Is this the first nation in the history of the human race that is quite literally impossible to invade, occupy or conquer?
Think about it, even if you manage to get through the natural barriers (surrounded by two fucking oceans, borders only two fucking countries) the entire damned population is armed. It's not possible.
ITT we think of plausible strategies of occupying the US
Why do Americans think the population being armed makes any difference? Americans are pussies and lack military training. Most of you would submit to an invading force. Your unmatched military and natural barriers are what make you difficult to invade.
lol
>Most of you would submit to an invading force. Your unmatched military and natural barriers are what make you difficult to invade.
Eh, I'm not a county boy from the flyover states, but from what I understand they've been masturbating to the idea of going innawoods during an invasion since they were in diapers, and definitely know their way around a rifle and general survival techniques.
Most major empires throughout history have been "impossible to conquer".
They all fall eventually however because of internal degeneracy and subversion. The people lose the will to defend their country and their values and they then open the gates.
The same (((forces))) are at work here today.
militia movements have been stifled by things like the oklahoma city bombing, but there would be a near instant resurgence if the US was ever seriously threatened by an opposing force.
the thing is that there are no serious threats to the US's sovereignty so these conditions can't exist. there are tens of millions of armed citizens across the country who can only be tracked by official means, and almost all of these people have a modern weapon which will be useful for their local terrain.
*tin foil intensifies*
Well really any nuclear power is impossible to invade if you are making war for any logical reason.
>implying
I think you're a faggot
You're own weapons and determination to hang on to them come hell or high water could easily be used against you.
Insurgents, willing to die, staging coordinated incidents involving small arms in public places, and I'm talking hundreds of them would either cause a crackdown by the state on firearms or would have you all shooting each other in the streets and jumping at shadows.
sounds like an obvious terrorist attack pattern
there's too many people who profit from firearms being legal for government to focus on making it illegal
Even without nuclear weapon
>the entire damned population is armed
Come on, drunken rednecks of Texas against modern army.
For now, but multiculturalism is eroding that and when the West balkanizes it won't be so hard
A single nation can't take the whole thing, but it could certainly be partitioned
Anyway Britain is the First Nation to be deemed inpenetrable
nukes and navy, you can invade the US through mexico but how do you get there, is another quesiton
>They all fall eventually however because of internal degeneracy and subversion
Fuck off Gibbon.
>to invade, occupy or conquer?
Except from within and it is already happening :^P
>C'mon, a bunch of half literate Iraqi jihadists against a modern army
:^)
que that one general who adamantly believes the us could take on every single country in the whole world at once and win.
>c'mon, a bunch illiterate poorly equipped Viet Cong versus the United States Army
>Come on, a couple Comanches with bow and arrows versus a modern army.
>its been discussed before on /pol/
>the government even did a study, but I'm not going to post a source
Historically the military has never sided with popular uprisings in the US and you're fucking stupid to think the opposite would happen this time just because its your snowflake ideology that's driving it.
>impossible
No, but highly improbable, because there hasn't been a case of anyone wanting to invade it since the revolution.
>the entire damned population is armed
The only people who would give a shit about that is Americans and a few European countries. Just to entertain the armchair generals in this thread, if some irrelevant power like China or Russia were to invade, they wouldn't give a shit about slaughtering entire populations if it acted uppity.
>implying I'm /pol/
You're a fucking retard if you think Americans are going to turn on their own. From a non political point of view, you must not be an American since you clearly aren't familiar with our people and values.
>Why do Americans think the population being armed makes any difference?
Because that's the reason the Queen isn't on our money, you fucking retard.
>if some irrelevant power like China or Russia were to invade, they wouldn't give a shit about slaughtering entire populations if it acted uppity.
This might surprise you, but that's not a magic instawin button for irregular warfare. America doesn't actually give a shit about slaughtering entire populations. And the Germans lost loads of irregular conflicts in WW2.
>the entire damn population is armed
Less than half the adult male population actually owns firearms.
>You're a fucking retard if you think Americans are going to turn on their own.
