You have one shot.....

Great Debates
41

Joe_Cool Pearl Harbour.

ExTank I’m sorry, I had assumed that Freedom2 had mentioned the disarming of the population. In my defense, it is an easy mistake to make. With out an armed populace, if you got really really really lucky, you might hold some territory.

I like you, too. Except for a few small errors in your education, you seem like a pretty smart guy.

For instance, you are planning an attack from the north, between the rockies and the mississippi. After your infrantry freezes in montana, can I have your tanks?

See, that’s the big problem with this plan. It is essentially a blitzkreig across 1200 miles of territory. If you get held up at any point before securing supplies, the attack is over. You’re northern attack is going to go through the most self-sufficent areas in the US ( and I find it hard to believe that some one who can make it through a montana winter is going to roll over for you), your southern attack is going to some tough territory, too. On the upside, you can make good time up to, probably south dakota. On the downside, you’ve now got a, what, 700 mile long supply chain that is trying to resupply a mobile force? Hey, when your tanks run out of gas, and you’re fit and trim warriors are looking at each other and thinking “mmmm…steak”, can I have your tanks? Like I said, you specify a disarmed populace; if we assume that it is not disarmed, you’ve got all of texas behind you. Now, I don’t want to suggest that everyone in texas is a rifle-toting redneck. Some of them have pistols, too. And there you are, running all that nice yummy food up to your troops - you did remember to guard those supply lines, right?

As for LA…I did not mean to suggest that we would all rise up and join in a united front against the invaders. But if you think you can cross 50 miles of heavily populated territory filled with desperate people in time to get to the manufacturing centers (which are pretty far inland) before the marines get there and kick the crap out of what ever is left of you, you are igoring the last 100 years of history in regard to city fighting. I’d also like to point out that there are storekeepers here who have fired shots, in anger, at armed targets, in a city under martial law. Frankly, some of these people have more honest to good combat time than your average tank driver. Review the reports of the LA riots. No, it is not a concentrated military assualt. But they can provide just the sort of thing that slows down advances and demoralizes (and annoys) invading troops. And, worst case, if we ignore the Geneva convention entirely, we have Stoid whine at them until she bores them to death. Desperate times, desperate measures.

I’d also like to point out that well before St. Petersberg resorted to cannabilism, they got lots of practice eating siege food - dogs, cats, squirrels, pigeons, and rats. That helps you kind of work your way over the “ich” factor. My response about water heaters and swimming pools was in respose to your statement

Maybe, but not in the first month. Sorry. Additionally, it helps that you are attacking LA during the rainy season.

I notice that you added naval support to your list. Smart thinking. You may believe that sub commanders will be hesistant to sink anything afloat (“well, we are at war, but I suppose Korea could still be sending us cars”); I tend to believe that we will return to the 400 year naval tradition of “any ship in a combat area is a target”.

You are completely incorrect in the belief that holding the area you mention starves the coasts. The west coast is self sufficent for food ( we are net EXPORTERS of food ), water, and power (given that power is rationed). The best part is that the water distribution system, while using solid state electronics for efficency, is not dependant on them. Would you believe manual backups?

Looking east of the mississippi, I see lots of food producing states. A lot of that acreage is used to grow cotton and tabacco; this implies that it is arable land that can be used to food. Sorry, can’t starve us that way, either. Oh, and while we’re on the subject, I notice that Monsato is on the wrong side of the mississippi. Where did you say you’d be getting those seeds from, again? When you starve, can I have your tanks? The ones I didn’t get when your troops froze, deserted, got shot by bandits, or ran out of gas?

A couple of people have suggested that the american public (the ones who work the longest hours in the first world, fwiw) are too lazy and complacent to put up a good show of resistance. There are two things wrong with this theory:

  1. The only way to know is to try it and find out. I’d ask the founding fathers at Hiroshima how well it worked the last time somebody bet big on that theory, but that’s just me.

