Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the US has been invaded three times since it inception, the british in 1812, the japanese in world war ll, and the mexican army in the mexican-american war. mexico invaded after texas was annexed by the united states, and there was a border dispute, we felt the border should be the rio grande river, where it is today, and the mexican government felt it shoud be a river north of the rio grande.
In a technical sense they were invasions but their objectives were very limited compared to real invasions (like say, Operation Barbarossa or the Operation Overlord). The war of 1812 comes close as the Brits managed to capture Washington DC but as I wrote earlier, that was little more than a feint. They had no intention of staying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
to a point that is correct. but remember that any invasion would absolutely have to bypass the large cities, otherwise the invaders would get thoroughly bogged down i trying to take places like los angeles, dallas/ft worth, san diego, etc. buildings are great for snipers to hide in, and they are fairly easy to defend. not to mention that all the gang bangers would be given amnesty from any crimes they committed if they were to support the US against any invader, so imagine all the gangs organizing the people as well.
Depends on the invader. If they occupy the city, set up roadblocks, and try to police it they will have a hard time. But if the invader isn't big on "nation building" and more into carpet bombing the city into submission or surrounding it to cut off then food supply, then gangs probably won't be quite as effective. Chances are most people and the authorities will cooperate with the invaders because it is much, MUCH easier for him to put the hurt on you than for you to put hurt on him. Again, it depends on the invader - what his aims are, how ruthless he is, what his tolerance for losing soldiers is, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
actually the guns owned by civilians are going to be a major concern for any invader. there are something like 250 million guns in the US, and that isnt counting the military, and a population over 300 billion. yes guns in the hands of citizens will be a major problem for invaders.
300 billion?
But yes, the US is a huge country. Invading it will be a logistical nightmare for anyone. But citizens with guns is probably not going to be a major concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
dont underestimate the american people, and our will to be free of tyranny. we may seem civilized in our politics, but attack us, and the warrior comes out in us. just because a few go down in the initial attack doesnt mean that the enemy will then have a walk in the park. they are going to have to earn every inch of ground they take, and they are going to have to spend a lot of resources to keep that ground.
Fair enough. But don't underestimate a committed invader either.
Has any army ever been succsessful against a Guerrilla uprising over the long haul?
We weren't in Vietnam
The Russians and Us both haven't been to good in Afganistan
The Japanesse and German's only held terratory for a few years..
Sure.
The British succeeded against the Boers.
The Soviet Union successfully suppressed multiple nationalist and separatist groups during its history, from Ukraine to the Baltic republics.
Nazi Germany was fairly successful in holding on to its conquered territory with a possible exception of Serbia and some areas in the Soviet Union (those partisans, however, operated with the help of the Soviet military). The most notable action is probably the Warsaw Uprising, which resulted in a German victory.
The Turks were fairly brutal both with the Armenians and the Kurds.
The Russians mostly succeeded in pacifying Chechnya.
When considering invasion of a country what would be the goal? Occupation to form an economic colony? Occupation to form a livable colony? Or a campaign not to occupy but merely to destroy or degrade our military and economic capabilities?
There could be other reasons but wars from foreign invaders wishing to take over the US so they can live in it seems far fetched. Of course some will compare immigration but that is for another thread. When it comes to armed conflict that is not the case.
The most likely scenario is that if there is any kind of conflict in America that both parties will be Americans and it will require international intervention mainly from the UN peace keeping forces or the like, NATO, etc.
In that case other players might enter the fray through funding, supplies, or moral support.
In either case large scale conventional wars where two armies meet on the battlefield seem to be something of the past with urban and rural guerrilla insurgencies seeming to become the new model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
the US has been invaded three times since it inception, the british in 1812, the japanese in world war ll, and the mexican army in the mexican-american war. mexico invaded after texas was annexed by the united states, and there was a border dispute, we felt the border should be the rio grande river, where it is today, and the mexican government felt it shoud be a river north of the rio grande.
The Nueces strip was the territory in dispute and consisted of all the land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande (Bravo) rivers.
Years after the Mexican-American War there continued the low-level conflict I mentioned earlier.
Juan Cortina led, who owned land on what is now considered the American side, and also owned land on the Mexican side that was taken from him some how.
He was active before in the Mexican-American war, later became a governor and general, but in 1851 and in 1869 he attacked America. Well he would not have considered it America at the time most likely but who knows exactly.
What happened was that he saw a marshal in Brownsville abusing one of his employees. Cortina shot the marshal for this and left town.
He later came back with some armed men, selected four or five known for abusing and murdering Mexicans, executed them, took down the American and raised the Mexican flag before leaving.
