Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.11774716 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

How does one invade the USA? I'm trying to write a d20 modern game and I'm trying to come up with a conceivable way for a foreign army to invade the US.

You can try and go though Alaska, but then you'll have to not only contend with the Americans, but also the Canadians and some of the deadliest places on earth.

Coastal invasions are impossible because of the US Navy and Coast Guard are the most powerful Navies in the world. You've also got Canada and Mexico to contend with.

Going though south America is nearly impossible because of the Amazon, plus the choke point where the Central American armies and North American can wipe you out as you try and force your way through.

>> No.11774741

Through the center of the earth!

>> No.11774746

Giant drill troop transports.

>> No.11774758

>You can try and go though Alaska, but then you'll have to not only contend with the Americans, but also the Canadians
You seriously think that Canada would let America get invaded and just stay out of it?

>> No.11774763

>How does one invade the USA?

The same way you win a land war in Russia.

You don't.

>> No.11774768

Nuke the Heartlands. Wait for famine to kick in, invade though Oregon and Florida.

>> No.11774774

You island hop from Iceland and Greenland, then land in Canada. Of course, you have to deal with the US Air Force and US Navy, both of which are by a good deal the best in the world.

>> No.11774781

>>11774716
>and some of the deadliest places on earth.

But Australia is nowhere near Alaska...

>> No.11774783

Mexico, really.

>> No.11774784

>>11774758
No, what I was trying to say that if anyone were to try and invade either of the three countries, you have effectively invaded three countries at once.

>> No.11774794

You first make sure their not capable of defending themselves. For that, you'd first need to release a powerful virus or BEEEEEEEES.

>> No.11774807

>>11774794

>> No.11774818

I would imagine you would have to wipe out the command structure ASAP and then wage a war against the entire populace.

>> No.11774849

>>11774783
Mexicans, like Americans and Canadians will immediately take up arms to defend their countries. No drafting needed. You'll have an entire army of citizens aremed with shotguns, rifles, pistols, home made bombs and explosives, jury-rigged armored cars, captured vehicles, attack dogs...

North America is a scary place to invade. Russia is different, you'll lose because of the cold. In North America, you'll lose because they'll fight to the very last man, woman and child in defense, and when they do push you out, you'll have them at your doorsteps ready to wipe you off the face of the earth.

There will be no polite war like Iraq and Afghanistan. IF we used the full might of the US military, the whole country would have been torn apart like a piece of paper in a matter of months.

>> No.11774871

>>11774716

You don't.

At least, not without a significant amount of handwavium and PLOT DEVICE application.

>> No.11774881

>>11774849
I think he was making an immigration joke.

>> No.11774884

Destroy their cultural strength by allowing gay marriages and introducing socialism, which will take away their freedoms and make them easy to conquer.

>> No.11774894

Space ships, durr.

>> No.11774898

>>11774884
Go away, Ann Coulter.

>> No.11774908

Through Mexico. If a bunch of dirt poor Mexicans can evade border patrol, should be fairly easy to field troops through it. Just promise the Mexicans part of the pie and they'll be on board.

Or you could, you know, get with the times and just nuke the everloving shit out the cities with long range bombers or weapons smuggled over the border.

>> No.11774909

neither Canada or Mexico will be on the USA's side.

Alaska will be gone in minutes.

Really the most effective way of attacking will be to attack their infrastructure centres. You don't even need to contend with their military. In an open fight they'd probably win unless it was the rest of the world Vs the USA in which case they'd be steamrolled in seconds.

You'd only need to deploy teams to destroy power plants, network hubs (telecomm companies) and burn major farming centres and after that you can walk in like a hero promising solutions to their problems and the US people will bow before you.

>> No.11774918

Loose lips sink ships, guys.

>> No.11774930

No single foreign army can invade and occupy the US. There is a reason why no country disagrees with the fact that the US has a militaristic superiority. However, a coalition versus the US can be successful. If the usual US allies become enemies, the chances of a ground war on North America increase that much.

A possible scenario: China becomes an economic SUPERpower, and through economic coercion, forces many of the US's allies to fight against the US. The problem with this scenario? It's boring as fuck, could be a poor excuse of a Tom Clancy novel, and doesn't make sense policy-wise (the economic gains would be too few). In otherwords, it's possible, but not very plausible.

Face it. This day and age, there probably won't be land invasions like our ancestors remember.

>> No.11774932

>>11774909
>neither Canada or Mexico will be on the USA's side.

stopped reading there

>> No.11774935

lol OP is probably a russian spy working for an underground soviet resistance movement

>> No.11774952

>>11774935
And that's why he came to consult the greatest minds on earth?

>> No.11774956

>>11774716
What you need is something to weaken the United States, be it a global level conflict truly tying up US resources or (a bit more realistically) political division within the states.

Without an internal conflict or a disastrous multilateral global conflict it's going to be nearly impossible. You probably need both.

>> No.11774992

rolled 10 = 10

>>11774956
This.

>> No.11775000

Without the collaboration or complete destabilization (way way beyond the level of instability currently seen in Mexico) of one of the other North American countries it's impossible.

And you have to answer the question of nuclear deterrence.

>> No.11775001

>>11774783

Go in through the Gulf of California, a quick jaunt through sparsely-populated Mexico and into the Southwest.

>> No.11775003

>>11774909
>neither Canada or Mexico will be on the USA's side.
Really? Even if other countries may not like us that much, the time of huge country to country war between western powers is over(still much smaller scale conflicts persisting in other regions). No one wants to be seen as the invader, so for that reason there has to be damn good justification for invading a super power.
Not saying AMERICA FUCK YA! just stating that no one wants to invade any major power, be it America, china, or Europe.

>> No.11775016

Just dig a giant hole and the U.S. will fall in it. They can't fight back when their country is stuck down a hole.

>> No.11775023

>>11774935

Yeah, I don't think there's anyone in America right now who thinks foreign occupation would be a good idea.

I'm sure Ivan's still funding peace groups, anarchists, and various other Radical Left nutbars, just like they always did; but nothing's gonna come of it.

>> No.11775057

>>11775016
This post ruined my god damn face mask, it was almost dry you son of a bitch.

>> No.11775074

>>11775001
Right into some of the largest Military bases, Death Valley and the largest portion of heavily armed US citizens in the country.

>> No.11775075

I love how republicans think their weekend soldiers are a credible deterrent to a 21th century invading army.

A group of fat truckers bitching about liberals, commies, and neegrows and prasing NRA isnt a well-equipped and trained insurgent army.

>> No.11775109

>>11775075
These fat truckers you disregard are often skilled enough, and willing to kill long enough for the real Army get there.

>> No.11775113

Just as far as an invasion is concerned, Rocket drops, aerial payloads, sleeper agents. Those are your best choices IMO. Anything else would require plot devices or something

>> No.11775136

>>11775109
And if not, they have the equivalent of old Russian military forces, ie body after bloody body willing to throw themselves at the enemy.

>> No.11775140

>>11775075
Some of the militia groups are pretty damned well trained and equipped; Enough to worry the federal government. And while these groups are often opposed to the existing Federal government you'd better believe those jingoistic motherfuckers will step up in case of a foreign invasion.

As for the rest? Most insurgencies start as untrained civilians with weapons and figure it out as they go.

Not to mention the official state militias, the National Guard, being well trained and equipped fighting forces. Even if you discount new volunteers and the parts of the Guard deployed overseas there are a lot of weekend warriors eligible to be called onto those bases in a pinch.

>> No.11775146

>>11775075
No one's talking to you, libtard.

>> No.11775153

Invading the USA successfully is impossible.

>> No.11775156

>>11775075

You have no fucking idea what the Guard & Reserves are about. Not. Clue. One.

>> No.11775158

>>11775136
That's not even close to true.

You have no idea how it was in Russia.

>> No.11775164

Fuckin' magnets, of course.

>> No.11775183

>>11774763
>implying this mammoth of a third world country won't surrender at first attack

>> No.11775187

>>11775156
I think (hope) he wasn't referring to the Guard or the reserves and was instead talking about the concept held among many people opposed to gun control that armed civilians are are major problem for an invader who can overcome all the other reasons to not even try invading the states.

>> No.11775215

>>11775183
USA or Russia?
Either way, that's stupid and you're an idiot.

>> No.11775221

>>11775187
WOLVERINES!

>> No.11775231

>>11775215
USA is not a third world country. Russia is.

>> No.11775243

>>11775231
See, Russia still has the whole MOTHER RUSSIA SHALL NEVER FALL mindset among many people.
Patriotism goes a very long way.

>> No.11775248

>>11775243
American here.


I think I speak for my entire nation when I say that I would rather have the entire world engulfed in nuclear war than lose my homeland.

>> No.11775249

OP should play MW2. Spoiler alert.

>> No.11775250

You could try going the WiC way; not an invasion, but a small elite force masking as one, really just trying to reach a nuke silo and quickly end everything. The assumption is that once you have access to the Americans own nukes they will stop messing around and start diplomatic talks again. Or maybe you'd cripple the entire SDI and leave them defenseless in the case of a nuclear exchange.

