One nuke takes out all of Iowa? That’s one hell of a bomb.
No, you don’t be a…
Person who posts insults in Great Debates, OK?
Ok Ogre, if you’re going to be pedantic I didn’t mean ALL of Iowa. If one of the bombs went off in central Des Moines following the proclamation I’m sure the populace would get the point.
My hypothesis was referring to the reaction of the American people following a blatant threat coupled with immediate implementation of said threat if demands not met.
How many ‘demonstrations’ would it actually take? Having considered this happening where I live I’d be pretty keen to say 'OK, have the damn country - I can’t fight you, why have my family blown up?"
Plausible? Or not?
Well… The rednecks in the crowd would be all over you in 30 seconds… Not to mention all of the “gangstas” packin’ heat downtown dawg…
Seriously though. Demanding the entire government is not going to work sooo well… How would you get 300 nukes inside the united states, and have none of them be detected anyways? Huh? I don’t understand that…
Alien 2022: Read my original damn post. I said only TWO nukes inside the US and eight in ports. If it needs more than 10 there’s prob no point. Then again, maybe it would work…I actually TOLD YOU I only had 10 and you believed I had 300…
I wasn’t being pedantic, nixdad. You said Iowa, I read Iowa. I responded to “Iowa.”
But even given the Des Moines scenario, I really don’t think we’d just turn over the whole kit and kaboodle. I think the Bobs would not be killed. Rather, we’d turn them over to the most ruthless interrogators we could find…you know, the ones that drool at terms like “sensory deprivation chamber” and who like to play with sharp things. When we’d squeezed him dry and tossed his empty husk to one side, we’d start looking for who might have access to more than one nuke, or who might have sold fissionable material. That kind of information is generally kept on a very tight rein. You can’t just decide to smuggle some nukes into the US one day, and to keep from experiencing retaliation, you have to be able to guarantee you’d leave no trail at all. No shipping manifests. No pictures at ATMS. No convenience-store videos. No ties to those on terrorist watch lists. Nothing…because, make no mistake, nukes are in a whole different class than even the events of 9/11. If ANYONE started touching off nukes in America, I feel it’s a pretty safe bet that every other country in the world would line up behind our effort to find and eliminate the guilty parties in the fastest possible way.
OK, sorry Ogre for the pedantic thing - when I was writing it I was thinking of a demo per state and didn’t clarify - my fault.
I agree the world would be horrified BUT my premise still stands. The whole idea of nuclear bombs on your doorstep about to be detonated would tend to get your attention. And what would the world do? The only urgent response (bear in mind we are talking about immediate reaction from the ‘invaders’) would be IMMEDIATE attack on the US.
Even 9/11 took weeks before the US found a target and responded. I don’t believe my scenario would take weeks. I’d say hours, maybe a few days at best before the American public pleaded with its own government to cave in.
Probably the best hope (for the US) would be a total refusal by the leadership - eventually the attackers would run out of weapons and the leaders could come out from their underground safety and start rebuilding a country that has (in my scenario) at least a half-dozen smouldering cities.
Admittedly this would trigger a meltdown of world financial markets and general geopolitical instability but remember, my ‘invaders’ are aligned by belief, not nationality.
APB9999,
Your plan is brilliant. The only hole that I see is that tne years is just enough time for the US to build a good nuclear power structure. Surely they could stomach the unsavoryness of nuclear power if it was the only way to save the economy.
Gotta nit-pick ya on a few points Psi Cop 
The Russian carrier is certainly not a helicopter carrier - it carries Yak-41M and SU-27k aircraft along with numerous helicopters. Admitedly the smaller European carriers carry Harriers, but the French nuclear carrier operates Rafale aircraft which are more advanced than any fighter currently in the US inventory, and the 2 new UK carriers will operate the Joint Strike Fighter. But this is beside the point - the idea is not for planes to engage the US carriers but subs. US carrier battle groups comprise only 1 or 2 nuclear submarines. It would be perfectly feasable for a strike force of subs to sink a US carrier. And remember that US carrier battle groups operate independantly - there is very rarely more than one carrier together at the same time. It is also feasable therefore that they could be picked off in seperate engagements.