[brief aside, if I may]
2) You know, it is a little annoying. I’m used to that “I love my country but I hate its citizens” thing from the left, where it it merely annoying. From people who (from the posters I recognize) share my politcal views, it is embarrassing.
[/brief aside]

As it turns out, I was using the worng set of ideas about HEMP. It does look like you could take out the entire country with one well placed blow. Luckily, with an armed populace, that won’t really get you that far, so I guess we’re safe for the next 4 years, anyway.

To recap:

You can’t get through. If you can, you cant get supplies. If you can get through, survive the winter, and get supplies, the part that you hold won’t destroy the parts that you don’t.

ExTank
I’m not really sure what the “your kind” comment is supposed to mean. Suffice it to say that this post is already too long to explain what “my kind” is, or what they are like.

42

They would first try to take out the government. Head of the snake and all that.
But,
Does anyone really believe that there’s any likelyhood that another govt. is going to try to conquer the US?
I doubt it. Terrorist attacts? Sure, That’s happened. But to invade and conquer (and keep) a country as large and as populous this one would surely be beyond the means of any aggressor.
Militia or no militia.
I think that any take over would be by economic and political means, not military.
Peace,
mangeorge

43

The remarks about “flyover country” and “cretinous, inbred, redneck hicks” were in response to the several posters on this thread who were chortling over the prospects of New York, L.A., Washington, D.C., etc. being annihilated (along with millions of their fellow citizens, assorted irreplaceable treasures of art and culture, and a major chunk of this country’s economic base). They were meant in exactly the same light-heartedly ironic tone that I’m sure the posts they were in response to were made.

44

Given the preponderance of American military power–I mean, good Lord, we have more aircraft carriers than the entire rest of the world put together, just to give one example, and I really don’t think putting together the sort of mobile ground forces which can attack countries thousands of miles away–you know, like the ones the U.S. has–is really that easy–perhaps a radically different approach is needed. Screw the whole “army in Mexico/Canada” thing. Just concentrate on getting ahold of one nuke. Go into American politics, in a minor sort of way. Get yourself one of those obscure, low-level Cabinet positions–Secretary of the Strategic Helium Reserve or whatever. Maneuver your way into being the guy picked to go sit in the bunker during the State of the Union Address. Once you’re sworn in as POTUS, you’ll have plenty of justification for declaring martial law, suspending the Constitution, having yourself crowned Emperor, exterminating the Jedi Knights, etc.

45

There are 18 other countries, from Canada to Poland, most of which are advanced industrial powers and two of which are nuclear powers, which are obliged by treaty to consider an attack on the United States as an attack on themselves. Of course, they might say “Treaty? Screw the treaty! Hell, it’s just those damned arrogant Americans anyway.” And, if the Mad Prince of Monaco unleashed his unstoppable army of Giant Killer Robots on the South of France, we might say “Whoa! Giant Killer Robots! No way we’re gettin’ involved in that. Hell, it’s just those damned arrogant French anyway.” I would point out, however, that someone who has launched a daring plan to conquer the most powerful nation on Earth, and is tossing nukes around to boot, might be considered a long-term threat by even the most cynical and calculating of Europeans, even if he didn’t take any immediate action against them.

46

If you wanted to nuke the largest population center in North America, you would have to nuke Mexico City.

It’s interesting that we just recently had a discussion about Pearl Harbor and nobody’s drawn the obvious parallel between Yamamoto’s gambit and the One-Nuke Invasion.

The problem with this scenario is that the United States is too damned big to invade. (I’m assuming here that we’re not considering NATO; obviously, a surprise invasion of the U.S. would engender a very hostile response from NATO.) There is nothing you can bomb that will, in and of itself, severely cripple the long-term ability of the United States to wage war. Hitting the Alaska pipelines wouldn’t keep the U.S. from importing oil. Hitting SAC is of absolutely no use because SAC’s supposed to defend against nuclear attack and if you’re only gonna have one bomb, what would they defend against anyway?