>> No.11775258

>>11775003

You forget.

The USA doesn't have any dependable allies other than the UK. Everyone else regards the USA as a tolerable threat.

If the chance to be rid of that threat arises they will jump on it.

>> No.11775267

>>11775248

it's a shame you only speak for the 45% of RED-BLOODED 'MURRICANS out there who actually give a shit about their homeland.

>> No.11775268

>>11775243
Yeah yeah. Remember how they gave up their own Capital city to the invaders in the war against Napoleon.

>> No.11775277

>>11775267
I'm sure even the socialists in our country will defend it.

>> No.11775293

>>11775258
Canada is a very strong ally of the US. To suggest that they merely regard us as a tolerable threat is, well, really fucking stupid.

>> No.11775296

>>How does one invade the USA?

BATTLE BENEATH THE EARTH!
(Ref; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061387/)

Oh man this is MST3K fodder from start to finish. Hilariously cheesy and stupid fun. Red Chinese Mole Men for the win.

Also extremely relevant and pic related.

""At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? 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 Buonaparte 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

>> No.11775300

Canadian here. I'd sign up to help America out if they were invaded. We don't always see eye to eye, but they're bros. Plus, ya know. Hollywood, Blizzard, Wizards and Paizo are there.

>> No.11775302

>>11775258
Not just the UK, the rest of the commonwealth nations are pretty firmly in our pocket.

>> No.11775307

>>11775243

Speaking as the most police state hating, classically conservative libertarian who cannot stand the current state of governmental affairs in the US that you will ever meet -- I would take up arms in a second to defend my state in the event of a foreign invasion.

Much of our populace may be against bullshit profiteering from third world hellholes, but I assure you that true patriotism is alive and well in the states.

>> No.11775313

>>11775293
I'd join to help the Americans out. They've honestly helped us, a lot. Why wouldn't I?

>> No.11775318

>>11775302
if not out of respect, then out of alternative reasons such as financial matters.

>> No.11775323

>>11775302
Especially us Aussies. Really, we'd defend you on the fucking Moon if you warred there.
Don't ask me why.

>> No.11775326

>>11775313
>>11775293
If Canada ever gets invaded, I'd head north to help out my maple leaf bros.

>> No.11775336

>>11775323
This is totally unrelated, but I can't find an answer to my question. How big a deal are copyright laws and that kinda stuff in Australia?

>> No.11775341

>>11775140
>>11775109
>>11775146
>>11775156

Truckers detected.

I laugh at the idea that some southern blue collar worker with a drawl and subpar IQ could do anything with a shotgun aganist entire batallions of mechanized infantry with air, artillery and armored support.

Also, all of those loudmouths never saw a war. Ever. In fact, none of the american civillians on home soil ever faced war. War would immediatly gut america, people simply couldnt tolerate that they cant simply drive to the wal-mart or KFC and easily buy food and supplies and they are in a state of OH MY GOD MY CITY IS BEING SHELLED, MY NEIGHBOR WAS SHOT BEFORE MY EYES, SOLDIERS ARE RAPING MY WIFE WAT DO WAT DO WAT DO!!!

Also, looting. Half of the damage after Katrina was because of this. Niggers, spics and white trash started looting like its fucking Mad Max or they are fucking orks. The american society simply cant handle even natural crisises, much less of a nationwide war.

>> No.11775343

>>11775296
Red chinese mole-men? Red scare era 5th column paranoia turned true? Dr. Strangelove style self-destructive superweapons?

All this in a 50s sci-fi styled nostalgia themed modern setting game? Very yes, give it to me!

>> No.11775345

>>11775302

Canada is fairly friendly but wouldn't object to seeing the USA removed from the picture. They're well aware that it's only a matter of time before you attempt to invade them again.

Australia is friendly because you're no threat to them. They're safely outside your sphere of interest.

The other commonwealth nations vary from "dubious" to "KILL THE AMERICAN PIGDOGS!"

>> No.11775357

>>11775187

Armed civilians wouldn't be very effective against a conventional invasion, no. But after the invasion...

Between the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas, and now the Taliban, we've had 50 years of experience at the wrong end of insurgency warfare. We haven't quite figured out how to successfully fight it, yet, but we certainly know how to *do* it.

Taking America would be very difficult. Keeping it for any length of time? Impossible.

>> No.11775371

>>11775345
>They're well aware that it's only a matter of time before you attempt to invade them again.

>> No.11775374

>>11775326
>>11775323
Really the entire anglosphere is a group of geopolitical bros, we may fight amongst ourselves occasionally but ultimately if it comes right down to it we're all family by way of common cultural ties that run deeper than any given political reality.

>> No.11775375

>>11775336
You've no fucking clue. Horrible, it is.

>> No.11775383

>>11775323
Pretty much, All of North America, no matter how divided, will stand together if anyone ever threatened one of us.

Because we mingle so much, there will be millions of people in each country that have emotional ties to the other country.

>> No.11775384

>>11775345
>They're well aware that it's only a matter of time before you attempt to invade them again.

>> No.11775386

>>11775375
Yeah? So, maybe I don't show my web-impaired parents how to torrent stuff?

>> No.11775387

>>11774716
Have a massive plague, economic collapse, civil war, and/or energy crisis make America weak enough for an invasion.

>> No.11775398

>>11775371

The USA is a greedy nation. Canada has resources they desire. The only thing stopping the USA is that they couldn't get away with invading a western nation in comparison to a middle eastern sand country.

>> No.11775401

>>11775345
Are you kidding me? Why would we ever invade Canada? Between NAFTA and the sheer influence of the US government we're damn near close to a single political entity already.

>> No.11775412

>>11775345
>>11775345
>They're well aware that it's only a matter of time before you attempt to invade them again.
>They're well aware that it's only a matter of time before you attempt to invade them again.
>They're well aware that it's only a matter of time before you attempt to invade them again.
>They're well aware that it's only a matter of time before you attempt to invade them again.
>They're well aware that it's only a matter of time before you attempt to invade them again.
>They're well aware that it's only a matter of time before you attempt to invade them again.
It can't be greentexted enough. Are you that stupid? Where are you from to have that idiotic view of the world?

>> No.11775415

>>11775398

>> No.11775426

>>11775387
Don't ever get caught, mate. Ever.

>> No.11775428

Wow, sure are a lot of Americans who have never owned a passport posting in here.

We have foreigners on this board. Try not to insult them by telling them what they think. It's just rude.

>> No.11775429

>>11775341
You have no idea how much havoc a blue collar man can cause with a lever action rifle designed in the early 19th century can inflict.

>> No.11775432

>>11775302
I wouldn't say "in our pocket", but it's true that the Anglosphere are the greatest bros in the history of nations.

>> No.11775435

>>11775398

>> No.11775444

>>11775345

Speaking as a Canadian, this is intensely retarded. America is our largest trading partner - more than half of our imports and exports are from our bros to the South. We would fight tooth and nail against an invasion of America, because a) the loss of America would represent near total economic collapse of Canada, and b) anyone interesting in invading the US probably wouldn't stop at the border.

>> No.11775452

>>11775428

Exactly. Yanks. Fucking revolting the way they're always so ignorant of the world. Seem absolutely convinced that they own everything or that everyone loves them.

Newsflash America! NOBODY LIKES YOU!
Even Britain only sticks with you because you're a fellow Anglophone country.

>> No.11775455

>>11775398

>> No.11775457

>>11775412
Right, how many times have we actually tried to invade you? Twice? Even if we were interested in your resources, it's far easier to trade, given then most of your commerce happens around the border anyway and routinely changes sides.

>> No.11775460

>>11775412

"Canadian Bacon", and the South Park movie, to name the two most recent examples.

Yes, it's played as a joke, but up here it has all the humor of a 150kg ex-convict telling a rape joke.

>> No.11775465

That fucking Techpriest is trolling, hard. That's gotta be it.

>> No.11775471

>>11775432

The problem is that out of that family the USA is the problem child.

If they shaped up and started acting in a manner befitting an Anglosphere nation then maybe just maybe people wouldn't hate them.

>> No.11775475

>>11775452
>he actually believes this!

>> No.11775482

>>11775432
ANGLOSPHERE FUCK YEAH!

>> No.11775484

I always thought it was pretty bro how in 1776, definitely through 1812, America and Britain fought with bilious hatred, but barely a century later when the World Wars rolled around, America and Britain have this crazy kind of relationship... in fact a lot like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, you have the hot-headed american who rarely thinks, doing over the top stuff, and the older, slower, stoic british man who rides shotgun.

>> No.11775494

>>11775460
I'm a Canuck, friend.
You have no sense of humor and need to work that stick out of your ass.

>> No.11775496

>>11775357

And you base this on?

>America couldnt won a war in the last 50 years so that means america couldnt be beaten ever lol!!

>> No.11775501

>>11775452
You almost had me bro. I almost fell for it.

>> No.11775508

>>11775484

Yes but there's a problem with that.

The USA waited in world war 1 to see if they could turn the situation to their advantage.

As for the yanks who continue to think the world likes them. Try going to a non-English speaking country sometime and going outside the tourist traps.

