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.

 

Are we vulnerable to an invasion?

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   
117156154171040141146164145162040165156144145162163164141156144151156147040167150141164040151163040167162151164164145156040167151154154040167151163144 157155040142145040146157165156144056

There are neither 8s nor 9s in this signature. Does this mean that you avoid "relating," avoid "conveying judgments" ?




posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Re: My signature

Octal 'eight' my homework!



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by apw100
A) The US Navy would easily destroy any invasion fleet that China could send. The Chinese navy is simply not on the same level as the US Pacific Fleet. Any attempt at a large scale invasion would be easily crushed long before it reached the coast. Even if some troops reached the coast, our navy would make it virtually impossible for the Chinese to resupply them.

B) America and its allies would launch a massive retaliatory strike against China via air and naval operations. This would devistate China's major cities and military installations.

I'm not saying that China couldn't attack the US, I'm saying that it would be moronic for them to try to invade us. And quite frankly, it would be moronic for us to invade them. We would take massive casualties, and would almost certainly be defeated.


You're still assuming they'd be using conventional tactics. Guess what; the days of conventional war tactics are over. Didn't you learn anything from 9/11? Most likely, we'd have no clue what was happening. They might use diversionary tactics; like...hmmm, let's see....attacking a small country for some BS reason, with another agenda in mind. (Hey, that sounds like America, doesn't it?) Most likely, future wars will be fought by unknown enemies. It's tough to attack your enemies when you really don't know who they are, or how to distinguish them from non-enemies. America isn't that smart, really. We have all the technology, but instead of fighting an intelligent, strategic war, we report every conventional move we make to the media, who then broadcasts it across the entire world. Don't assume the US is so smart. They're not. Given an entire army and plenty of funds, I'm quite sure I could take the US myself, using some very well planned, unorthodox methods. I might even lure the US military out of my way before I invaded. In fact, I'd probably work on infiltrating each nuclear missile silo. It would take years of preparation, but it can be done. The thing is, you have no idea if some preparation has already been done. Money can buy practically anything, so it seems. Any type of security can be breached. There could be an entire army of Chinese already here, undercover, for all you know. You have to use the old noodle to think about all the possible ways it could be done. Just using brute strength and no strategy, you're correct. They wouldn't get very far. But the US lacks imagination, intelligence, and preparation, IMO. It's a good thing we have big missiles, eh? Without them, we'd be sitting ducks.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
@The Vagabond

Iraq: Just bomb the oil. There would be no need for an invasion.

Outstanding point and well taken, but diplomatically less viable because it cuts out the lifeblood of the Iraqi people. An invasion which directly kills US troops then allows China to "negotiate" a settlement to keep the oil money in Iraqi hands is more politically viable. Otherwise it is plain to see that Iran is acting on orders from China.




Pacific: It is out of the way for a Chinese lead push, unless you live on a flat map. But, in the real world, a straight line between two points doesn't go through the Pacific.

Air superiority in the sea lane is VITAL. Taking Hawaii is not practical because of the long sealane under American airsuperiority prior to landing. Taking Japan is not politically viable, although destroying air and naval forces there, particularly American ones, can be taken as the lesser evil.

Based on staring at the globe next to me for just a couple of seconds I can see that the obvious answer is to make airborne insertions to Nampo Islands from China and the Aleutians from Russia, and operate air cover and anti-submarine helocopters from there to open a sea lane around Southern Japan then North to Alaska. You need a sealane to move sufficient tanks and artillery- you can't just aidrop into Canada and create the necessary reaction to create an opening in the Southern theater.



Alaska: Just bomb the oil. There is no need to invade . Air dropping troops into Canada and building your staging point there would be more efficient since you were planning on "passing through" anyway.

I wouldn't dare an airdrop that far from my air cover. The enemy can emplace air defenses behind you via carrier or movement of forces to Alaska and cut you off from supply while you're understrength. They will hardly even need to move significant ground forces in to deal with your airdrop.
Again the insertion to Alaska is not only about the oil. It demands American retaliation which ensures the diversion of forces from the Southern Theater. It also threatens a push by an armored force through the relatively flat land of central canada and into the American mid-west.


Just to outline my plan in the broad strokes- make quick strikes in the pacific region to destroy American/allied airsuperiority and any surface vessels which are vulnerable.

Cut off American oil supplies by any and all means possible- especially diplomatic. Although not vital, the diplomatic cover is highly useful, especially as NATO could affect Russian cooperation if international opinion does not remain against America until AFTER American forces have been moved to counter the threat in Canda's Yukon Territory.

