Is an Invasion of Mainland US feasible

[FutureAmerica]

The Russians and Chinese will have to invade Alaska first. Japan and South Korea have mutual defense treaties with the US and will have to be defeated first or they can host a counterattack. It will not be easy. Japan tried this in WWII. They took some western Alaskan islands.

From the east, the British successfully attacked the US in 1812. The Russians can come from the east coast, but it will also be logistically difficult.

The most logical place for a US invasion is from Mexico. A coastal invasion will be nearly impossible.

[Imperializt Russia]

Which would have been achieved through mechanisation, motorisation or efficient management of the advance.

so either a fleet of transport aircraft capable of blotting out the sun due to numbers (not to mention accompanying fighters to protects said LST's plus tankers for said fighters so they can reach America, plus escort fighters for said tankers, plus other support aircraft and their escorts) which would use more fuel then the army its supplying, or an armada the size of which only existed in a Spanish kings wet dream that would be about as easy to hide as a small country once out to sea and still takes upwards of 3 days to a week depending on where they land.
no amount of mechanization has figured out how to make crossing the two largest bodies of water in the world instantaneous.

Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were criticising the management of the Eastern Front.

[Celibrae]

I concur, too much blitzkrieg...

The tactics of the Wehrmacht are about seventy years out of date.

Just because it was made 70 years ago doesn't make it out of date...

Fast moving encirclement and pin-point power application of enemy positions with mechanised units and air superiority, and now with helicopters- doesn't seem outdated to me...

[Janshah]

Taken outside of the present-day context: yes.

But not at this time when that particular territory is held by a sufficiently coherent national entity capable of, and ideologically committed to, a coordinated defense. The logistics are just too unlikely, to make a lasting successful invasion (in the conventional boots-on-the-ground occupation sense) if you have to go against that. For anyone wily enough to rise to leadership of a country, it wouldn't make sense to chance it.. and without the will to chance it among foreign country leadership, an invasion is not going to happen.

But beyond that, there is little about the geography there that makes it particularly invasion-proof.

Invasion of those lands happened all the time from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, when doing so was called 'colonization of the Americas' and at a later stage 'war against rebellious colonies'.

In any number of future scenarios (anything that would see some form of collapse of central government and coordination) that same land mass could very well be invaded again, a piece at a time, just like it was before.

Perhaps invasion scenarios more relevant to the present day would be: Students descending on popular Spring Break towns. Baby boom retirees from the coasts heading inland in motor homes to see the country before they're too old. Chinese tourists.

[Imperializt Russia]

The tactics of the Wehrmacht are about seventy years out of date.

Just because it was made 70 years ago doesn't make it out of date...

Fast moving encirclement and pin-point power application of enemy positions with mechanised units and air superiority, and now with helicopters- doesn't seem outdated to me...

Because those are options the German planners didn't have and weren't able to make full use of.

There has been seventy years of technological advancement, significant capability advancement and seventy years of military theory over the Wehrmacht.

Critical point - don't call it Blitzkrieg.

[Immoren]

Just because it was made 70 years ago doesn't make it out of date...

Fast moving encirclement and pin-point power application of enemy positions with mechanised units and air superiority, and now with helicopters- doesn't seem outdated to me...

Because those are options the German planners didn't have and weren't able to make full use of.

There has been seventy years of technological advancement, significant capability advancement and seventy years of military theory over the Wehrmacht.

Critical point - don't call it Blitzkrieg.

Blitzkrieg really was Angry Birds of warfare though, wasn't it?
Something that's really been around for ages, but became popular "new" thing due to posh new PR and branding.

[Celibrae]

Just because it was made 70 years ago doesn't make it out of date...

Fast moving encirclement and pin-point power application of enemy positions with mechanised units and air superiority, and now with helicopters- doesn't seem outdated to me...

Because those are options the German planners didn't have and weren't able to make full use of.

There has been seventy years of technological advancement, significant capability advancement and seventy years of military theory over the Wehrmacht.

Critical point - don't call it Blitzkrieg.

In my opinion, blitzkrieg is an easier way to express a means of warfare, which literally means lightning war. Fast paced. And that's how modern war tends to be played out. Manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre.

Blitzkrieg is still relevant, and is a term most understand on NS, thus it is easier to convey a set of ideas by expressing them as said term.

[United States Kingdom]

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.

China and the USA don't have the tech to accomplish it, at least for now .