>> No.11775513

>>11775398

Or we could just go over there and buy whatever we want. We already buy half their stuff every year anyway.

>> No.11775514

>>11775471
Hey, we just happen to take after our mother is all.

>> No.11775523

>>11775508
Actually they waited in WWI because they had a non-interference policy going. They tried to broker peace and stuff.

>> No.11775525

Are people in this thread serious when they say that Canada would sit by and do nothing if the U.S.A. was to be invaded or are you just good trolls? Besides being Canada's largest trading partner and a close ally America happens to share a massive border with Canada and even if Canada did hate America (it doesn't) it's certainly not going to allow some hostile invading power to set up shop next door after taking out Americas much more sizable military power.

That's just dumb.

>> No.11775526

>>11775508
You are making every English-speaking country outside the USA look like an idiot. Piss off.

>> No.11775545

>>11775508
Are you kidding? Is there any possible way for us to win with you? You get offended out our previous isolationism, now you're offended at our more active position in global politics. Honestly what the fuck do you want from us?

>> No.11775551

>>11775545
He's a troll, man.

>> No.11775559

>>11775526
>>11775545
He's trolling guys, it's plain as day. Noone would be this dumb unintentionally.

>> No.11775576

>>11775551
>>11775559
I know, I know. I just fucked up and raged despite knowing full well I was feeding a troll. It happens to all of us now and again.

>> No.11775581

O hai guyz soldiers are completely immune to armed civilians, the bullets just phase right through them, It isn't like a mostly civilian force has ever defeated an organized military force!

Yeah, some one needs to learn some history. Probably the most retarded thing I've heard on /tg/.

>> No.11775585

>>11775545

Right. Look how Britain and Europe do things.

We only get involved when we have a legitimate reason and we are honest about those reasons.

The USA on the other hand gets involved when it lacks a legitimate reason or equally often pretends to have other reasons.

If you are invading a country over resources then just fucking say it!

If you are using a country as a political point and don't actually care about it or its people then why bother expending resources in the first place?

The USA is a never ending disappointment and bringer of shame upon our family. At least your brother Australia turned out to be a mostly well adjusted individual despite his rough childhood.

>> No.11775601

>>11775559
I was acting dumb?

>> No.11775602

even without Canada, Mexico, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Pakistan, the entirety of Europe that's in NATO and probably even China (given the fact that their economy depends on us) coming to our rescue, the geography of the US is pretty strategically perfect to prevent invasion

>> No.11775618

>>11775581
Yeah because a military power with superior technology and resources fighting a war in a foreign land could never be stifled by armed civilian resistance, I mean when has that ever happened b4 rite?

>> No.11775633

Energy crisis.
US cant import goods and loses its position of econmic power
Currency devalues
Military crippled due to lack of fuel/logistical nightmare
BBEG invents Deus Ex powersupply
????
Teabagging the statue of liberty.

Throw in some brainwashing/summary execution to deal with any malcontents. Or if you're really feeling good make life better for the people. Give them all good clothes, food and shelter without a catch. Make people choose between their ideaology and the quality of their lives.

>> No.11775638

>>11775602

It is. But they don't need to go in and roam around.

Once they take out the important bits the rest will fall in line. Once food starts to run out or the power doesn't come on then resistance will evaporate.

>> No.11775640

>>11775526
To our foreign comrades? The idiots posting in this thread are sadly a large percentage of Americans. On behalf of our country I apologize for them and appreciate the understanding you have shown. Despite the deep strain of paranoid xenophobia that plagues our politics we have always stood by our friends as you have stood by us. Thank you.

>> No.11775641

>>11775618
That kind of shit only happens in movies bra.

>> No.11775661

>>11775545

We want you to do the right thing. Or if you're doing the wrong thing, to admit it.

This Manifest Destiny, America Fuck Yeah bullshit really has to stop.

Not your problem? Fair enough, it happens, people are selfish. But don't go crapping on about it if you DO decide to eventually thrown in with the rest after a direct threat.

The issue with the US is mainly the fact that their deeds, words, and achivements don't line up.

>> No.11775682

>>11775576
Indeed, it happened to me earlier in this thread. Now let's relax and post some character art.

>> No.11775686

Fuck America, seriously. I have no problem with most of the Americans I personally encounter, but the image your country has is fucking terrible. Your tourists sure as fuck don't help it either. Obnoxious loudmouths, every fucking one of them.

>> No.11775687

assuming you could find a way to defeat the US Navy and Coast Guard a sea invasion is definitely your best bet. Southern Texas along the Gulf is probably the only place to land where you arent immediately faced by an impenetrable swamp or a mountain range and it lets you push North to the plains. Land another army on the Baja peninsula in Mexico and march it north through California, if you really want to get crazy land another just north of Seattle and march it South. On the Eastern seaboard, I'd say start up by New Jersey and expand from there.

>> No.11775688

>>11775661

This.

Yanks wonder why the international community likes Obama?

It's because he fucking apologised for Bush.

>> No.11775691

>>11775585

You mean the US didn't win vietnam?

>> No.11775706

>>11775686
>I have no problem with most of the Americans I personally encounter
>Obnoxious loudmouths, every fucking one of them

...So which is it?

>> No.11775715

>>11775706
He doesn't know them as tourists. So both are true.

>> No.11775725

>>11775686
To be honest, I've found French tourists to be all the American stereotypical tourists and worse. Americans can't measure up to their idiocy. Especially those fuckers from Quebec.

>> No.11775728

>>11775688

Oh, god yeah. Seriously, the fact that he actually turned up in (Ireland, was it?), and basically apologised for the friendly fire incidents went a huge way for me.

"Yeah, we fucked up a few times, we're sorry, just bear with us, we're really trying to make this work".

Seriously, shit happens. We've all got dodgy histories. Just acknowledge it, and stop sucking your own dick, and we can get over it.

Fuck, do you really think that Europe is going to call ANYONE on being warlike and brutal? With THEIR history?

>> No.11775733

>>11775715
I guess. Though really I could say the same for a lot of the European tourists that we get over here. Everybody brings their bullshit when they go abroad.

>> No.11775734

>>11775633
>>Make people choose between their ideaology and the quality of their lives.

This is a country that, in the forseeable future, will choose their principles every time.

>> No.11775742

>>11775686
>Obnoxious loudmouths, every fucking one of them.

If it makes you feel any better most of us consider our intranational tourists to be obnoxious loudmouths too.

>> No.11775747

>>11775728

europe at least admits to their history though so they can call people out on being too warlike.

>> No.11775756

>>11775725

French are alright if you try.

The thing is, is that most tourists go to Paris, and Parisians have got a BIG "Fuck you, wer're parisians" thing going on. Sort of like New Yorkers. Pretty much everywhere else in france, if you at least can choke out some French, say, hello, thank you, how much, etc, it goes a long way.

And never assume that they know english. They do, but it's rude as fuck to just start speaking it. Ask them if they speak some, and it'll go a long way to avoiding the "Arrogant Frenchman" issue.

>> No.11775763

>>11775706
Most Americans I encounter, I encounter online in forums like this (using the original sense of forum, not the synonym for BBS). You're the generally decent ones, even through the trolls. It's the rest of you that get the hate.

>> No.11775767

>>11775688
And then continued most of the policies you objected to in a quieter suaver way. I can legitimately say this because I voted for him. Same shit different face, for all our praise of representative democracy we're pretty much an oligarchy at this point.

>> No.11775770

>>11775756
I'm not gonna get arrogant if some slant shows up that speaks no English. Fucking French.

>> No.11775776

>>11775763
Ahh, that's what you meant.

>> No.11775787

>>11775728
>Fuck, do you really think that Europe is going to call ANYONE on being warlike and brutal? With THEIR history?

What gets through the language filter into American media pretty much has Europe criticizing us for being warlike brutes constantly.

>> No.11775789

This is easily the worst thread I have ever seen on /tg/

>> No.11775804

>>11775484 How does one invade the USA?

As already mentioned, it's been done before, with Washington DC burned to the ground, almost 200 years ago, now. And then there was the Cuban Missile Crisis, which our generation tends to "meh".

I'd think you'd need a serious reconfiguration of the balance of power/economics in the world, paralleling that of 1812 or 1962, to have anything like a "conventional" invasion of the continental US with any ounce of verisimilitude.

One catalyst that immediately comes to mind: Big Oil totally bolloxes the transition from an oil-based to lithium-based global energy economy, and somehow the nations rich in lithium -- Venezuela, Bolivia, Afghanistan -- actually acquire power for themselves rather than secondary partners with multi-nationals.

Another is probably a bit more realistic, since everyone is anticipating it to happen: some terrorist group will finally pull of their long-sought, singular goal of getting a nuke into New York City. The subsequent collapse of global supply chains could provide some verisimilitude for a relatively quick reshuffling of power, and here come the LPEC security defense forces up from South America to insure the safety of their biggest markets.

Hey, laugh all you want, but you should read the future history from The Marrow Project or Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. It's just as silly.

>> No.11775815

from space
droppod entire army on west coast

>> No.11775816

>>11775734

Also, significant numbers of foreign troops on American soil seems a pretty good indication that "quality of life" has been thrown out the window for the foreseeable future. So, might as well kill the bastards.

