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?
52842 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 4/23/16
Hard to tell.. There no way we can tell unless it happen. I do believed that we (Yes I'm American :p) can hold on our own.. I just don't see how the other country not come and help us, when we help them in the past.

In my opinion the worse war of all is the internal which is Civil Wars!

1045 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

MrAnimeSK wrote:

It's Pretty much happening to parts of Europe but America? well they aren't as weak and stupid and you're all armed to the teeth so it wouldn't be easy.
I doubt China or North Korea could do it or even Russia without Nukes.
It would be more doable with people disguised as civilians or refugess or etc and doing terrorisim.
I guess there is teh hacking side of things. If they could disable all Americas stealth and drones and satellites and etc.
But just with ground, air and naval forces, i think not.


Terrorism wouldn't work either, all it does is slight attrition, with no ground taken.

9285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

Kyser13th wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:

It's Pretty much happening to parts of Europe but America? well they aren't as weak and stupid and you're all armed to the teeth so it wouldn't be easy.
I doubt China or North Korea could do it or even Russia without Nukes.
It would be more doable with people disguised as civilians or refugess or etc and doing terrorisim.
I guess there is teh hacking side of things. If they could disable all Americas stealth and drones and satellites and etc.
But just with ground, air and naval forces, i think not.


Terrorism wouldn't work either, all it does is slight attrition, with no ground taken.



Well, if there were millions inside your country and they did it on a large enough scale it could have a serious impact. But yeah not like they would take the country from you.
If the whites, blacks and the Mexicans united in America you would have the numbers to hold off any attack (without nukes).
I wonder who the Black Muslims in America would fight for in the situation of choosing America or Islam? (if it ever came to that).
5041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / convenience store...
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

Kintor wrote:
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.


These are two different issues you're talking about here.

First, as you mentioned, the psychology of American leaders would matter. Most of us doubt President Obama would fire an end-of-the-world death barrage at everyone if the U.S. were invaded by every other country successfully. The problem is that the barrage wouldn't come when it's hopeless - the U.S. would use that arsenal to disrupt invaders and whatever nuclear attacks on the country itself. The ambiguity of the situation, the fog of war, makes it so that even someone of his character would be compelled to start firing in a limited fashion. And once a few go off, all of them go off.

Second, the firing mechanism is not complicated. Firing all your nuclear weapons in a short period of time is not a difficult logistical feat for a country that was building infrastructure for precisely that over a period of seventy years. In other words, the U.S. has long had the tested infrastructure to fire nuclear weapons at every point on the planet. It would be one thing if the U.S. had been a peaceful country since World War II. But the U.S. has had ample experience in limited and total warfare since then, and has live tested things like cruise missiles, drones, and submarine strikes in conventional warfare. All of these types of attacks are easily converted until nuclear strikes by simply changing warheads.

I guess, for those who are like TL;DR... yes, the U.S. is capable and willing to wipe out the human race to prevent its government from being overthrown. They were at the cusp of doing that in 1962 - keep in mind it was the Soviets who backed down and that McNamara claims World War III almost started when an admiral gave an order to fire a starburst round at the Soviet convoy outside the "quarantine" of Cuba during the missile crisis. JFK definitely would have let the missiles loose... and that was just to prevent nuclear weapons from being stationed in Cuba!
401 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 4/23/16
The United States does not have the largest military in the world. The US does have the largest spending in terms of $, but there are a handful of countries with militaries with 50%-300% more soldiers than the US. The US is massive, but countries like Russia,China, & India are even more massive.

The United States is an extremely unattractive country to invade. There are few natural resources that can be quickly utilized in the immediate aftermath of the invasion (except for cattle & crops). But suppose you were in it for the long run and you did want to invade and takeover the US...

Invading anything old school with an army of ants is just stupid. Machine guns have long rendered this strategy obsolete. A single machine gunner can easily take out a battalion of foot soldiers. So some level of technology is needed.

