First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Post Reply Can the U.S. be Invaded and conquered without Nukes?
Posted 4/23/16

dragontackle wrote:

No one can conquer 『THE WALL


^ lol.
5041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / convenience store...
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 4/23/16

Kintor wrote:What you describe is the way that the game is supposed to end. M.A.D. Mutual Assured Destruction: if an enemy presents an existential threat then the USA will respond in kind by firing its nuclear weapons, then everybody else fires their nukes, thus destroying the world in nuclear fire. But here's the thing, would events actually play out that way?


Yes. It has been policy since the 1940s that if the U.S. is either 1) invaded by the Soviet Union (now broke tinpot Russia) or 2) hit with a nuclear weapon by anyone, they respond with nuclear retaliation. MAD is probably a later way of describing it. They both stem from the concept of "second strike" capability, that is, the notion that you would never use a nuclear weapon first, but you respond with massive retaliation if someone uses one against you.

The development and buildup of IRBMs (intermediate range ballistic missiles) and ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic ballistic missiles) in the 1950s was precisely to ensure that capability. It was a very deliberate, and astronomically expensive, way of guaranteeing no one would use a nuclear weapon against you. The defense budget was around 30-32 billion dollars a year from 1952-58, and ballistic missile research and development, plus initial production, cost something like another 18 billion dollars in that span. I think that's like half of what the Army itself got for that period, to put it into perspective.

Second strike also came to apply to certain tripwires in the world, like western Europe and Taiwan/Japan/South Korea. Since it applies if someone invades Japan, it would most certainly apply to every country if they invaded the United States.
5962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/16
In a world where nukes were off the table, sure. But the occupation would be a real quagmire.
qwueri 
16470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 4/23/16
Invasion, maybe. Actually holding ground, no. The US on it's own home turf has a disgusting amount of firepower to bring on anyone that tried.
15021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 4/23/16
The U.S. is between 2 large oceans that's patrolled by 19 Air Craft Carriers and their support and defensive fleets which are backed by the most advanced air force in the world. Though implausible, the worlds military still manages to get through those defenses and also defeat the Coast Guard/Marines/and the Army. They would then have to tackle the most heavily armed population in the 3rd largest country in world. The U.S. themselves couldn't handle the insurgents in Vietnam and Afghanistan, despite being technologically more advanced. No way could anyone handle the kind of insurgency that would crop up if the U.S. was occupied.

Anyway, here's an even better explanation from VICE: http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-military-expert-if-the-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states
Posted 4/23/16
Now I'm no expert, but I have concerns of being spread thin with overengagement abroad could weaken the US on the domestic front... but as others have stated it's hard to imagine someone wouldn't want to use nukes at some point.. I doubt nukes wouldn't be used, but anything's possible with sound tactics, however it might be unlikely.
59068 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 4/23/16
It would have to be an inside job with civil war, Just emp the usa and watch the population auto cannibalize / Starvation. We live in a JUST IN TIME economy model, there wouldn't be enough food on the shelves if people stopped working for a week.
Order would be restored shortly there after in a 6 month timeline / Marshal law.
Ronxz 
324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Virginia
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 4/23/16
IF the U.S. was being invaded and the entire world turned everything they had against us I suspect the U.S. would act like the kid who typically wins at board games and when he doesn't throws the game board in the air and resets the game. We'd simply unlock and nuke everyone. We'd reset the game to zero. No one wins if we can't!
14767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 4/23/16

dragontackle wrote:

No one can conquer 『THE WALL


"Okay, maybe a rope."
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

Steelmonk wrote:
Are you guys crazy? The US is filled with a bunch of gun nuts who dream of a foreign invasion so they can do some ass kicking. I don't think it's possible without losing up to about 60 to 100 million troops. Not to mention America kind of has that warrior mentality, whereas most countries are pacifistic. Fighting America would be like fighting Afghanistan. Americans "Like" to fight


Some of us own enough personal weapons and ammo to outfit two full rifle squads.

Not gonna say who owns that many, but some of us do.

5926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / montana
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

just the nuke power plants could bring our downfall. and if all 100 of our reactors catch fire during a Carrington event ...say goodbye to the world.

they are very shoddy, badly maintained, overused, and past their expiration date. the security is laughable in comparison to the possible threats.

the occupation force would be better off not taking them into their care. just to dangerous




cyberfaust wrote:

In a world where nukes were off the table, sure. But the occupation would be a real quagmire.


Kintor 
20420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 4/23/16

churuchurupayapa wrote:

Yes. It has been policy since the 1940s that if the U.S. is either 1) invaded by the Soviet Union (now broke tinpot Russia) or 2) hit with a nuclear weapon by anyone, they respond with nuclear retaliation. MAD is probably a later way of describing it. They both stem from the concept of "second strike" capability, that is, the notion that you would never use a nuclear weapon first, but you respond with massive retaliation if someone uses one against you.

The development and buildup of IRBMs (intermediate range ballistic missiles) and ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic ballistic missiles) in the 1950s was precisely to ensure that capability. It was a very deliberate, and astronomically expensive, way of guaranteeing no one would use a nuclear weapon against you. The defense budget was around 30-32 billion dollars a year from 1952-58, and ballistic missile research and development, plus initial production, cost something like another 18 billion dollars in that span. I think that's like half of what the Army itself got for that period, to put it into perspective.

Second strike also came to apply to certain tripwires in the world, like western Europe and Taiwan/Japan/South Korea. Since it applies if someone invades Japan, it would most certainly apply to every country if they invaded the United States.

Just because something is official USA foreign policy doesn't mean that such apocalyptic orders will ever be carried out. The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction relies entirely on a massively complicated weapons system that has never actually been tested, that could never be realistically tested, because when someone presses that button for the first time is the same day that the world ends. The psychological conditions of anyone in that situation is entirely unknowable and no amount of speculation or war games can accurately predict how a person will react in that situation given such an unprecedented and potentially genocidal choice.

This means that even with all the automated and inter-connected systems it's the human element that could prevent nuclear annihilation even after one of the predetermined triggers has been met. At the highest level the US President could hesitate and choose not to fire, believing it's better to be alive and under occupation then choosing to wipe-out all life on Earth. While in more localised situations various commanders in bunkers or submarines could decide not the fire the missiles under their command, violating a direct order, not wanting to shoulder the responsibility of potentially killing billions.

As a matter of practicality, the chance that American leaders could hesitate even in the face of defeat leaves a lot of room for other powers to conduct decidedly expansionist policies. This is where the strategy of Brinkmanship comes into play: where one side (or both) continue to escalate tensions to unimaginably dangerous degrees, such as the danger of imminent nuclear war, seeking to gain an advantage when the other side hesitates and backs down. This practise is far from reckless, but rather a deliberate and calculated ploy. In this manners rivals of the USA have been able to advance their interests on a global basis, even as a succession of US presidents have leered back at them with the threat of nuclear weapons.
17176 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M
Online
Posted 4/23/16
No.

In the eighties and in the 2000's the Russians and Americans both tried to invade/control Afghanistan, to no avail.
98039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M / Columbia, MO
Online
Posted 4/23/16
No need. The rot will come from within rather than outside.
8056 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

We already are being invaded. We have a very weak immigration policy, invaders merely need to cross the border and become part of our society, then make whatever changes they want by electing their own politicians.

Why invade with guns when you can take over without firing a shot? America will never fall to an armed invasion, it can only fall from within.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.