>> No.11775826

>>11775770

You getting stroppy isn't going to help the situation, you know. You encourage them a bit, it'll really reap dividends. Being in a place where you don't speak the language well is a huge kick in the balls, constantly. The fact that someone there is patient enough with you, and maybe points out a few good words for you, can go a HUGE way in making said tourist feeling well disposed towards said country.

>> No.11775833

>>11775742
For better or for worse (mostly worse), those tourists and your media are what the public outside the US get to see. And what we see are arrogant fat assholes who invade other countries for no good reason and then have the gall to say they were playing the good guy by doing it.

Also have any of you ever heard of humility? Even if you are the most [adjective] nation in the world, if you shut the fuck up about it maybe people wouldn't hate you.

>> No.11775834

>>11775345
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

>> No.11775835

>>11775789
You haven't been on /tg/ long enough, we get pretty terrible at our worst.

>> No.11775837

>>11775804
To be perfectly fair, the Cuban Missile Crisis came about precisely because we intercepted a serious threat off our border before it actually got as far as a Wolverines scenario.

>> No.11775838

>>11775686
Hmm... every tourist is crap. They're tourist, that's what they're their for.

>> No.11775840

>>11775789
Then you must be very, very, new.

>> No.11775858

>>11775833
Contrary to popular belief, we're not all constantly fed stuff about how we're the greatest whatever on earth growing up, just FYI.

>> No.11775865

>>11775787

Seriously? That's whack.

Honestly, we're not thinking about America constantly. We just aren't. And of course, some dirty foreigner bitching about your country is more engaging than steel production figures from Bavaria.

It depends on where you go. Norther Europe, American's are usually perceived as being fundamentally alright to be good, but a bit dumb. That gets mixed in with a newer generation of "American's are frikking retards" thinkers.

That's why stuff like Clinton bowing to the Emperor, and Obama apologising goes such a huge way. It's proof of concept.

>> No.11775869

>>11775833
>Europeans calling anyone else arrogant
Really? Really?

>> No.11775875

>>11775840
>>11775835
Been on 4chan since before there was a /tg/

This is just a super shit thread.

>> No.11775901

>>11775869
I realise you're referring to more than just my post, but I'd like to state that I'm a New Zealander, not a European. We hate anyone who's arrogant, including French people, Poms, and our own politicians.

>> No.11775913

>>11775901
Fair enough.
...
Sheep fucker.
I KID, I KID.

>> No.11775921

>>11775858

So how do you explain the myopia?

Also, swearing Allegiance. Religion being taken seriously, politicians being ASS DEEP in patriotic driven every election, which just wouldn't fly elsewhere to the same degree.

>> No.11775929

>>11775585
>At least your brother Australia turned out to be a mostly well adjusted individual despite his rough childhood.

Oh fuck you, now you *are* trolling.

>> No.11775936

>>11775913
This may surprise you, but there are actually more cows than sheep in NZ now. Dairy farming is far more lucrative so the vast majority of farms have converted. Not that that means we get cheap dairy, since Fonterra (giant dairy cooperative that's this shy of monopoly) sell nationally at the same price they sell globally. Fuck $10 for a kg of cheese, seriously.

>> No.11775942

>>11775901
>We hate anyone who's arrogant, including... our own politicians.

I think hatred of politicians (As a general group) is a bit true common ground.

>> No.11775946

>>11775936
So, you fuck cows, now?

>> No.11775950

>>11775734
I disagree with you but there's no real way to test it so you're welcome to your opinion.

We're all(mostly) happy to agree that nazi germany were in the wrong but if Hitler and Co. won the hostory books I'm willing to bet we'd think different. The winners write the history books and if a foriegn power took over north america quashing the current administration and then proceeded to make sweeping improvements to the quality of life of its people I think you'd be hard pressed to find enough people willing to die to go back to how it was.

Also, it's real easy to be Captain Patriotic in a hypothetical but how many people do you think would have the stomach to fight a technologically and numerically superior force?

The REAL problem with all of this is why you'd invade the US. If you have the kind of power needed to get the job done then what do you want from the US? You could probably captoor all of Africa with less effort and you could spend the rest of your 'I Hate Freedom' fund on developing your new continent state.

>> No.11775959

>>11775837

Touche. But I couldn't think of anything better in the last 100 years to draw parallels from.

But this is RPGing, d20 modern no less. Why not rewind the clock, take a cue from Twilight 2000, and have a Sino-Soviet War totally Fuck Our Shit Up in the mid-90s.

>> No.11775960

>>11775833
We always have a reason for invading somewhere, although not always a particularly good one (such it is with all invasions.) Tell me of a time in history that a country has launched an invasion without both domestic and foreign propaganda about their reasons. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's inevitable. We might not exercise it much anymore, but our country is still ultimately answerable to the electorate.

Do you think we'd pull half the crazy shit we do if our media wasn't feeding a constant stream of bullshit to the uneducated to keep them complacent? Hate our governmental situation all you want, most of us do too, but don't hate the people for it if you can help it. Our government plays divide and conquer with our own people to keep away the formation of a strong enough public outcry to force them to do their jobs. At this point we're run by multinational corporate interests (which are just as much at home in the rest of the western world) and our entrenched political caste. Sure people oppose this, but they get pulled in so many directions that no cohesive change is likely to come any time soon.

>> No.11775979

>>11775942
I think we do a bit better for politicians here than in the US. At least here there are definite differences between parties beyond name and logo, and we have more than two parties in government. One of the lowest perceived corruption rates in the world too, apparently.

Although we're hardly free of shit politicians, and John Key is a gigantic faggot who needs to die. Bring back Helen Clark, she was a stone-cold woman but at least she was forthright.

>> No.11775981

With a fleet of unmarked container ships.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-iZVjw7tAw

>> No.11775989

>>11775921
Lack of exposure to outside ideas is a big part of it. It doesn't help that a lot of us aren't a relative stone's throw away from a completely different country.

The Pledge of Allegiance isn't serious business for most people here in terms of what you're actually saying. It's only serious business in that it's a tradition we've had for a long time and nobody wants to ditch it. But you're not usually *literally reaffirming your absolute loyalty to the nation* every time you say it in school. It's just a tradition.

Religion being a serious matter is an interesting case. It's because we were founded originally by Puritans. The thing is though...even WE think that the people who want to completely reinstate religious Christian law as the supreme law of our country are a bunch of total whack jobs.

>> No.11775994

>>11775936

Here in the US, we had sheepherders and cowherds killing each other over grazing rights not to long ago, historically speaking.

Just saying.

>> No.11775996

>>11775960
Hence why the hatred is towards America, and not so much towards Americans.

>> No.11776000

>>11775929

Hey, we're doing fine thanks.

Oh fuck, just saw the election results.

This is how Hitler got started.

>> No.11776001

>>11775585
>Australia
>rough childhood

I'm sorry, which country had a war for independence and a civil war again?

>> No.11776005

What if you were to try to invade from below the ground?
As in, dig a tunnel, go around the ocean/other countries, etc. and completely miss the US's defenses?

>> No.11776006

>>11775865
>Honestly, we're not thinking about America constantly. We just aren't.

Of course you aren't, but our news industry plays what sells just like you were saying. Foreign news filters out to what interests us. So we hear foreigners bitching about us, having natural disasters, or killing each other. Maybe your election results get a brief mention with no context to give us any idea why they matter. And that's a pretty big maybe.

>> No.11776014

Brotip: Half of the people shitting on america in this thread are just americans trollan.

Also this thread is terrible.

>> No.11776020

>>11775996
I dunno, you see an awful lot of "ALL AMERICANS ARE LAZY, FAT, LOUDMOUTHED, IGNORANT PIGS" flung around.

>> No.11776024

>>11775959
>take a cue from Twilight 2000, and have a Sino-Soviet War totally Fuck Our Shit Up in the mid-90s.

Yeah, that's where the various TW2K timelines always lost me. The Sino-Soviet war seemed to come out of nowhere, and it's just assumed that we'd side with the Chinese and against the Russians.

>> No.11776027

>>11775865
>That's why stuff like Clinton bowing to the Emperor, and Obama apologising goes such a huge way. It's proof of concept.

Do you guys get to see how that stuff plays on our media? It's never bothered me, but either a large segment of the population is outraged by that sort of thing or some very powerful interests want to manipulate them to be.

>> No.11776031

In your motherfucking flying saucers with your space laser rays. Duh.

>> No.11776035

>>11776006

Well, let me think. I don't watch the news much, but I remember: We get stuff on the war, election stuff, Katrina, most of the noticeable high court discussions. The General getting replaced. The stuff about the withdrawal. Occasional trivial stuff like entertainment. Economic discussions that are big, ie, the bailout thing. If there's a big issue getting argued at the time, we'll get a little coverage.

And at Uni anything relevant gets studied. I've seen a fair bit of US centric reports/articles.

>> No.11776043

>>11776014
Domestic trolls know domestic sore spots. The troll is soverign unto itself.