Assuming you had a sufficiently large military force to attempt an invasion the ONLY logical target is Washington, D.C. All kidding aside about how fun it would be to kill a lot of lawyers and politicians, the lack of a central command structure is your best bet for causing maximum confusion among the U.S. armed forces. Even if individual American units fight to the death, which they certainly would, the fact remains that X troops fighting individually are easy to defeat, while X troops fighting as a cohensive whole are hard to defeat. The longer you can prevent U.S. forces from coordinating at a strategic level, the better your chances.

The elimination of Washington would not prevent Army divisions, USAF wings and Navy warships from fighting, and they could probably cobble together some sort of unified command - after all, there’s gotta be a superior officer somewhere. However, there’s still be a time delay AND yopu would cripple the military-civilian interface so important for resupply, strategic direction, intelligence gathering and civil order.

47

Actually you’d be pretty hard pressed to take out the central command structure even if you did invade D.C.
It’s rare that everybody’s there at the same time, and when a high number are, the military and intelligence communutries are on high alert. At least I hope they are.
We have 2 or 3 ex-presidents available and capable of taking over in a real emergency. To say nothing of all the retired military and political leaders.
I don’t think there would be chaos. A mess, sure, but not chaos. The populace would pull together just as they have in the past. And be willing to follow whatever command structure was set up to handle the emergency. At least until the situation is resolved. Then we’d get back to business as usual.
Nah, one bomb just won’t do it.
Can I sell one of these things on ebay? :wink:
Peace,
mangeorge

48

Want one bomb to do maximum effect, claim there are 4-5 of them.
One each in DC,SF,NYC,Denver,Dallas, etc, etc. Observers will be in place to monitor major US troop formations, Rush Seattle and publicly state tha these bombs exist and will be detonated if the US army does not surrender unconditionally and immediately. If anyone makes a move you set an example (detonate the one bomb) Millitary units would refuse to move for fear of jepoardizing their loved ones and or the population would turn on the government for ignoring the threats.

EMP? Nah paranoia and hysteria are far more effective...ask the banks about the end of 1999.....

Want one target that would hurt to just outright nuke…how about the panama canal. Wouldnt kill us outright but all heavy shipping from west to east would be heavily delayed and or would become far more expensive…

49

2Sense: Nah, I’m not ignoring you. Just too much to say (type) and not enough manual dexterity.

In my post dated 01-27-01, at 9:34 A.M. I stipulated in my very first assumption that:

(Bashere, pay attention to this next part, too.)

The corollary of that is the assumption that any such force would have enough supplies for an extended engagement, prepositioned in my “host” country (wherever my staging area was), tactically dispersed and defended.

That would include sufficient cold-weather clothing, and other such cold-weather essentials, as necessary to sustain my forces.

After all, if I’m planning a winter campaign, don’t you think I would be smart enough to equip accordingly? I only have to look as far back as Hitler (Napolean, if I’m energetic) to see what happens to an inadequately equipped military force during an extended winter campaign.

See, I’m not counting on re-supplying from local procurement; so anything that I pick up along the way is just gravy. And yes, the convoys are armed and guarded.

Any partisan activity results in “clear-an-sweep” actions, with anything that isn’t nailed down being carried off as war material, and anything that is nailed down being burned or blown up (to deny its use to the partisans). Round up the good citizens of those habitats, and hold them hostage against future partisan attacks.

As the entire Northern Hemisphere is blacked out, what media is going to report on these “atrocities”? If Stormin’ Norman, and the civil war in Gechneya, have shown us anything: Keep The Damned Reporters Away From The Your Areas!

Any verbal reports of “abuses and atrocities” will be dismissed as “propoganda”; any evidence as “fabricated”.

Politely suggest that a U.N. commission be appointed to decide whether such allegations merit further consideration, and whether a special committee needs to be formed to determine if a committee needs to be formed to investigate any such allegations. By the time they decide, yea or nay, the evidence will have been neatly disposed of.

If “my” methods seem harsh, it’s because “I” have an extremely difficult task ahead of “me”, a well-nigh impossible one. Failure, as they say, is not an option.