Not true at all. The whole point about submarines is that they are stealthy. Sure, a nuke boat would win in an endurance test, but it isn’t an endurance test in this case. And you’d be surprised how long the diesel electrics can stay submerged for. More than long enough to fight anyway. France and the UK both have nuke subs as well, and they are very much on a par with the Los Angeles class boats. The UK’s Vanguard class boats are infact more advanced than the Los Angeles, though less numerous. The Seawolf attack sub is currently the best attack sub in the world, but there are only 3 of them and the project has been scrapped i favour of the cheaper, smaller Virginia class. The Seawolf project has also been plagued with setbacks. Infact I believe at least one of them is being modified to improve underwater handling and won’t be in service until the middle of the decade. Additionally, the Seawolf (and Virginia) will be surpassed by the new Astute class (nuke) attack subs currently being built by the UK.
Don’t write off the European boats too quickly. They are largely regarded as being the best in the world.
No one said it would be easy, but it can (and has) been done. If nothing else, overwhelming numbers would do the job. Afterall, a carrier battle group only comprises around 11-15 surface ships… 
Of course, that’s assuming military actually responds. Getting control of the government, through threat of nuclear terrorism, is not going to endear a lot of people to you, and there is the distinct possibility that even if you do get control of the government, the military will just roll into DC (or whereever you are hanging out) and withen an hour, you’ll be looking down the barrels of a couple dozen M-16’s (Like the ending of the BLUES BROTHERS).
Either that, or everyone pretends to go along with you just long enough to find and disarm said bombs, before you are arrested for the rest of your very short life.
Remember, at best, people are only going to go along with you, not have any loyalty to you.
Personally, my response, if I were the President would be as follows(after I was safely on Air Force One).
A.“In all politeness, Fuck you. We do NOT negotiate with terrorists and we will redouble our commitement to finding every last one of your little cronies and making the rest of their lives very painful and short.”
B.“I am ordering your arrest immediatly, and that we will use any means nessicery to find each and every one of those bombs”.
C.“If you dentonate any one of those bombs, we will go to any country we suspect harboring your cronies and make an offer they can’t refuse, namely"Turn over to us ANYONE who may be connected to these people, IMMEDIATLY, or else”. The “OR ELSE” leaves the option of nuclear strikes open, say ten mushroom clouds for every one over american soil."
<smirk>. All right, on naval stuff…
I did say that “most” of the other carriers in the world were helicopter or Harrier, because I don’t know the exact breakdown. However, if the Russian carrier you mention is the one I’m thinking of, it’s a pile of rust. And even if it is in good condition (there’s another that I don’t remember), it’s still no match for our 14 carriers.
Oh? Look up the F-15E. Still the most advanecd fighter in the world, in my not-so-humble opinion. Of course, since that’s a land based craft, we’ll neglect that. I’ll admit the F-14 is aging - but aging nicely. And, of course, we’ve got Super Hornets flying now. Secondly, even if it was more advanced, which I dispute, American carriers have more interception ability than they have “punching through” power.
As for “wolf packs” taking out carriers, that might be possible. However, no matter stealthy a sub is, there’s no way to conceal the distinctive sound it makes with active sonar. Ships in a battle group are spread out over hundreds of miles, and if the destroyers on the perimeter are “pinging” away, they’ll spot any sub well before it is within striking distance of a carrier. The carrier planes can also drop sonar devices to hunt. That’s always been the problem with hunting surface ships with a sub. The surface ships can just assume they’re already spotted by satallite, and hunt subs actively. It isn’t like they’d be giving away their position. I have no doubt that a surprise attack would probably take out a few carriers… but the second that happens, every other carrier in the world starts sinking any non-American ship that gets within 500 miles.