>> No.11776047

>>11775249
why didn't anyone respond to this

seriously, all it takes is some kind of diversion or screwing with our fancy detection systems and then you send in the paratroopers.

inb4 a military "expert" calls me retarded for thinking that a call of duty game could be realistic.

>> No.11776065

>>11776001

I'm sorry, which country got involved in other people's massacres? Which country massacred the locals, and generally had a really shit time getting established in this hellhole of a desert? Which country was almost invaded by the Japs?

Fair call to Americans, but we didn't exactly have it easy.

>> No.11776073

>>11775979
Hey! We have one legislator who's not a republican or democrat!

>> No.11776081

>>11776027

AFAIK, everyone went apeshit when it happened. Really shocked me. I mean, it's diplomacy. Obviously. Do they not notice how everyone rises to their feet when POTUS enters? With the music, and the 21 gun salute, and all the other bullshit that state officials get? Freaked me out. More so than the allegiance in schools.

>> No.11776104

I was going to say you just nationalize all the shit Americans have been stupid enough to outsource to foreign nations, but US worldwide military projection would do a good job at gunboat diplomacy and they'd still be the Saudi Arabia of coal and be well set with domestic food production.

>> No.11776105

>>11776027
Yeah, it's because of another tradition that they did away with--the American president isn't supposed to completely bow before another the sovereign of another nation, as the heads of all nations should theoretically be equals. Doesn't really excuse the sheer outrage, though--if the guy wanted to show humility, I say let 'em.

>> No.11776120

>>11776024
In the period Twilight 2000 was written, The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China where not the best of friends, There was a good sized skirmish in the late 60s, Nixon was buddying up to China, and China invaded Vietnam because they ousted Pol Pot, who was a Maoist. China also supported Islamist groups alongside the US and Pakistan during the occupation of Afghanistan and supported various African groups against Soviet supported groups.

>> No.11776130

>>11776047

The Soviets at their height had 6 Airborne divisions. They only hat airlift capacity for one--maybe two, if they diverted all of Aeroflot to troop transports.

6 undersize light infantry divisions from an army whose tactical doctrine depended on tanks and artillery. Yes, please, send in the paratroopers. Me and Bubba would like to have a couple of those nice blue berets of y'all's.

>> No.11776143

>>11775837
No it happened because we were threatening Russia with missiles in turkey.

>> No.11776158

>>11776047

Even if you could subvert detection methods and get some sort of army onto American soil, how would you support it? Supporting a modern army requires unbelievable amounts of logistical provisioning. The only reason America is able to strike relatively quickly abroad is because it maintains an enormous and expensive network of bases around the world. No nation has anything close to the same near America, and it is pretty damn unlikely the Canadians or Mexicans would allow someone else to use their bases to invade the United States.

>> No.11776173

>>11776158

What about surgical strikes? Say, after nukes, or headhunting? Maybe even black ops.

>> No.11776178

>>11776081
It freaked me out as a U.S. citizen and I knew to expect that sort of bullshit from us. The Saudi prince bit in particular got people going.

Some principal about how a big segment of our population believes the head of state should never great a foreign head of state or government as anything less than an equal. It's always been my opinion that if he's on foreign ground it's perfectly acceptable protocol for him to show a little deference as a guest.

To get just slightly too militaristic, it's not like the ICBM arsenal goes away just because the President bows, where the fuck is the velvet glove for our iron fist?

>> No.11776194

>>11776024
Hm. Well let's turn the clock back to the present and work up a pseudo-plausible worse case scenario.

Oh! How about this: Despite all evidence to the contrary, there has been a strong, old-school Romantic Nationalism movement among the world's Kurdish population. So, when the US withdraws from Iraq, everyone in the State Department shits cement-block bricks when northern Iraq declares itself the independently sovereign state of Kurdistan.

Let the biggest conventional war clusterfuck since WWI commence!

>> No.11776205

>>11776194
Ahaha... Turkey.

>> No.11776209

>>11776130
who said anything about the USSR?

>> No.11776216

>>11776105

The US pres is also not a head of state in the European sense. Brits like to mock and say we're more monarchist and they're more republican, that they don't deify the people they have involved in government the way we do with the pres, but a lot of that is old fashioned New World caudillo-ism on our part. The President is "Mr. *name here*". No title, he's the president of Americorp, not the CEO and not the living embodiment of it. He represents himself. He's not even the leader of his own political party.

He's a political strongman, more of the Director of the Bureau of America than anything else.

>> No.11776218

>>11776178

Well, America's the greatest country in the world, donchaknow.

First Amongst Equals, and all that. It's fine to have peace, just as long as America's sitting on top of everything when there is. Look at the colonisation of America, and the civil war. When they're actually threatened, any presumption of civility goes out the window.

>> No.11776220

You know, I think erepublik demonstrated it best a year or two ago. You can take land from america, you can push them into near destruction with a coalition of nations. However, they will grow in will and become stronger than they were, unfortunately.

>> No.11776229

>>11776143
And then we caught them in the act when they tried to set up missiles in Cuba, which they probably would've tried to do anyway. Cue standoff.
>>11776178
Yeah, this. I more or less agree, though I also feel like there's no reason all heads of state shouldn't be equals with each other. A little polite deference is fine...bowing flat out is a touch on the odd side. But as you said, sometimes the mailed fist needs a velvet glove.

>> No.11776235

>>11775221
i was waiting for this to pop up

>> No.11776237

>>11776194
>So, when the US withdraws from Iraq, everyone in the State Department shits cement-block bricks when northern Iraq declares itself the independently sovereign state of Kurdistan.

Jesus fuck. That'd be... I can't even begin to describe how ugly that'd get. You'd have a chunk of Eastern Turkey declare along with them. Iran... well, they might siphon off part of it, or their generally-not-giving-a-fuck-about-Kurds nature might move them to implicitly or tacitly support Kurdistan (for teh lulz and to stir up shit).

Worst of all, you'd have an ostensible ally hosting US troops and a NATO ally both declaring war on another ostensible ally and host of US troops. WWI style clusterfuck ensues.

>> No.11776239

>>11776209

Only nation with a significant airborne capability, other than the US.

Maybe China, but other than that, no one else has more than a brigade or two of paras.

>> No.11776246

>>11776229
America was the insane belligerent during the cold war.

>> No.11776250

>>11776216
Eh, that's true under the constitution but with all the expansions of executive power over the years (with Bush and Obama both making very egregious grabs) the elected monarch accusation has slowly become more true as time goes on.

Also he's "Mr. President" in the United States, proper style in foreign territory is "His Excellency the President of the United States"

>> No.11776255

>Worst of all, you'd have an ostensible ally hosting US troops and a NATO ally both declaring war on another ostensible ally and host of US troops. WWI style clusterfuck ensues.

We'd bug the fuck out of one or the other right quick. Probably Kurdistan. Possibly both.

>> No.11776258

>>11776216
This is true.

>> No.11776262

>>11776229
When you're in front of the bloody emperor, you bow. That's how you do things.

When you're in America, you rise when the God-President enters the room. That's how you do things. There is a SHITLOAD of deification around the bugger. He's a huge deal, and not only with the raw power he has.

Compared to something like the way the governor-general behaves, it's a stark difference.

And at least the Queen tacitly acknowledges that she's not important.

>> No.11776270

>>11776246

And all the Soviets wanted was a warm-water port. Just because all the warm water ports were in other nations didn't make the Soviets bad guys for wanted one for their very, very own, did it?

>> No.11776279

>>11776250
That's the long style for introductions and whatnot. He can still be and almost always is addressed as "Mr. President" by foreigners.

>> No.11776280

>>11776250

That isn't anything particularly new, presidents have been grabbing for power basically since the constitution was adopted, along with both of the other branches. Every time one has attempted to gain a large advantage over the others, the others use their powers to fuck them over. FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court because it disagreed with him, and his own party in congress told him to fuck himself.

>> No.11776299

“You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
~Isoroku Yamamoto

>> No.11776300

A lot of the eurofags don't realize this but the relations on the North American continent are far better then Europe. Sure we have boarder guards and argue a lot but we're brothers and brothers fight, but they stick together when the shit goes down.
Soon as some other country decides to invade one of us here, even if they're invading Mexico or Canada, the other two will go "OH SHIT THEY'RE TAKING OVER OUR CONTINENT FIRE UP THE RAPE CANNONS!" Not like Europe where their neighbor points and laughs until half of them are gone. Hell, North America will probably jump into the action if South America gets invaded. They're a bunch of fuckups but we still love them.

Anyways, who would invade the US? China? They don't have the navy to get here. Europe certainly isn't going to do it. Russia has better things to do. There's nothing over here worth taking anyways. We have people. Almost all our natural resources are imported because we already drained the ones we have.

>> No.11776304

>>11776262
That's not how *we* do things. We're not supposed to bow, and we're also not SUPPOSED to expect the same out of others, but honestly that shit gets flouted too often for my tastes and bothers me more than the bowing did. >_>

>> No.11776311

>>11776246

If either side in the Cold War was insane, we would not be here typing this.

