Would a mainland invasion and ensuing occupation of the United States ever be possible?

>Invading through northern Quebec and Labrador

Not only would it not be possible for any other great power to invade the US, I'm willing to bet not even a coalition of all the other great powers would be able to do it (to say nothing of any coalition that could realistically assemble). It's not just because the American military is strong, although it is. Half of it is geography. America's advantages are just too great.

It literally the entire world formed a coalition against the US, sure why not. Any country can be broken eventually.

Only thing that can break America is itself.
Even if you get through America's army and invade the mainland, you will still likely have an armed populace, from having a cultural identity firstly based on "muh patriotism" and secondly based on the fetishization of firearms, will be all too happy too wage some war of attrition on any invading force, occupation wouldn't really be viable.
However, all of the above is assuming America is actually ideologically unified, which it never is, outside of the one circumstance of a common enemy.
Therefore, the only way it could possibly work is to basically play Americans off of each other (not incredibly hard as they are naturally predisposed to ideological conflict from having a high quality of life with little else to actually give them purpose), until it erupts into full scale civil war.
Then you do that for a while until the ideal of a unified America is only but a distant memory, then you march in, kill the small divided militia armies while puppeting a few other warlords and annex/puppet everything.
Bonus points if you use your own culture to convert impressionable lonely americans lacking a legitimate identity to act as a puppet.

Not possible. If you unified every world power against the US it still wouldn't be enough.
Pic related.

t. >Muh American Supah Powah

United States has more naval power than every navy in the world combined. Land invasion on US soil is impossible.

Truth. We also have a massive amount of national guradsmen that can be mobilized at a moments notice and a strong militia culture. Every citizen would be in the streets with a rifle in his hands

Bongs couldn't do it 1776 when Britain was the world power and USA was just getting started. Now America is the world power so no one has a chance

if everyone defected to china at once and a lot of luck you could invade

Impossible. Only way to take down The United States is to subvert it from the inside. Hence why degeneracy and retardation is so rampant

la luz extinguido...

>armed populace
Gets air bombed to PTSD. Also what the fuck can they do to tanks?

USA is a big country, good luck bombing more than 10% of it.
>tanks
I see you don’t know what you’re talking about. You can make a tank killing weapon for less than $30 out of everyday supplies

Nobody but the United States could bomb the United States. We have extremely advanced detection and interception, massive Air Force, coast guard and navy. Not to mention there is no country with the force projection possible to bomb us. You would need a super carrier (only we have them) with stealth bombers (again, guess who has the only ones, even Russia is an entire generation behind in aircraft). Any missile or conventional bomber would be easily detected and destroyed long before impact.

>the USA could defeat the entire planet

Insinuating that the USA could defeat the entire planet in a war conventional or not shows your lack of understanding in the field of logistics.

Read the post brainlet. This thread is about an invasion of the us by another military, not the us fighting the entire planet at once. No other military power has even a fraction of the necessary force projection, manpower and infrastructure required for an invasion of the us.

The Russian nuclear arsenal is still currently larger than the US nuclear arsenal in all facets. Conventional occupation would be easy after a nuclear war.

>conventional occupation would be easy after a nuclear war

unironically the best tactic. it's the least guarded part of our border

Setting aside the fact that neither country would ever admit to how many nukes they actually have, most Russian nukes are not ICBM’s. They are old drop-bombs that are loosed from planes. Good luck getting those planes within 500 miles of the US coastline

Now? Probably not.

In the past? Best bet for it actually happening is late 19th century and through Canada. If for some reason a few European countries sprung to Britain's aid then you could certainly see a mildly successful invasion. Perhaps if Mexico joins the dogpile too.

There’s more firearms than people in the US. We have the strongest navy and the two largest air forces in the world. The geography is diverse and every person including babies would be armed.

Zerg rush through Mexico and Canada. But I can't imagine how a country would mass the troops before the US would strike preemptively.

