Is an Invasion of Mainland US feasible

[Gig em Aggies]

From books and comics to fan fiction and Hollywood foreign armies and terror groups are shown invading the mainland United States for a short or long period of time. But despite the writers pen or the directors voice how so is an invasion of the United States. Example from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 the Newly radicalized russian government invades the United States for what they call an act of terrorism by a CIA operative during a massacre at a major airport. Other examples include Red Dawn, Olympus has Fallen, Homefront video game, Star Trek: Enterprise, fall of liberty video game, etc. areas of discussion amongst scholars, leaders and the average joe range from the economics of an invasion to the politics and will power of an invasion so do you as a reader or whoever you are is an invasion possible?

*exclude situations such as terror acts like 9/11 and other attacks should not be considered as they are only a single attack and not an invasion per se, Gangs, floods of illegal immigrants, and cartels, lone acts of terror such as the Boston Bombing or lone wolf terrorists are not considered.

Editors remark: In such things as video games and Hollywood productions I feel that invasion of the mainland United States makes for great entertainment as I grow tired of invading Europe or the Middle East or Africa all which have been done many times to much. But in reality an invasion of the mainland United States is unlikely for everyone except for 2 nations like China and Russia as its former Soviet identity. But even these two nations will have difficulty doing the job as such China and Russia don't have the will to do it and they would suffer politically and economically if they did. But it's 99% unlikely the U.S. will see a legitimate invasion by a foreign power anytime soon.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

no.

[Davinhia]

This isn't infinity ward's call of duty

[Bulgar Rouge]

A full-scale invasion would be very unlikely and nearly impossible to carry out - it would require colossal amounts of weapons, supplies, ships, aircraft and manpower to merely advance into the US. Holding those territories is out of the question, unless you're China.

A much more feasible strategy would be to break up the US by shattering its economy and federal government and then invade chunks of it to make sure no large government arises again.

[Guadalupador]

At this day in age, it's very implausible. The logistics just to field such an invasion would be too much for almost any modern military, plus, the US would probably see the invasion forces coming from a million miles away. Of course, that's if it was seaborne.

[Servinta]

feasible but not likely.

The invasion of the united states would either have to be two options,

Option one is that a small invasion force (special forces or even a Divisions worth) takes over an important town or city and would hold it hostage in some way (AoT the 40th day or maybe Olympus has fallen style) making it impossible for the united states to use its considerable military power to take out this small invasion force because of either the threat of more devastation should they react or the threat of the loss of key personal or infrastructure.

Other option is the full on invasion idea, which isn't as impossible as you would think.But that's only if they make it to the shores undetected or manage to sabotage said early warning radars first.

[Sanctus saxa]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not unless you nuke everything first. The US is, quite simply, too big - it would be a costly enterprise to take on in both man and equipment, and when you consider that strategic bases are scattered from the coasts all the war to the central plains, there's simply too much ground to cover in too short of a time to prevent devastating - likely nuclear - retaliation.
"Best" case scenario - nuke the midwest, capture the coast quickly. If you're lucky, you'll have the major population centers secured and the furthest missile/airbases before a response can be organized.

[Servinta]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not unless you nuke everything first. The US is, quite simply, too big - it would be a costly enterprise to take on in both man and equipment, and when you consider that strategic bases are scattered from the coasts all the war to the central plains, there's simply too much ground to cover in too short of a time to prevent devastating - likely nuclear - retaliation.
"Best" case scenario - nuke the midwest, capture the coast quickly. If you're lucky, you'll have the major population centers secured and the furthest missile/airbases before a response can be organized.

Not exactly, the point of an invasion isn't to cover the most ground, its simply to remove the military threat.The taking of ground can be a secondary objective to destroying the military forces.

[Saarth]

Very difficult, and your going to need allies. Big allies.

First off, you need to get the nuclear briefcase away from the president somehow. No ones invading America if 8,500 nuclear weapons are capable of being used. Need to sabotage that somehow.
Next, your going to have to decide your path of invasion. An invasion through Mexico is unlikely, and involves lots of military bases. Invasion a through Canada would encounter difficult terrain. An invasion through the sea could grab smaller islands like Hawaii and Puerto Rio, but not enough to take the mainland. To fully conquer the US, Sea landings combined with an invasion through Canada would be best. Also will need manpower and large navy.

[The Serbian Empire]

Seaborne is out of the question. But air and land based attacks would be best based going through New Mexico. Simply, it's unlikely and will pretty much require an enemy to ally with Mexico.

[The Serbian Empire]

Very difficult, and your going to need allies. Big allies.

First off, you need to get the nuclear briefcase away from the president somehow. No ones invading America if 8,500 nuclear weapons are capable of being used. Need to sabotage that somehow.
Next, your going to have to decide your path of invasion. An invasion through Mexico is unlikely, and involves lots of military bases. Invasion a through Canada would encounter difficult terrain. An invasion through the sea could grab smaller islands like Hawaii and Puerto Rio, but not enough to take the mainland. To fully conquer the US, Sea landings combined with an invasion through Canada would be best. Also will need manpower and large navy.

