challenge: invade the U.S

it just has to be enough to occupy the heartland for a period of time, even if it is just for 24 hours
 
Nuclear weapons are not a panacea of power.

The U.S. held total domination the nuclear race until the 60s, but wasn't able to just dictate policy to the Soviets. An invasion still needs the capacity to defeat the American Navy, supply multiple armies across the ocean, have an army large enough to overcome the natural barriers against attack: mountain ranges on both sides, two rivers on the south, barely built up and lightly populated regions in the north; and then actually defeat the American advantages of greater industrial power (which has the further advantages of internal communication and supply). Nuclear weapons will solve none of those.

To put this into perspective by the end of World War II the U.S. had a navy so large it dwarfed those of the rest of the world COMBINED. It had built this force while also funding and supplying large parts of its allies war machines, fighting not one but TWO wars across the ocean, building a massive transport capacity, and performing one of the largest projects in history as a small side project.

Earlier in the century it is easier, but that eliminates the possibility of atomic weapons. And even then, incredibly difficult.

But, as I noted above the OP doesn't say the invasion has to be successful in any way of course.

What the OP wants isn't likely at all, that's the thing. If you've got a better way to bring it about, I'm happy to hear it. To your specific points, obviously the POD has to be early in the century so as to weaken the US and give whatever other country is under consideration nuclear weapons first.
 
You guys are missing the most important strategy: divide and rule. What you want in your AHC is a civil war within the US, leading various other world powers to start securing ports and such, or outright sending peacekeepers and then keeping them there after the war ends.

One way to think about it is that in the 1990s, it could well have happened to Russia. The country was in collapse; it avoided civil war, unless you count Chechnya, but it could have ended up like Yugoslavia, and then American, European, and Japanese companies might have tried set up shop to keep the natural resources flowing. Mirror this and have this happen to the US, which is a big food exporter.
 
Has it really? Even if that's been the goal at times, I doubt it's been consistent.

I mean, it's hard to view the early 1880s in that light, just as one example - that being the period the US navy was essentially all fifteen years or more out of date, and the army was very small indeed.
By "no power or group of powers" standards, that's an enormous oversight that comes to making a mockery of the concept of "making sure".

the short answer to your assertion

http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/Books/grand-strategy-us.pdf

the longer more thorough answer to your assertion

http://www.amazon.com/American-Pend...=1449198862&sr=1-7&keywords=US+Grand+strategy

http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Builde...1449198862&sr=1-12&keywords=US+Grand+strategy

http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Fo...1449198887&sr=1-19&keywords=US+Grand+strategy

History also answers your assertion: Both the American Revolution and War of 1812 involved campaigns to dominate the Great Lakes and Mississippi basin. The Louisiana Purchase was entirely about ensuring dominance of the Mississippi. The Mexican War and Spanish American War were about eliminating rivals to power in areas of vital interest (Southwest US and Caribbean respectively)

World War I and World War II were to ensure that no power dominated Asia or Europe to the point were it could threaten (realistically) an invasion of the Western Hemisphere..

The Cold War was waged to prevent a Eurasian Power from dominating East Asia, Western Europe and projecting permanent power into the Western Hemisphere.

The Monroe Doctrine was less about altruism and more about making sure no more European powers built up a major base of power in the Western Hemisphere.

We tried to annex Canada twice not just because we think maple syrup is tasty but because a major power could (and twice did) use it as a springboard for invasion..

I could literally go on for pages

I remember owning a book (lost in a fire damn it) that discussed the Grand Strategy of the US in detail

1. Dominate North America
2. Dominate the Western Hemisphere
3. Insure no major power can build a navy (and thus invasion fleet and army) large enough to threaten objectives 1 and 2.

American military history is replete with examples of efforts to ensure those goals. When they are seriously threatened, the US actually takes military action.

While the British could build the fleet in the 1880, they could not field the needed army to threaten the American heartland (the Midwest) even with a full mobilization. So in the period 1870-1890, the US literally had no enemy capable of threatening objective one and it was not in the British interest to allow anyone to accomplish objective two. Eventually the British could no longer prevent the Americans from achieving their principal objectives. Although objective three is a common British interest as well (as a dominate power in Europe would invade the British first in order to carry out any realistic chance at threatening the Western Hemisphere.. you British are after all in the most important geographical position on the Atlantic Ocean Rim)
 
You guys are missing the most important strategy: divide and rule. What you want in your AHC is a civil war within the US, leading various other world powers to start securing ports and such, or outright sending peacekeepers and then keeping them there after the war ends.