Yeah, but what does it matter if neither sub can find the other? Remember who bore the “brunt” of the Cold War (to use an expression)… our crews are well trained in keeping quiet. The most European boats may be more advanced (I have my doubts about that too), but if neither sub can find the other, it’s a standoff. And eventually the diesel boat will make noise when it’s forced to surface.
The plans on paper may call for better subs than Seawolf and Virginia, but I doubt they’ll come through. It’s easy to design, not so easy to actually build. And even if they can be build, the US can afford (and buys) far more military equipment, including submarines, than the UK.
Not by me, they ain’t. And not by our own navy, and congress either. If they were, we’d still be pumping out Seawolfs full-speed. The American mentality hates having anyone be better than us, after all.
I’d be interested in seeing some citations for all these new craft you’re mentioning, as well as some specs. I’ll look some up myself later tonight, but it would be easier to see the sources you are pulling from.
-Psi Cop
Individually, no - combined with carriers from Europe, India and China…that’s a much closer match up.
The Russian carrier I’m talking about is the Admiral Kuznestov. It was launched in 1988, and is the only carrier operational in the Russian navy. And no - it isn’t a rust bucket. Info here:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/index.html
<cough cough> Erm… no it isn’t. It’s very capable, yes, but it was designed in the 70’s for the Cold war and has been surpassed by other fighters. Hence the US military is developing the F-22.
The Super Hornets are very nice machines, but the Rafale is more modern and more accomplished. The Eurofighter, which is now in production, also surpasses the Super Hornet. This is a quote from a US mil pdf document on the F-22:
Unless I’m gravely mistaken “current US air superiority fighters” also includes the navalised Super Hornet. Now the F-22 Raptor will be the most advanced plane in the world when it finally begins production, but that won’t be for a few years yet and it is not a carrier launched aircraft.
There’s the rub. I’m no expert on underwater warfare tactics, but there is no reason to believe any agressive subs would have to use active sonar. Nimitz carriers are huge. Really huge, and damn noisey. Satellites data can be used to plot an intercept course to the carrier and the sub would just have to wait until they hear the carrier on passive sonar.
The further spread out they are, the harder it will be to spot an incoming sub using passive sonar. The UK’s boats are notoriously quiet, and the diesel electrics are undetectable under 5 knots. (as an aside - there is a very good book by an author called Patrick Robinson called “Nimitz Class” that deals with this very subject. A Russian Kilo class diesel electric lies in wait for a Nimitz carrier and then puts a nuclear tipped torpedo through her. A very good read).
The Astute class sub is very much a reality. The first 3 hulls were laid in 2002. Your second point is very true though - the US always does procure more. But don’t take that to mean procuring better than anyone else. You can see info about the Astute Class here and about the Virginia Class here, though don’t expect any comparison of the two.
I’m sure it does. Don’t think I’m having a dig at American hardware - it is just at this point in time other Navies have boats coming into service (or being built) that were designed in the late 90’s/early 00’s. The US is operating older designs, and while it is designing and building new boats it means other Navies will be operating superior (more modern) boats for some time to come.
Ah, good. I see that you’re already familiar with the Naval Technology site. While I don’t rate it nearly as high as an official government website like www.navy.mil, it’s decent enough for generalities.
Now, let’s do a carrier matchup. The United States navy has, as I said, fourteen carriers Each of these fourteen carriers has 85 planes on board typically. A typical airwing of 85 planes might be: three squadrons of F/A-18s, and one squadron each of F-14s, S-3Bs (Vikings), E-2Cs (Hawkeyes), EA-6Bs (Prowlers), and SH-60s (Seahawks). Each squadron has 6-8 aircraft or more, each. Assuming the lower estimate of six planes in a squadron, there are 24 “dogfighting-capable” aircraft per US carrier. Also let me note that Nimitz class carriers displace about 100,000 tons.
