I’m waiting now for the next pfanzer to roll over me to let my die under his “off topic off topic !!!” followed by " Ozon alert!!" (oh no…forgot… that is when there is too much ozon… )
Aaaaaaahhhhh… Forgot… Panzer might makes right…I’m done with… Bye all…
Now that’s just plain obnoxious. Just because your leader authorises the use of such force doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to defend yourself against a retaliation. In WWII the Germans certainly did commit atrocities, and they deserved the Allied assault they got. But similarly, their citizens certainly had the right to retaliate. Anyone should have the right to defend their home. Even criminals.
BS. There never was such a high concentration to begin with. Not where I live, anyway.
the reason the Japs didn’t attack the mainland of the USA is they knew the average American owned, and operated and had bullets for a gun.
As these guns would have been useless against airplanes, I assume you mean that they prevented invasion. Don’t you think that the 5,500 mile barrier of the Pacific might just have been a bigger factor?
Well… back to the OP after Aldebaran’s perplexing rants.
No, I don’t believe that the rest of the world could invade the US even if they were mightily pissed and actually wanted to.
We have something they lack- the US Navy. Believe it or not, our Navy is large enough and powerful enough to destroy the combined might of the rest of the world’s navies.
Without the ability to get here, there’s no reasonable way to invade the US.
The economic question is a huge one. Who could afford to go to war with the US?
Not just the expense of feilding and army capable of occupying the us, an army but actuall being able to do w/o the trade of the US enough to mount the political will to undertake the invasion. Until there’s a cash cow big enough to fill the shoes of the US market, there won’t be an invasion, (conventional military invasion), of the US.
I thought that WW III was the Cold War and that the “War onTerrorism” was supposed to be WW IV.
I hate that we put numbers on the “world wars.” Numbers imply a progression- an infinite one.
I have no idea what kind of experience the person who said that Americans would roll over has had. It’s certainly different than my experiences w/ people. A lot of the people I know have contemplated taking up arms against the US government, (hypothetically, of course, as to seriously ponder such a thing is a highly illegal activity), and are very suspicious of the US’s involvement w/ the UN, stockpile resources against catastrophe etc.
But maybe I just live in an odd part of the US.
I am certain that there’s a certain element through out the US, (and throughout the world), that’d welcome a chance to participate whole heartedly in sanctioned violence of the nature that’d result from a military invasion of the mainland US, ( The Fatherland, um I mean The Motherland, I mean The Homeland :dubious:).
Well that is great debating style Aldebaran. “I’m done with … bye all”. So, you came in here to ruffle feathers and heat the topic up to an angry emotional level. THEN you just leave. You seem like a “troll” to me.
kuraijo,
Say that to the US admin and the US occupyers in Iraq.
The Iraqis fighting the invaders are for them criminals.
That is where I refer to.
I you want to call my remark ***** (fill in yourself the word you used) that is hardly my problem.
People are out on attacking others and twisting words of others anyway. I’m already used to it. No problem.
Wolf m.
Try to see humour where it is to be found or are you one of those persons who are only out on attacking and twisting posts?
By the way: I read somewhere it is not done around her to make such remarks about other posters.
And since the sbject of this topic is
WWIII
my input is hardly “ranting”.
The invaders of Iraq didn’t care a bit for the eventual backlash of their actions on the rest of the world, did they?
They still don’t.
And as for the rest of the OP: my answer to that is also hardly a “rant”, but reality.
Or do you think the USA will economically survive an other terms of the fanatics in lead?
I wish all the Americans who are already now victim of those fantatic’s poicy very good luck when their economy goes further down and the debt of the US, now already rocking sky high, reaches the stars.
Stealing other countries natural resources is in my opinion not the most excellent solution to solve that problem because even that didn’t work out as planned so far.
So no, I don’t think other countries will bother to ever invade the USA, if they have the possibilities or not.
The USA government is doing a great job in destroying it all by themselves.
salaam. A
I enjoy alternative world-type speculations as much as the next guy, but I’ve got a few problems with the OP’s proposition as stated:
- IMO, the only method of direct attack on the US mainland that could potentially result in ‘success’ (in this case defined as destruction of US ability to defend in depth) would be a full-scale nuclear first strike. This would of course result almost automatically in full nuclear retaliation by the US, making any victory by the opponent a pyhrric one.
Again IMO, no single country, or even any plausible alliance of countries, has enough naval assets to allow a successful direct seaborne invasion and occupation of the US mainland, nor does any country any longer have long-range air power in sufficient numbers to carry out a sustained air bombardment of the mainland with conventional weapons.