In an attempt to answer the first part of the question, it would take an immense amount of manpower. The United States is a BIG country and very well defended. Now, a naval invasion IS possible, it's the question of whether it will be a successful one. Now, assuming one acquires enough men and material to stage an invasion, the best course of action is to attack both the East and West coast simultaneously (or at least as close behind the other as possible.) This should be premempted by strikes on the major naval bases and air bases, maybe even using airborne forces to capture them. The disadvantage of being a global super power is that your military is scattered across the globe, so there is a brief window of time between the first strikes and when the military can organize a counter attack. If you can cripple or at least tie up US forces deployed in other places all the better. The key is to keep US forces occupied so they cannot come and aid the home land. Another benefit is that the coastlines are densely populated, especially in the East. That means a lot of refugees that will clog highways and who need to be fed, healed, and defended. Anything you can do to keep America off balance, do it. Because as soon as she gets a breather, Mother Freedom will wipe you out.

The situation after the initial nukes would be so different we can't really know.
One of the big advantages is that America is fuckhuge and has a ton of resources, but suppose it splits up and the supply chain falters after the 100 biggest cities are erased from the map?

You mean that the nation that shuttles people to the ISS has no way to drop things on your head whenever and wherever she wants?

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
-Abraham Lincoln

TL;DR why launch a costly invasion of the United States that's doomed to failure when you can just fund an uprising and jumpstart a bloody civil war Russia 1917-style?

least guarded but also the least infrastructure... you wouldn't be able to get a good enough foothold established before a response would arrive in the form of Canadian-American bullets

When I wrote that post I was figuring we were magically barring the use of nukes, largely because, in the aftermath of a full nuclear exchange, I think it's reasonable to assume that neither side would be in any condition to invade anybody.

This is honestly the dumbest post in this thread. You can just drop a plane drop nuke from a Soyuz.

O no wait you cant.

>1776
>Britain was the world power

Is this what goblins are actually taught?

It makes the revolution feel more impressive

Forget possible....would it be DESIREABLE?

One glance at any episode of Dog the Bounty Hunter would vividly impress any potential conqueror of the undesireablility of conquering such a squalid toilet for sub humans.
that Le 59% Face Amerimutt dude actually understates the case. The USA of 2018 is definitely not the country it was when Lindbergh returned in triumph from Europe.

Except it kinda was. I mean, there was no "world power" at the time, but if you had to pick one, it would have to be Britain - it was arguably the strongest nation in Europe, the main colonial power after the Seven Years' War, and correspondingly had the strongest navy. What he said was an overstatement but not completely ridiculous.

>invading Canada through northern Quebec and Hudson Bay.
lol, good luck with that

I always had a fantasy about USSR uniting with Mexico and using their land as bridgehead for invasion

>rushing anywhere in boreal Canada
No roads, very little infrastructure over most of it. In winter, fuck no. In summer maybe, you could chaos by setting forest fires and bombing a hydro dam or two and shit, but the response would be immediate and you'd be bogged down in the middle of nowhere inflicting no damage of worth to either country.

>How many troops would such an endeavor take if so?
Several million, but you'd also need that if you wanted to invade Russia or China

>Suddenly a coup in Mexico...
Beaners love their Lady Guadeloupe too much.

>Invading through the smallest possible land border
>One that is watched 24/7, 365
>One that borders Texas and it's millions of red necks
>One that borders California the state that hold a large percentage of the Pacific fleet
At least you admit it was a fantasy.

>strongest nation in Europe
Yeah, except for its army

>Invading through the smallest possible land border
Is a 2,000 mile border not large enough?

No. Why would it be?

Here's your (you), now go pretend to be retarded somewhere else

You can't invade the US, just like you can't invade Russia- your force will be annihilated by nukes before it even sets foot on one of those. This thread is retarded.

You're calling me a retard when trying to justify some kind of fantasy in which the United States is invaded by Russia and their new allies, Mexico. Loosen up the straps on your helmet you fucking downey. It's starting to leave impressions on your soft skull.