He battled both the US Army and Confederate soldiers. He also fought Texas Rangers and local militias.
Pancho Villa later attacked Columbus, New Mexico way after the Mexican-American war.
Neither of these can actually be considered 'invasions leading to occupation'. There were also massive Indian parties formed against America a few times but the Indians were clearly the ones being invaded and not vice-verse.
In either case I doubt the US at this time can be successfully invaded with the aim of eternal occupation. No other country at this time could do it not just because of the supply lines but because we have insured no other country in the American continent could pose a military threat to us.
Did you know our own Interstate Highway system is built so that like every one mile out of five must be straight so they could be used as emergency air strips? We are prepared in various ways and just need guidance to how to best use our resources.
A dirty bomb war as suggested earlier is not an invasion but would do damage especially psychological. Dirty bombs would not kill as many as conventional nuclear weapons but living after such an event might be worse.
I also wish to give the example of China. Throughout its history when anyone invades China they do not force the Chinese to become like them but instead they become Chinese. China as massive as she is absorbs her invaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
but remember that any invasion would absolutely have to bypass the large cities, otherwise the invaders would get thoroughly bogged down i trying to take places like los angeles, dallas/ft worth, san diego, etc. buildings are great for snipers to hide in, and they are fairly easy to defend.
An age old dilemma but to bypass the cities would totally miss the point and would allow them to form harassment forces against your rear and flanks if let alone.
In either case cutting a city off in the way they are built today is not that difficult as the conflicts in Yugoslavia of the 1990's demonstrated. A city does not have to be 'taken' per se but in the end it actually does have to be taken.
Also the era of large armies meeting in the countryside seem to be over. The cities most likely will be ground zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
actually the guns owned by civilians are going to be a major concern for any invader. there are something like 250 million guns in the US, and that isnt counting the military, and a population over 300 billion. yes guns in the hands of citizens will be a major problem for invaders.
This really depends but the guns will be deterrent to any invader. How much of a threat can they pose to a professional army with drones, bomber jets, and more importantly a credit line that reaches into the billions?
In the 1700's a well armed militia could have posed a threat to a professional army but today the story has changed. The most important aspect though is funding. The way money is in electronic form, the way cities do not self-sustain themselves, who will pay for the insurgency?
The insurgents in Afghanistan are not only receiving funds from Arabian and perhaps Persian oil money but our own government in some cases are having to pay off some of the Taliban to allow our supply trucks to use their roads. Let us hope if we are ever invaded that our enemy gives us funds too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
dont underestimate the american people, and our will to be free of tyranny. we may seem civilized in our politics, but attack us, and the warrior comes out in us. just because a few go down in the initial attack doesnt mean that the enemy will then have a walk in the park. they are going to have to earn every inch of ground they take, and they are going to have to spend a lot of resources to keep that ground.
We get everything we need from China for the most. Once the Wal-Mart truck cannot make it to your town many will die. An insurgency is possible but many will die before it can even be mounted and it will be just a few diehards protecting a few survivors.
Perhaps I am being to drastic but this is all one possible scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMarbles
Sure.
The British succeeded against the Boers.
The Soviet Union successfully suppressed multiple nationalist and separatist groups during its history, from Ukraine to the Baltic republics.
Nazi Germany was fairly successful in holding on to its conquered territory with a possible exception of Serbia and some areas in the Soviet Union (those partisans, however, operated with the help of the Soviet military). The most notable action is probably the Warsaw Uprising, which resulted in a German victory.
The Turks were fairly brutal both with the Armenians and the Kurds.
The Russians mostly succeeded in pacifying Chechnya.
These are just off the top of my head.
The British took heavy losses but won against the Boers by forcing civilians into concentration camps and destroying everything that could be used by the enemy.
The Soviets far outmatched their neighbors that there was no way some of the smaller countries could compete and supply lines at such close ranges meant Soviet victories for the most.
The Soviets also prepped many of its campaigns by shipping civilians away from areas en masse and taking them either to Central Asia or Siberia.
Nazi Germany had many sympathizers in many of the lands it occupied and also did not stray far from their home base.
The Turks were very brutal indeed but they still have issues with the Kurdish PKK.
The Russians in the Caucasus are not in the clear but your assessment is fairly accurate. The death of Shamil Basayev seems to be the end of one era but after what they went through it is hard to forget.
If any of the historical concepts I presented are deficient I do not mind them being expanded upon for greater clarification or context.
Has any army ever been succsessful against a Guerrilla uprising over the long haul?
The Malay Insurgency. The MNLA communists crushed.
Peru. The Maoist Shining Path defeated.
Columbia. While not beaten yet, the communist FARC is losing badly.
Has any army ever been succsessful against a Guerrilla uprising over the long haul?