Somewhat more likely to have (at least initial) success would be a slow buildup of foreign troops through some sort of “mutual assistance” pact with Canada or Mexico, followed by a surprise incursion across the border, driving towards Southern California or Texas (If from Mexico), and/or Chicago and Boston/New York metroplex (if from Canada). Of course such a buildup would surely not go unnoticed by the US, and of course we’d fight to the last high school student: has no one ever seen Red Dawn?
-
What is the precipitating factor setting “the world” against the US? I could see a Europe vs. US scenario, maybe China vs. US.
But, for just one example, under what conceivable circumstances would powerful enemies such as Pakistan and India unite against the US? In any scenario I could envision surely one or more major states would find a strategic advantage in aligning with rather than against the US. -
What is the strategic objective in attacking the US mainland? That is, what are most important gains to be accomplished: destruction of US nuclear capability (US submarine-launched ballistic missiles are pretty much beyond any effective defence, barring some theoretical wonder weapon)? Seizure of economic or mineral assets? Toppling of the government? If the latter, there are many means of accomplishing this without resorting to a frontal military assault. Hmm, I just know someone is going to comment on that last sentence.
-
As already stated, just about any conceivable frontal assault on the mainland by an outside power is doomed to failure. I would find much much more plausible any of the following:
a) The lightning siezure of non-mainland US territory, such as Hawaii, part or all of Alaska, Guam or Puerto Rico. Although this would most likely result in a massive US military campaign to recover the siezed territory, it would at least result in the sort of drawn-out conflict that the OP envisions.
b) a multi-country campaign to intended to throw US troops out of Iraq (hi, Aldebaran!) or some other foregn location where there is a heavy US presence.
c) Internal civil war or insurrection: this could grow out claimed states-rights issues of the type that precipitated the last civil war, occur as part of some general breakdown of authority in one part of the country or another reulting from an natural or economic disaster, or be set off by a coup d’etat attempt by one faction or another (although I find it very hard indeed to imagine a coup, by, say, enraged Naderites).
Basically, I guess what I am saying is that in some sense the most plausible enemy of the US at this time is itself, and that more details on the limiting parameters are needed to make this a workable exercise.
Not likely.
No single nation could stand against the combined forces of the rest of the world. There would still be massive destruction and death everywhere so we would have to do something pretty awful to incur the wrath of the entire world. Even the Nazis had allies.
Your coworker’s an idiot. We would certainly not greet a conquering army with open arms. Maybe some of your ultra-liberal wackos might but the vast majority of people would probably have feelings that range from apprehensive apathy to outright hostility.
Besides, as you can plainly see from the Iraqi occupation that it doesn’t take a lot of armed angry people to cause a lot of trouble for an invading army.
Well I would certainly hope so.
Well that and they never got a chance to. Pearl Harbor failed to knock out the American carrier forces. You can’t invade the USA from across the Pacific while we still have planes and ships that can threaten an invasion force. Before Japan could even think about invading the US mainland, they would need to defeat our (and Canada’s) Navy. They would need supply routes from Japan to the west coast to bring in replacement parts and fresh troops. Even then, the sheer size of North America would make invasion from the sea a difficult endeavor.
MS:
You beat me to the punch. I’ll ask the OP to clarify how the scenario of it being the US against “the world” comes about. Hey we just had a spat with France about Iraq, but I somehow don’t see war-clouds on the horizon…
That’s just for starters. I’d then go on to ask for clarification about why Americans would greet the conquerors “with open arms.” That’s one the silliest things I’ve every heard.
Moderator’s Note: Just a reminder to everyone: Don’t do this. Thank you.
And I just thought I’d add that I reported MYSELF to the moderator. 
Go Wolverines!
An interesting scenario that’s been presented as likely, ( I found it dubious, but that is how it was presented), was that there was an effort to raw the bulk of US military might away from the US mainland and to engage them thousands of miles away as a prelude to a concerted invasion.
The person who presented this idea was very concerned about teh invasion of Iraq for this reason. In his estimation the “socialist sodomite” nations were in collusion w/ neocons and republicrats to make this happen.
I thought I’d interject this here as internal collusion, treason, is a element that hadn’t come up yet.
Go Wolverines!
I don’t need to. They know that the people have a right to fight back. Whether they respect this right is another story. And of course the soldiers are entitled to think whatever they want to think of the Iraqis.
perhaps you should stop injecting unimplied meanings into my words as well.
Heck, you might want to encourage an invasion just for the sangfroid chuckle of watching the ultra-liberal wackos running toward the invader carrying “WELCOME!” banners and throwing rose petals, just to be mowed down by machine guns.
And when that’s taken care of, you can get started on the serious business of obliterating the invasion.
Y’know, there was a little Austrian git with a funny mustache who wrote a bit about how the USA was full of weaklings and apathetic fatasses who would never, ever, ever, under any circumstances get up and fight. He had a weasly crony who wrote even more on the topic. If I recall, they did most of their writing before 1950. How right were they?