It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Could We Fight a Foreign Attack on U.S. Soil?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:30 PM
reply to post by projectvxn

Well, the thing is, in a realistic scenario you would have to expect the invaders to have air superiority. And Reno, being as compact as it is would be easy targets for the enemies bombing capabilities. Your access to water would be very limited as well considering you are in the middle of the desert.

Without water you may as well surrender. And your vulnerability would come from those very freeways you mentioned. In other words only 2 ways in o out. They could be easily cut off.

And yes you have Fallon, but again, one would have to assume, if they have already captured California and working their way to Nevada, its likely their capability has been minimalized.

The only chance you would have of survivng would be in the mountains. You would have cover and access to fresh water with Tahoe being right there.

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:33 PM
Do I think we could fight an attack?

Absolutely yes..

The further we get away from the finacial center of the world and countrys teaming up such as the BRIC, I dont like the way the world is turning.

Do I think the states may come under invasion?

Yes,quite possible..

Do I think that the invading country or country's will be able to occupy and take control of the capital?

Absolutely not...

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by Apollumi

That postulation about Alaska, Louisianna, and Texas being taken first?

Those boys from Texas are some really independent, canny SOB's who wouldn't take kindly to any invaders. If you've ever spent any time in Texas, and driven across it, that postulation is in error.

Those boys are armed, they can shoot, and they can scoot, and they know their own terrain, which by the way, in many areas is a nightmare.

Louisianna? Ever been to an LSU football game at Baton Rouge? Those people, male and female, are (fill in the blank) crazy! They party hard, and they would be a nightmare to anyone who attempted to take that state.

Alaska? Only an airborne force could take key remote positions, and that's one hard, vast country. Logistics would be a nightmare. And those smiling Inuits? They would be on those boys like stink on dookey.

The Russians didn't do very well against the Finns, and no one would do well in that vast state of Alaska.


Hell, we would be glad to get rid of that mess.

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:03 PM
reply to post by open_eyeballs

Reno is high-desert and has a river flowing downtown not 300 yards from where I am sitting right now. Water we're good on. We have forests up here, lots of game. It's Sierra mountain town. There are plenty of places to hide up here. There much more than just desert up here. Fallon is 65 miles south east, Fernley 30 miles east, Hawthorne(With a huge weapons depot) 65 miles south, Area 51 is roughly 379 miles-4 or 5 , hours away to the south pedal to the metal. Nellis Air Base proper is in Vegas. Roads can be near impassible in the winter over the western and northern passes, and miles upon miles, upon miles of eastern desert, all the way to Utah. Same to the south only much hotter, and far less water.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by projectvxn]

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:20 PM
No one is going to invade the US, without first crippling her ability to fight. To just send in soldiers would be a complete waste. I mean, what are you going to do, send them in from Canada and Mexico? Any armada of ships coming towards us is going to be stopped and, if necessary, sunk long before the troops arrive. Ditto a whole bunch of aircraft.

But let's say they managed to get the troops here somehow, and now they're taking over. I'm not convinced that we could stop them. My reasoning is that attacking troops would go after our cities, right? Why take over Montana (and if they tried, they'd be annihilated). People in the cities are unarmed, for the most part. The vast majority of our population lives in the cities, and they're generally not allowed to have weapons. So the average citizen wouldn't be of much use against armed soldiers.

Our police would be overwhelmed within minutes, tens of thousands of essentially non-military citizens, armed but not used to fighting as an army. We'd have to get our soldiers mobilized, wherever they are. Maybe National Guard, maybe a few soldiers not fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq - but how many are there, and where are they? I don't know.

I think ultimately the people of the United States would be able to mount a defense, but her first response would be unbearably slow. There are enough armed, prepared people in the country. It's just that they mostly don't live in the cities where the action is likely to take place.

And to be honest with you, it isn't the foreign attackers I'd be worried about. I'd be more worried about attacks from within - including our own government, or certain elements within it.

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by chiron613

Ants can consume an elephant.

One bite at a time.

We don't have to go head to head against any military force. We bleed them dry, one at a time.

With the weapons in the US, with the SOB's in the US who are not only armed, but have had military experience, using guerrilla tactics?

No military will take and hold the US. No more than any foreign army will take and hold Russia. Or China.

Too big, too many, and too tough.