I'm not justifying anything, you're just retarded for calling the border 'too small' for no reason.

It is too small you fuck. The United States couldn't be invaded from fucking Canada, or the Pacific or the Atlantic. What the fuck makes you think it could be invaded through Mexico?

None of those have to do with border length, what's wrong with you?

Wait, you mean I was talking about Russia and Mexico invading the United States this entire time? How could you have POSIBBLY known? Maybe the fact that you can follow the fucking links in the comments. I Literally LITERALLY LiTeRaLlY replied to a post specifically talking about some dudes fantasy of Russia and Mexico invading the United States.
I swear to god, you children are so helpless you need your hand held in every single facet. Out side of taking my dick out, putting the post number on it and fucking your skull there was no way for me to make it clearer which post I was responding to.

You still haven't explained why Russia using Mexico's land is 'too small a border', either your next post explains why or you really are just that stupid.

Because they would be berated by United States navy from Pacific, The United States navy from the Atlantic. The United States airforce, The United States Army. The United States marines, The United States Coast Guard. The United States National Guard. The United States military reserves and a lot of Americans lining up uo 'ta kill them commies'. We spend more on our military than the next leading super powers COMBINED and there are only 1.4 million in the United States military. There are 27.6 million people in Texas and more guns than people in Texas. Fuck you for being so dense that you don't understand EVERY SINGLE BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES is too small to invade. Especially one that creates a choke point in which you have to try and invade the most militaristic country in the entire world.

What does it say about modern superpowers that they'd rather destroy the world in a nuclear holocaust rather than being conquered by another superpower?

What if Mexico and or Canada was the invader?

The US is a huge country but only the coastal areas are heavily populated.

A huge expanse of land filled with resources, and potentially owning the world's literal money printing press is definitely a good incentive for taking it.

Eventually we're going to find a counter to nukes, we'd already had one if Nukes weren't necesary for keeping the balance of power in the world, anti-nuke programs were shut down in both the US and the USSR because neither of them wanted to deal with an all-out war.

Quite contrary, when you have such a large force as you enemy, creating a choke point is exactly what you want, why bother invading the US when you can just draw them to fight you on your own soil?

I mean fighting the USSR (like in that user's fantasy) is not even remotely equivalent to invading Irak or Syria, not being able to properly utilize your full strenght would be a huge disadvantage.

It would be a monstrous feat if possible, nuking the major cities, destroying the navy and air force, beating and annihilating the army and other land combatants, subduing the population, and taking the major cities and capitals left unbombed.
Considering that many Americans have guns, and the US Military is extremely large, well trained, supplied, and has the advantage of home terrain, knocking out the Army and subduing the population would be the two hardest parts. This operation bwould have to take months if not years because not it.

Because this is a scenario where RUSSIA AND MEXICO INVADE THE US NOT US INVADES MEXICO WHO HAS THE HELP OF THE RUSSIANS. What's the point of responding if you're not going to read most posts? You're fucking dumb friend.

Except our navy makes it so a choke point isn't possible. Were you dropped on purpose, or were you a failed abortion? We'd just you know, go around it.

>only the coastal areas are heavily populated
You don't really believe this, do you? About half of our population still lives outside of large cities, and a large amount is inland.

Heres a what if scenario that could become plausible if the Chinese somehow secretly surge their nuclear supply.

Q:

The Soviet Union, no contest. The US has some 1,600 warheads ready for use that can hit the Soviet Union, the Soviets have some 12,000.

The Soviet Union issues an ultimatum: surrender or be wiped out.

The Soviet nuclear first strike takes out all US ICBMs and nuclear bombers before the US can launch a single one. Some 9 million Americans are dead 30 minutes into the war.

If the US surrenders, they remain the world’s dominant economic power.