But if you understand how modern warfare works (even without the nukes), it's extremely plausible. Modern warfare isn't digging trenches and lining up people with guns so they can shoot each other. Modern warfare revolves around pre-planned, switch attacks. Basically, they are massive covert operations (a bunch of Pearl Harbors). With sufficient planning, it is very possible to deal a crippling sneak attack. And this is why countries invest so heavily into nuclear missiles as a deterrent, to make sure they can get them back. You can also fly a massive air operation pretty quickly (you can fly just about anywhere within 24-48 hours). So basically, if someone were to suddenly attack the US, it would have a good 24 hours to destroy everything in its way before the might of the American army could retaliate effectively. The US military and most militaries can handle long drawn out campaigns where they can bring their logistics to bear and conduct enough covert ops to effectively damage the enemy but they still can't handle coordinated sneak attacks (which is why modern warfare works the way it works). If you're invading on a timescale of 1-7 days, logistics is much simpler for the invading army.

The US and many developed nations actively gather intelligence, but this is like looking at what your neighbor is doing in their driveway. Recall how we can't locate MH370 or any plane for that matter if it goes off the radar. it is still very hard to track a airplane or missile. Most of the anti-missile and anti-air defense systems are also not designed to handle a massive number of targets and can easily be overwhelmed with a reasonable number (say 10 or so). Defense systems can track and intercept 1 or 2 targets, but not several. These systems simply cannot handle the volume that you might run into during a full-scale invasion. Again, this is why we have nukes.

The US mainland is extremely ill-prepared for a war in its own turf compared to other countries. Most of the military installations are along the coast (super easy targets). The US defense strategy is to intercept before they can arrive using its massive Navy. But it's also possible to overwhelm a carrier battle group using a bunch of small boats (a known weakness in the Aegis defense system) or a stealth submarine (recall last year when a Chinese submarine surfaced right next to a Carrier during a military exercise). Once you take out the carrier, the airplanes can't stay in the sky forever. The Navy isn't indestructible.

Although it's not permitted because of the gentleman's agreement to not attack civilian installations, hardly any of the power plants (none?) are designed to withstand an aerial bomb or missile. Power plants are only designed to keep out terrorists that drive up with IEDs in their car. You could easily blackout all the major cities with a fair number of coordinated missile attacks or seize them on the ground. Taking out a single generator will blackout the entire connected grid that it is connected to. It takes a long time to restore power during a blackout. Backup generators would restore essential operations at individual locations, but most of America will be in the dark. Finally you would seize other infrastructure like water/sewage and let everyone starve. It really doesn't matter if every American is armed with a gun. You just carpet bomb them all like ants and machine-gun the rest.

If nukes are out of the game then it's fairly viable to invade any country and establish favorable conditions to demand or negotiate a surrender.
Kintor 
20418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/24/16

churuchurupayapa wrote:

First, as you mentioned, the psychology of American leaders would matter. Most of us doubt President Obama would fire an end-of-the-world death barrage at everyone if the U.S. were invaded by every other country successfully. The problem is that the barrage wouldn't come when it's hopeless - the U.S. would use that arsenal to disrupt invaders and whatever nuclear attacks on the country itself. The ambiguity of the situation, the fog of war, makes it so that even someone of his character would be compelled to start firing in a limited fashion. And once a few go off, all of them go off.

Second, the firing mechanism is not complicated. Firing all your nuclear weapons in a short period of time is not a difficult logistical feat for a country that was building infrastructure for precisely that over a period of seventy years. In other words, the U.S. has long had the tested infrastructure to fire nuclear weapons at every point on the planet. It would be one thing if the U.S. had been a peaceful country since World War II. But the U.S. has had ample experience in limited and total warfare since then, and has live tested things like cruise missiles, drones, and submarine strikes in conventional warfare. All of these types of attacks are easily converted until nuclear strikes by simply changing warheads.