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:38 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

For what it is worth I think it is plausable. What would we do if a bunch of Asains were dropped on top of us? They do have a lot of man power behind them and with much of our force overseas at the moment it would be a prime time to attack but I am not sure any of them would have the balls (excuse my french) to try something like that. I think we intimidate most other countries. At least I hope we do...

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:40 PM

the only way the US could win is by using illegal weapons.. Nukes,Bio,Chem,EMP's,White Phosphorus,Microwave lasers(boil the water in your body) and much more that hasn't been revealed!

Someone needs to read international law.
There is no international law that covers the weapons that a country may use internally against a invader.
And mines both water and land mines would also be legal.
so would soft point bullets. poisons. tear gas, pepper spray.
none of them would be illegal for use in the US against a invader.
tear gas, pepper spray.are even sold in sporting goods stores in the US.
but are banned for use in warfare by international law.
I guarantee that i would use bio weapons like Escherichia coli or botulism
in there food because they would be easy to get.
and add to that mercury, lead, and anti freeze in there food. (turn about is fare play). '___' and PCB in any alcoholic beverage would also work.

I my self would use the magnetron from a Microwave oven and put them under the floors or in the ceiling any building that foreign troops were going to use for barracks. I bet they would slowly cook a number of them before any of them had a clue what was going on.
I would also use IEDs and any weapon i could capture.

As for fire power the shear fire power of the US people is going to be a problem for any invader.
Even chinese troops have few scoped weapons. now almost all small arm use by the US military has a scope or red dot sight.
Most hunters and many others in the US have one or more high powered scoped rifles.
Many of these can can hit a man sized target at over 500 feet.

This type weapons and a shoot and scoot type sniper type warfare would hit the morale of any invader.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by ANNED

Someone needs to read international law.
There is no international law that covers the weapons that a country may use internally against a invader.

LOLOLOLOL..This makes me chuckle..Our land will be defended by evry dirty little trick in the book..The inginuity of the American male,would put the bad guys in the Middle east to shame..

Give me a mouse trap,a shot gun shell and i'll give you a half ass land mine in 20 minutes..

The great thing is that in the time of tumoil will will have access to such a broad range of usefull items causs we produce most of everything ,right here in the states.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by Redpillblues

I'd steal or borrow a Mosquito Control truck, load it with home-made Prussic Acid, mask up, suit up, and drive around them in an upwind direction.

They'd be dead before they could hit the ground.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by dooper

See,Who woulda thunk it?

Now we just need a use for ice cream

Or crappy looking vans with free candy spray painted on the sides..

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by projectvxn

Interesting, I wasn't aware of a river...Does it flow all year long? I am going off my memory of trips through Reno to Fallon. Same thing with the forest. I have no recollection of a forest at all. Now I know Tahoe and going over the mountain on the 80 contains all those characteristics, but again, I was not aware of Reno, the city having the resources you are speaking of.

Against a conventional invading army, I would always think it would be in the advantage of the local insurgents to fight a guerilla style war. That means no main base that would be an easy target. So it would be safe to say any city, especially one within a close radius to an airbase would not be safe to plan and execute a defensive or offensive counter insurgency.

Another thing to consider would be, if this invader already took this sort of action, they obviously would have no regard for the humanitarian rights of the American people, and besides already using nuclear weapons to be able to advance as far as they have, they would have no problem taking out all electricity, water supplies and certainly hospitals, basically leaving a city to eventual ruin and unusustainable for the current inhabitants. Obviously this argument is moot, but I would always think twice about staying in the confides of any city amongst the histaria and panic something like an invasion would inevitably cause.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 01:30 AM
reply to post by Mainer

Neighbor....Thank you for the compliment on my Beloved Texas!

With the feds getting the crap out of the way, WE would (quite easily) deal with ANY issue from our quarter.

Until she went down due to a missle or the like, our BATTLESHIP TEXAS could still bring Her guns to bear on ANY enemy that was required. I believe she is good for about 15 miles inland for arty support.

I believe the Seawolf to be seaworthy.

We have the several airbases

We have Raytheon for the "fun" stuff.

Then we have the regular normal Texans (Yankee converts included :lol

I am a little concerned for the "city" folk. Too many "tender feet".