Obviously you are because they already fucking have. Literally look up any popular/working class uprising in this country and you'll see that the military has been all to ready to put bullets in skulls in the name of the state.
source: that guy's ass.
>THE MILITARY WOULD HELP THE GOOD GUYS!!!
What if it isn't clear which side is the one defending the constitution, like in every fucking civil war ever?
>America doesn't actually give a shit about slaughtering entire populations.
Except they do, you're confusing that with them not giving a shit about who gets caught in the crossfire.
if there are no atomics and the US has ~2 months prep time, then yes, it very much could.
>every fucking thread
>Why do Americans think the population being armed makes any difference?
are you serious right now
>implying the Continental Army had a single fucking chance without the French and Spanish Empires declaring war on Britain and sending their regular armies to fight in America
You're also forgetting that half the occupation forces would only be in cities, trying to stop the rampant crime and riots that'd occur once law enforcement collapses with the occupation, while the other half stretched across a bunch of rural areas and other miserable areas such as Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida where you'd have Cletus and his family hiding out in the swamps while Jeb and his sister are out fucking in the mountains then coming down in Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia every once and a while with the clan and shooting up some convoy for more food. You run into a logistics issue if you just try bombing everything to the ground and you run into an insurrection issue if you just start executing everyone. It isn't going to be an organized, pitch battle resistance like the Vietcong tried to organize, but it'll end up being a resource-draining, morale-draining expenditure that's costing the state untold millions or even billions like Vietnam was for the U.S.
>c'mon, a bunch of halfway vodka-poisoned finns vs a modern army
:^)
SARATOGA MUHFUGGA
REDCOATS CANT DO SHIT BUT CAMP NYC
That's enough Turner Diaries for you user
>Most of you would submit to an invading force.
I actually agree, but there would still be literally tens of thousands of nuts more than ready to die if it meant they got to spray a couple of bullets at the hated occupiers. If you disagree you don't understand America very well at all. To be clear, I'm not one of those people - I don't own a gun or fantasize about being Rambo. But a lot of us do.
Even if deaths from shootings like that never accounted for more than a drop in the bucket, they would be extremely demoralizing. Like trying to pacify Vietnam x 1000.
>Happening
You've been sucking Israel off since 1948, nothing's changed
>implying the war of 1812 never happend
Wasn't a war of conquest though.
...
>Guerillas/militias will use conventional warfare
Unironically kys
Go away, Ping Lee.
Well that depends. There was some VICE article where they interviewed a military analyst about America's chances against the rest of the world, and the interviewer REALLY wanted for it to be possible for the US to lose an invasion. It went something like this (greentext being the reporter, regular being the analyst):
>Would the US lose a war against the entire world's militaries?
Well first of all, theat would be very unlikely to happen because of the economic ties
>Okay, ignore that, and assume it happens anyway
Well, the nuclear arsenal would prove a heavy deterrent
>Okay, say our nuclear arsenal is taken out
Then our navy would destroy any invasion force before it could arrive
>Fine, say that the enemy destroyed our navy or somehow landed a force on our shores. Would we lose then?
Well, if we were fighting a defensive war, the best outcome for the invading force is a Vietnam-style insurgency that would prove more trouble than it's worth after a decade or two
The reporter was then really frustrated and disappointed at the interview because he wanted the US to lose. It was pretty funny.
Looked it up for lulz
It's pretty funny seeing somebody so anti-America get btfo so soundly
Not impossible, just incredibly unlikely. The US is protected by two oceans and has the world's most powerful navy and air force, so attacking by sea or air is not an option. Its only shares a land barrier with two countries. One is an ally, the other a disorganized backwards country which is nominally friendly towards the US.
And for what it's worth, Mexico could invade the US. It could declare war tomorrow and start marching troops over the border. It just wouldn't get very far.
