What nations combined or alone, could take on America, in the heartland?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Imagine a building is blown to shreds, something symbolic, like the world trade centers were. Now imagine, that to protect us from the "horrible forces" that did this, new security laws are enacted that give the government more control and power. With this new power they begin making all native Americans wear crescent symbols to symbolize their difference from the "true Americans". Soon their put into their own neighborhoods, well i guess the ones that aren't already. Anti indian propaganda is all over the MSM. Then, concentration camps, filled with Indians.

Remind you of anything? If America ever set out on a nationwide genocide, of any peoples, would any country step in to put a stop to it? if so who? What country or countries would protect the American citizens, Could protect us?

What nations do you believe would truly care about protecting freedom in other lands, and of those nations which ones alone or combined, would have the fighting power to be survive a march through america, to take down the camps?

If this happened would those in the camps have any sort of hope of rescue?




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Since the entire world hates us, probably nobody lol



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Unvarnished
 


None to speak of. India has a TINY millitary in comparison with the strength of ours. China is still waaay behind but has a large mob. Neither would have that kind of social conscience though.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Griever666
 



hi OP,

firstly i think U are implying that USA goes to wars for the purpose of CIVIL RIGHTs... that is not true...

American wars = theft of resources and establishment / support of PUPPET governments...


as for your internal hypothetical,
i think more than just Native Americans should be worried....

"shadow" government is ready to come out into the light...
(briefly) before it scurries back down into its many holes in the ground...

and awaits the results of its action....whatever thats going to be... eg: blue beam?


seeya



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   


What nations do you believe would truly care about protecting freedom in other lands, and of those nations which ones alone or combined, would have the fighting power to be survive a march through america, to take down the camps?


It depends...how much oil do you have left?
edit on 22-8-2011 by superman2012 because: forgot to add quote



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Griever666
 


China could team up with some others and give you a run, but they have no need as they already own America.

Who could take on America? America. America does a great job at destroying itself more with every passing day.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
No nation would intervene militarilly, unless they used the pretext of genocide to conquer the US. They wouldn't care that Native Americans were being slaughtered.

Then again we also have nuclear weapons, so I don't think it is very likely an invading force sets foot on American soil.

There would probably be strong condemnation, even from our staunchest allies, with the exception of Israel. They've done everything short of genocide against the Palestinians.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The problem isn't actual military force. There is no military in the world that has the type of support infrastructure to deploy troops at that distance. Russia would boast they could through a land invasion through Alaska, but the first time Siberia freezes over they'd be stuck. The US can secure the coasts if that was all it was focused on. I hate that we use the term, but Fortress America really applies. Canada doesn't have enough of a military to do anything, and to the South the only viable threat overall is Brazil due to it's independent air power and military.

Now, if you are talking about just removing the US as a power in the world, and not occupying it (which would theoretically cause them to change focus from the singular group to the overall populace), then your job is a lot easier, and we've done half of it already for you. Cyber attacking critical infrastructure, transportation, and telecommunications would leave the people without power, reliable food supply, and no sources of information. From there you just keep your finger on the button as things fall apart from there. Of course this would be economic suicide for everyone. This could be done by just about any nation that has a sizable cyber force or gets one soon by recruiting (or kidnapping) elite hackers.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Hell, I've been waiting for China to "liberate" us for a while now. All they need is for Canada to agree to be neutral and they can just roll armor down from Alaska.
edit on 22-8-2011 by Cuervo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Griever666
 


if so who?

None, save Stoningland...







posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
To take down America in its heartland the most likely combination (although not actually likely) is an EU/Russia Pact. A combined Navy could probably take on the US, with the EU fleet of airpower maybe just about capable of air superiority Launched from Canada as it is UK Soverign. The Russians would then have to take on the Ground Force invasion with the help of Air Power from the rest of the EU. However even that would be touch and go. I think any major developed Nation with Nuclear weapons would be difficult to invade and overtake these days. Just look how much trouble NATO has had just nullifying the likes of Afghanistan and Iraq who are tin pot armies.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
if Europe, China and Russia combine their resources and manpower and industries supported by iran, pakistan and india backed by brazil and other south american minors then america would defiantly fall given that they are mistreating their own people, otherwise even with all those countries combined it will be extremely difficult due to the fact that I know the USA has weapons we cant even comprehend, weapons controlled by gun totting american patriots...