[Shnercropolis]

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.

No. Why would anyone want America's land? The cheapest, safest way for a potential adversary to "defeat" america would be to severely destabilize its economy and then wait for it to fall from power. Basically like Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because those are options the German planners didn't have and weren't able to make full use of.

There has been seventy years of technological advancement, significant capability advancement and seventy years of military theory over the Wehrmacht.

Critical point - don't call it Blitzkrieg.

In my opinion, blitzkrieg is an easier way to express a means of warfare, which literally means lightning war. Fast paced. And that's how modern war tends to be played out. Manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre.

Blitzkrieg is still relevant, and is a term most understand on NS, thus it is easier to convey a set of ideas by expressing them as said term.

Blitzkrieg is absolutely not relevant as a term anymore, except in the mistaken historical context of using it to refer to the Wehrmacht's early campagins.

It's a media term that has since been wildly distorted to refer to military theories devised by Guderian and others, promptly discarded by about 1942.

[Lydenburg]

In my opinion, blitzkrieg is an easier way to express a means of warfare, which literally means lightning war. Fast paced. And that's how modern war tends to be played out. Manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre.

Blitzkrieg is still relevant, and is a term most understand on NS, thus it is easier to convey a set of ideas by expressing them as said term.

Blitzkrieg is absolutely not relevant as a term anymore, except in the mistaken historical context of using it to refer to the Wehrmacht's early campagins.

It's a media term that has since been wildly distorted to refer to military theories devised by Guderian and others, promptly discarded by about 1942.

In that case, define "blitzkrieg".

[Dooom35796821595]

The best anyone could hope for is to cripple Americas fleet capabilities and make them return to their old isolationist policy.

[Pope Joan]

Dylan Lehrke, Americas Armed Forces Analyst at IHS Jane's, says: "I already noted, the amphibious-assault capability of the combined militaries of the world are simply too insignificant to get a beachhead on a coast. If they managed to go undetected, itself an impossible feat in light of modern surveillance capability, they still could not build up a force of any size before being pushed back into the sea.

Thus, an invasion would have to come via a land border, with the terrain of the southern border (that with Mexico) being most conducive to military operations. However, the fact that the largest US Army armor base happens to be in Texas naturally would hinder such an attack. Going through the Canadian border—out West, to avoid the Great Lakes and St Lawrence Seaway—would be easier"

http://www.vice.com/read/we-asked-a-mil ... ted-states

I do not think we are prepared for a land assault via Canada. With the increasing accessibility of Canada's north coast, this scenario is becoming more feasible. Russia is busy in those waters, and there are Chinese commercial ships in the Arctic also.

[Greater Soviet Ukraine]

No, U.S borders are to impermable.

[Karaq]

The Admiral who was behind the Pearl Harbor surprise attack was well aware that a mainland invasion of the US, would be a suicide mission.

"Anyone would be a fool to invade the mainland US, there would be a weapon behind every blade of grass."

[Pope Joan]

These Third Reich maps supposedly show possible German options for invading the US through Canada.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... n-U-S.html

Eastern Ontario is tempting because it is closer to vital targets, but it is well defended. I still think the vast western provinces could be open to attack from the north.

[Gig em Aggies]

These Third Reich maps supposedly show possible German options for invading the US through Canada.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... n-U-S.html

Eastern Ontario is tempting because it is closer to vital targets, but it is well defended. I still think the vast western provinces could be open to attack from the north.

What if hitter did a pact with Cuba like the Russians did during the Cold War and used Cuba as a staging ground for a german d-day assault on America via Florida?

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

No. It's not feasible except theoretically by Mexico or Canada. The United States is blessed with a very good geographic position between the Atlantic and Pacific that more or less protects it from the security threats of the Old World.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Nah. Not unless we somehow completely lost our army.

[Novus America]

This isn't infinity ward's call of duty

I love how the Russians don't even do the "rational" thing (implying that Russia could ever even possibly logistically coordinate an invasion of the US, let alone do so on a short notice and in response to a terror attack) and invade over the Arctic... Russia literally airdrops a million men on the East Coast after flying over NATO without resistance or notice. One of the most absurd plots I've ever heard.