>> No.11776315

>How does one invade the USA?

you buy all the land you can legally own from a foreign country, then you see how many law firms and what not you can corrupt or buy, then you see if you can corrupt some politicians so they can work for you in the government. Smuggle your troops into the country as immigrants (legal or otherwise) and have them form sleeper cells. then when you get enough of them over here take entire states down from the inside safely and "legally".

>> No.11776320

Achieve air supremacy, after that it's just mopping up and not doing anything really stupid.

As to who could actually maintain air supremacy over the U.S., well, probably no nation in the real world at this time.

>> No.11776326

>>11776246
Neither nation was remotely rational during the cold war.

>> No.11776332

>>11776255

I don't think we could bug out of all three simultaneously. (Advisors in Kurdistan; trainers, logistics, advisors, and fast reaction force in Iraq; airbases in Turkey.) And there's no way in hell we'd be able to honor our commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty.

It would be extraregional, if not global, and regardless of if we left the Kurds to hang, fought with them, or fought against them, we would cement our status globally as an "enemy of Islam".

>> No.11776339

>>11776326
I disagree. I think we were remotely rational, which is why Washingtion D.C. and Moscow are still standing today. It's just that we were *only* remotely rational, both sides still engaging in all kinds of bullshit during the Cold War.

>> No.11776352

>>11776300
>Hell, North America will probably jump into the action if South America gets invaded

This is canon in American politics: the Monroe Doctrine. Any outside interference in either North or South America is a security issue for the United States.

>> No.11776354

>>11775508
yeah cuz all of france, germany, the netherlands, japan and spain all hate it when I stroll through their "off the beaten path" locales and spend money.

>> No.11776358

>>11776262
Current presidents are nothing. I mean the Capitol has a painting that's actually called "The Apotheosis of Washington" with him rising to join the fucking classical gods. It's on the fucking ceiling.

>> No.11776378

>>11776358
Which *nobody* takes seriously.

>> No.11776379

>>11776237

A nastier House of Law split with the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, a Iran-front Shiite trick, could make this into a true Iraqi clusterfuck.

The US has Sunni militias and a secular Shiite governmeent (which by this year's elections aren't all that popular), caught between Kurdistan and the Green Army of Shiite fundamentalists who don't want to see Iraq become just another Sunni Arab nation, Shiite Arabs who want their own nation because they certainly aren't welcome by the Persians in Iran.

The Turks, unable to do anything about Iraqi Kurdistan declaring independence, make the best of the situation by pushing their nationalistic Kurds into North Iraq, rather than lose Turkish territory. So Turkish armed "support" for Kurdistan is really more of a cowcatcher, pushing the Turkish Peshmerga in front of them.

>> No.11776389

>we would cement our status globally as an "enemy of Islam"

So fucking what? Nothing would change - Militant Islam regards all non-Muslims as enemies of Islam, or convenient temporary allies at best. The top dog, whether it be America or China, can only have achieved that position by keeping the Faithful down.

>> No.11776396

>>11776379


A simultaneous Russian offensive in Eastern Europe makes the Europeans feel they must have a regional check on Russia and that they need to be independent of Russian natural gas, so they join with Turkey is proxying it up with the Kurds; hoping that doing that and fasttracking Turkey into EU membership will give them a credible Islamic regional ally to not only check Russia but to try to subvert and usurp US influence in the Arab oil monarchies.

And with Iranian-backed Shiites going nuts in Southeast Iraq and Kurds in Northwest Iraq, Israel sees a pro-Iran Shiite controlled corridor between Iran and the Arab peninsula as a threat and moves in to establish air superiority there, which brings Iranian regulars into play in that part of Iraq.

Meanwhile the Russians are going for broke not only in Eastern Europe with the diplomacy by force but with their support of Iran, along with China, funneling funds and arms.

And the Chinese also support a coup by Afghanistan's Tajik supreme general, who is pissed at the US' plans to abandon the total destruction of the Taliban in favor of just holding up AQ heads and calling it a day (the tajiks and other ethnic minorities, who form the bulk of the army, want to crush the Pashtun supremacist Taliban).

And India is exploiting the opportunity of an overstretched China to secure it's own African empire, with Indian development teams and military advisers landing in several African countries.

>> No.11776404

>>11776358
For the time period, Washington was pretty much as close as you could get to a classical godking in following. He was loved and feared by everyone, and if he wanted to declare himself king, everyone would of went with it. But he didn't and just wanted to do what he could.

>> No.11776434

>>11776300
>Hell, North America will probably jump into the action if South America gets invaded.

The Monroe Doctrine is still alive and well, the entire hemisphere is US turf. Only we get to fuck up South America's shit.

>> No.11776442

>>11776434
This leads into the amusing scenario of an external force attacking Venezuela, and despite all the shit Hugo Chavez loves to fling at us, we'd still have his back when it all went down.

>> No.11776444

>>11776404

Yeah, he was not really all humble Cincinattus but he had no desire to become another King George after fighting one.

America's chieftain, a powerful warlord, but with no desire to take the crown.

>> No.11776450

>>11776396
>A simultaneous Russian offensive in Eastern Europe

I'm guessing you mean a diplomatic offensive, for Putinist values of "diplomacy"? Because Russian military intervention anywhere in Europe would almost certainly set off WWIII.

>> No.11776460

Speaking of South America, I have the odd idea a North American Union will never happen because Can and Mex don't want to become annexed and the US doesn't want to support Mexico's economy; but that once things progress for Brazil that a Panamerican organization might happen because ALL OF THE AMERICAS EXCEPT THE US might be enough to theoretically counterbalance the US, and thus prevent fears of other members of just becoming satellites; while at the same time having a wealthy and powerful Latin nation might do some good to assuage US racism about "giving money to damn dirty Mexicans".

>> No.11776474

We have an alternative.

>> No.11776476

>>11776442

Well, Venezuela's back at least. Chavez personally? I dunno, the rumors about the CIA being behind a few mysterious plane crashes over the years are probably just tinfoil hat talk. Probably.

>> No.11776481

>>11776450

Yeah, not a push for the Rhine just your typical Russian power politics concerning the natural gas lines; making sure that they own those pipelines and not wanting East Europe to think that it can squeeze down on those pipelines like they were Russia's testicles.

So just another armed charm offensive from the United States of Gazprom.

>> No.11776482

>>11776442
Are you kidding me? We'd repel the foreign invasion and use the war as an excuse to depose him for pissant military dictator.

>> No.11776491

>>11776450

Yeah, that would trigger a Euro-American response of "ignore brushfire war between camelfuckers, target REAL threat that is Russia". Most of our leaders still look over their shoulders for the Soviet boogeyman. And China'd just LOVE to get some hooks in Eastern Russia's tasty, tasty resources while they were busy fucking about in Eastern Europe.

>> No.11776493

Well for starters you'd have to literally nuke a hole in their border defenses but as a few people have said already, there are a shitload of people with guns in the usa.

>> No.11776494

>>11776482
I dunno if we would or not. Maybe a few years back, but if it happened during Obama? I'd think we'd actually have his back the whole way through and then epic trollface behind his back as he's forced to admit that maybe, just maybe, we don't actually have it in for him.

>> No.11776496

>>11776482

Pretty much this. If Hugo Chavez and Glenn Beck ever met, they would annihilate each other in a flash of rage, ignorance, and retardation.

>> No.11776498

>>11775508

Does Egypt, Iraq, or Mexico count? I suppose most of Europe doesn't but if it does. They didn't even know I was an American citizen in Egypt. Just show a little humility and you'd be surprised how far you can in a foreign country.

>> No.11776511

>>11776496
...I would pay actual money to see this on live TV.

>> No.11776524

>>11776496
If we could ever capture Chavez I think that we could cut pieces off of him and Glenn Beck and weaponize controlled contact between their substance.

>> No.11776527

>>11776493
>there are a shitload of people with guns in the usa.
They would make life hell for any occupying force, but before professional armies invading? They would crumble easily, like resistances are wont to do.

>> No.11776536

Oh, and just so people know, that line about guns being behind every blade of grass isn't substatiated in any way. It's anecdotal, and the original source was an American attached to Patton. The Jap guy never said it.

>> No.11776544

>>11774909
>You'd only need to deploy teams to destroy power plants, network hubs (telecomm companies) and burn major farming centres and after that you can walk in like a hero promising solutions to their problems and the US people will bow before you.

>You'd only need to deploy teams to destroy power plants

Do you know how many of these alone exist in the United States? The US isn't Russia or China, but it's still fucking huge.

>> No.11776549

>>11776527
As has already been pointed out a bigger problem for an invasion force would be the sheer amount of organized conventional military force stationed in every corner of the states. People like to look at us as if we're at our limit with our current wars, but even with the amount of force we're currently projecting any given state has a larger semi-professional defense force in the form of National Guard and reservists than most nations.

>> No.11776561

>>11776549

Honestly, I'd say victory over the US is going to be more subtle. Economic. For instance, once China's domestic market grows, and they don't need the US as much. That'll be an interesting trend to watch.