Look at Nazi Germany in regards to kill/death ratio, they were advanced but not a decade or so ahead yet they did major damage even in losing battle. I expect the same for America but in their case they have NEXT generation weapons...



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RizeorDie
 



So come on then, do tell us what these next generation weapons America has that no other nation has an equivelant of. I am very interested to know.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Griever666
 


In theory it can be done. It is called, from memory, the "Short War Theory", I recall reading about it in Australian Army Staff Newsletters back in the 1980's. Back then the internet did not exist, so the postulation was simply military.
however, to update it a bit, the basic outline would be to launch a massive cyber attack that would disable the stockmarket, the electicity and water supply systems, and any and all military command and control systems as can be disabled.
This would be complimented by the armed overtaking of as many KEY Gov. facilities as is possible. In the case of the USA this would have to involve very large numbers of sleeper cells as I cannot see how a suitable amount of paratroopers could approach and survive.
As I said, in theory it can be done, in practise I very much doublt it.
As one of our fellow contributers says on his by-line "You cannot invade America, behind every blade of grass is a rifle"



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Griever666
 


In theory it can be done. It is called, from memory, the "Short War Theory", I recall reading about it in Australian Army Staff Newsletters back in the 1980's. Back then the internet did not exist, so the postulation was simply military.
however, to update it a bit, the basic outline would be to launch a massive cyber attack that would disable the stockmarket, the electicity and water supply systems, and any and all military command and control systems as can be disabled.
This would be complimented by the armed overtaking of as many KEY Gov. facilities as is possible. In the case of the USA this would have to involve very large numbers of sleeper cells as I cannot see how a suitable amount of paratroopers could approach and survive.
As I said, in theory it can be done, in practise I very much doublt it.
As one of our fellow contributers says on his by-line "You cannot invade America, behind every blade of grass is a rifle"



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Griever666
 


If/when it reaches those extremes it’s a much more likely scenario they will be actively defending against us and already at war to begin with. The tyranny that saw the Nazi concentration camps were necessary for a common scapegoat. Once all that collective hate is bundled into one direction, it’s much easier to steer it where you want it to go.

The method of selection is flawed it the opening comment. The idea of assumption of guilt or superiority because of race is politically incorrect. Also the lessons of the Nazi camps are recent enough for the post WW2 society. So anything approaching that angle would be met with immediate resistance.

Now if you avoid those associations and made it based on lifestyle, wealth, or even a religious minority; sure you could sell it.

Divide and conquer:
Why should the needy be entitled to my money?
Why should only the rich be worthy of tax breaks?

It’s the message that the government is doing something about the class separation in the US, while at the same time protecting the status quo at all costs and thereby furthering the disparity. The wealthy dictate the laws and the diversion of debating tax breaks makes their servant Uncle Sam, all the more compassionate towards us, while it sells our freedoms to the highest bidders amongst them.

Of course the consequences of the rich should be blamed on the inability of the poor. If they would just stop being poor, all our financial troubles would simply evaporate. To even consider depriving the needy of assistance while we toss literally hundreds of billions of dollars at the banking institutions, seems absurd too me. If there is one thing our national debt has shown, is that there literally isn’t enough money on the planet, that our politicians couldn’t spend. So the assumption of any money saved denying the needy can’t hold water, any savings gained would be very quickly spent.

First we need to define “wealthy”, “middle class” and “poor”. Once that is established and accepted it’s a small matter of just gradually lowering the threshold of what’s poor. Thereby eliminating any actual charity given out and raising it between wealthy and middle class. So it eventually includes all the slaves and none of the masters. Eventually if the tax burden becomes unsustainable and a person’s direct labor worth more to the government than their taxed wage; will they be required to reside at a work camp until they can pay their share? Keep in mind, when this first starts it would be only be the much hated “freeloaders” of society. Eventually what’s considered poor, will be broadened to include ourselves as well.

It’s a good plan of attack, because the middle class hates footing the bill and needs little incentive for supporting the idea. Eventually though, when even their wage is considered measly, they will have the same rights as the rest of the “poor” folks and any privileges secured for only the wealthiest among us. The “trusted traveler” act is a good indication of where that is headed. If your taxes are delinquent or credit rating a bust, you’re a terrorist waiting to happen. But hey if you have a good credit rating (like all ten people within the population of the US) and taxes up to date, you’re no longer considered a threat just walk right on board.

