Discussion of invading u.s.a n strategies

[shadow_crescent]

Hello,

i have read a dozen of topics about discussion and opinion on military strategies regarding the defence capabilities of certain countries withstading external force e.g= irans thread etc.. no political agenda here.. but i wanna see a discussion about a war in main land america and strategies.(Although slightly no forces dare 2 strike u.s main land: )
How the u.s will react to the uninvited force... usa mainland capabilities n all that related to it...it will be interesting topic :coffee

 

[webmaster]

Shadow, thanks. It would be nice to get something on this topic from your side. What strategy do you think would work? How? Why? When? It would allow others to reply to your topic easily if you lead the way.

 

[Aussie]

Hello,

i have read a dozen of topics about discussion and opinion on military strategies regarding the defence capabilities of certain countries withstading external force e.g= irans thread etc.. no political agenda here.. but i wanna see a discussion about a war in main land america and strategies.(Although slightly no forces dare 2 strike u.s main land: )
How the u.s will react to the uninvited force... usa mainland capabilities n all that related to it...it will be interesting topic :coffee

There really isn't any way unless you're willing to go to all-out war, and no one is. So all that is left is terrorism.

If the terrorists want to invade, the Mexican border is wide open, the ports are hardly protected, or they could simply hitch a ride on a tanker and be dropped off on the coast somewhere avoiding the ports altogether. This was done routinely during Prohibition using speedboats that would pick up contraband alcohol from Canada. The same could be done today; even with supposedly "advanced" surveillance capability the US claims to have. If this capability exists, why hasn't it stopped the illegal aliens?

What could a few thousand terrorists that have snuck into the mainland accomplish? They could probably do some serious damage. Hold people hostage, destroy major facilities, assassinate officials. Maybe even just remain covert and wage a long-term guerrilla war. WW2 is a good example of how much damage an underground resistance can do. Or I suppose even what is going on Iraq today. Imagine those IEDs in America during rush hour in major cities.

Considering that, I suppose even 100 terrorists with military training inside the US could cause serious problems, even if they don't do something spectacular like on 9/11.

 

[shadow_crescent]

I agree with aussie s oponion about terrorist snuck in u.s as illegal immigrant.. but if something may happened, the US still have FBI ..and i can say they may handle it swiftly....
Quoting about what u said before about an 'all-out war'.... if this would happen in the near future... can U.S withstand a quick and sudden strike? Are their surveilance tools readily to detect early warnings? and from which direction the assault effectively initiate for the strike?..
How about war shelters?And if the enemy did manage to land at American soil and start a conventional wars what would it be like?..

 

[arkhan]

There really isn't any way unless you're willing to go to all-out war, and no one is. So all that is left is terrorism.

If the terrorists want to invade, the Mexican border is wide open, the ports are hardly protected, or they could simply hitch a ride on a tanker and be dropped off on the coast somewhere avoiding the ports altogether. This was done routinely during Prohibition using speedboats that would pick up contraband alcohol from Canada. The same could be done today; even with supposedly "advanced" surveillance capability the US claims to have. If this capability exists, why hasn't it stopped the illegal aliens?

What could a few thousand terrorists that have snuck into the mainland accomplish? They could probably do some serious damage. Hold people hostage, destroy major facilities, assassinate officials. Maybe even just remain covert and wage a long-term guerrilla war. WW2 is a good example of how much damage an underground resistance can do. Or I suppose even what is going on Iraq today. Imagine those IEDs in America during rush hour in major cities.

Considering that, I suppose even 100 terrorists with military training inside the US could cause serious problems, even if they don't do something spectacular like on 9/11.

please read the news from this two links.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060127-9999-1n27tunnel.html
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/01/27/tunnel-us-mexico.html
drug smugglers was using underground tunnel to smuggle drugs into us for who know how long. if us vietnam veterans reads this, i'm sure it will bring back their bitter memories fighthing vietcong. the vietcong also use extensive tunnel networks to move undetected under the nose of the G.I's. imagine the tunnnel was used to bring in terrorist and their tools of the trade ( bombs, guns, missiles and dangerous chemicals) inside us undetected!. this news should bring headache to the homeland security.

 

[kostas-zochios]

I believe that the US suffer the Great Britain syndrom--> Britain was invaded in 1066 by the Vikings (I think) and then for hundreds of years no enemy had set his foot on Britain giving her a false sense of homeland security. Both countries deploy most of their military in foreign lands and (I think that) the US have neglected their homeland security. I remember watching on my TV ,a man in New Orleans during Katrina saying that "a Hospital could be deployed in Iraq much faster than here" or something like that. Terrorism can easily be imported with the use of criminal organisations. The US is a gigantic country and has a great "depth", so it is quite possible an attacker to use guerilla tactics (as well as terrorism).