We weren't in Vietnam
The Russians and Us both haven't been to good in Afganistan
The Japanesse and German's only held terratory for a few years..
The British defeated the Communist insurgency in Malaya. Mostly because it was not supported by a majority of the population.
The Vietnam War was NOT a guerilla war but rather had phases that were fought as a guerrilla war. By 1968, the war was entirely conventional and remained so until the North Vietnamese captured Saigon on April 30th 1975. Contrary to popular belief the North Vietnamese had a regular military complete with tanks, artillery, airplanes, ships, submarines, etc.
Quote:
Technically, the U.S. has been invaded twice, once by the British in 1812 and by the Japanese in Aleutians Islands.
Add:
- Pancho Villa's raid on Columbus, NM in 1916.
- Japanese invasion of the Philiphines. The Philiphines was a US territory until 1946.
- Japanese invasion of Guam. Guam has been a US territory since 1898.
- the VC sapper attack on the US Embassy in Saigon, South Vietnam during the 1968 Tet Offensive could be considered an invasion of the US.
- the Cambodian attack on the US merchant ship Mayaguez in 1975.
- the Japanese attack on the USS Panay, a US Navy gunboat patrolling China's Yangtze River in 1937.
- the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967
- When the Chinese PLAAF forced that US Navy reconnaissance plane to land in 2001.
the US has been invaded three times since it inception, the british in 1812, the japanese in world war ll, and the mexican army in the mexican-american war.
Well, if you recognize the Confederacy as a nation (rather than a belligerent, which is how the United States officially categorized it), then the U.S. was actually invaded four times--the fourth occasion being Lee's army fighting at Gettysburg. I believe the Confederate forces did consider the incursion into Pennsylvania as an invasion.
In a technical sense they were invasions but their objectives were very limited compared to real invasions (like say, Operation Barbarossa or the Operation Overlord). The war of 1812 comes close as the Brits managed to capture Washington DC but as I wrote earlier, that was little more than a feint. They had no intention of staying.
Depends on the invader. If they occupy the city, set up roadblocks, and try to police it they will have a hard time. But if the invader isn't big on "nation building" and more into carpet bombing the city into submission or surrounding it to cut off then food supply, then gangs probably won't be quite as effective. Chances are most people and the authorities will cooperate with the invaders because it is much, MUCH easier for him to put the hurt on you than for you to put hurt on him. Again, it depends on the invader - what his aims are, how ruthless he is, what his tolerance for losing soldiers is, etc.
300 billion?
But yes, the US is a huge country. Invading it will be a logistical nightmare for anyone. But citizens with guns is probably not going to be a major concern.
Fair enough. But don't underestimate a committed invader either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merovee
When considering invasion of a country what would be the goal? Occupation to form an economic colony? Occupation to form a livable colony? Or a campaign not to occupy but merely to destroy or degrade our military and economic capabilities?
There could be other reasons but wars from foreign invaders wishing to take over the US so they can live in it seems far fetched. Of course some will compare immigration but that is for another thread. When it comes to armed conflict that is not the case.
The most likely scenario is that if there is any kind of conflict in America that both parties will be Americans and it will require international intervention mainly from the UN peace keeping forces or the like, NATO, etc.
In that case other players might enter the fray through funding, supplies, or moral support.
In either case large scale conventional wars where two armies meet on the battlefield seem to be something of the past with urban and rural guerrilla insurgencies seeming to become the new model.
The Nueces strip was the territory in dispute and consisted of all the land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande (Bravo) rivers.
Years after the Mexican-American War there continued the low-level conflict I mentioned earlier.
Juan Cortina led, who owned land on what is now considered the American side, and also owned land on the Mexican side that was taken from him some how.
He was active before in the Mexican-American war, later became a governor and general, but in 1851 and in 1869 he attacked America. Well he would not have considered it America at the time most likely but who knows exactly.
What happened was that he saw a marshal in Brownsville abusing one of his employees. Cortina shot the marshal for this and left town.
He later came back with some armed men, selected four or five known for abusing and murdering Mexicans, executed them, took down the American and raised the Mexican flag before leaving.
He battled both the US Army and Confederate soldiers. He also fought Texas Rangers and local militias.
Pancho Villa later attacked Columbus, New Mexico way after the Mexican-American war.
Neither of these can actually be considered 'invasions leading to occupation'. There were also massive Indian parties formed against America a few times but the Indians were clearly the ones being invaded and not vice-verse.
In either case I doubt the US at this time can be successfully invaded with the aim of eternal occupation. No other country at this time could do it not just because of the supply lines but because we have insured no other country in the American continent could pose a military threat to us.