The Charles du Gaulle, France’s carrier, on the other hand, displaces 30,000 tons. It can only carry 40 aircraft total, and only seven of those are the “Rafale” fighters. Their attack craft would already be outnumbered three to one, simply trying to take on ONE US carrier.
Yep. One carrier with a displacement of almost half a Nimitz class… better than the French at least. According to the link you provided, it carries 16 Yak-41Ms, which are VTOL. No match for Tomcats or Hornets in air combat. The 12 SU-27Ks that it carries would be a bit more of a problem - very capable aircraft. Still, they’d be at a two-to-one disadvantage when attacking a Nimitz. It’s hard to concentrate on sinking the enemy carrier when your own plane is being chewed to pieces around you.
Europe has one “true” carrier, the aforementioned French nuke. Other than that, they have ships such as the British Invincible-class and other small ones. Again, VTOLs and copters are no match for Hornets and Tomcats. India has had exactly four carriers, two of which were obsolete UK designs from World War II. Both were finally decommissioned in 1997 - five years ago. One of the remaining ones is again a VTOL. I’m not sure about the last, but I think it’s been decommissioned too. China has NO carriers.
In other words, 14 US carriers with 85 aircraft apiece vs. a French carrier, a Russian carrier, and assorted helicopter carriers (helicopters are more or less useless against diligent warships), and a few VTOL carriers equipped with Harriers or the equivilent. <smirk>. I think the US has a decisive advantage.
My apologies, I wasn’t quite clear enough. I meant the most advanced currently deployed (in numbers) aircraft. To the best of my knowledge, the Rafale is deployed in only a very few numbers, and is only slated for a total of 61 (according to the Naval Technologies website). We have nearly 400 F-15s, over 200 F-15Es, and well over 700 F-16s. These are all land based of course, but I just wanted to cite numbers <grin>. If I were talking about the most advanced of all, I would have mentioned the F-22. Speaking of which…
It doesn’t need to be carrier based, we already have what we need <grin>. The fact of the matter is that land-based fighters are more capable than naval. Naval fighters have to be built to make hundreds of “Crashes” on a heaving platform about 1000 feet long, and not go off the other side. Air Force craft have the luxury of stable runways and easy touchdowns. Along those lines, the carrier based Rafale isn’t quite as good as the land-based counterpart.
You misunderstand me, actually. You are correct in that agressive subs have no need to use active sonar. In fact, if they do use active sonar, they’re practically signing their death warrent in an active warfare environment. However, surface ships are nice large targets. They make plenty of noise, they can be spotted by air, satallite, and many other means. Therefore, there is no reason that the SURFACE ships cannot use active sonar. They have nothing to lose. Once the sub is found, they can use depth charges, their own torpedoes, aircraft, or simply alert their own subs. Either way the attacking sub is dead. Spread over hundreds of miles just means more range to intercept the sub before it gets anywhere near the carrier.
Well, no, as I pointed out above, they are using active sonar, not passive sonar. And 5 knots of speed compared to a carrier group going at 30 knots will mean catch-up will take infinately long. As for Robinson books, I read one of his called “USS Seawolf.” It’s a decent enough action read, though it seemed rather improbable. Plus he went out of his way to insult democrats, which just irked me. It seemed that every time he emphasized the president’s weakness, he pointed out that he was a democrat.
The Astute craft are certainly impressive boats, but I’ve done some looking up on my own. The first won’t enter the service until 2006, and there are only slated to be 10 or so attack subs in the British fleet. We have 50-something Los Angeles boats already, three Seawolfs (I think the plural should be Seawolves, though), and Virginias will be coming online along with the Astutes. Sub advantage is still American. We have 50 very capable boats already, with more coming online all the time. Oh, and the Astutes use certain American manufactured weaponry (Tomahawks). Source of those is cut off in wartime.
The Russian Akulas seem far more dangerous to me, but again, there are only a few of them left. Advantage is still American by a long shot.