In answer to OP's question, no, it isn't feasible. The US navy is more powerful than the combined naval forces of the rest of the world, as is the US airforce. That alone could deny access to the US coasts before a fleet even lands. The US has no "center", either, meaning a hostile coalition/state couldn't strike a definitive early blow in a conflict. The presence of highly developed infrastructure and inland waterways everywhere means US troops could quickly be mobilized and moved about internally, but the sheer breadth of the nation means that any invading force will be spread out quickly, and logistics of an occupation would be impossible. It's simply inconceivable that any coalition (even the rest of the world) could invade the US successfully.

The funny thing is the Russian Army is only 285,000 men, about half the size of the US army. In popular culture people seem to think Russia still has the USSR's military. It does not.

[The Two Jerseys]

These Third Reich maps supposedly show possible German options for invading the US through Canada.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... n-U-S.html

Eastern Ontario is tempting because it is closer to vital targets, but it is well defended. I still think the vast western provinces could be open to attack from the north.

What if hitter did a pact with Cuba like the Russians did during the Cold War and used Cuba as a staging ground for a german d-day assault on America via Florida?

Like the Mafia would ever do business with Mussolini's ally.

[Hoyteca]

It's not feasible, at least not for a single country or group. And that's without taking NATO, American nukes, US bases on foreign soil into account. An invasion force would first need to pass America's navy. If they make it onto the shores, they'll need to contend with a formidable US military on varied terrain said US military is very familiar with. Said military will be equipped by one of the biggest industrial bases in the world. That's not getting into problems foreign troops will have dealing with a hostile, massive, and armed, population.

[Asigna]

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.

Agreed, only the destruction of the US economic system would intensify into the collapse of the efficiency of the US's gargantuan organized institutions that rule the country such as the federal government that holds it together. However, even the US economy is hard to destroy. It may be possible to attack the US economy by hampering its growth or cutting off natural resource trade for a while but it would damage the country that profits in exporting resources to the US more than the US itself which has the habit of resiliency creating alternatives for the resources it has been deprived with, it has nearly an entire continent's vast natural resources in its hands.

Any major superpower cannot be destroyed from external forces without risking the other forces' annihilation, this is proven with the USSR or the Roman empire, all who had fell because of internal reasons that severely weakened them. US may fall only through a very serious political blunder that has a very hard hitting economic consequence (many see it as the war on terror) or through an internal unrest, which is highly unlikely due to population that fiercely makes sure that a leadership that they don't like makes it into the oval office without being impeached.

The tactics of the Wehrmacht are about seventy years out of date.

Just because it was made 70 years ago doesn't make it out of date...

Fast moving encirclement and pin-point power application of enemy positions with mechanised units and air superiority, and now with helicopters- doesn't seem outdated to me...

No country (for the meantime), is capable of doing this to the United states. Perhaps they could do this to US foreign bases as far as Guam or Hawaii but not in continental US without nuclear weapons being involved (though putting it into use might mean the destruction of the planet as we know it).

[The Orson Empire]

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.

Agreed, only the destruction of the US economic system would intensify into the collapse of the efficiency of the US's gargantuan organized institutions that rule the country such as the federal government that holds it together. However, even the US economy is hard to destroy. It may be possible to attack the US economy by hampering its growth or cutting off natural resource trade for a while but it would damage the country that profits in exporting resources to the US more than the US itself which has the habit of resiliency creating alternatives for the resources it has been deprived with, it has nearly an entire continent's vast natural resources in its hands.

Any major superpower cannot be destroyed from external forces without risking the other forces' annihilation, this is proven with the USSR or the Roman empire, all who had fell because of internal reasons that severely weakened them. US may fall only through a very serious political blunder that has a very hard hitting economic consequence (many see it as the war on terror) or through an internal unrest, which is highly unlikely due to population that fiercely makes sure that a leadership that they don't like makes it into the oval office without being impeached.

Just because it was made 70 years ago doesn't make it out of date...

Fast moving encirclement and pin-point power application of enemy positions with mechanised units and air superiority, and now with helicopters- doesn't seem outdated to me...

No country (for the meantime), is capable of doing this to the United states. Perhaps they could do this to US foreign bases as far as Guam or Hawaii but not in continental US without nuclear weapons being involved (though putting it into use might mean the destruction of the planet as we know it).

The only problem is that the U.S.'s economy is tied heavily with the world economy. So, if the U.S. economy collapses, the world economy will go down with it.

[The V O I D]

The US being invaded, as I'm sure many have stated, is basically a wetdream for most nations on earth who aren't too fond of it.
So, no. Again, not very feasible.