Did you know our own Interstate Highway system is built so that like every one mile out of five must be straight so they could be used as emergency air strips? We are prepared in various ways and just need guidance to how to best use our resources.
A dirty bomb war as suggested earlier is not an invasion but would do damage especially psychological. Dirty bombs would not kill as many as conventional nuclear weapons but living after such an event might be worse.
I also wish to give the example of China. Throughout its history when anyone invades China they do not force the Chinese to become like them but instead they become Chinese. China as massive as she is absorbs her invaders.
An age old dilemma but to bypass the cities would totally miss the point and would allow them to form harassment forces against your rear and flanks if let alone.
In either case cutting a city off in the way they are built today is not that difficult as the conflicts in Yugoslavia of the 1990's demonstrated. A city does not have to be 'taken' per se but in the end it actually does have to be taken.
Also the era of large armies meeting in the countryside seem to be over. The cities most likely will be ground zero.
This really depends but the guns will be deterrent to any invader. How much of a threat can they pose to a professional army with drones, bomber jets, and more importantly a credit line that reaches into the billions?
In the 1700's a well armed militia could have posed a threat to a professional army but today the story has changed. The most important aspect though is funding. The way money is in electronic form, the way cities do not self-sustain themselves, who will pay for the insurgency?
The insurgents in Afghanistan are not only receiving funds from Arabian and perhaps Persian oil money but our own government in some cases are having to pay off some of the Taliban to allow our supply trucks to use their roads. Let us hope if we are ever invaded that our enemy gives us funds too?
We get everything we need from China for the most. Once the Wal-Mart truck cannot make it to your town many will die. An insurgency is possible but many will die before it can even be mounted and it will be just a few diehards protecting a few survivors.
Perhaps I am being to drastic but this is all one possible scenario.
The British took heavy losses but won against the Boers by forcing civilians into concentration camps and destroying everything that could be used by the enemy.
The Soviets far outmatched their neighbors that there was no way some of the smaller countries could compete and supply lines at such close ranges meant Soviet victories for the most.
The Soviets also prepped many of its campaigns by shipping civilians away from areas en masse and taking them either to Central Asia or Siberia.
Nazi Germany had many sympathizers in many of the lands it occupied and also did not stray far from their home base.
The Turks were very brutal indeed but they still have issues with the Kurdish PKK.
The Russians in the Caucasus are not in the clear but your assessment is fairly accurate. The death of Shamil Basayev seems to be the end of one era but after what they went through it is hard to forget.
If any of the historical concepts I presented are deficient I do not mind them being expanded upon for greater clarification or context.
you both have made a lot of excellent points that certainly need to be taken into consideration by both sides in a potential conflict. laying siege to large cities takes resources away from other plans a potential invader might have, unless that has been factored in the initial planning. modern cities can hold out for a fairly long period of time with the resources in the city itself, and with as many exits as modern cities have, resources can be brought in in many ways, it is hard to cover everything if you lay siege to los angeles.
carpet bombing a large city is also fraught with issues, you can never fully level a city, and like monte casino or stalingrad in WW ll, it gives plenty of good cover for insurgents and snipers.
either way long term invasion of the US would require vast amounts of resources that even china doesnt have.
I don't think it's possible outside of the entire world deciding to take us down. Of course, that's what we have the big red button for. Anything else would require the complete destruction of the U.S. Navy which at last count was the worlds largest and most powerful by far. Times and technology have changed, but oceans are still a major obstacle and as long as we maintain our naval strength America can't be touched. With the afoementioned big red button as our backup plan.
I've been a boardgame player for a long time, particularly war games. There was one that came out in the early 90's called Fortress America that was premised on the U.S. being invaded along the three coastlines. Basically America's goal was to beat back the invaders while the invaders goal was to not only destroy the U.S. but capture critical areas and resources to become the dominant invader. It was a pretty linear game, but still fun to play.
In the real sense, assuming no navy and no nuclear weapons, I think the best invasion point would be the Gulf Coast. The east and west coasts are both too developed and you run headlong into some major mountain ranges after the initial invasion. Being bogged down in cities and mountains is a quick way to defeat.
The Gulf Coast affords you several good harbors as well as capturing the primary oil processing and refining areas. Once you breakout you would be in the plains and free to roam through the "bread basket". Cut the country in two, deny access to fuel and food and simply wait for the coastal areas to surrender. Also, a Gulf invasion allows you to easily bypass or surround the major cities. Areas like Dallas and Houston should be leveled as much as possible, while areas like New Orleans would be easy enough to cripple by destroying the levee's, ditto for St. Louis.
I do believe that it's virtually impossible to happen these days, but it's fun conjecture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