Our freedom is secondary to our safety. For every foolish endeavor that can take place in a free society, some insurance company eventually has to pay. The less risks you are allowed to take the more money they keep. The ostracism of smokers, drinkers and fast food is no mistake. Sure think of the lives saved. What’s much more important though, is protecting insurance company profits. If you were to put DUI offenders in a concentration camp, you think anyone would bat an eye?

Right now we have a very large population of people in prison for marijuana related crimes. It’s not a moral issue. Regardless of how anyone feels about it, the simple truth is there is way too much money to be made through enforcement, prosecution and detainment for it to end anytime soon. Certainly the government would love it if we all could just hate pot smokers the way they want us too. Even without intense prejudice, we still have no problems keeping them in prison.

A lot of effort was spent equating DUI offenders with that of child molesters and rapists. It’s the simple ability to rob them blind, that keeps them and cigarette smokers out of prison. It also reduces social venues and public gatherings. This internet thing is cute and all, but really it’s pretty harmless. It’s not like any of us are going to jump from our chairs and run down to some local tavern to rant like Samuel Adams. That’s where our liberty initially started and we wouldn’t want that to happen again. Keep the cable TV on, the people at home and socially disconnected. You accomplish that and you can detain anyone you want for whatever reason you see fit. Just make sure that Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen are still worthy of world news.

Everybody hates Islamic extremists. The problem is it’s such a minority religion, it’s easy to lose the extremists part of the description. Considering the fanatical cowardice in which we toss away liberty for some false hope of safety, I think Islamic camps are very feasible in the not so far off future.

No measure of safety will be enough and eventually we will suffer another terrorist attack. So “when” that happens, not “if”, what will be allowed then? We’re already at presumed guilty, search without probable cause and surveillance without due process. How far of a leap is discretionary detainment from that?

Fear and hate are the obvious buttons of the manipulators and if we intend to take the rest of the world’s oil, we can’t do that with a free society. Iraq was an easy spin, but they won’t try to sell the same lame horse twice. So instead they will just forego the will of the people, as if they haven’t already. But hey it’s not a total disaster, we get to drive huge SUVs and certainly that’s a win.
edit on 8/23/2011 by JakesterL because: Grammar



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
It depends on whos side the American people are.. and even then it would have to be something like the invitation sent by the Immortal Seven to invite William to overthrow the King.

Even then it would have to be a smallish army coming to support the American people in their struggle to reclaim America. But that is not likely to happen.. and I could never see the American peoples calling on anyone for support regardless of what is going on.

So I guess in my premise what few nations would Americans call to aid them in their time of need?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Sorry to jump in on the conversation, but here are a few if you don’t get a response:

The airborne laser test bed:
realitypod.com...

The X51 hypersonic missile. So far the X51 missile has only achieved mach 5.
www.universetoday.com...
Not to be confused with the latest mach 20 aircraft design they are messing around with,
www.foxnews.com...

Then there is the X-37B unmanned military space shuttle.
www.space.com...

The STSS satellite targeting system combined with the Aegis missile and THAAD missile defense systems.
www.spacenews.com...
www.lockheedmartin.com...
www.defensenews.com...

The XOS2 powered exoskeleton:
www.raytheon.com...

The US navy rail gun:
www.dailymail.co.uk...< br />
Of course this is only what information is widely available and from a quick search and accumulated info from ATS articles. There is sure to be some stuff beyond the capabilities of what we would think could be feasible hidden somewhere. The SR71 is a great example initially starting service in 1964, it still holds the record for the fastest air breathing manned vehicle which it set in 1976.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
I love the responses guys. Some are very well thought out. I signed up here a few days ago just to make this thread, and was so afraid of not getting any replies when i hit my 20 post count last night and started this thread.
But your right about never treating a race that way blatantly, but it could be done with religion or any other group, and if thats the case, those in said group are in a lot of trouble.

I dont see how NATO could defend not taking action though, I get they dont seem to REALLY help those countries that need it, and are all to willing to actually use force on countries in less need of it and all, but I just dont see how they could defend not taking a stance to the public.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I think we will find out with in two-ish years. But i think that Russia (while they own the monopoly of space) combined with N. Korea would give America trouble. Possible Scenario that could happen, if anyone heard about the plane that America has or developing thats going to circle the world or something to that extent and i heard its armed with nukes, all someone has to do is wait to find the plane and the position its at and wait till its at a effective place over our own soil and send off a EMP device or something to that extent so it crashes in our homeland and then BOOM.. we got nuked by our own nukes we made. probability of happening not likely but anything is possible i guess.. right?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join