I guess, for those who are like TL;DR... yes, the U.S. is capable and willing to wipe out the human race to prevent its government from being overthrown. They were at the cusp of doing that in 1962 - keep in mind it was the Soviets who backed down and that McNamara claims World War III almost started when an admiral gave an order to fire a starburst round at the Soviet convoy outside the "quarantine" of Cuba during the missile crisis. JFK definitely would have let the missiles loose... and that was just to prevent nuclear weapons from being stationed in Cuba!

You seem awfully confident that the USA would be willing to commit mass-murder on an unprecedented scale, all because of a weapons system designed never to be used. Once people look past the bluster, the threat of nuclear war, an entirely different truth emerges - that what US Presidents fear above all else is the thought of having to use nuclear weapons!

Just take a look at the Cuban Missile crisis, as you already briefly mentioned. Certainly there was much grandstanding and chest-beating as both belligerent parties threatened to drag the whole world into nuclear war. However, behind the scenes secret negations were conducted between the USA and the Soviet Union, seeking a way to end the conflict before it could begin, even as the rest of the world looked on in horror. So yes, the Soviets did agree to halt the installation of long-range missile batteries in Cuba, an apparent win for the USA. What is talked about less often is the fact that USA agreed to withdraw its mid-range Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey. Thus, in many respects the Soviet Union also gained an advantage from the Cuban Missile Crisis, by greatly reducing the number of nuclear weapons targeting the Soviet Union.

This refers back to the concept of Brinkmanship I mentioned in my last post. The escalation of tension to extreme degrees, even with nuclear weapons on the table, provides rivals of the USA significant scope to carry out their own foreign policy agendas. As the Soviet Union showed in the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is indeed possible to gain an advantage even if the world is mere hours away from nuclear annihilation, as both the USA and Soviet Union sought a way to pull-back from the brink. Since then many other regional powers have been able to act against USA interests without getting themselves nuked, as no US President (no matter how belligerent) has ever found sufficient justification to end the world over the loss of an individual territory in some far-flung corner of the globe.
7106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere in rura...
Offline
Posted 4/24/16
Taking a small chunk of territory is feasible, and might not even take that much of a force. It all comes down to how defended it is. Problem is that once the US figures out you did it, not only will you be dealing with us there, we'll probably take the fight to your mainland. The right wing has it right in one aspect, a war on US soil will have no rules of engagement.

All that said, we're only half effective at fighting targets that don't have a specific country and we do have ethics that keep us from just bombing civilian villages.
16706 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The far side of t...
Offline
Posted 4/24/16
However given the current world state, this "Modern Warefare" is actually becoming archaic. For the most part, wars are now fought on the economic/cyber side, more than actual military involvement, which is far more dangerous, because it makes every citizen a soldier. As far as the large countries are concerned, sure there'll still remain physical conflict in the Levant and surrounding areas, because one, it just seems that's where the world likes to wadge "pseudo" wars the most and two it actually serves many economical/political strategic opportunities as well, but the "real" war is happening in economics, for instance, Some time last year Riot games (You know the California company that created LoL which is probably the most popular game out there atm) Was bought by Tencent, The largest internet company in China (to use an analogy from above, a Chinese sub surfacing right next to an Aircraft Carrier, now why do I call Tencent a sub? Because most Americans don't know about this company, while most the world knows about LoL [The aircraft carrier]) This was in all actuality a devastating blow to not just the current economic standing of America, who largely stays afloat off of the technologies and software's she produces, but to our future generation of Americans, because this same company (Tencent) developed for the Chinese government (which is communist by the way) a new social app that rates your social score among other Chinese citizen, based off the criteria of do you support the current party (communist) or not, if you don't and say things against it, your score lowers and the scored of your friends lower (guilty by association), effectively capable of socially ostracizing people because their view does not go with the Governments, oh it also has nifty little reward system for "Being a good citizen" depending on your score (I wont even mention how bad this government treats it's people, the evidence is out there if you want to look). Now why should this matter to Americans, because that same company just bought a major U.S. Asset, it is known that large money is needed if you want to get into politics and most of this money backing comes from corporations and special interests that can afford to fund political campaigns, so when these U.S. companies are being bought out by companies from other countries it is now other countries money that is funding our political elections, and controlling the companies that write bills to propose to congress and then get voted on. (TPP (though not actually voted on, closed door agreement), HR 8791, SOPA, and many other frightening legislations and agreements). By the way, once you control the government, you control the public education system and so many other infrastructures of a country, which is why the "dumbing" down of the american education system has happened, anyway I know by this point I'm getting into conspiracy territory, so I wont take this much further, just know that if you really want to know, follow the money, know exactly who it is you are giving your dollar to and the values (if any) they actually hold, and not at face level, but at the control level of who owns and controls this company, very quickly you learn that, the ones who actually own these companies have no values and the "Values" The company they own professes to have may be very well and true for the people working there, but for the big man in the back is just a face that garnishes human appeal. Like I said I could go on, but I'll just leave it here and go into the actual war part.

