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.

 

Scenario: Surprise Multiple Front Counter Attack Against USA?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I'd like to share a scenario that Ive been thinking about and throw it up there for discussion....am not trying to make another doom and gloom thread, but hopefully from those with more experience than myself to comment on the possibility and survivability of such an event unfolding.

Let's set the scene -

We're all witnessing the ratcheting up of tensions and talk aganst Iran and Syria.....lets say that out of no where, unexpectantly all the news networks cut into their programming to break news that Israel has launched a multiple wave attack against Iran and Syria with their Air Force and missiles (with or without US help). So we all know how serious an event this may be.

The Unknown Factor

Assume Iran "does" have the bomb. Assume that North Korea may have smuggled one or two to both Iran and Syria. Assume also those sponsoring this axis have also devised a plan to co-operatively launch counter attacks against the US and its global infrastructure and widen the front globally than just keeping it in the Mid East and more controlled war theatre that the US was hoping for.

We know all the worlds militaries always plan for contingencies, but do you seriously think the US/Western Allies are prepared for a massive retaliation against them all at once? Kind of a last chance by those opposed for a knock out blow?

Global Counter Attack takes Place -

Iran/Syria has been attacked by Israel/USA. Turkey is prepared for counter attack, US is prepared for tensions inflaming in Pakistan, Israel is ready for Egypt/Lebanon/Palestine to an extent......

Iran and Syria/Lebanon launch a massive volley of missiles against Israel......raining down death from the skies....

Iran sponsored coup against the Saudi regime takes place, with multiple attacks and assasinations against figure heads of the Saudi Emirates.

North Korea Launches missiles attack against South Korea,Phillipines, (possibly Hawaii?) and other Western Partners in its neighbourhood. Having sponsored the smuggling of nuclear weapons to Iran/Syria it knows that once this is uncovered they are next.

North Korea launches attack against Japan with a knockout blow given the state of the country after recent disasters.

China take Taiwain back.

Russia moves into annex the Caucaus republics especially Georgia. And puts it military on war footing in the Western border with Europe in prepardness for any possible retaliation.

South American Nations join to remove Colombian puppet US leader. And start their march northwards through the Caribbean and Mexico towards US border......

Chinese and Russian Subs appear off the East Coast and West Coast of the USA and both Putin and Chinese President publicly declare to the USA to cease all hostilities immediately else a nuclear attack will take place against multiple US capital cities?

The US/Israel being viewed by the majority of the world as rogue states, global public opinion is against the US Regime.

Yes, I know that you'd have to factor in US subs around the world and british subs and the like....im not getting into the miniscule particulars but what Im getting at is a quick and swift large scale counter attack by all - could it leave the US backed against a wall with a gun to its head unexpectantly?

Global economy is stretched pretty thin.....US troops are stretched over a large area......

WHAT IF?



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Just like the Roman Empire......


possible, but unlikely. The United States only needs about 4 attack helicopters and a few fighters to control any ground threat. Also, how would such nations bring an attack too the states? As i know, they don't have any sort of military transport comparable to the united states.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Fun thread, I like what your doing.

In regards to South American nations, I don't think they"ll attack the US, not a great idea. What I think could happen is they get rid of Us influence in their region to grow stronger and that's about it.

Any attack to the US would have to be directed at US interests abroad and it's allies, attacking US mainland would be suicidal in my opinion. After crossing the oceans, you would have to deal with a population armed to the teeth.

My 2 cents. SnF.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Reply to post by Dembow
 


Armed to the teeth, P.O.ed and itching for payback, I'll add to that. Want to see Americans forget about partisan bickering? Give us an honest-to-goodness threat of invasion. Good scenario but unlikely. The only way the populace would stand for foreign occupation would be if we're shivering and starving in the dark, a la EMP. Even then you'll have holdouts organizing whatever resistance we can.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
And America being spread out over 157 bases around the World has not enough left to protect its own borders.

Not that it hasn't been said before but the Homeland Security is getting a little thin with all the "Humanitarian" missions going on in the name of peace.

Peace...

and I mean that.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Remember how this country pulled together on September 12, 2001? If there was an actual military threat against this country, I think we would see this country come together llike never before.

I also feel that any type of invasion attempt against the United States would result in a guerilla war against the would be occupiers, the likes of which has never been seen before.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
In my opinion anythings possible. These days it feels like everyone around the world is on edge over politics, civil issues and power hungry elitests raping the world dry. That said, the Independence Day E.T. invasion scenario looks just as likely a candidate for a world ending catastrophe. 2012s almost here so lets just watch and see what the Mayans were obsessing over!!!