More modern doesn’t necessarily mean more advanced. Our stealth aircraft are still the most advanced in the world, despite being 20 years old. No one has come up with better ones. Our cruisers and destroyers are still more advanced than most others. The US simply has the industrial power and research potential to be pumping out more advanced stuff than anyone else in the world, pretty much.
-Psi Cop
Great post PSI Cop!
Although, to bring yourself totally up to speed with submariner warfare, you should read up on what us Aussies are doing with our new top-secret Platypus Class boats. They’re gonna be awesome!
And our Esky Class carriers are gonna be huge!
Instead of a conventional invasion, what about weakening the country to the extent that it’s political systems and infrastructure aren’t as daunting as they are at the present?
As a scenario, let’s assume that we’re conducting extensive ground manuevers in both Korea and the Middle East. To add to that, exploit weaknesses to mess with systems dealing extensively with economic activity, such as credit databases. And to add to that, you have in place cells conducting attacks on civilian centers to the extent that people start thinking that the government can’t keep them safe.
Assuming that these things could be done, (and I have no idea how feasible such assumptions are), how long is it before you have some states striving for secession with the idea of their own militia taking at least a part of the responsibility for the welfare of that state?
I don’t think you would see too many states become all that strong on their own, but you could see some people working hard to bring about a new civil war as the status quo government is increasingly seen as inneffective.
Another country probably still couldn’t move the troops to our shores needed for a force invasion, but they would then have more of a chance.
(Please note, I’m incredibly naive about this stuff. I just find it interesting to speculate about.)
Ahh, the numbers
Of course the US outweighs anyone in terms of numbers - I was just pointing out that the US doesn’t always have the best in the world. Let’s go through some of your points though:
Yes it does have a vast numerical advantage. However, in terms of turn-around in launching fighters, the Nimitz Carriers can get planes into the air no quicker than the Charles De Gualle or Kuznestov. Additionally, as I mentioned before, the carrier battle groups operate independantly and not together. Therefore “the rest of the world” would only have to engage one carrier at a time. Also, there are never all 14 carriers in active service at the same time - there’s always 3 or 4 in for servicing or refit.
They would also have a hell of a job adapting it for carrier use (you don’t see F-15’s flying off carriers either), hence the JSF being developed to replace carrier based Super Hornets, land based F-16’s and the UK’s carrier based Harriers.
I believe the Charles De Gualle will mount a full air-wing of Rafale fighters once more of them rumble off the production line, though at the moment it is only carrying 7 as you say.
No arguaments there, though I would argue the navalised Rafale would still beat an F-16 or a land-based Super Hornet.
Agreed they have nothing to lose in using active sonar, but using active sonar is by no means guarantee of finding a sub - more ships “pinging” away may increase the chances, but it is still no guarantee. The quieter the sub, the harder it is to find, even with active sonar. Now diesel electrics are <usually> quieter than nuke boats, and most of Europe is operating diesel electrics along with half of the Russian sub fleet, and those that China purchased from Russia. The UK operates an entirely nuclear sub fleet, but the UK’s subs, as I mentioned before, are notoriously quiet.
Well the idea is to lie in wait for the carrier - not to chase it. Satellite data and other intelligence can be used to easily figure out where a carrier is heading.
USS Seawolf - I think that is most recent one. I bought it a couple of weeks ago though haven’t read it yet. Well, the politics wouldn’t bother me (since I’m not American), so I won’t let that put me off. I’d still recommend Nimitz Class though - from what I remember he doesn’t lay into the Democrats at all.
Numerically, the US will always have the edge. Technologically it seems more a perpetual game of leap-frog with the US and the UK/France. As for the weaponry - the UK has plenty of Tomahawks in storage, and I believe (though I’m by no means certain) BAe systems can produce them under license from Raytheon (and who’s going to give a rat’s ass about a license during war?).