SO HOW TO INVADE AMERICA SHORT OF CORPORATE TAKE OVER AND POLITICAL PUPPETEERING, but like when shit actually hits the fan (lol unlikely to happen, read animal farm), ODST's onto high value defense targets, take those out, pull out, and in the aftermath send in the invasion in a three prong attack, West coast, Gulf of Mexico, and North Carolina.
12031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / El Mirage, AZ
Offline
Posted 4/24/16
I believe that the US can be invaded but when/if it happens it will be through a business transaction not through military force.
5041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / convenience store...
Offline
Posted 4/24/16

Kintor wrote: Since then many other regional powers have been able to act against USA interests without getting themselves nuked, as no US President (no matter how belligerent) has ever found sufficient justification to end the world over the loss of an individual territory in some far-flung corner of the globe.


I think it's pretty clear from Thirteen Days and works specifically on Khrushchev from the Soviet side (Naftali's foreign policy biography of K is great on the missile crisis) that the U.S. was totally and completely willing to use nuclear weaponry to prevent the missiles from staying in Cuba. This is a very orthodox and thoroughly proven position in foreign policy history. I don't bring it up to say I AM RIGHT, just that the documentation and work from historians on the matter thoroughly demonstrate that while Khrushchev himself did everything possible to restrain the Soviet generals from provoking World War III, he was put into a bind by JFK's extremely bellicose position. The Jupiter missiles in Turkey, on that note, were already scheduled to leave. Khrushchev got nothing but a black eye from that mess.

To a certain extent, what the crisis demonstrated was the military men, from generals to rocket units, were completely and totally willing to carry out nuclear winter orders from their superiors. That, more than anything, is what you have to think about when going about a "what if" someone tried to invade the United States without nukes. Eisenhower had previously argued nuclear weapons should be considered normal weapons that should be used like any other weapon at his disposal. Kennedy was absolutely ready to attack the Soviet Union's IRBMs in Cuba. Attacking a nuclear facility is the same as a nuclear attack in terms of military strategy. So you already have multiple scenarios and multiple Presidents that demonstrated to their enemies that nuclear weaponry was a tool like any other.

You gotta understand, the Cold War inculcated the idea in the military and foreign policy establishment that they had to be absolutely willing to use their nukes if certain conditions were met. The ideological conditioning was intense, and the Kennedy guys are really scary when you read what they were considering during the Cuban missile crisis. And the U.S. is the only country to actually use nukes in combat - that is, it isn't a theoretical in the case of the Americans.

The end of the Cold War just means the tripwires are fuzzier. Short of invading South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, or Poland, it's more difficult to find a clear cut case where you can justify using nuclear power. A full-fledged invasion of the U.S. is absolutely, to the nth degree, the most likely scenario where the U.S. unleashes its full barrage as a last ditch attempt to avoid conquest. Can you imagine if that had happened under Bush and Cheney's first administration? They would have turned the earth into moonscape.
1045 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/24/16

MrAnimeSK wrote:


Kyser13th wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:

It's Pretty much happening to parts of Europe but America? well they aren't as weak and stupid and you're all armed to the teeth so it wouldn't be easy.
I doubt China or North Korea could do it or even Russia without Nukes.
It would be more doable with people disguised as civilians or refugess or etc and doing terrorisim.
I guess there is teh hacking side of things. If they could disable all Americas stealth and drones and satellites and etc.
But just with ground, air and naval forces, i think not.