Create airbases along your sealane, choosing to avoid hard fights and morally damaging moves such as an invasion of mainland Japan.

Move a large force of older hardware to Alaska by sea and push into the Yukon with armor and artillery, threatening to breach the rockies and invade.

Secretly move your best trained infantry and most technologically advanced weapons by freighter into the Carribean, hiding them in prearranged positions. If secrecy is impossible, decieve as to numbers and type of forces by allowing other types of hardware to be left in the open.

Create a Russian diversion (without overt threat) in the North Atlantic if at all possible.

Take advantage of American concentration on the Northern threats to invade Florida, proceeding North up the Eastern Seaboard with the goal of taking Washington DC.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg

we're wasting too much water; and conservation would be a better option.




...True - BUT - the corporate goons want us to think it's all out fault and that it's overpopulation and waste that's the problem.

NOT SO!!! ...the reason our water is sucked dry is because of corporate industry's practises. ...From manufacturing to irrigation agriculture and nuclear power
- almost every industry is built on the totally wasteful use of water - which turns out to be...

a NON-RENEWABLE resource.

So it's industry that's to blame - and they should change how they do things.
But they don't want to.
They would rather steal water from American babies and children, and other countries.







posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Not this buncha goons!!!

They think they're so far above the rest of us their $hit doesn't stink.

They think they can do whatever they want to this planet with IMPUNITY.

I will thank God when HE kick$ them in the a$$--whatever the co$t, whatever it take$.

It's time for the MILITARY INDU$TRIAL COMPLEX to come back to earth and stop pretending they're the BO$$.

God's the BO$$ of this planet. And the NWO is gonna be history. They're too corrupt to continue sovereign. The planet is not theirs to spoil.

Aeonian [Emily]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Well, it's a good thing my husband has a gun!

Go ahead, terrorists, make our day!



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   


Well, it's a good thing my husband has a gun!


Well hopefully he doesn't have to use it - and if he does I hope he's a good shot.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Trust me, we're not hurting if we get invaded...unless the entire world ganged up on us. There wouldn't be much hand to hand at all, because we'd crush anything that moved coming across the ocean.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I think any country can be vulnerable to an invasion. If the invaders have just the right technology, weapons, and numbers then its war. A terrorist attack such as the Sept. 11th is not an invasion just an attack so i would say that to be an invasion a massive military force has to actually take over a state and it can be declared an invasion. Of course if we in the USA were to be invaded, the National Guard would be deployed and police may be on the look out on the streets. US militia groups would possibly emerge against the invading forces. However, for our main line of troops who are currently on the fronts may have to be called back, but we have a lot of soldiers as i know of in the armed forces who can defend the USA.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Superdude you are bringing down the average iq-rate with these silly questions!



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 08:03 PM
link   


Superdude you are bringing down the average iq-rate with these silly questions!


While I certainly respect your opinion, I ask that you back up your statement. I await your above intillegent reply.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Here's an interesting link to an article I read earlier. It is a little disconcerting IMHO.

www.newsmax.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
The economic aspect was news to me, and was certainly alarming. Economic dominance over an extended period of time leads to super-power status, and in some cases virtual hegemony within a nation's sphere of influence.
It is no surprise that China would be capable of such shrewd policy, which although it is all but inherently hostile, is fairly impressive and likely to be very successful for a very long time. Dealing with this should certainly be the number one foreign policy objective of the United States (and in fact it would likely be far more successful in that venture than it can ever be in getting the UN to help keep Iran out of the arms race.) Personally, if I had to choose, I'd press the Europeans to hold China accountable and I'd tell Iran to enjoy the nukes, but not to use them if they want to live.

As for the military aspect, I'm only alarmed by the folly of China's supposed belief that America would tolerate the use of nuclear weapons. It is my belief hat if China used nuclear weapons, even in a tactical or unconventional role, they can expect the United States to launch a retaliatory strike designed to destroy their remaining nukes and their offensive military capability. China has nukes to strike back with, but they haven't got enough to saturate our defenses and they don't have enough to anhilate us. Sure they can reduce America to the level of France, but we can wipe them off the map.

One more thing I'd like to mention, although I know that the person I'm quoting does not have the amount of credit with you all that he has with me.. an old friend of mine who worked as a cryptologist in the Navy once told me that China's missiles were no threat. I am open to the fact that it may not be accurate, however this wasn't some young blowhard- this was a pastor in my church and a straight shooter. He claimed that any missile that would accept instructions- be it guidance or self destruct, whatever, would easily be brought down by the US Navy on a moments notice.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   


He claimed that any missile that would accept instructions- be it guidance or self destruct, whatever, would easily be brought down by the US Navy on a moments notice.