Well, no one has had a need to develop them. And the technology is far from perfect - ineffective in certain weather conditions, the design is detriment to the performance of the plane in anything other than bomber function, and of course is incredibly expensive. I think Europe has decided it is better to go with these high performance aircraft with stealth properties (Rafale, Eurofighter) rather than take the trade-off and try and develop an entirely stealthy plane. It would seem the US has taken the same view - the F-22 has moved in the same direction as the Rafale and Eurofighter, and there is no replacement for the Night Hawk anyone has heard about.
The US destroyers were built from the ground up to carry Tomahawks, which was a very nice advantage. Other than that, they were no more advanced than the European or Russian boats (and the Russians have their own version of the Tomahawk). The newer European boats are also built to carry tomahawks, and the boats themselves are much more capable. I haven’t seen anything other than designs regarding the US’ future combatants (replacements for the Arleigh Burke destroyers etc…) while the keels are being laid now for the new European boats.
Interesting conversation this
Concerning Fox pulling Mexico from the Rio Treaty:
Several points in here that I’ll address. First of all, I’d argue that American carriers are far better at launching than any other carrier on earth. We operate our carriers regularly in actual combat situations (though not necessarily ship threatening), and train far more than the Russians or the French. I think we’d work far better as a well-oiled machine than they would.
As for carriers operating independently… not really, actually. One carrier battle group is usually enough to end any situation that comes up. But in a situation like preparing to go into Iraq, we have about five carriers in the region. That’s hardly independent. Besides, in a wartime situation, tactics change. I’d imagine that we’d see a lot more destroyers forming up in a battle group, escorting a couple carriers. Still spread over several hundred miles, of course, but well within each other’s air umbrellas.
As for carriers in refit… sure. It isn’t like the rest of the world doesn’t have to put theirs into the shop too, though. Besides, I have no doubt they’d be out of the shop quite quickly in a wartime situation. The Reagan would be completed within months, and the Bush (I wouldn’t have named it that) would probably be ready within a few years.
I didn’t mean to imply that F-22s would be going off of carriers. Just that they were the most advanced.
But the de Gaulle won’t be carrying Rafales exclusively. That’s stupid for any carrier. You need your rescue craft, your gunboats, your radar craft, sub-hunters… you need a very balanced ship. They could probably double the number of Rafales, but the US planes would still outnumber them two to one, even assuming we didn’t mount any more intercepters either. And even doubling the number of Rafales would cripple some other operations. What’s to keep a US sub from torpedoing it if it has no ASW planes?
I have to correct you here. Active sonar is based on sound waves. It doesn’t matter how “quiet” the boat is while running, it’ll still return a strong signal. There are certain water conditions and other things it can do to try and avoid sonar, but how quiet the boat is doesn’t affect t hat.
Diesels are quiet, yes. But endurance rules. Nukes can stay down for as long as they have food, and still operate at full capacity. Run all electronics, run the turbines full-speed, etc. Even the strongest batteries can’t keep up with running turbines full speed for days on end. If it turned into a one-on-one hunt between a Los Angeles class and a diesel powered sub, all other things being equal and barring randomchance, it would go to the LA boat. Both would be quiet and looking for each other, and presumably not suceeding (assuming they are of equal skill). Eventually the diesel would need air.
That’s assuming the carrier group doesn’t change course. I believe that a carrier battle group can travel faster than a submarine (though I’m not sure). Besides, you put your hunting craft far in front of you, and to the sides. You rarely keep any behind you, if you’re barreling along at full tilt.
As for the Robinson book… I thought about it more, and I didn’t really think he had a feel for proper Naval strategy in USS Seawolf. Since you intend to read it, I won’t give it away, but the plot seems rather implausable.
Well, maybe it’s just nationalistic pride speaking, but I think the US has always had a solid advantage over both the UK and France. Heck, we give certain techs to the UK because they’re so solid of an ally. Now as to who has the technological advantage in ACTIVE craft is a bit harrier. The UK and France tend to build things in much smaller numbers, meaning they can constantly be building something better. The US, on the other hand, orders gigantic product lines (such as 30 Virginia class subs) at a time, and needs to consider carefully how soon they’ll need to be upgraded again.
