didn't repel the occupation, but rather fought a long term guerrilla war.
You are full of it up to your eyeballs.
Right back at you.

You truly have no clue about the US either. There are national guard armory's all over the place. With tanks, heavy artillery, mortars, heavy machine guns and many of them even have their own jet fighter squadrons.
That's all very nice except you didn't say national guard, you said civilians.

They would not be a mob either. As I said before most of them are ex-military and while I think they could probably take on a few divisions toe to toe they would probably fight a guerrilla campaign. They would sniper away all the infantry and then take out the tanks with explosives and captured anti tank and artillery. They wouldn't be mob anyway these are people who have been shooting and handling guns their whole life.
I must say I'm impressed, that 1 million American civilians would be able to gather and organize a guerrilla war iwithin a day that is truly something. Either that or you just watch to many movies.
If you think a million men with sniper rifles who know how to shoot isn't going to matter you are a moron.
So our million heroic freedom fighters all have sniper rifles now? That's nice to know. Anyways If you think that a million civilians can gather and organize into a coherent fighting force within 24 hours you are a moron.

They didn't have high powered rifles in Socrates time.
They didn't have tanks, artillery or aircrafts either. You claim to have been in the armed forces. Do you mean to tell me that you experiences there indicate that organisation, coordination and discipline matter little? That air support, artillery and armour are of secondary importance? Really?

There are probably only perhaps 20-30 THOUSAND Iraqis fighting. If it was a million we would be gone already. They will ultimately drive us out anyway.
And now for the million dollar question, how large a role did the Iraqi insurgency play during the invasion? Leaving that aside there's still the fact that the number 1 million is one you pulled out of your ass.

That was one of the most ill-informed pile of garbage I have ever seen posted.
I wish I could say the same, but sadly idiocy such as yours is far to common.


Although you are from Denmark a country that throws it's guns away and surrenders when attacked. They put up such pathetic resistance to the Germans during WW2 you must assume everybody is so inept.
I trample before the might of your ad hom.

"an armed populace is the best defense against tyranny" Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson was wrong, or at least he is today, but that's really another discussion. Even if he'd been right however it would have no bearing on an invasion.

[kittynh]

china china china china

no one else would want to.

Oh and Europe is going down too. However, they are supposed to be atheists, so I prefer the Chinese over a say Islamic revolution.

And more to the point, WHY invade? So Australia, Korea, Ecuador and Greenland all decide to invade the US. First off there are a lot of Australians, Koreans, Ecuadorians and Greenies living here, and many of them seem quite content and happy. They aren't sending reports home about how awful it is.

Then there are LA street gangs and coal miners in West Virginia. Good Ed, just in my neck of the woods there are crazy Cheney inspired fruitcakes out hunting all the time. Hello??? What is this bullet hole in my house? What did my Subaru look like a deer? You know how many people accidentally get shot in the US every year? No army would take that kind of abuse.

Totally the Chinese.

[Mark]

china china china china

no one else would want to.

Oh and Europe is going down too. However, they are supposed to be atheists, so I prefer the Chinese over a say Islamic revolution.

And more to the point, WHY invade? So Australia, Korea, Ecuador and Greenland all decide to invade the US. First off there are a lot of Australians, Koreans, Ecuadorians and Greenies living here, and many of them seem quite content and happy. They aren't sending reports home about how awful it is.

Then there are LA street gangs and coal miners in West Virginia. Good Ed, just in my neck of the woods there are crazy Cheney inspired fruitcakes out hunting all the time. Hello??? What is this bullet hole in my house? What did my Subaru look like a deer? You know how many people accidentally get shot in the US every year? No army would take that kind of abuse.

Totally the Chinese.


Invade? All they would have to do is foreclose on our loans!

[Vagabond]

I trample before the might of your ad hom.<<<<

I know they have legal drugs in Denmark and it's apparent you have been heavily partaking of the "crack". LAY OFF THE CRACK!

Now that's an ad hom. The rest was a perfectly good historically factual basis for ignoring anything you have to say about war. That and your modern post history.

[Kerberos]

I trample before the might of your ad hom.<<<<

I know they have legal drugs in Denmark and it's apparent you have been heavily partaking of the "crack". LAY OFF THE CRACK!

Now that's an ad hom. The rest was a perfectly good historically factual basis for ignoring anything you have to say about war. That and your modern post history.
In other words you have no actual rebuttal of anything I said. I was wondering when you would decide that you had enough and beat a hasty and pathetic retreat from the further discussion of your retarded positions. Don't worry, if I'd said that 1 million civilians could mobilize into a coherent fighting force that could hope to put up meaningful resistance to a modern army within 24 hours, or that the Korean war is analogous to spontaneous resistance by such civilians I wouldn't want to dwell on it either.

[drkitten]

What on Earth do you think money represents? It doesn't grow on trees you know.

You don't see the difference between money and production capacity?

Just as a simple example : I make fairly good money at my job, and as a result, I have a house, garden, land, etc that I consider to be rather nice. I am, however, incapable of growing a single grain of rice on my land. The climate's all wrong. If I want rice with dinner, I have to buy it at the store, which means my rice supply is at the mercy of the local grocer.

Similarly, despite the fact that I have a nice house -- I'm actually having problems with the tile in the bathroom. (The previous owner evidently put it on with sticky tape and peanut butter.) Unfortunately, I can't produce a single ceramic tile on my land, either... and even if I buy the tile at the local DIY shop, I can't lay tile for toffee. It comes out looking like a nearsighted beaver has been absentmindedly chewing on it. So I have to have the builders in to lay the tile for me -- I am at the mercy of the builders.

On a large scale, one of the major strategic weakenesses of Japan in the Second World War was a lack of productive capacity, especially of planes, and most especially of oil to fuel the planes. The problem wasn't that Japan couldn't pay for the planes.