If “I” were actually a high-ranking general in some country capable of concieving and even attempting (with some realistic chance of success) such a thing, and were so ordered to do so, “I” would promptly salute “my” C-I-C, saying “Sir, Yes Sir! At Once Sir!”, smartly about face and proceed to “my” HQ’s/

“I” would then empty “my” unit’s treasury into a numbered account in the Caymans, put on a fake mustache and a pair of sunglasses and sneak out of the country, to find the nearest CIA Office and tell them everything “I” knew.

Bashere, if we’re finished with the mutual-admiration courtesies, I have some problems with your assumptions, although you brought up some very valid points that I honestly hadn’t considered (thanks!)
First, I already admitted that I wasn’t (actually couldn’t!) trying to consider all of the dynamics of this complex problem; and that I was spitballing heavily on some issues (what we call a SWAG).
Secondly (having answered your “winter” question), you assume automatically that I will get bogged down in Partisan activity. While I’d certainly expect some, I’d like to tailor my approach to minimize it, if not outright mitigate it.

I’d rather not get bogged down in partisan warfare at all; thus my statement about trying to get the local populace behind me.

(Note to MEBuckner: I wasn’t reproving your choice of words; just using them as an example of the type of words I might use to convince the midwest that they’re better off without the east and west and joining “my team”. My “propoganda campaign” is just an off-the-cuff example, and not intended to represent an actual, conceived marketing strategy.)
Third, it seems I underestimated the water supply and control mechanisms in L.A. Having been corrected, I guess it would be in my interest to conduct Biological Warfare on the L.A. reservoirs; at a minimum, some smart bombs on critical junctions.
Four, you assumed that my MAU’s out on the RO/RO’s were going to roll through population centers to get to their targets, though that isn’t your fault; considering that I had been discussing the use of mechanised forces almost exclusively, it was a logical assumption on your part.

Airmobile Infantry can be in and out rather quickly, and as long as I use neutral-type aircraft (I may even put an American Flag on the side of them, to enhance my deception!), like the venerable UH-1 (everyone uses them, even our Guard and Reserve units), I expect a rapid-deployed force can conduct a hit-and-fade before effective resistance can be organized.

Five: You assume that just because California is a net exporter of food that it is entirely self-sufficient in all areas of food production.

We had a debate a while back about which states may be self-sufficient enough to “go their own way” from the U.S., and California was mentioned, with her partisans enumerating her various and greatly varied assets.

Fair Enough :D. You’ve convinced me that certain areas might just need that little bit of extra-special attention: like “salting the fields”, rounding up and exterminating the farmers, blowing up any bridge capable of supporting anything more than an anemic donkey; you get the idea. Lots of options available to someone more imaginative and highly trained than I.

Six: Who says Monsanto is the only supplier of Seed? Don’t you think that I could procure some seed in Montana? Nebraska? Iowa? Kansas?

And if not? Well, if the Canadians and Mexicans were nice enough to let me stage my Army in their countries, might they not be so inclined to lend/sell me some seed?
Seven: You are absolutely correct in your assessment about the subs. They are the real wild card here, and a factor that cannot be overlooked or dismissed.

I, however, have no ready solutions to the clearly significant threat that they pose.

I’ve been at this a bit and my stomach is rumbling; there are numerous permutations to this scenario; too many for me to try to unravel in an interesting, if pointless, mental exercise.

The biggest fault that I find is actually in the underlying premise:

If a country were rich enough to build a force (conventional and at least one nuke) large enough, modern enough and sneaky enough to actually sneak attack the continental U.S., then either:

A. They really don’t need to bother in the first place, as they already have everything that we do;

-or-

B. We really deserve whatever we have coming at us, for being asleep-at-the-wheel.

Any nuclear attack on the U.S. will, IMHO, come from terrorists, using a tactical nuclear weapon smuggled into the country ala “The Peacemakers”, or some other similar scenario.