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Well lets put it this way the military is what less than 1% of the us population. That leaves 99.?% - exmilitary that have not seen or experienced the costs of war. So lets say - vets half the rest run and hide do to the horrors that are war. Now we have 60+% of the us population that gets pissed off are armed and have acording to some others have loose morals ( meaning when they see someone die next to them they will say genevaconvention, human rights what's that ). In short if this happened irl first attack on the us would create one of the most blood thursty countrys that has ever existed. So with most likely well over half of the population hungering for blood and the rest for revenge I would say the us would have a good chance of survival but it would no longer be the us the world has grown to love or loath, it would be a much much darker place with swifter military actions and more premptive strikes.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
And America being spread out over 157 bases around the World has not enough left to protect its own borders.


Number of global US bases and military installations is more than 700.

There's an old proverb that I once saw someone else on ATS mention:

"Amateurs talk tactics; professionals think logistics"

The US cannot take on a multi-front war with the world because it would be impossible to keep the supplies and reinforcements flowing, and the costs would be beyond measure. If there is an assault on the US homeland, then the Pentagon would have to make a choice between maintaining its bases abroad or maintain the integrity of its homeland. It would probably choose the latter option, and in doing so would lose much of its imperical deployments and control around the world. This would create a vacuum to be filled by whoever is able to take it (ranging from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, India, etc etc).

The fact that the US has so many bases is also a major vulnerability. Once one falls, then it is clear that others can too and will. This will both demoralize the US while encouraging its enemies to step up their efforts against it.
edit on 5-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Despite resource problems and financel problems, any attack on American mainland would be a uncertain gamble to say the least.

The attacker risks his whole attacking force.
Any fleet would be spotted miles away by Sattalite and Fighter jets would be deployed, the U.S Air Force Imo Is the best In the world, they alone would put a lethal dent In any attacking force.

The might of the U.S Military would arise, Tanks, Warships and Infrantry would mass together on all fronts If needed, calling home most troops would have to be a likely option

Of course though the mighty U.S would not be able to substain a resistence and eventually would fall.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by jude11
And America being spread out over 157 bases around the World has not enough left to protect its own borders.

The US cannot take on a multi-front war with the world because it would be impossible to keep the supplies and reinforcements flowing, and the costs would be beyond measure.


For the state perhaps, but for the people running the resistance i'm not so certain, as they use limited supplies.
Think Afghanistan/Iraq insurgencies. small tactical groups split across the region, rather than one large conglomerate force that's easily tracked.

The US state would deploy small-to-medium sized tactical nuclear weapons in any event of invasion.
They would simply observe satellite intel in live tracking, and nuke the fronts.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I like it...

a big cargo ship could carry a lot of attack helicopters and tanks with troops.
just one at each big harbour.
it would take a long time to get any counter attack.
and by then the attack would have taken out there objectives.
and spread out all over.
US would send jets first. with lose of communications.
they would easy shoot them down.
mobile anti aircraft battery.

the Big cargo boxes that the ships carry.
could be just driven to the attack site.
far fetch't but possible.
how many years have they had?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Thanks for the input guys.....but just to clarify, I was not putting forward a scenario of an attack against the US mainland.


More so as one member mentioned a counter attack at all US interests and bases around the world.

I beleive any Axis coalition knows that a direct attack against the US mainland would be suicide.

But by possibly delivery a co-ordinated blow against US interest around the world (except the mainland), and holding the US hostage with subs off both coasts......this axis would then pretty much reverse Amerika's policy of containment against itself.

It would be like what the West is currently doing with Iran.....not impossible, but probable?

It would force the US to bring all its troops home ASAP...if they could.

It would force the US to reconsider its own standing in the world and maybe make it start looking inwards for once instead of outwards all the time.

In the long run it may even make the United States a better country.

Though it would depend on how vengeful this coalition axis would be....if they were hell bent on death and destruction then it would result in a MAD situation.

But if they could restrain themselves and spare the US mainland and population albeit in a geographic prison whilst the rest of the world goes on with its own business.....would it really be such a bad scenario?

not meant to make this an anti-US thread although it may come across like that.....just trying to foster discussion about this seemingly improbable situation that may not be that impossible at all.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by jude11
And America being spread out over 157 bases around the World has not enough left to protect its own borders.

The US cannot take on a multi-front war with the world because it would be impossible to keep the supplies and reinforcements flowing, and the costs would be beyond measure.


For the state perhaps, but for the people running the resistance i'm not so certain, as they use limited supplies.
Think Afghanistan/Iraq insurgencies. small tactical groups split across the region, rather than one large conglomerate force that's easily tracked.

The US state would deploy small-to-medium sized tactical nuclear weapons in any event of invasion.
They would simply observe satellite intel in live tracking, and nuke the fronts.


You are thinking fantasy if you think American forces abroad would turn into guerella warriors if surrounded and cut off from the global war theater (at least in the sense of these soldiers still fighting for US goals instead of survival). American forces are molded men put throught boot camp and handed a gun; they are not men turned into fight-over-flight fighters caused by war directly impacting their lives. They are not guerellas- they are conventional soldiers trained to fight other conventional armies. And the US does not have nearly enough special forces personnel to emplace themselves all over the globe to wage imperialist battles with guerella forces in the event of a world war.