>the entire damned population is armed.
i remember reading a passage from a ww2 japanese general talking about how the end of the war with the usa could end. apparently it was to be one of attrition until the japanese could no longer maintain the war. their idea was to conquer as much of the pacific as possible and then ask for peace. an invasion of mainland usa was ludicrous as "behind every blade of grass lies an american with a gun" or something along those lines. anyone happen to know the passage? ww2 is not really my forte.
en.m.wikiquote.org
Buy the politicians. Rig the elections.
Oh wait...
>the other first world nations would support the rebellion if the government nuked them
>if the rebels did it the other first world nations wouldn't mind
lol wit
There's nothing for the rebels to nuke you dense retard. Maybe DC but even that is 99% civilian like the rest of the entire country. Assuming they get nukes from defectors (incredibly unlikely) why would they need them?
Lmao. Dude never met an American.
Armed populace? So what? Only thing that means if you will have retarded guerrillas getting killed should you ever occuppy.
Dumbest thing I've ever read
These are all correct
Not him but I guess they would be useful for taking out bases or concentrations of military hardware. That said I doubt nukes get involved in any rebellion scenario on either side. Silo commanders just hunkering down and waiting for the situation to resolve seems likely to me.
Itt: mindless USAUSA wanking
Like the unified nation or the island? Because the island has been invaded many times
kek the generals maybe but the entire back of the military is made up of working class and poor men who would be shooting the populace. Some would follow orders, but don't think for a second that entire divisions would break away or completely revolt if ordered to gun down civilians
but it's true in every case. Americans have an obsession with guns both culturally, economically, and physically, the US navy is the strongest in the world and history, and occupying a country like the US would be impossible. The only wanking are the few anons talking about the revolutionary war
Stop being so defensive user
Most people wouldn't, especially as most stores would be closed (due to a lack of restocking due to closed supply chains) and rationing would have to occur. In which case, there is zero reason to submit when you could fight and get the stores (and the things they sell like soda or ice cream) back sooner.
Consider the implications of a fully armed populace. Even if a majority submit, soldiers are now in a position where they can be shot at any time whether it be on the street (like the DC Sniper), in a school (like Columbine or Virginia Tech) during a welfare check (like Eliot Rodger), or just a random traffic stop (like Kyle Dinkheller's murder). Anywhere there are Americans, there'd be a gun. This also says nothing of rural people most of whom actually know how to hunt and would happily wreck havoc on supply trucks using guns and IEDs, just like the Taliban did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This makes occupations untenable, or at least extremely difficult. The only way around it would be going door to door and relocating people into camps. But all this will do is cause more to fight, which in turn means a war not an occupation.
Also the DC Sniper alone proves (a) just how fucked up Americans are in the head (the sniper went around murdering random people so he could murder his ex wife without raising suspicion) and (b) how capable they are. All this guy needed was a car and a gun to make everyone in the DC area absolutely paranoid about going to gas up their cars.
Now multiply that by a factor of one hundred and you get close to what would wait any attempt at an occupation of America. Even if it's unsuccessful, it'd cause a massive amount of mayhem until everyone is killed.
take advantage of freedom and democracy to convince them to take in millions of immigrants, all brainwashed to believe some crazy left wing ideology, then have the immigrants and anyone else you can brainwash into voting in a favorable candidate who will erase freedom and democracy
I don't know how Veeky Forums can take itself seriously while having so much access to knowledge of what happens in these scenarios. Soviet peasants and civilians wreaked total havoc on the Germans in the East behind their own front, the French (towards the end) formed armed resistance and severely impeded the Germans' ability to respond to the Normandy invasion, and yet these are people who didn't have guns to start out with. There are more guns than people in the US, certainly far more well equipped than a bunch of peasants. Veeky Forums is so fucking dumb it's embarrassing
you're talking about Germans right
Well yeah, to add the Russian peasants and Frenchmen were most likely given supplies from allied forces. Why go through that hassle when we already have our guns though, right?
You mean since the War of 1812. And don't act so pompous and overly pedantic by translating "impossible" to "improbable". Everyone knows what op fucking meant
>People moving peacefully from one country to another is an invasion
The real threat to powerful states is internal. History has shown time and time again a powerful state split into multiple warring factions is easy for outsiders to grab territory from or outright conquer.