Terrorism wouldn't work either, all it does is slight attrition, with no ground taken.



Well, if there were millions inside your country and they did it on a large enough scale it could have a serious impact. But yeah not like they would take the country from you.
If the whites, blacks and the Mexicans united in America you would have the numbers to hold off any attack (without nukes).
I wonder who the Black Muslims in America would fight for in the situation of choosing America or Islam? (if it ever came to that).


That not Terrorism, that is a covert invasion, though nearly impossible to make work since the logistics with millions becomes impossible to hide, and for any Terrorist plot to be successful it needs to remain under the radar, which you wouldn't be able to pull off with Millions.
1045 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/24/16

goku8399 wrote:

I believe that the US can be invaded but when/if it happens it will be through a business transaction not through military force.


Then it's not an invasion, more or less a transaction of property, country, and land. You have to remember the original topic here is through military force.
13980 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Ohio
Offline
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/24/16
Invaded yes, conquered not without one hell of a fight. Red Dawn is a perfect example for any invasion no matter the country, history has show that a military force and civilian force fight a hell of a lot harder when its on their home front. Plus they have "home-field" advantage. Kinda reminds me of Tomorrow War by J.L' Bourne as well, but that's more of an internal takeover after the worlds electronic infrastructure collapses. J.L. Bourne being a Naval officer among other things in his long military career has a lot of knowledge a lot how it would go down.

My main point is looks at all of the instances of invasions:
Nazis VS Britten
Napoleon and later Nazis VS Russia
Russia and later USA VS Vietnam

just to name a few, home-field advantage and the constant knowledge everyone has that they're fighting for the families and homes is one hell of force that you'd have to beat
52842 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/16
Can you imagined being a General for massive Army, like China for example.. I know there more than one Generals to handle all that. But having Large Force isn't easy because you would have to teach them all the formation, and you gotta have enough Money to buy foods to feed them all!!! >.<
Kintor 
20418 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/24/16

churuchurupayapa wrote:

You gotta understand, the Cold War inculcated the idea in the military and foreign policy establishment that they had to be absolutely willing to use their nukes if certain conditions were met. The ideological conditioning was intense, and the Kennedy guys are really scary when you read what they were considering during the Cuban missile crisis. And the U.S. is the only country to actually use nukes in combat - that is, it isn't a theoretical in the case of the Americans.

The end of the Cold War just means the tripwires are fuzzier. Short of invading South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, or Poland, it's more difficult to find a clear cut case where you can justify using nuclear power. A full-fledged invasion of the U.S. is absolutely, to the nth degree, the most likely scenario where the U.S. unleashes its full barrage as a last ditch attempt to avoid conquest. Can you imagine if that had happened under Bush and Cheney's first administration? They would have turned the earth into moonscape.

Nothing has changed since the end of the Cold War, all those shiny weapons are still waiting to launch inside their silos, even as the label 'CCCP' has been hastily painted-over on some of them. The only last effects of the Cold War are twofold: a generation of leaders who deluded themselves into thinking the risk of war has passed and a pack of shell-shocked Baby Boomers who were taught to 'duck and cover' their entire lives. Honestly through, the leaders who funded the construction of so many nuclear weapons had scarcely any idea what they were setting in motion and they knew even less about the new kind of politics they were accidently creating.

The only time that nuclear weapons were used in a military campaign was at the end of World War Two. This was a time when the USA was the only nation capable of deploying such devastating weapons, although the Soviet Union was following close behind. Now today there are nine states with nuclear weapons. Indeed, the USA has suffered many set-backs since the end of The Second World War but is has never fired a nuke in anger, human life continues to thrive across the Earth. This is the reality of brinksmanship in the modern age, where the thread of nuclear ware is just another level of potential escalation, something to be danced around as various regional powers push against the USA in small but crucial ways.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.