We of the "crazy rural" types are fairly well armed and know our areas of influence pretty well. We shoot regularly and know our weapons and their limitations.

About the ONLY thing that could stop us would be an NBC attack (ala "Red Dawn" scenario). We can forage our food, clean our water, and take what the enemy "had no further use of".

Yeah, we would have casualties but the enemy would recieve far in excess of what they delivered.

We MIGHT let the federals come in for a little "mop up" action so they wouldnt feel left out.

Is this red neck bravado? Nah. If we got too tired we could push them into the Louisiana bayou country and let those folks have some fun.....if the gators didnt getem first LOL!

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 03:25 AM
Very interesting thread! I have spent plenty of time pondering this question as well.

I think it is wise to point out what history teaches us about attempts to invade large, armed nations. Two of the most powerful armies in the last couple hundred years have been decimated in a war of attrition. If only we could ask Napolean what an army of mere peasants could do the most powerful army on the planet? I suspect its a sore subject for both him and Hitler. He made the same mistake and got the same result. Oh and I saw someone say Alaska was vulnerable to invasion, not hardly. 60% of its population is either in the armed forces now, or is a veteran. Not a bunch of nervous hill billies with boom sticks. Throw in the largest military presence out of all the states, and your easy takedown turns into something more like making love to a porcuipine while on fire.

There are 250 million gun owners in the United states, and you need to spend some time away from the laptop if you think most americans would just stand by as thier country was attacked. Have a little faith in people, they are not all sheep waiting to go to the slaughter, rather it think that is the real goal of any PTB. The fact is the vast majority of people have a basic knowledge of what is right and wrong. We are just bombarded with bad examples of humanity by the media outlets, to the point of losing faith in humanity.

Don't buy into that crap, keep making decisions for yourself, and be a good example. Things will work out

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 04:24 AM
An invasion of the continental United States? Who, and with what?

The first problem I see with this scenario is exactly HOW a foreign army would invade the United States. As far as I’m aware, no countries (other than the US & allies) have the logistical or transport capacities that would be required to transport, maintain, and resupply a fighting force of 100,000 soldiers over 3,000 miles…let alone a force of several million. Even if China or Russia possessed the ability to transport and resupply such a large force, the preparation for the invasion would be glaringly obvious. The United States would be able to detect the buildup from both satellite and ground intelligence and would have months, even years to respond.

The invading country would most likely not have any immediate “staging ground” that bordered the United States…and even if they did, the US would detect it. Any invading army would basically have to land and establish a beachhead in the continental United States. In any case, the thousands of transports would require a large blue-water navy to defend against US naval and air attacks across the Pacific/Atlantic. I don’t know of any country with this big of a blue-water navy.

Even IF the US had a collective seizure for several months and missed all of the above, the foreign army would have to deal with the US army and a hostile US population. The US military is overstretched, but not to the extent that many of you are implying. The overstretching has more to do with tours of duty and commitments to allies than with having the physical personnel. The US has 1,500,000 active duty soldiers and 850,000 reserves. Approx. 600,000 soldiers are stationed overseas and 1,750,000 are stationed in the US. In the event that the United States was under a serious threat of invasion, most of the soldiers stationed overseas would be redeployed to the US, all the reserves and national guard would be called up, and there would be a draft. My point is, the US isn’t as undefended as many of you are implying.

Even IF the US army was somehow defeated or seriously disorganized, the foreign army would still have to deal with a logistical nightmare and a large American insurgency. The foreign army would have supply lines that ran over several thousand miles of ocean and hundreds (or thousands) of miles of the continental US - which would be vulnerable to guerilla attacks by the US military, military contractors, police, militia groups, etc.

It almost seems like some of you are viewing this from what I like to call a “command and conquer” style approach…as in, because China’s population outnumbers the US’s by 4-1, China could basically “zerg” rush the US and overrun it. China could raise a huge army but it would be restricted to the Chinese mainland and China’s immediate neighbors. If China did draft dozen or so million soldiers, it would need to feed, cloth, fuel, equip, house, pay, and resupply the millions of men in its army. Furthermore, although (relative) US power has declined over the last decade, it is still the sole superpower. The United States has clear technological superiority vis-à-vis most other countries and has large arsenals of relatively modern military equipment. I’m not saying that the United States is invulnerable or anything like that. I can see scenarios where the US looses a regional war…however, losing a war 4,000 miles away and loosing a war on your own turf are two very different things.