50

:smiley:
Ok, ExTank, you gave me a good chuckle with that one.
As to “asleep at the wheel”, don’t forget that “Sleeping Giant” what’s-his-name referred to when Japan attacked the U.S. at the beginning of WW2. Still a giant, I think. And not quite as deep into the REM’s as before, either.
Anyway, there’s the problem of communications. We got cellular now, and the internet, and the phone system would be next to impossible to knock out. Too many switching centers.
Same with electrical power, as sad a shape as it’s in. The Power Grid is vast, and they can load-shed non-critical areas to keep power going to the critical ones.
You’re wasting a bunch of munitions in your scenario. All you gotta do is toss that silly ol’ bomb and get elected as president (look who just did), and get some of your cronies elected to Congress and you’d be in like Flynn.
Oh, yeah. You need to make friends with corporate America, so’s they won’t oppose you. We’ll do just about anything to keep our jobs.
Hell, you got my vote, buddy. :wink:
Peace,
mangeorge (Not very dangerous, either)

51

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RickJay *
**

Are you sure? I know Mexico City is the largest city in the world, but as far as I can tell, the Metro area including NYC stretches from Massachusetts almost to Virginia and includes Boston, Providence, NYC, Long Island, Philadelphia, Trenton, Newark, etc. That’s a lot of people. All of whom would be terrified if a nuke were detonated over central park (have you ever been here? the people are scared of EVERYTHING!!). And even if Mexico City STILL has more people (quite possible), it doesn’t have the same impact on world affairs. So from my (limited and amateur) military viewpoint, New York is the biggest (in importance, if not population) population center on the continent, and probably one of the top five in the world.

Yes, there is an interesting parallel there, but the U.S. of 50 years ago is a far cry from the U.S. of today. Yes, we are more prepared militarily, but we (as a people) are soft, lazy, and weak. We don’t have the drive or the desire to excel that we did then. We are a nation ruled by convenience, demographics, and entertainment. And with exceptions, we are not a nation that would “…fight them on the beaches…fight them in the fields…fight them on land and in the sky.” Imagine the population of today saying “We shall never surrender, whatever the cost may be.” And in my opinion, this is not even a shadow of our finest hour. A country as divided and dispassionate and rife with fear as ours wouldn’t stand a chance against an invader (Mind you I’m not disparaging our armed forces. Only the civilian populace). Even getting a declaration of war would take six months before it even gets out of committe, and then Jesse Jackson would have to stage demonstrations for another month before it came to a vote. (reference Vietnam)

I would leave the political leadership intact for the very reason I just stated above. Political leadership in this country is so divided and bumbling that taking out Washington would give the History channel a month’s worth of material for “Military Blunders”. Everybody is so afraid of making a wrong move that they don’t move at all.

An army cannot fight a war by itself. There needs to be popular support. A cold and hungry population that is used to convenience and ease will not throw its support firmly behind the military, which is where it needs to be. Especially to win a war against a determined invader, on your home turf.

52

It’s a good thing you aren’t ignoring me, ExTank.
I have to warn you, I was getting ready to pout. :wink:

I see your strategic picture a little clearer but I need some political context. Why is the invading nation not a nuclear cinder? Also, you say that you have an extremely difficult task ahead of you but what exactly is that task? How many troops are you using to accomplish it?

If the political goal is conquest and occupation ( and it isn’t a conquest without the occupation ) then you will need a lot of men. Millions. It isn’t enough to guard your convoys. You would need to patrol the roads so they didn’t get destroyed. You would need man strong points along the way and every city and decent-sized town would need to be garrisoned.

However, if your political goals were more limited it you wouldn’t need such a high force/space ratio. People would be more likely to cooperate if they thought you were going to leave eventually. If the goal was to stop America from bullying your country over some heated diplomatic point and then get out then your mission is that much easier.

We are pious toward our history in order to be cynical toward our government - Garry Wills

53

2Sense: I don’t have a reday answer to those questions; the OP asked how would I use my one Nuke for greatest effect. My posit was a HEMP (High altitude Electromagnetic Pulse) to render the civillian sector (and a decent chunk of the military, as well) inert.

My motivation may simply be terror, it may be invasion with limited strategic objectives (take a city or two on the coasts), it may be to immobilize the U.S. while I tackle the middle-east and their oil-fields.