That doesn’t necessarily mean anything, of course. Stealth planes are most useful if information about them is kept to a minimum. But I think the US decided they’d simply be more useful as bombers, and thus we have our 21 B-2s. Give them a target anywhere in the world, and they can hit it on the same day – and go unnoticed until the boom.
Part of the problem is that we disagree on what type is more advanced. I’d argue that the US destroyer fleet is still more advanced than anything else currently existing. US boats have to be more capable than the rest of the world’s, because they have to last for far longer. That’s why we always put so much effort into designing our new craft. When they are finally launched, nothing else in the world is their equal for years.
Plans can always be drawn up by any government. Having the ability to make them happen is another thing.
-Psi Cop
Here’s my plan to successfully invade the US. It takes its cue from APB9999’s plan to take over by controlling the oil supply. I don’t think that plan would work, since I’m pretty sure the US could get by (albeit with short-term disruption) by increasing coal and nuclear electric production, and relying on Canadian and domestic oil for automotive uses. Nevertheless, it was the right basic approach - subvert the US, instead of going with the straight military invasion.
Phase One: Operation Venezuela
We start our adventure by staging a military coup in Venezuela. This should initially be welcomed by the US, as it will initially appear as though our puppet dictator is acting to stabilize the flow of oil heading to the States, and he’ll get rid of that closet-Marxist Chavez. The puppet will proceed to spend a lot of oil money upgrading the Venezuelan military, with an emphasis on mountain and forest combat capabilities (ostensibly out of concerns along the Columbian border and such - part of the drug war, yadda yadda). However, as time progresses, our strongman, who has been busily squashing domestic dissent, begins making anti-American noises. He harbours Columbian drugrunners in the mountains, assisting in their operations and rebuffing American pressure to stop. Then, when he has a firm grip on the country, and is beginning to be viewed as a threat to American interests, he nationalizes the oilfields, proclaims a quasi-religious conversion to Marxism, announces his undying friendship for his Revolutionary Brother, Fidel Castro, cuts off oil shipments to the corrupt capitalists in the north (the US).
Too many American interests are involved here for the US not to get involved, and the idea is to start a major ground war fought in terrain suitable for unconventional warfare. The traditionally wealthy folk of Venezuela, who have been treated very badly by our strongman will plead for assistance in fighting the evil dictator. They start a rebellion, which is quickly supported by more and more of American troops. The idea here isn’t necessarily for our dictator to win, but for the conflict to be long, drawn out, and bloody. Fighting in moutains, jungles, and cities, with no particularly overwhelming desire to hold onto any given piece of real estate, we should be able to make Venezuela into the second coming of Vietnam. If our dictator has played his cards right, while the wealthy elite will hate his guts, the lower classes will support him, allowing him to utilize guerilla tactics, hit and fade, ambush, etc etc. All nasty business.
Phase Two: The Home Front
While our large-scale diversion in Venezuela is taking shape, we begin building several political moles in the US. We convert several likely candidates - socially conservative young Republicans from a relatively poor (and, importantly, obscure) background. With discrete but generous funding through PAC’s their careers take off. We don’t need them to get to be president or anything, but ideally we get a few into the House, and preferably at least one into the Senate. They should be hardliners on national defense, and enthusiastic supporters of intervention in Venezuela, with as many troops as are needed to get the job done.
Then we start hitting the US with terrorist attacks. This should occur after the US Army is heavily engaged in Venezuela. Our model is not Al Queda; we don’t care about high profile attacks. We care about scaring Americans shitless. Scale isn’t important. Scope is. We want as many attacks as possible over the shortest possible time - at least to start with. We plant bombs in commercial areas (but unlike the IRA, we don’t call long enough in advance to evacuate, we call just moments before detonation to take credit), disrupt power and water grids, make sniper attacks on prominent folk of all stripes - local politicians shot leaving city hall, minor celebrity (the weather guy, say) has his home invaded, and gets to watch his family tortured to death all night before being shot in the morning. A suicide bomber walks into a first grade classroom and sets himself off. Fear is what we want. Terror. Mind-numbing panic throughout the heartland.