>> No.11776562

I'm shocked that no-one suggested nuking their major cities, transport hubs, telecom centres, large bases and command centres (such as, dunno, Pentagon and Norad) first. I mean those fancy nuke-in-a-suitcase bombs. Kill the government quickly and block their communication. 'ere you go. Then invade.

>> No.11776565

>>11776389
Think it through. Think about Pakistan: which side would they take? And then what side would India take? And what would that do in Kashmir? And what side would Israel take?

And while Iraqi sovereignty is in question, what do you think Iran would do...with all those repressed fellow-Shia sitting on the richest Iraqi oilfields right across their god-damned border?

>> No.11776575

>>11776562

Nukes are nowhere near as powerful as people think they are. There's so many factors involved in them.

I think at the height of the cold war, they calculated that they'd need something like 50 nukes to deal with Moscow alone.

>> No.11776579

The really scary thing about even thinking about a massive conventional assault invading the states is that no matter what our current nuclear doctrine says since Obama changed it, there are more than enough crazy motherfuckers in our government and military hierarchies to ensure that we'd glass the fucking planet before we'd lose a single star from our flag.

Frankly I wish it weren't true, but Americans are both capable and willing to destroy the world rather than lose any home territory.

>> No.11776600

>>11776536
Well nobody thought it was fucking literal. But it is true that there are a lot of people with guns who know well how to use them, and partisans gonna parti all day long if we ever got occupied.

>> No.11776611

By air. American airforce has shown itself up to be pretty sub-par in recent history; Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Countless incidental kills and friendly fire. Just fucking swarm the country with bombers and fighters. Blitzkrieg up in this motherfucker.

>> No.11776617

IIRC the California National Guard alone is roughly the size of the standing active forces of Georgia or Denmark. Combined with Oregon and Washington, it would probably be somewhere around the size of Belgium or the Netherlands.

>> No.11776631

I have a hard time picturing America continuing to function given some infrastructure damage.

If you could somehow manage precision attacks against west coast power and roads through the Rockies, you could do a lot of softening up that way.

Eliminating the panama canal would do a lot of damage too I imagine.

I don't know these are within the scope of technological reality though.

What's the rationale for invading America anyhow? It seems like an awful lot of work with no clear reward.

>> No.11776632

OP, the answer is hilariously simple.

An orbital insertion from underground.

>> No.11776636

>>11776632
First reply, bro.

>> No.11776643

>>11776549
True, but I was thinking specifically about Wolverines-style civilian resistance.

>> No.11776653

Mexico is one of the most scarred states from drug lords fighting the government. By winning them over with money to on the offensive would provide easy access into the U.S. Mexico was also a communist country during the cold war, if that matters.

>> No.11776666

From the sky. Put soldiers in space capsules, launch them into low earth orbit, bring them down onto US soil, deploy from there.

Just like Space Marines. It could work; in fact, the U.S. Marines are actually working on it as we speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Hot_Eagle

>> No.11776670

>>11776643

Overemphasised, I think. Yes, it's annoying. But if a country was brutal enough, I think they could crush the resistance. That, combined with effective nation building would help a lot.

>> No.11776680

>>11776617

Not to mention the national guard in various states have their own air forces. There was a big news story in Washington state earlier this week when some retard was flying in restricted airspace around Airforce One, so the air national guard got 2 F-15's up there in like minutes, causing sonic booms above a bunch of major cities.

>> No.11776685

>>11776611
Except Blitzkrieg can only work if you can quickly invade by land. That's why Germany never got England. They did aerial bombings after aerial bombings but without infantry and the panzers, they were just wasting munitions.

>> No.11776688

Sleight of hand

invade europe first. while the while the world is watching (and fighting) one hand, launch an amphibious assult using unmarked cargo ships on Seattle.

then when their forces are spread between Europe and the north-west, strike the east coast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffWa4332Dj4

>> No.11776712

>>11776670
There is no such thing as effective nation building

>> No.11776721

>>11776688
You're one country trying to attack two major continents on either side of the globe. Wut?

Also, let's take geography into further consideration. To attack Europe would mean you're East of the USA. To attack Seatle would mean you're West. To attack both means going half way around the world in the opposite direction. All the countries in between will not just idly let your ground and air troops waltz on through.

>> No.11776744

>>11776712

Rubbish. Saddamn got his shit together after the first gulf war. Hilter got his shit together in pretty short order. Russia made quantum leaps when they industrialised.

>> No.11776747

The best way to destroy America is economically, I think. FUD. Its people are easily distracted. Easily scared. Make them lose faith in their own country and it collapses in on itself. America would be responsible for its own downfall.


Just like 9/11. Zing!

>> No.11776760

>>11776611

American air power has never been good at ground attack; honestly, no one is. It's complex, and very difficult to do right, even at the best of times. Having an Air Force that's not subordinate to the Army doesn't help.

What the US *is* good at is air-to-air combat; they're still arguably the best in the world at it, and if the latest generation of Russian and European technology *is* superior--at the moment--then the US is still probably numerically superior, and superior in terms of experienced pilots. I don't think an invasion of the US could get away with depending on air power.

>> No.11776768

>>11776575
I'n not talking about killing all americans. Obviously a lot will die, but I'm thinking more about demoralizing effect of it. Plus nukes are there rather to deal with military, government and communication. Knock off their satelites with those fancy air-to-space rockets. Just make them think like it's the end of the fucking world. Silence their media. Flashes everywhere, no word on what's happening, they shit their pants, and then your troops come in, giving away food, kissing babies and all that stuff with loud WE HAVE COME FOR YOUR RESCUE propaganda from megaphones. Obviously they'll stop trusting you, even IF they will in the first place, but by that time you should have enough troops to deal with remrants of the military and monitor for any wolverine-wannabies.

>> No.11776769

>Mexico was also a communist country during the cold war

LOL, no.

>> No.11776772

>>11776744
But then very quickly collapsed. All of them. Russia is still reeling from the downfall of its Soviet roots.

Face it, "effective nation building" was only effective because they focused on buffing up its military force. In the short term, "build-up and invade" is profitable. But in the long-term its upkeep would be more costly and you'll eventually have to stop governing these territories, especially the farther they are away from your capital.

>> No.11776777

>>11776666
>Project Hot Eagle
>Hot Eagle

>> No.11776779

>>11776760
And yet so much of the Iraqi military and air force in both Gulf Wars were destroyed very rapidly on the ground by precision bombing.

It's more than convential air-to-ground warfare is just ineffective against partisan guerilla warfare.

>> No.11776807

>>11776744
Nation building is usually a buzzword for a foreign power building up a nation, not a domestic regime doing the same.

>> No.11776810

The best part of this thread is Techpriest samefagging when he realizes nobody is siding with him.

>> No.11776814

>Coastal invasions are impossible because of the US Navy and Coast Guard are the most powerful Navies in the world. You've also got Canada and Mexico to contend with.

In alt-history RTS game "World in Conflict", the Soviet Army invaded Seattle by having the invasion force tucked into sea containers on civilian cargo ships. The Navy didn't notice, the Coast Guard didn't care because the ships apparently followed American maritime law.

Once they got to the harbor, all hell broke loose.

>> No.11776824

>>11776768
You have to take mutual destruction when it comes to large-scale attacks like that. Especially silencing communication. You'd have to have almost the entire world agree with you because if you take out the communication hubs in the USA, especially satellites, EVERYONE will know it was you.

You know what nukes are for these days? Equality. Everyone having a nuke means that if ONE person launches one, EVERYONE does. Mutual destruction. Unless you're suicide bombing America, don't invade with nukes or any large ICBMs.

>> No.11776846

OP, if you're still here, the most realistic scenario for was in North America wouldn't be foreign invasion: it'd be a civil war/terror war between the two major US political factions. Fundamentalist Christian Right vs. secular progressive Left.

It's still unlikely, as it'd probably require an economic crash that would make the Great Depression look like a minor correction. But if it does happen, think Yougoslavia writ large.

>> No.11776847

>>11775638

I cracked up at this post. This one post. As an Amerifag, does he have any idea just how many "important bits" there are? To shut them off, you'd need simultaneous strikes across the fucking map, while somehow fending off the world's best navy (which happens to be bigger than the next 13 largest combined), best Air Force, and arguably best-equipped army (not the biggest).

Along with a culture that has, yes, been so hopped up on gung-ho patriotism that they'd cheerfully resist you to the death. You think Americans are crazy now? Wait until we have an excuse.

>> No.11776852

>>11776824
Or small ICBMs, anything large enough to be considered a true ICBM is going to trigger responses on launch from every nuclear power within reach (so at least the US and Russia)

>> No.11776854

>>11776814
IIRC the US Navy had taken some pretty serious losses before the events in the game.

>> No.11776868

>implying that the two dominant political factions in the US differ on any matters of consequence, and that they aren't just sides of the same coin engineered to keep the populace distracted with meaningless bullshit while our political bodies continue to usurp as much power as possible

>> No.11776876

ally with mexico and other central american nations, launch nukes north of america to emit EMPs. The strongest weapon the American military has is electronic equipment and satelites linked to missile bases.

>> No.11776887

>>11776852
The Russians deployed at least 15 SS-21 Scarab SRBMs in the South Ossetia war. IIRC they also launched some of their older conventional MRBMs at Chechnya in the 90s.