Wow I hope you're right. I'm not sure how that can be the case, however it's over my head frankly. I must ask though, can the same be said about our missiles? Can they be brought down on a moments notice?



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
China would need to develope air and naval superiority before a invasion of this scale can be remotely succesfull, Hence they need to close a 5-10 years technological gap, with their current booming economy this seems possible, they could well be on par with the U.S in 2020....

The Chinese would not only have to be on par, but also a secret technological advantage in their airdefence, like be able to launch a whole string of high altitude blimps with huge lasers mounted as airdefence against, no doubt severe showers of usa retaliation missiles. The key would be surprise, without superior airdefence it is pretty MAD to go against the usa. Should the chinese not to be able to keep their blimps secret, the USA would probably in response weoponize space and attack the blimps from above.

The high amount of civil gun ownership in the usa would pose serious problems for foreign invaders , would make fallujah insurgants seem rather peacefull (that's about the only pro i can find about american gunworshipping)




[edit on 15-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   


China would need to develope air and naval superiority before a invasion of this scale can be remotely succesfull, Hence they need to close a 5-10 years technological gap, with their current booming economy this seems possible, they could well be on par with the U.S in 2020....


More like a 15-30 year gap and ever staying steady with our advancements...
Their economy is very delicate and will probably hit many roadblocks if not even completely collapse in the coming years.




The Chinese would not only have to be on par, but also a secret technological advantage in their airdefence, like be able to launch a whole string of high altitude blimps with huge lasers mounted as airdefence against, no doubt severe showers of usa retaliation missiles. The key would be surprise, without superior airdefence it is pretty MAD to go against the usa. Should the chinese not to be able to keep their blimps secret, the USA would probably in response weoponize space and attack the blimps from above.

Now you are just talking out of youre ass...

Anyway, to answer the first few questions (the rest are BS and too time consuming) there are no countries with the ability to project even enough power to overrun a U.S. city (yet). ALL logic suggests that we would pick up a troop or equipment movement weeks or more before they started to board ships-air transport and start really snooping around. Our defense levels would be on alert and our equipment would start to move. One can only invade by air and by sea. We would easily take out the air transport far before they reached the U.S. shoreline. Yeah, maybe a few civilian airliners would be lost but that is the price of war. The sea targets, slow and bloated would be short work to a CBG with Hornet/Super Hornet antiship tasks.
Truth is, we cant now and probably never will get invaded by anything other then immigrants. Stop all the time consuming and wishful conspiracies and whatnot and go outside to get some air.
Just because the enemy advances doesnt mean we stop advancing.


[edit on 15-12-2004 by ChrisRT]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   


More like a 15-30 year gap and ever staying steady with our advancements...
Their economy is very delicate and will probably hit many roadblocks if not even completely collapse in the coming years.


I'm not so sure that their economy is in danger of collapsing. I'm no expert on the subject of economics, however everything which I've read seems to point in the direction that the Chinese economy is white hot.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
south america? i'd like to see any army on this planet try to take columbia. that would be funny. yeah, they aren't very politically stable, but the massive amounts of firepower, political power and money in the area would be enough. brazil and argentina, too. next, it is extremely difficult to get any force, let alone, a large one, through the andes mountains, if they plan on coming from that direction.

and i agree, it would be HORRIBLY difficult to invade the US, to the point that, unless you have 80%+ of the world's armies behind you, you won't make it. and then, once you're here, you'll have to deal with us.......



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by fledgling666
south america? i'd like to see any army on this planet try to take columbia. that would be funny. yeah, they aren't very politically stable, but the massive amounts of firepower, political power and money in the area would be enough. brazil and argentina, too. next, it is extremely difficult to get any force, let alone, a large one, through the andes mountains, if they plan on coming from that direction.

and i agree, it would be HORRIBLY difficult to invade the US, to the point that, unless you have 80%+ of the world's armies behind you, you won't make it. and then, once you're here, you'll have to deal with us.......


Brazil is aligned with Russia, India, China, and I believe now South Africa as well in a formal alliance. (BRICS). Venezuela is probably going to join, and if the marxist rebels FARC were to win (which they could if Russia and Venezuela got directly behind them) Columbia would fall. That compromises the Panama canal and opens a door into Mexico. Strategically very dangerous.
Why does everybody think I'm always shouting that we should make friends with Venezuela? It's not because I love commies per se, just because they would be very good friends to have if we want to be at peace with BRICS.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join