Besides, you know what you call a guerella soldier fighting in a foreign country? A terrorist.

Small tactical groups of Americans fighting to protect their interests in foreign countries during a world war? The US military requires the most logistical support out of any army in the world. Those Abrams aren't much of a threat when there's no fuel trucks to refuel them every few hours. Marines aren't so scary when there's no airstrikes to target unconvenient obstacles in their path.

And you talk about tactical nukes? This is real life. Tactical or strategic, a nuke is a nuke and it only takes one to open up the gates for all of them. Military commanders and politicians the world over know this, hence why nuclear weapons are only considered for use as a defensive contingency and not an offensive force projection. The US would be insane to use nuclear weapons abroad just for the sake of protecting their invested interests.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: Trying to be as civil as I can



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
This is interesting,and all very plausible. So many counties dislike the USA, how does one know they are not planning something. Surprising even.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by lnfidel
This is interesting,and all very plausible. So many counties dislike the USA, how does one know they are not planning something. Surprising even.


Don't worry, Americans feed on anti-American hate. The neo-conservatives/neo-liberals in charge use it, along with their notion that American order is international order, to justify hostile foreign policy. People on our level who accuse others of being anti-American are really only promoting the goals of their leadership. In essence, it is the hive-mind mentality at work, and if America has enemies, then it has opportunity to benefit by raging war with them.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
This is an easy one.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words...



And just in case push comes to shove, the U.S. has a long history of knowing when to hedge her bets...




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I think what is lost in this thread is the primary motivating factor of every country. It isn't to stabilize or destabilize the USA, but rather to advance their own interests.

If America gets seriously bogged down in a middle eastern war, again, and other major powers are frustrated, here's a more logical scenario of what they would do.

China would consider taking a more bellicose stance with Taiwan to expedite reunification, making clear to America that this area is their sphere.

Russia would consolidate its grip on the central Asian states, and bring pressure to bear on the Caucuses and the Ukraine. I doubt they'd mess with the Baltic, because it isn't worth the gain, and besides Russia and EU have a decent relationship.

I don't see any other nation having much to gain. India might ally itself with America and Israel in such a case of an expanding conflict to deal with Pakistan as a major front, but their national interest aligns too well with the west.

A war between major powers would be far too destructive to them all, where regional wars provide the chance for resource allocation, economic growth, and maintenance of a system that serves their interest. I trust enough of them studied the lessons of World War I which broke down an existing social order, and the consequence is everyone ended up toppled within forty years, more or less.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I can't see any nation or group of nations invading mainland USA.
Not because of the domestic population being armed to the teeth, with hunting guns etc, (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz), but because of the logistics.
How do you transport an invasion force big enough to make significant impact in such a large nation with it's extensive naval and air capabilities?
And once you get the invasion force there how to supply them regularly?

Any future attacks on the USA will be terrorist attacks - probably either large scale, high impact attacks like 9/11 or cyber attacks etc.

China and Russia will not enter into full on nuclear confrontation with the USA - they have lived with the realities of MAD for quite some time now and know exactly what the worldwide repercussions for mankind would be.

Any militay confrontation between these nations will be done by proxy or on neutral battlefield like Western Europe or more likely Africa, Middle East or South Asia.

But why would China and Russia support the Middle Eastern countries?
They both have significant and increasingly violent problems with Islamic extremists.
I suspect both would express the usual and expected public rhetoric and criticism but in reality discreetly approve of actions against the Middle Eastern nations.

I suspect we face a future of Iraq like confrontations between oppossing nations / ideologies etc and increasingly bloody and possibly sophisticated terrorist attacks but no major full scale militay confrontation between super powers.
The biggest danger is the possible advent of some Mahdi like unifying figure within the Islamic world - now that could have serious consequences for all of us.

Who knows, the penny may finally drop and we'll stop killing and exploiting each other over irrelevances like race, creed, nationality etc and strive to work and grow together - idealistic and naive I know but we can but hope.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
First read the book One Second After.
www.abebooks.com...

Then remember the US could do this type attack against China, Russia or any other country that attacked us without any nuclear weapons landing in there countries or radiation affecting the earth other then the EMP pulse.

These could also be set off over the sea off there coast to block all the sea ports of any country and leave there fleets of merchant ships dead in the water.

China without there merchant fleet and fishing fleet is a third world country and any of there merchant fleet or fishing fleet that was not taken out could be rounded or sunk up by the US military or other friendly countries. same with Russia.

China need the sea and is lost without there shipping fleet. No raw materials in no manufactured goods out.

And all US war ships are EMP hardened.







 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join