It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If every nation in the world allied and invaded the United States, would they succeed?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: nito92

No, and here is why.

Long before the attack was launched ( let's keep nukes out of this, conventional weapons only ) we would pull back all of our forces and fleets.

There is absolutely no way to land forces on our shores, we would see them coming and end them.

So it is the Canadian or Mexican, or both because it would be smarter, land invasion.

Let's assume that all of our military get killed.

We still have tens of millions of veterans, and our gun culture has as many guns as people in this country.

We would take central America to the north side of the Panama canal, and we would take it and hold it because in an all or nothing fight, any Mexican resistance would be met with instant death.

Canada would roll right over, as basically any state in America has more military than their entire country.

At this point it is a seige.

How long could we last?

Honestly, forever.




posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

China's problem is that their big window is closing in a few decades. One child has assured that their ability to project military might will shrink in terms of manpower soon enough. Right now though, they have a lot of young men who are going to start noticing they have no real future thanks to a real lack of women in the country.

Bored young men with nothing to do and no future ... China's rapid militarization ... Hmmmm.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: nito92
I forgot to say that I have nothing against the United States, love the place and its citizen, and I also love the English language.


Then why are you thinking so hard on the destruction of the US?



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They are buying America piece by piece anyways



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mikeone718

No man it was just a thought I had the other day, dont take it personal.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
It could probably be done , if you had enough people, weapons, armor [tanks] boats, planes, bombs, etc...
But it would be long, bloody and vicious. Over 300 million combatants, many with military training, in an area close to 4 million square miles, with some of the deadliest weapons and technology on the face of the planet. You also have to take one more thing in to account. The average American is pissed. We're tired of the economy, politics, etc..and as of now, we take it out on each other. Do you really want to be the focus of all that? Do you want to be on the other side when you give us a direction to point all that frustration and anger?
And in the end, it would turn nuclear, so.....we die, you die, every body dies



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Assuming conventional:

Do you know how many harbors are capable of loading up an invasion fleet? Not that many, comparatively. Those would be the first to go, right after the long-range air assets capable of reaching the CONUS.
While we do that, we "liberate" a few dozen strategic locations in Mexico and Canada.
Our fleets steam back at flank speed, recall any recoverable deployed forces from abroad.
And then we sit and wait the world out. Oil reserves in NA would be sufficient to sit out the siege. The oceans are pretty big, and no one really has a fleet or air arm capable of inflicting mortal damage (conventionally). Which isn't to say America wouldn't get stung. There would be lots of losses. Ships, men, planes. But the logistics of mounting any sort of seaborne invasion would be ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Not mention, they are fighting to take, and we would be fighting for our homes. There is always a home court advantage in such conflicts, and our people are armed and familiar with the use of their weapons. No, they aren't trained combatants, but in a pinch they will turn partisan.
edit on 10-3-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Assuming conventional:

Do you know how many harbors are capable of loading up an invasion fleet? Not that many, comparatively. Those would be the first to go, right after the long-range air assets capable of reaching the CONUS.
While we do that, we "liberate" a few dozen strategic locations in Mexico and Canada.
Our fleets steam back at flank speed, recall any recoverable deployed forces from abroad.
And then we sit and wait the world out. Oil reserves in NA would be sufficient to sit out the siege. The oceans are pretty big, and no one really has a fleet or air arm capable of inflicting mortal damage (conventionally). Which isn't to say America wouldn't get stung. There would be lots of losses. Ships, men, planes. But the logistics of mounting any sort of seaborne invasion would be ridiculous.


That is how I see it also.

We pull back, take strategic positions in Canada and Mexico, then wait.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Want the UK members' fantasy?

The UK does it single handed.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I just thought of something now, I know with nukes its all over, but, what would happen if all the countries that have nuke capabilities (or assuming all do) launched all their nukes or a great deal of them at the same time to the United States, would they be able to avoid them all? or have time to counter attack?



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
in such a scenario i think the combined forces of everyone else would overwhelm the USA. it would be quite a spectacle for sure, although such a conflagration might put an end to all participants.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: nito92

M.A.D.
As soon as we saw all that aimed at us, we'd fire ours and then, well.....goodbye mankind.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: nito92
I just thought of something now, I know with nukes its all over, but, what would happen if all the countries that have nuke capabilities (or assuming all do) launched all their nukes or a great deal of them at the same time to the United States, would they be able to avoid them all? or have time to counter attack?


That is what our subs are for.

If you want to find a US nuclear sub you look for a spot in the ocean where there is no heat or sound.

It takes about 15- 30 minutes to hit us with an ICBM from just about anywhere.

We would have plenty of time to launch ours.
edit on 10-3-2016 by Sargeras because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Yes they would, and in a best case scenario, foreign nationals that did not take the oath living here ,did not back their home countries, heck America have bases and joint bases all over the world the host nations could simply overran them gaining access to more exotic weapons and info.
edit on 10-3-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
If you really want to theorize... America is big, but vulnerable. The other day I was reading about GRU plans during cold war, they had poison supplies near the Potomac and other main water reservoirs, in a event of all out war they planed to poison the main cities.

Cities like LA are very vulnerable, they don't have water now imagine during an attack, food distribution is affected during war, cities would get in a pretty rough shape in no time, too much density cannot be sustained, and in emergencies the army and national guard are the extra man power in the relief efforts, in a war they would not be available, or their force would be "watered down" between fighting the enemy and sustaining the civilian population.

US infrastructure is mostly old, an attack on some vital points could disrupt distribution of all supplies needed everywhere.

Then there is the power plants, not only taking down damps would be bad, areas would get devastated and o power would be generated, then you have multiple nuclear powerplants that if compromise would be devastating, and this could happen not only by a direct attack but also by the strain of taking out alternative power sources.

In the end America is too big to fail so don't mess with it or it will takes us all down, at least that's what the propaganda says



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras
We pull back, take strategic positions in Canada and Mexico, then wait.


How many countries have air tankers? How many are there? Not many is the answer to both. The ability to project power isn't something that many countries beside the US have. The US would essentially be able to control when and where most engagements took place.
Even with all the tankers in the world, how do you mount any sort of effective air cover for your attacking naval forces? How vulnerable is a fleet without air cover? Very.
Cruise missile attacks would still manage to happen on the CONUS, particularly by air or sub. Bad things would result, but I can't see anything crippling being able to be effected with out special weapons.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
No I dont think so. To many natural barriers. How could anylarge aggressive force get here without being destroyed first?



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
If you really want to theorize... America is big, but vulnerable. The other day I was reading about GRU plans during cold war, they had poison supplies near the Potomac and other main water reservoirs, in a event of all out war they planed to poison the main cities.


That'd be the way to inflict damage, but would it really win a war? It's one thing to inflict damage on a country and another thing to subdue it.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Sargeras
We pull back, take strategic positions in Canada and Mexico, then wait.


How many countries have air tankers? How many are there? Not many is the answer to both. The ability to project power isn't something that many countries beside the US have. The US would essentially be able to control when and where most engagements took place.
Even with all the tankers in the world, how do you mount any sort of effective air cover for your attacking naval forces? How vulnerable is a fleet without air cover? Very.
Cruise missile attacks would still manage to happen on the CONUS, particularly by air or sub. Bad things would result, but I can't see anything crippling being able to be effected with out special weapons.


It is all logistics, and nobody but us have what it would take.

I think we are safe.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join