One way to think about it is that in the 1990s, it could well have happened to Russia. The country was in collapse; it avoided civil war, unless you count Chechnya, but it could have ended up like Yugoslavia, and then American, European, and Japanese companies might have tried set up shop to keep the natural resources flowing. Mirror this and have this happen to the US, which is a big food exporter.

There has been only three times in US history were a serious threat to the union existed. The War of 1812 (New England considered seceding), the Civil War (the South did secede) and the Great Depression when massive numbers of people (in US terms) were in real danger of complete destitution and despair was a real factor. Even now with American political divisions we still have a long way to go to reach even the Great Depression level of despair and division.

The 1990s were an economic boom. Our serious economic hiccups between the Great Depression and 2008 were actually in the 1970s, with some smaller issues in the 1980s.
 
I once made an observation on another forum that I think is relevant here:

There are three pre-war steps that are absolutely necessary here:

Step #1: Unify the entire Eurasian landmass under a single military alliance with the single-minded goal of building up a massive military machine to defeat, invade, and occupy the US. This alliance must be perfectly willing to cooperate each other on all matters military, economic, and political.
Step #2: Conduct the aforementioned build-up.
Step #3: Simultaneously, infect the United States with a stupid virus so they don't notice the build-up and counter it or launch a pre-emptive strike to destroy/set back it's progress until it is too late to effectively do so.

Only once those three steps are completed can you even begin to think about the actual conduct of the war.
 
I once made an observation on another forum that I think is relevant here:

The steps you specified are not necessarily required if the invader has nukes and the US doesn't. I think that this later circumstance is much easier to bring about than the grand Eurasian alliance, which is why it is a better way of fulfilling the OP.
 
I've seen people on this thread say that Canada would never be part of an anti-US coalition. That's true today and for most of the 20th century, but if the Americans are big enough dicks, we'd likely fight against them.

There are about 35 million Canadians and about 322 million Americans. Population by countryCanada gets into a war with the US only if it has a death wish.
 
Last edited:
There are about 35 million Canadians and about 322 million Americans. Population by countryCanada gets into a war with the US only if it has a death wish.

That and the fact that majority of Canada's population centre's are less than 100 km from the US border, really makes any Canadian invasion look impossible. A mass arms build up on the Canadian side of the border would be noticed.
 
Idea throwing out: what about a two-front invasion, one from Canada aimed at DC and another, broader one at Mexico? Split the forces. (Though as said above, anything is going to be seen coming by the US)
 
I've seen people on this thread say that Canada would never be part of an anti-US coalition. That's true today and for most of the 20th century, but if the Americans are big enough dicks, we'd likely fight against them.

pretty much. There's no such thing as "permanent allies" only long term ones or recent ones.

A scenario could involved a repeat of 1812: US tries to invade, UK sends troops and push back into US territories. If the actions of the US appears threatening to others or if other might have strategic or economical advantage to do so, they might join in helping with a blockade and naval bombardment for example.
 
that's assuming that canada goes at it alone. If it's pre-treaty of westminster, it would only happen with the UK on board and one assume, the whole of the empire as backup.


"The whole empire" is mostly 3,000+ miles away. How big an army do you think it can support from that distance?
 
that's assuming that canada goes at it alone. If it's pre-treaty of westminster, it would only happen with the UK on board and one assume, the whole of the empire as backup.

Wasn't the UK's plan to defend Canada basically "don't"?

What the OP wants isn't likely at all, that's the thing. If you've got a better way to bring it about, I'm happy to hear it. To your specific points, obviously the POD has to be early in the century so as to weaken the US and give whatever other country is under consideration nuclear weapons first.

Again though, nuclear weapons aren't some kind of magic "I win" button.

it just has to be enough to occupy the heartland for a period of time, even if it is just for 24 hours

You want them to be able to OCCUPY every state that doesn't touch an ocean. Okay, nope, not possible barring American collapse.
 
Again though, nuclear weapons aren't some kind of magic "I win" button.

I didn't say they were. The OP doesn't need the invasion to necessarily succeed, just occupy a substantial portion of the US heartland for some period of time. Again, if you've got a better way to bring this circumstance about, I'm happy to listen.
 
What about a USA on the side of the Central powers in WWI. Could Canada,UK , France, Russia and Japan. Combine to do some damage?
 
What about a USA on the side of the Central powers in WWI. Could Canada,UK , France, Russia and Japan. Combine to do some damage?

that is a good one, Canada is the staging area for the invasion, just make sure it is early spring. The U.S. didn't maintain a good standing army at the time so mobilization will take awhile
 
Top