The group claiming responsibility for these attacks will be style itself as a pan-Latin American group with close ties to the Venezuelans. They will also make sporadic attacks against US-friendly governments. These will be aimed at scale, not scope. We really don’t give a rat’s ass about Panama, we just want to make the news, and we want Latin Americans portrayed as evil, and opposed to all things US.
Shortly after the terror starts, our political moles introduce legislation that makes the Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights. Preferably, they do this in the form of amendments to whatever inevitable bills are produced in response to the terror. They scream and shout about security, and the need for everyone to make sacrifices. They push for bills giving police forces immense powers. Civil liberties be damned, anyone unwilling to submit to a search is trying to kill our children! If you oppose such measures, you obviously have something to hide. Etc, etc, etc.
Phase Three: Operation Fascisti
The time has come to launch our primary attack. But it won’t be sailing in. It starts in Texas. Our most charismatic political mole, who’s gotten himself into the governer’s mansion in Austin on the Republican ticket, declares that the wishy washy legislation passed in Washington doesn’t go nearly far enough to protect Americans. He declares martial law (he doesn’t have this power, I know, but he does it anyways, and gets away with it), calling upon the Texas National Guard to seal the border with Mexico. He molds the TNG along with state and municipal police forces into a single force defending the Rio Grande, going on witchhunts for illegal Latino immigrants, who will be rounded up and shipped by the truckload to the border and expelled en masse. He makes free use of language which is obviously racist in intent, but which superficially appears non-racist. He inflames the passions of Texans, and does his very best to run roughshod over whatever civil liberties our people in Washington didn’t manage to get rid of. He politely requests that US armed forces stationed in Texas cooperate with his paramilitary force, and if he doesn’t receive cooperation, he at least receives non-interference.
Eventually, Mr. Texas pushes far enough that the feds ask him to tone it down. But he doesn’t. He cranks up the rhetoric to an even higher pitch. The feds start getting blunter, ordering him to stop seizing supplies destined for the Army and giving them to his Guardsmen, etc. When this dispute reaches the boiling point, he declares independence. The ordinary Texan in the street thinks this is a great move. Rabble-rousers we’ve gotten into State legislatures in Oklahoma, New Mexico, and other surrounding states begin clamouring for their states to join Texas. Their citizens, seeing that the Governor of Texas has succeeded in dramatically reducing the terrorist attacks in his state (a very easy trick on his part, since we just vastly reduced the number of attacks made - he arrests numerous innocent victims and frames them for conspiracy to bomb daycare centres to keep up the appearance of being besieged), and being tired of living in fear, tend to agree. The feds attempt to suppress this uprising, but given the fact that they can’t control the terrorism, the fact that it’s impracticable to use American troops against a popular Texan governor who apparently can control the terrorism, they don’t succeed. Several states join Texas, mostly in the Southwest. Wherever they do, draconian measures are instituted, and terrorism drops dramatically. By this time, a goodly chunk of the American army is taking orders from Austin, and not from Washington.
Due to our impeccable timing, we’re now just coming into the middle of the presidential primaries. Our hero recants his declaration of independence in return for Washington agreeing to not interfere with his actions. He declares for the presidency, sweeps to victory, and rules with an iron fist. Continued terrorist attacks at a much lower level allow him to leave martial law in place, and basically get away with murder. Miraculously, he swiftly resolves the conflict in Venezuela with terms very agreeable to American interests. He repeals the 22nd Amendment, and dismantles the constitutional checks and balances on presidential power.
Okay, so now I’ve got the most powerful military on the planet eating out of the hand of my dictator for life. Do I still need to launch an external invasion in order to satisfy the conditions of the OP?
On second thought, I don’t need any political moles besides the Governor. Existing politicians will already perform all the actions I need with a little prompting by well-heeled lobbyists.