>> No.11776891

>>11776814
Remember the Lusitania? America tried that shit when it tried to help Great Britain.

Germany wasn't having any of that.

My point is it just isn't all that feasible. For a large-scale invasion would require a lot of ships approaching in rapid succession. Even if they all didn't come at the same time, they'd have to come relatively close to within the same two-day span, at most. And that would be suspicious.

>> No.11776892

>>11776814

Everybody brings up that game when this subject comes up. I don't buy it: traffic from "Country X" to the US would have to double or triple over the course of a few days to land any significant force, and the Navy would most certainly notice.

Also, fine, you've go a couple divisions each in Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles; how are you going to supply them with a mad as hell USN st your back?

>> No.11776893

>>11776847
>arguably best-equipped army

Not even close. A lot of those smaller armies can throw cash at all the bleeding-edge tech toys, because they don't have to try to equip hundreds of thousands of people with it. Our Special Forces community has some neat stuff. But our general purpose army, they're still using stuff that was designed and/or fielded three decades ago. Because it's good ENOUGH.

>> No.11776896

Probably the only realistic way would be a biological attack. Sure, you could nuke the place and cause a lot of trouble but then you are going to be picking through the ashes. For your campaign, you could have the invaders unleash some sort of engineered virus that makes a ton of people sick. Everyone gets scared, chaos ensues and the invading army can effectively walk into the country when the infection(s) have hit the hardest.

To maintain order/control, simply threaten to unleash some other sort of virus that kills people outright.

The beauty of this is the invader's soldiers can be inoculated before entering the country, and won't get sick. It can even be hidden from intelligence services more easily than a nuclear program. If players bug you about people in the navy being quarantined, say something about a long incubation time...

Oh, and I welcome everyone who posted to the FBI watch list!

>> No.11776908

>>11776868

The bosses and power brokers? Sure. Joe Sixpack in Tuscaloosa, and Cyndi Libtard in Milipitas? Not so much.

>> No.11776916

>>11776893
Close. They're generally using equipment that's been updated several times since it was first issued. The M16A4 isn't the same beast that the M16A1 was, for example. Though in a few cases some things just do so well that they don't need much updating, like the M2 .50 cal.

>> No.11776926

>>11776892
Larry Bond was a major consultant in WiC's development, As such, Any logical argument that's not proposed by Jack Ryan is invalid.

>> No.11776941

>>11776876
MW2 fanboy thinks he can freely launch nukes into the air, without raising any alarms, to cause an EMP. Even if you could, you're effectively disabling your own electronic devices as well.

>> No.11776960

God, you guys fucking retarded?

Wait till the vast majority of the Western navy is in one place (Perl Harbour as they aren't on active duty for instance, then send aircraft carriers from Russia/China, with complete radio silence (use carrier pigeons if vital messages have to be used) to attack them) effectively wiping out the Navy in hours, with small fleets left around the place, but nothing too effective, send subs to hunt them down.
Capture the Panama Canal or have subs constantly patrolling outside of it to catch any of the Eastern Navy getting through.

Voila, land somewhere, establish beachhead and wage ground war.

>> No.11776984

>>11776896
Better still have the cure. Attack America biologically with a proprietary virus. Then after America's at rock-bottom. When complete fear and panic causes anarchy, come with promises of a cure. In fact, publicly announce the cure, but say that America is refusing aide from your country. And the more the American government tries to deny that, the more the American people will think they really are refusing your cure.

>> No.11776993

Well amerifriends, at least paying those taxes toward military budgets lets you wave an impressive e-peen online, even if you can't beat a bunch of brown people with 50 yewar old guns in the real world.

>> No.11777000

>>11776960

Seems to me, somebody tried that a while back? I'm thinking the Japanese, maybe?

>> No.11777010

>>11776960
You're assuming, of course, that the US Navy will actually become complacent enough to gather most of its forces in one location again. Especially after Pearl Harbor. You'll be waiting a so many years, America will have collapsed from its own debt (for Military upkeep, mind) in the mean time.

>> No.11777034

>>11777010
There's an idea. Fake a massive arms buildup to provoke an american response. They have to maintain a cold war military budget while you chill with your papercraft ICBMs

Yeah, they'd probably catch on but this would be the trollingest way to break a powerful nation ever.

>> No.11777046

Just nuke it!

>> No.11777048

>>11777010

Protip: It still DOES do this, not all at the ONE location of course, theres a few on each coast, but theres usually never more than 50 or 60 ships out on active patrol around the coast (not counting coastguard, law enforcement or ships in Iraqi waters)

Still, even then, wait until presidents day, 4th July, Thanksgiving, Christmas, they'll be a lot less than even usual.

>> No.11777068

>>11777048
>4th July
>Use fireworks to mask invasion
Just as planned.

>> No.11777087

Why don't you do the one-two strategy to weaken US military: First, cause long-lasting trouble in a third-world country that the US supports (or have interests in), but without ample resources/resources hard to extract, so the US wages war there. While their economy suffers from it, have spies and economic hit men wreak havoc on their economy, then while the US military is reeling (and oh, assassinate any would-be charismatic leaders with hard-to-detect poison) you can attack from multiple fronts. Maybe pay some cash to them Mexican crime lords to infiltrate the US and supply your troops, etc.

>> No.11777098

>>11777034

The Soviets actually sorta did this. The joke was sadly on them though, as even with a significant chunk of their superiority existing only as propaganda/disinformation, the real assets they had still bankrupted them.

>> No.11777111

For the record, it should be assumed that any discussion of real-world geopolitics on /tg/ implies the existence and implementation of magic, superscience, dragons and PAULDRONS on a mass scale by at least one of the factions discussed.

>> No.11777129

Assuming you could land on American shores you'd have to deal with the Guard, the Reserves, and pissed off citizenry. Honestly, it isn't worth the effort. It would be like taking Japan in the 40's, but 100x larger with the same levels of fanaticism. We've been indoctrinated well and any dissent quickly falls into line when everyone else around does the same thing. Group mentality is powerful.

If you're going to do war with the U.S. do it economically. That's the only war you'll win against us.

>> No.11777143

>>11776916
>You are now aware that the Imperial Guard fields the M2HB as a Heavy Stubber(as seen on Chimera and Leman Russ turrets everywhere).

>> No.11777198

>>11777129

Nah, a trained army will win out against reserves and .... come on.... you think the states citizens have ANY chance against a well trained army? Most of them are SEVERELY out of shape, have little to no military experience and few even hunt. I know ye may lose against them, but against armies that don't actually appear to have any morals like Russians in Chechnya or the Chinese in their own country won't.

>> No.11777217

>>11777068
>>11777048

Actually April Fools day would be a GREAT day to launch an invasion..... how many of you would believe it if you saw it on Fox news or the radio lol

>> No.11777220

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned NATO. An invasion of the US would per the terms of the treaty be treated as an invasion of every NATO member. Congratulations dumbass you just declared war on roughly 80% of the world's military might. Have fun getting steamrolled.

>> No.11777266

>>11777220

And how would THEY get there if you've managed to take out the Navy

>> No.11777322

So who's invading anyway? Russia? China? Europe? Why?

>> No.11777340

>>11777220
I was posting my responses under the assumption of the "Best of Circumstances" where NATO rejects America's invocation of Article 5. In other words, my assumption in this thread is that there were no world organizations such as NATO (in essence because this is to be a game, then the treaties therein can, and in all likelihood will, be different from the real life treaties.)

>> No.11777345

>>11777322
This is to be used for a game. So ANY country, and for WHATEVER reason the player feels he wants to.

>> No.11777366

>>11777345
In that case, orbital drop pods.

>> No.11777711

ITT: nobody realizes that the moment the US realizes someone is invading, they launch the nukes. It doesn't matter what clever plan you have, or how you intend to deal with the infrastructure, you will have no home to return to because your entire country will be ash and glass.

>> No.11777768

>>11777711
MAD.

>> No.11777814

>>11777340
>>I was posting my responses under the assumption of the "Best of Circumstances" where NATO rejects America's invocation of Article 5.

You were posting without the entire point of NATO? Since as far as I know the only time Article 5 of NATO was ever invoked was in the aftermath of 9/11 when Europe joined our lame-ass rush into Afghanistan before we got distracted by shiny things in Iraq?

The same NATO alliance that the unanimous NATO alliance followed our ass into Afghanistan even after Shrub pulled the majority of our troops out of because of shiny things in Iraq? That NATO alliance? Yeah, write them off. Because if they have stuck with it for nine years they aren't reliable.

See also Idiot American comments upthread. Patton made a great speech about us liberating the birthplace of Lafayette from the Nazis that still brings tears to my eyes. There are plenty of Americans who don't forget our friends and allies because we know that they won't forget us, despite whatever freedom-fry bullshit gets cooked up by Fox News.

Yes, this is posted in anger. I hate our country looking bad in front of the Internet. We are supposed to stand for something.

>> No.11778780

>>11777814

Do you? Does America stand for anything? IS it anything? Or is that legend itself another lie, half baked, and never really true.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action