In the event of...

[BojnoX]

I'm technically a noob to this site, so pardon me if any of this sounds ridiculous, but if it does, I would like to be informed of it. I want this thread to be about any possibility that the good ole' U.S. of A. would come under attack, specifically, who and why would be attacking, who would our allies be, and also any possible strategies for an attack. You can't defend against something you don't know too much about. This is not a war game, at least not right now.

 

[ltb]

the us government will run sinario based procurement excersises which will carry information about such things, there also should be information in the quadratic defence review, as that, as far as i am aware carried the most uptodate info on that kind of question.

State wise i would be inclined to say that the main treats to the USA come from challenges to its hegemonic status ala long cycle theory. this would be, acording to Kegly, and i am inclined to agree from PRC, India or a resurgent russia

 

[BojnoX]

I think that you're right on all accounts. From what I know, those are the only countries that might, and probably would, currently be able to stand against America's military by themselves. And there currently isn't any large coalitions that could stand against us either. But what if one of those three built a new coalition; say, a new Warsaw Pact, or an Asian Alliance?

 

[Feanor]

You mean who can invade the USA in 2008? Aliens.

 

[chimera]

There are silly people like North Koreans and Vietcong who were bombed out of existence and didn't have the sense to know it. The US Engineers and G Bush hit New Orleans. Be careful of Chinese fast-food price-wars.

 

[BojnoX]

I don't think I was thinking 2008, because this year is almost half over. Just probably in the near future - take that however you want it to be taken. China is probably the most dangerous current threat. World's biggest army, third largest air force, and even if their navy is partially Russian made, it's definitely not anything to sneer at. Depending on how many aircraft carriers we can hit with at one time, we'd probably have a hard time of it retaliating. Russia seems to be on the post-Cold War rebound, but I don't think that they have the will to fight - at least not currently.

 

[BojnoX]

Maybe, if we're unlucky, Putin and his puppet will want to go out and play Cold War again with the U.S. But their army looks to be a larger version of Iraq's army, with more personnel and less money (ratio-wise, anyways). They don't have the sea lift capabilities, also. China's sea lift capabilities enable them to assault, say, the RoC (Republic of China = Taiwan). However, the RoC is our ally, so we'd jump in - that's just one way we'd be starting the next war. North Korea would likely jump in for China; Russia might. That's a really big might, mind you. But if they all decided it was time to cook things off, well it'd a :nutkick.

 

[PullerRommel]

I doubt the US would heavily invest in RoC independence. CHina would surely lob hundreds of Anti-Ship Missiles and release there Subs. I doubt the US would invest men into the protection at all just a purely defensive strategy.

 

[Feanor]

I don't think I was thinking 2008, because this year is almost half over. Just probably in the near future - take that however you want it to be taken. China is probably the most dangerous current threat. World's biggest army, third largest air force, and even if their navy is partially Russian made, it's definitely not anything to sneer at. Depending on how many aircraft carriers we can hit with at one time, we'd probably have a hard time of it retaliating. Russia seems to be on the post-Cold War rebound, but I don't think that they have the will to fight - at least not currently.

China has no Navy that can contest the USN. And it has no aircraft carriers. Russia has one Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruise that carriers a squadron of Flankers and iirc 5 frogfoots. Again there is no real threat to the continental USA aside from nuclear weapons.

 

[PullerRommel]

And if China were to someday get there Aircraft Carrier operating would you say they could contest them to a certain extent?

 

[BojnoX]

Hm. China is a major trading partner, even after all of the problems we've had with Chinese made-imported goods, medicine, toys, food, etc. And because of the upcoming Olympics, China's been especially nice to everyone, even the RoC. I doubt it will last after the Olympics are over, however. And unless Pakistan and India cook it off, India isn't much of a threat. Even N.and S. Korea haven't had too much problems recently, I believe.

 

[Feanor]

And if China were to someday get there Aircraft Carrier operating would you say they could contest them to a certain extent?

No. China may have an aircraft carrier, possibly even two, within the next several decades. That will do nothing to change the overall strategic balance between PRC and USA, though regional balance against powers like Japan, RoK, and RoC will definetly begin to shift.

 

[BojnoX]

Supposedly, China will only use nukes in a retaliation to a nuke strike. China looks to be where we were in the early 20th century, i.e. a lot of people producing things, except with better technology and worse government. And if you do fill the air with ship-ship missiles, no CIWS will be able to take them all out. Technology and training make up for a lot, but quantity has some qualities of its own. The only thing we can do is be thankful that we live on a different continent, because if we went into a land war with China, I have serious misgivings about our capabilities against China's numbers, and they aren't half-wit barbarians.

 

[Ender]

A better question would probably be what would happen if the U.S. army somehow lost and the U.S. was invaded/occupied.-

My guess would be high resistence. The U.S. has more guns per household than any other country in the world. The U.S. also has shown historically that it's people are decently nationalistic, expecially in time of crisis. When Pearl Harbor, it took 3 days (correct me if I'm wrong with that number) to get a declaration of war from Congress. 9/11 gave us a war in Afghanistan. I think foreign soldiers killing our soldiers and then occupying the U.S. would probably piss off enough people into a strong resistence.

Nationalism + Guns = :nutkick

 

[Feanor]

I don't see any army that has the logistics to occupy the US. Do you?

 

[BojnoX]

Heck yeah! I'd defend the U.S. But occupations normally don't work well. Look at Iraq right now. Roadside bombings, snipers... The difference is we have no active militias like they do over there, except for groups like hunters and such, even though they don't typically do 'militia' type things. I may be only 15 + a bit, but I already have my hunters license, so I'm not trying to offend hunters. And we may have guns, but I personally know of only one gun store in my area that has heavier weapons. That store is A-! Tactical, and they also own a retired M113 APC. They have what seems to be a mini-gun/Gatling gun, I'm not really sure, and a couple of heavy machine guns. And another store has a mortar, but I'm guessing that its been decommissioned. However, the best thing would be for the U.S. military to widely distribute and train as many partisan fighters as possible, including heavy weapons training. And if they can secret away some heavier stuff, like tanks or choppers, even better. Maps, because GPS may or may not be down, survival gear, generators, any useful technology, anything. Hurricane supplies+weapons, basically...right?

 

[Ender]

U.S. "militia" forces in the event of an occupation would probably have weapons close to modern gangs and hunters. Sidearms, light assault weapons, and and hunting rifles would be common. I'm sure you would see heavier weapons and RPGs pop up.

Another problem with occupying the U.S. is geography. The U.S. is massive. Imagine trying to control a country thats width is the across the entire continent and is home to 300 million people. Adding onto this, the U.S. is home to many types of landscapes and cultures. Adds up badly for the invaders.

 

[BojnoX]

I don't really see any countries that can defeat ours AND occupy us. Major difference from just occupying or just defeating our army. Back to a multi-nation coalition attack, maybe?

 

[Chrom]

I don't really see any countries that can defeat ours AND occupy us. Major difference from just occupying or just defeating our army. Back to a multi-nation coalition attack, maybe?

History lessons tells us - if regular army is defeated, then reliably occupying the country (however large) is the question of genocide. If invading forces are ready to conduct very harsh behavior - then partisans / militia / insurgents have no chances. They wouldnt even inflict sizable losses to regular army.

 

[BojnoX]

Well, it also depends on who we'd be invaded by, and their current political/military leadership, and the state of the rest of the world. If no one cares that U.S. citizens are being slaughtered, then they probably will be; that is, if we're invaded by someone who currently only refrains from such behavior because of world opinion. If world opinion no longer matters, then who knows what could happen.