>Why do Americans think the population being armed makes any difference?
Because the Japanese did and so did the Russians in the 1950s and 1960s.
Lets say that invaders take a major west coast port. Most would submit but not all and there is a lot of guns. The invading force would have to search the whole fucking city to remove most of the guns or accept a giant manpower drain to enforce control on the streets. The records of the ATF would not really help do to most guns not even being on their records. They could of course just kill or force out the people of that city but that would create future armed resistance from other areas.
Please keep in mind that all the men doing the work are having to be moved & supplied over a ocean. Also the inland infrastructure will need to be taking, repaired, and guarded against the possibility of rural insurgents.
The Polish resistance built their own guns in basements
>Not Australia
>Invade and occupy the United States
This would require getting past the USN, then the Coast Guard, then the Army/Marines/Air Force on their own home turf, then against the State's National Guard + Defense Force, then the Federal Police + Special Task Teams + State/Local Police, then after defeating all of them dealing with insurgents from the state + those Americans flooding into the state to liberate it.
How the fuck do you defeat the US?
>Come on, a bunch of emus vs a modern army
I want to make fun of you too, shit eater
You destroy it from within. Instigate a new civil war, mop up the survivors.
>implying a fat burger with an ar has a chance against a fully trained soldier from any country
>What is guerrilla combat
Leftists would immediately join any invading force just for the chance to play einztagropen in Midwestern States
>HURR a firearm can't stop tanks!
Go tell that to the Americans in Iraq.
Honestly I'd let them have the "left coast". Just a bunch of tree hugging fags anyway.
>Let them have the left coast
>US just lost a chunk of its population, land, ports and naval bases, access to the pacific, and more bad things.
Are you retarded?
>Honestly I'd let them have the "left coast"
You'd let them have the region where most of the food in the US comes from?
Oh and also the Tech breadbasket of the fucking world.
>Wehrmacht
there's your problem
Germany got where they did out of sheer fucking luck. The Western Allies pushed their retarded Appeasement policy allowing Germany to take territory relatively easily, the Red Army was unprepared and being anally raped by Stalin during the initial invasion, and North Africa was won because of the shit-tier US coding system and a particularily stupid Colonel
As soon as these factors stopped being a thing - Russia getting its shit together, the Allies camping past a proven-impenetrable channel, and African Allies not being dipshits over wireless - and the German army collapsed
You also forgot that Hollywood is one of America's biggest money makers in the world, and with that gone it could easily cripple the American economy.
>what is russia
>the entire damned population is armed
You say that as if it's something special when this was the case for most populations throughout history.
The iraqi guerillas are mostly composed of ex soldiers from Saddams army,so they have military training and know how to atleast stop tanks from moving
>but it'll end up being a resource-draining, morale-draining expenditure that's costing the state untold millions or even billions
This sounds what it's like to run the government as it is now
thats not afghanistan switzerland or russia
Here's my plan. Dootin and Xi better listen
First of, you will need a nigger navy than the US has, a much bigger one, with at least 10 carriers.
You will also need an Island close to the US, for a staging point for an invasion. An ally in the from of Mexico also works.
You need a very modern Army, but not nessecarily better or bigger than that of the US.
What is most important i think is a secret police force like the SMERS or the Gestapo to quell Redneck uprisings.
You also need modern Fighters and large Airforce. Without air-power it won't work.
It is important to have good communications and reconsiance via Satelites.
Even so, the likelyness of sucess is very low. Dont do it.
Empires like the USA fall over time from inside causes.
It don't need to be invaded, just wait.
> Nigger navy
Somehow I think land locked sailors won't prove too effective.
...
You foreigners saying we would just lay down and let an invasion happen have you ever spent time in America? Actually talked to the people? I think you are seriously underestimating the patriotic culture here. I always hear that America has no culture, truth is our culture is America.
Muhammed
American
Says he did it for jihad and to terrorize the US. Fuck off
...
Yes because we all know every American is fucking John Rambo right? Give me a break. It's not 1776.
...