I sorta assumed a mainland invasion (the OP said my armies were in Canada and/or Mexico, ready to roll), and I gave some brief narrative as to how I see the EMP effecting the social fabric, how the military would respond, how their dispersal would weaken them to an all-out invasion (as opposed to being strategically centered in FT.'s Riley, Carson and Hood).

I also assumed, knowing my objective (whatever it may be), that I would have laid on enough supplies/logistical support to adequately sustain my offensive. Gotta have beans, bullets and go-juice, or the whole mess unravels faster than a German offensive through Russia in January.

The force I proposed would be 2 Armies, of about 3 Corps each (3 Divisions to a Corps); call one “Northern Group” and the other “Southern Group”.

Additionally, I taked two Marine Amhibious Units (MAU’s), each about Brigade sized, staged on Civillian RO/RO’s and Container Ships, one on each coast. MAU’s have Harrier Jump Jets, Helicopter Gunships, Helicoter Troop Transports and Shallow-Draft Landing Craft, as well as light wheeled armor (LAV-25s).

And at least 4 ASW Frigates with ASW Helo’s (thanks for the input, Bashere!) for each MAU.

My plan was simple: detonate the nuke, in winter; the EMP fries every major piece of electronics in the Northern Hemisphere (my stuff is shielded!). Let the civillians start to freeze/starve, let the military conduct humanitarian relief (camps and what-not) around the major population centers, giving the military plenty of time to disperse.

Then “pincer” the center of the country, from Canada to Mexico, using natural terrain as barriers/obstacles to strategically shield my force from counter-attack.

Say, if I take the passes over the continental divide, and guard the southern approaches through Arizona and New Mexico (gotta have Strategic Depth), and take/blow the major bridges over the Mississippi.

I let my ADA (SAMs) cover division-sized formations, and trade some few tanks/troop carriers for the few remaining fighters/bombers the U.S. has up flying about (precious electronics that weren’t fried by the EMP).

Carriers abroad are another wild card that I can’t adequately plan for; as they may not have been effected by the EMP, several CAW could really ruin my day and leave the plains strewn with so much scrap metal that I one called “my Army!”. My ASW Frigates may initially shield my MAU’s from PACFLT and LANTFLT subs, but SOPAC, SOLANT and MEDFLT would cook my goose sooner or later (sooner would be my guess), so I would have to use the MAU’s most-tick to get any effectiveness out of them before the go BOOM!

Bashere was certainly correct about one thing: any remaining U.S. Naval assets would steam for home at once in the event of a country crippling EMP, with blood in their eyes and a bone in their teeth.

They probably wouldn’t fire indiscriminately at everything, but woe be to the sorry bastard who doesn’t look “right” or jump quick when they say “boo”.

And, the Navy has their own tactical nuclear arsenal; as soon as they identified who those people are in those tanks out in Nebraska, there would be some hell-to-pay back on “my” home turf.

You see, the thing about Tactical nukes, that, IMHO, makes them even more dangerous than Strategic nukes is that they are readily mounted on, say, an F/A-18, or a Tomahawk Missile.

SO, is that Alpha Strike coming into “my” airspace [home country] loaded with regular bombs? Or nukes?

Which is why my closing comments were “that I wouldn’t want to be the [foriegn] general handed such a task”.

It could be done. Maybe. With good planning, good troops, and a better-than-anyone-has-a-right-to-expect dose of luck.

The civillian casualties would be high (courting biological complications come spring thaw), it would be an ecological disaster, my forces would be vulnerable to American Partisans (no matter how harshly I treated their families, or how much I tried to bribe them with), I would be an international pariah, if not an outcast subject to military reprisals from American Allies, I would probably be cut off from “home” a very long time (maybe a decade or more), if not permanently.

It just ain’t worth it, as a Strategic Invasion. Cost/benefit is too high.

As a terrorist attack, or a diversion to mask an invasion elsewhere, it might work better. Other countries would respond, but without American’s vigorously kicking tail, I think the European’s would be slow to respond; perhaps slow enough for me to accomplish my objective and consolidate my acquisition.

Perhaps. But probably not.