If the US uses it’s remaining weapons, mainly SLBMs, they can kill at most 20 million Soviet citizens (aiming at remaining weapon systems is futile due to the incredible amount of Soviet weapons ready for use).

The resulting Soviet Third Strike kills 120 million Americans. The US is no longer an economic power and prone to invasion.

With most critical infrastructure destroyed, occupying the US would be relatively straightforward, and would be delegated to cooperative locals, who would be rewarded with aid.

America got too advanced maybe if we rewind their technology to 800 years ago a land invasion would be possible.

I was gonna overthink this question, but instead saw this. Russians just have to wait until everyone is le 20% face, in the meantime they can invent some sort of anti-ICBM system while this country flounders in the mire of its diverse forms of its stupidity. then invade

80% of the population is urbanized man. Mega cities are already emerging.

good luck to """canada""" or """"""mexico""""""

You don't know that yet, but its better for them to claim they would.

When is this hypothetical situation? During the cold war both the us and Russia had more warheads than you are talking about, bit neither can deliver all of them. Even today the US can't deliver all it's weapons in a first strike, and neither can the Russians, or could the Soviets. There is no point in history that a Soviet first strike could destroy all the American weapons before they are deployed.

Well I guess you could try an all out attack. Get australia, china and japan to invade from one end of the sea. Then get europe to build a navy and invade from the other side. Thus america would have to fend off different countries from both sides. You could also try invade from canada however since the US could easily invade british columbia this would cut of the canadian pacific reach in a long weekend. So basically hope you get luxky because the US navy is by far its greatest strength.

Isn't an Americano half water half espresso?

Not only on the coast. Cities like Chicago, St. Louis, and Denver are all well-inland.

Well the first problem is that invading the USA is currently impossible without nuking it first. That mentions you need to survive nuclear war first.

But even after that, you still have the largest navy in the world to subdue and one of the most technologically advanced aviation arms in human history.

Even if you deal with that, you're invading America. It's not like occupying Russia or China, but it would be a logistical nightmare to maintain an occupational invasion of the US for a suffice time to force surrender.

Even then the population is rabidly nationalistic, and the most rabidly nationalistic is also heavily armed compared to most civilians. While the overwhelming super majority of these fucks would give up, if even a small minority were to grab the ak and dig tunnels, you'd have a really shitty quagmire to try to operate in.

And after all of that, what is the purpose of an invasion of the US? What can you even gain that's worth all the nightmarish endeavours it would require?

It's was such an outlandish idea that even during WW2, the idea was never floated seriously by any power.

Not really or at least not in the forseeable future. ICBM interceptors are still inaccurate and a space +100MW laser array is complete sci-fi. Even if they make both, you can still use nuclear mines, cruise missiles, dumb bombs dropped by stealth aircraft etc. ect.- they'll never be outclassed (until antimatter production becomes viable).

>aircraft carrier battlegroups sink your troop transports
Well that failed at step zero.

This is geopolitics, and belongs in /pol/. Sage and report.

Militias can ambush supply lines and, while not destroy, could certainly wreak havoc on logistics. Geurillas might not be able to fight tanks, but they can certainly antagonize or threaten trucks. Tanks need fuel and, inevitably, materials and parts for repairs. Failing to receive either of those things on campaigns would impede armored forces' progress and effectiveness.

Daily reminder that there actually HAS been someone in history who beat the combined forces of the United States.

Billy Addenson, of Newport, Minnesota, has reportedly invaded the United States successfully on MULTIPLE weekends after church and before bedtime.

Billy is a commie traitor bastard

>manpower
What is China

Just look back at the fall of previous great empires. Corruption and infighting allowed external threats to defeat even the largest empires.

Why isn't the U.S a brutal imperialist power with zero care for anyone else considering its military and economic power? Do the Americans fear becoming conquerors?

Politics is a humanity, which is why & humanities is a redundant mistake.
Also /k/

They can't even control Iraq and Afghanistan now.

They conquered them in a few weeks.
4GW is a bitch.