 

[turin]

Actually the Brits never had a false sense of security. It was exactly this vulnerable position at home which led them to establish a navy that during the general course of the following centuries had always the upper hand against foreign attempts to compromise this kind of british defence.

Its pretty much the same what the US are doing now with a navy that is far superior to everything potential adversaries can offer.
Terrorists CANNOT invade and seize a country. Yes, they may wreak havoc, such as with 9/11, but seriously: if you dont want to turn your country into some kind of orwellian nightmare, than there is no defence against such a threat from a security force-perspective.
Also this kind of damage (bomb attacks against public/commercial buildings etc) may appear horrific, but this is measured in peace time lifestyle-parameters. Just ask Germany in WW2 or maybe the British, French or Russians (esp. the Russians) as well, what kind of damage a terrorist attack like this would do to a nation that really is at war with an enemy. The answer is: zero/nada/nil. I admit however that this might get more complicated if the terrorists would get their hands on some kind of WMD, still contrary to all scenarios put up in the media etc. this seems not to be the preferred options due to reasons not completely clear to me. But the 9/11-incident is an excellent example of that.

Now guerilla tactics mean a strong support base from within and it is my impression that the current type of terrorist would finde more of that support in lets say Europe than the US due to different social environments. But maybe I am missing something here...


And of course you can put up a field hospital much easier in Iraq than in the US. In Iraq you have basically unlimited access and authorization in order to make things going. Iraq, contrary to what politicians might say, still is a warzone, with all the "benefits" of handling things. This is not the case within the US and its peace time regulations, rights etc. I am not saying the US gov couldnt have handled the Katrina situation better than they did. Still its rather useless to take Iraq in comparison. It would be better to look at other functional countries for what natural desaster relief mechanisms are in place there.

 

[Rich]

Another problem for an enemy....an invading army would be met by a mass of armed American citizens who would make Iraq look like a Kiddies party. The real problem is terrorists infiltrating using weapons/means to slaughter thousands of innocents in one stroke. But even small groups using conventional means can cause a big problem. We are far more vulnerable to this type attack then most Americans think.

 

[Wild Weasel]

Frankly, I believe that the biggest deterent against any concerted attack on the continental US, is the violent and utterly terrifying reaction by angered American citizens. They are easy to motivate against a common enemy, and are VERY strong when they are committed to winning.

It's not so much the US military you've got to be concerned with- it's all those people with money, power, and guns. They are a massive army all by themselves, and they are barely restrained as is.

Attack them at home, and you might end up wishing you were facing the US Army, or Marines instead.

 

[Scorpius]

no one in their right mind will decide to attack the US mainland.

 

[turin]

They are easy to motivate against a common enemy, and are VERY strong when they are committed to winning.

I dont know. That sounds a lot like pathos. Yeah, maybe the american people are easy to motivate. Yeah, maybe there are lots of arms around. But that doesnt make them an effective fighting force and I am having quite some difficulties to imagine these people living without the things they are used to, their cable tv, their air conditioning etc. At best you will have anarchy where some are playing cowboy and others are just wreaking havoc shooting at everybody on sight etc. Look at New Orleans to find out how people take care of themselves when they are in a situation they are not used to.
At best you may have some isolated guerilla movements, at worse something like South Central LA in 1992 covering all the urban areas.
Something like that will not stand up against an enemy who makes a concerted military strike against these people.

Not that I am saying there are no problems in doing just that.

Just wanted to point out that civilians used to a certain life style wont turn into fierce resistance fighters just like that and they certainly are no significant deterrent force. No offense, but to equate that to the combat strength of an organized military force, say the USMC, is a bit hilarious.

 

[Rich]

I think to make such statements you should at least live here. You forget there are millions of Military veterans, Police Officers, experienced hunters and outdoorsmen...ect in America. There is no question we would organize and endure whatever we had to. No question in "our" minds.

Of course the entire discussion is a waste of bandwidth. Whos going to invade us? Mexico? Canada? And why would they anyway?, when they can just drive over anytime they want?

 

[kostas-zochios]

Just wanted to point out that civilians used to a certain life style wont turn into fierce resistance fighters just like that and they certainly are no significant deterrent force. No offense, but to equate that to the combat strength of an organized military force, say the USMC, is a bit hilarious.

I disagree with you. You know, a group of people who are used to very high living standards and yet become fearless fighters are the international terrorists! These people have anything they want; with the money they have they can buy a whole country, yet they can turn into cuiside bombers in a minute with the appropriate religious motivation. :rel I believe you shouldnt underestimate the power of armed civilians, they can achieve alot if their actions are coordinated.

 

[kostas-zochios]

Of course the entire discussion is a waste of bandwidth. Whos going to invade us? Mexico? Canada? And why would they anyway?, when they can just drive over anytime they want?