But the best example of the difference between GNP and production capacity from that war is probably the British and their dependence on the convoys, most specifically from the United States and Canada. The British economy was in great shape -- no one really had any doubt about their ability to purchase the goods being convoyed over there. But they needed the goods themselves, goods that, for all their GNP, they were unable to produce.

[CapelDodger]

Invade? All they would have to do is foreclose on our loans!That could provide the "Why" for an invasion. A sort of leg-breaking exercise when Uncle Sam can't come up with the vig, capisce?

[CapelDodger]

I wouldn't say that there was no aluminum fire at all in the Sheffield. Just that it wasn't made out of aluminum. No doubt some of the soldiers had aluminum effects that could have been burned up, but google around - you'll find your belief debunked at various websites. It seems that aluminum contributing to the Sheffield fire is a fairly common misconception.
I don't have to google, I recall an ex-RN chap getting quite exercised when someone suggested the Royal Navy was building flammable ships these days. He was concerned that not enough was known about the materials contained in electronic equipment. He was, I think, quietly outraged that the Royal Navy lost a ship to one crappy French missile. I empathise with that.

[CapelDodger]

Not if you can't keep them from getting sunk.Just keep floating 'em quicker than they're sinking 'em. Worked with Liberty ships.

[CapelDodger]

What exactly do you think the US is going to be doing while China invades somebody in their hemisphere? If they won't let them attack Taiwan we sure as hell aren't going to sit still while they attack Canada either.
The secret is to have a friendly area to muster in. For the US, Saudi Arabia during the Kuwait War, Kuwait before the Iraq War. The UK before D-Day. France right at the end of the Great War. Australia and New Guinea in the Pacific War, followed by a gruelling island-hopping exercise because the Philippines, the strategic linchpin, had been lost. Bad show, that. I blame the politicians.

So, Mexico or Canada. Stay friendly with them. Cuba at a stretch ...

So let me get this straight the Germans attacked Denmark so they could attack Norway so the British couldn't attack it? To me this is one of the biggest blunders the Germans made during the war. It did nothing and they wasted alot of manpower to do it. Norway tied down 10 divisions for the duration of the war. They would have been better off had the British attacked it, they didn't have ten divisions around to spare to occupy it.It would have been an absolute dereliction if the German Staff hadn't secured their Scandinavian flank before entering the crucial engagement. Basil Hart is quite rightly scathing of Great War sideshows such as Gallipoli and Salonica, which had no strategic bearing on the decisive theatre, the Western Front. German occupation of Scandinavia did have strategic bearing on the subsequent confrontation with France and Britain (and the British Commonwealth, of course). The German High Command didn't know that they were going to succeed in the West so quickly, and if they hadn't the Allied navies and their Marines would have been thoroughly disruptive in Scandinavia and the Baltic. The occupation of Norway was no great drain during the crucial 1940 engagement, since the invasion troops were replaced by garrison troops. The invasion troops, and their staff officers, were better off for the exercise (so to speak).

Using (IIRC) 300,00 troops to hold Norway after Normandy was invaded was crazy, but a crazy man was in charge, after all.

[CapelDodger]

But the best example of the difference between GNP and production capacity from that war is probably the British and their dependence on the convoys, most specifically from the United States and Canada. The British economy was in great shape -- no one really had any doubt about their ability to purchase the goods being convoyed over there. But they needed the goods themselves, goods that, for all their GNP, they were unable to produce.
The British did have public money and income-generating assets outside Europe, most of which went to pay for those convoys. The British home-economy was a war-fighting economy, and in great shape. Britain actually out-produced Germany in war-materiel in 1942, when Germany had captured Western Europe's industry and hadn't yet been seriously bombed. Hats off to the lads and lasses of those days. I'll toast them with whisky now, but in those days whisky was a strategic economic resource, for export only.

Putting some cards on the table, I'm far from convinced that the US could pull together like that under real adversity. The closest I can see to an example is the Great Depression, and the foundations were sorely tested then. Had it not been for the genius of Roosevelt I doubt democracy would have won out over the New European Model - fascism. To sum up : they've had it so easy, they don't know they're born.

[CapelDodger]

I trample before the might of your ad hom.<<<<

I know they have legal drugs in Denmark and it's apparent you have been heavily partaking of the "crack". LAY OFF THE CRACK!

Now that's an ad hom. The rest was a perfectly good historically factual basis for ignoring anything you have to say about war. That and your modern post history.The original ad hom:
Although you are from Denmark a country that throws it's guns away and surrenders when attacked. They put up such pathetic resistance to the Germans during WW2 you must assume everybody is so inept.

Inept. From the opposite side of the Atlantic, where you pride yourself on your invulnerability to invasion, and 60 years down the line, you rate them inept. Denmark is a small country, right next to Germany, which is just where it was 60 years ago. The only result of resistance to the occupation - check your atlas and tell me where the line of resistance lies - would be death and destruction in a Quixotic exercise. That, perhaps, is what you would expect of red-blooded 'Murricans, real men who'll see their family shelled before they give up. It would explain your description of the Danish reaction to a situation you have not the foggiest concept of as "pathetic".

What was the US response to the blatant aggression of Germany against two Western Democracies? The British and French reaction is not germane, they were already at war with Germany. Was the US response anything other than pathetic?

The US had to wait on Germany declaring war on them before they got involved. Hitler gave up waiting. Right up until that moment 'Murricans were trying to stay out of it. And they had an entire ocean to shelter behind. All Britain had was the Channel, and the French didn't even have that, but they went to war against Germany voluntarily.

True, Roosevelt would have come in but he couldn't carry the 'Murricans with him. Hitler solved a problem for him.