In my opinion, the likelihood of a foreign invasion of the continental US within the next few years is close to nil…The logistics required for an invasion of the US would be enormous. And if a country were to try it, the US would detect the buildup in its infancy and that country would be bombed into oblivion. If the United States does eventually get eclipsed as a superpower, or even a great power – I believe it will have to do with prolonged regional conflicts and overwhelming economic debt.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 04:25 AM
Any attack on U.S. soil is absurd. Hated as it is, the USA is and will always be the goose that laid the golden egg. Everyone knows we're feeding the world, we're the shining city on the hill and all that. It's important that the USA remain the hub of the ongoing global overhaul, because we conceived the Global Union and we're essentially financing it. As we speak. That noise you hear, the rumbling and bumbling and crumbling of the global economy, is actually the sound of The Whole World becoming...


Now, do you think. The Powers That Be. Would allow. Anyone to lay siege to the Golden Goose? Ummm. No.

That's not on the table, it's not in the itinerary. People, we're moving into an era wherein war is passé. We're going to hear a lot more about strategic strikes and fun things like that, but full-blown war is being phased out. It's too expensive.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:45 AM
Well..I look at it this way... Russia got their butts whooped in the late 80's in afghanistan! All their tanks and technology could not hold up to the peasents, guns, No tanks or military helicoptors they didnt have, and thier evassive moving. China is asking for help witha much smaller nation, (north Korea)....i HIGHLY doubt both of them combined would ever be capable of launching an attack on us succesfuly

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:50 AM
However..on a darekr note..China legaly owns well over 80% of our land, so ive read here. Its all business land,a nd that visit hilary clinton made last year, suposedly to give land here to them as collateral, because of the financial mess..That could mean, if push came to shove, china could send tropps over hear to hold whats theirs..
ITS too much open water to haul tons and tons fo people, tanks, helicoptors, you name it. I doubt nuclear would be an attack as well...with the exception of north korea of course. The whole idea of taking land, is to OWN it, It would serve no purpose to nuke a country as it would be in many areaas, radioactive, thierfore rendered useless... now biological is another story..providing ALL of the 'germs' haev safely died, s when the enemy military moves in, they dont get sick.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 06:26 AM
I'm glad to see others exploring the more rational side of this conversation.

Frankly, it is an absurd suggesting that a massive force from China could touch US soil.

I have no doubt whatsoever that China's military is massive and powerful, but how in the hell do you transport millions of Chinese infantry to the US without being detected?! I don't think it is possible at the present time.

So what other options are there? Fighting your way in? Your kidding right? China may have an advantage in numbers, but the US technology will still win the battle in the air and ocean. A large Chinese fleet wouldn't even see the counter-attack coming until it was too late. Stealth bombers/fighters and nuclear subs with torpedoes. Those boys would be swimming home.

So lets suppose for a minute that somehow the Chinese were able to land a significant force on US soil, then what? Like another poster suggested, the US has the most lethal arsenal of nukes in the world. China hurts US, US nukes China.

China can take anything from the US without even fighting, so why would they go through all the trouble of a large scale military conflict?

"Ultimate Excellence lies not in winning every battle, but defeating the enemy without ever fighting" Sun-Tzu - The Art Of War

The Art Of War is a very significant publication that many Chinese take very seriously.

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 06:55 AM
While I hope the best for America.. China doesn't have to fire a single shot/missle to start a war, Look at your selves, look at your posts, your worried about your home land, you are are rightfully worried and questioning your countries own ability to denfend its self, look how scared you are because of china, if you weren't worried then this post wouldn't exist... i'm sorry to say it but china is beating you already! any country that can strike fear into the population of another country with out fighting is already in the lead.

On another note.. you as a group of civilians are more powerful than any army in the world.. want proof?... look at world war II, a little over 100 new zealanders started a group called Long Range Desert Group which literally changed the tide of the war, they were called Mosquito Army by those who knew they existed... they targeted key airfields and supplie lines crippling the all powerful enemy force and they drove around behind enemy lines for 3 years attacking at night and dissapearing before dawn... and guess what? they were just farmers.

Dont be scared, don't run to the hills and hide... its your land, your home.... FIGHT FOR IT

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in