I dont think that this conversation is about conventional warfare. If this was the case, no one would even have a chance to try doing that! :kar ofcourse, I am sure that none of your neighbours have any reasons to attack you

 

[Rich]

I dont think that this conversation is about conventional warfare. If this was the case, no one would even have a chance to try doing that! :kar ofcourse, I am sure that none of your neighbours have any reasons to attack you

Maybe I misread the topic, "invading the USA".

 

[Wild Weasel]

I dont know. That sounds a lot like pathos. Yeah, maybe the american people are easy to motivate. Yeah, maybe there are lots of arms around. But that doesnt make them an effective fighting force and I am having quite some difficulties to imagine these people living without the things they are used to, their cable tv, their air conditioning etc. At best you will have anarchy where some are playing cowboy and others are just wreaking havoc shooting at everybody on sight etc. Look at New Orleans to find out how people take care of themselves when they are in a situation they are not used to.
At best you may have some isolated guerilla movements, at worse something like South Central LA in 1992 covering all the urban areas.
Something like that will not stand up against an enemy who makes a concerted military strike against these people.

Not that I am saying there are no problems in doing just that.

Just wanted to point out that civilians used to a certain life style wont turn into fierce resistance fighters just like that and they certainly are no significant deterrent force. No offense, but to equate that to the combat strength of an organized military force, say the USMC, is a bit hilarious.

Actually, you are taking me to literally. I was envisioning the determination and spirit of the American people during WWII. If they are united against a common enemy, they are capable a generating an enormous amount of force- even whilst enduring hardships.

Oh, and you should keep in mind that those well-off, pampered Americans also produce a large segment of the US military forces. I know a good deal of "upper-class" Americans that are steadfast and quite impassioned patriots. And they are highly skilled, and utterly professional warriors as well.

 

[KAPITAIN]

America likes to fight at a distance further away the better, unlike the british who like to be up close and personal, i believe the american view of keeping the battle field unclutterd as it were led to thier demise in vietnam and somalia when they had to be up close and personal.

If you notice in Iraq america is fighting again from a distance going in with jets rather than just roling in with tanks.

Now this is not a bad thing ! infact its very good and a good tactic especialy if the enamy is trying to get up close to you, not only keeping distance increase situational awareness from the air, it also can save lives.

 

[Rich]

"""America likes to fight at a distance further away the better, unlike the british who like to be up close and personal, i believe the american view of keeping the battle field unclutterd as it were led to thier demise in vietnam and somalia when they had to be up close and personal.""""

""""If you notice in Iraq america is fighting again from a distance going in with jets rather than just roling in with tanks."""""

I think you should read history before you post such a thing. Its not a question of "good" or "bad" but your statement has no basis in rationality. In fact the British are far more stand-off-ish then we are, as shown in Montys attack on Caen in '44. Currently they insist on occupation duties in relatively peaceful areas of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Its true we prefer to bring our awsome air-power and artillary to bear on an enemy. But no-one was standoff, or uncluttered, in Vietnam or Somalia. Both places were examples of the failure of political will, not military!

 

[Wild Weasel]

I think you should read history before you post such a thing. Its not a question of "good" or "bad" but your statement has no basis in rationality. In fact the British are far more stand-off-ish then we are, as shown in Montys attack on Caen in '44. Currently they insist on occupation duties in relatively peaceful areas of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Its true we prefer to bring our awsome air-power and artillary to bear on an enemy. But no-one was standoff, or uncluttered, in Vietnam or Somalia. Both places were examples of the failure of political will, not military!

I agree. Viet Nam would have been a far different outcome, had Washington allowed unrestricted bombing of the north, and surrounding nations.

As to Somalia, a lack of total support for the operators, and comprehension of the complete tactical picture led to the uneccessary bloodshed.
There was no reason to attempt a snatch and grab operation during the middle of the day, in such a hostile urban enviroment, without persistant gunship support.

Really, it was partly caused by less than stellar planning/execution, and a series of VERY unfortunate events. Mr Murphy had seen his opening, and decided that it was time to make a real mess of things.

The horrific result was 19+ dead Americans, and untold thousands of dead and wounded Somalis- and it was all for nothing.

 

[Aussie]

If you notice in Iraq america is fighting again from a distance going in with jets rather than just roling in with tanks.

That's not true. Just a couple of days ago another Abrams was IED'd in Baghdad:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,90616,00.html

Ok, I admit that joke was in bad taste. But the US is on the ground and has conducted numerous ground operations. Patrols are still carried out on a daily basis.

If anything, that is a more disturbing sign than if the US was solely using airpower. This means that even with the ground attacks, the capture of numerous cities, the insurgency has still not been stopped.

This shows once again that guerrilla warfare, if supported by the majority of the population and foreign aid, is unstoppable.