I'd point out the Mexican land border is weak in spots to the point one could run an army through. And Canada's plains would be a very easy invasion assuming that one could get them to no longer be in a military alliance with the US. As long as Canada's in NATO... a land invasion will go through Mexico.

[Gigaverse]

Not unless your army has Võ Nguyên Giáp, Rommel, Yamamoto and Montgomery on it.

[Bulgar Rouge]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not unless you nuke everything first. The US is, quite simply, too big - it would be a costly enterprise to take on in both man and equipment, and when you consider that strategic bases are scattered from the coasts all the war to the central plains, there's simply too much ground to cover in too short of a time to prevent devastating - likely nuclear - retaliation.
"Best" case scenario - nuke the midwest, capture the coast quickly. If you're lucky, you'll have the major population centers secured and the furthest missile/airbases before a response can be organized.

A nation with a sufficiently large nuclear arsenal - like Russia - could carry out a massive first strike against the majority of American military assets (including nuclear). The Russians could then pose an ultimatum against the US not to launch a retaliatory strike and to capitulate, as it is already at a huge disadvantage. Enemy troops could then easily arrive by air or land to wrest control of the capital and certain strategic assets or make sure the remaining American military units are disarmed, so no need to nuke cities at all. However, this is a huge gamble.

[Celibrae]

If there was a Russia-China coalition it could be possible, but still with major economic and political backwash. But this is unlikely, no matter how they appear, they are scared of each other, so my answer is: no

[The Serbian Empire]

This feels 1 sided here......
Question:Are y'all siding with the USA because you like it?

No, it's logical given the borders and the US-Canada military alliance that the only invasion possible will come from the same place drug cartels come from, Mexico.

[Mandicoria]

This isn't infinity ward's call of duty

[The Serbian Empire]

If there was a Russia-China coalition it could be possible, but still with major economic and political backwash. But this is unlikely, no matter how they appear, they are scared of each other, so my answer is: no

And secondly, they'd need Mexico in their loop of interest or take them out first.

[Krasny-Volny]

Feasible by an international coalition of every other significant military power on Earth.
And even then unlikely.

[Kelinfort]

No. Long term invasion and occupation is completely impossible. Short term strikes are feasible, but would be devastating for the belligerent power attacking the US.

[Gig em Aggies]

Another more recent example is that the highly popular Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare where in short Atlas a PMC organization has somewhat "invaded" the mainland United States. Now with that in mind could a PMC do the job better then an actual nation?

[Mandicoria]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not unless you nuke everything first. The US is, quite simply, too big - it would be a costly enterprise to take on in both man and equipment, and when you consider that strategic bases are scattered from the coasts all the war to the central plains, there's simply too much ground to cover in too short of a time to prevent devastating - likely nuclear - retaliation.
"Best" case scenario - nuke the midwest, capture the coast quickly. If you're lucky, you'll have the major population centers secured and the furthest missile/airbases before a response can be organized.

A nation with a sufficiently large nuclear arsenal - like Russia - could carry out a massive first strike against the majority of American military assets (including nuclear). The Russians could then pose an ultimatum against the US not to launch a retaliatory strike and to capitulate, as it is already at a huge disadvantage. Enemy troops could then easily arrive by air or land to wrest control of the capital and certain strategic assets or make sure the remaining American military units are disarmed, so no need to nuke cities at all. However, this is a huge gamble.

The US would launch missiles back the moment satellites pick up the launches. A nuclear attack by Russia would lead to the rest of the world being destroyed. There's a reason why it's called "Mutually Assured Destruction". But let's say this is a conventional war, it would be near impossible to go far into the nation; let alone hold onto a city for a long period of time. Not only do you have US forces to worry about, but the rest of NATO moving in to support and to help invade the aggressive country.

[Skwar]

It would be damn near impossible. I've even read that the entire world wouldn't be able to totally conquer the US.
http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-military-expert-if-the-whole-world-could-conquer-the-united-states

[Servinta]

A nation with a sufficiently large nuclear arsenal - like Russia - could carry out a massive first strike against the majority of American military assets (including nuclear). The Russians could then pose an ultimatum against the US not to launch a retaliatory strike and to capitulate, as it is already at a huge disadvantage. Enemy troops could then easily arrive by air or land to wrest control of the capital and certain strategic assets or make sure the remaining American military units are disarmed, so no need to nuke cities at all. However, this is a huge gamble.

The US would launch missiles back the moment satellites pick up the launches. A nuclear attack by Russia would lead to the rest of the world being destroyed. There's a reason why it's called "Mutually Assured Destruction". But let's say this is a conventional war, it would be near impossible to go far into the nation; let alone hold onto a city for a long period of time. Not only do you have US forces to worry about, but the rest of NATO moving in to support and to help invade the aggressive country.

If we're removing nukes from the equation then why are we allowing NATO into the mix ?

[Hollorous]

Not unless your army has Võ Nguyên Giáp, Rommel, Yamamoto and Montgomery on it.

Giap was a defender, not an invader.

The other guys could probably come up with something, given the right backing, technology, and such.

[Grand Britannia]

You'd need a nation with the same military power and power projection the US has, and even then not by a long shot.