Feasible Invasion Of The USA

actually its possible today but only if mexico or canada were some how taken over by lunatics.

But they wouldn't be successful. This is because even if a foreign state did have the military might to hold the land its taken the USA would nuke the homeland of said military.

Still this raises the question: Would the USA use nukes on Mexico or Canada if they had a war?

A Mexican Canadian alliance could cause some serious damage if the US doesn't use Nukes to settle things. I doubt they could hold out forever but a quick short term victory is possible if they can somehow figure out how to surprise the USA. i would geuss drug cartel tunnels used to sneak weapons and troops onto US soil then a sudden Blitzcrieg by tens of thousands of soldiers already on US soil. Canada rushes seattle and washington?

As to successful invasions in the past Alaska could be invaded till 1946.

States only then California could be invaded till 1920 thanks to that earthquake.
 
The grandfather of a guy I grew up with fought along side Poncho Villa, and a brother of my grandfather was part of Pershing's expeditionary force.

Wow, that's crazy. My great grandparents met in Villa's army. My great grandmother pretty much grew up in their camps.


On Topic:

My hunch is that by the 1880s/90s a feasible invasion of the continental United States was no longer feasible.

It could be possible for the Soviets to have pushed through Canada, but holding all that territory is another matter. Also, having nukes wiping out the greater portion of earth's population before it could reach this point is another matter to consider in such a scenario.
 
I'm just waiting for him to say so. Until he clarifies his terms, it isn't really possible to address the question.

What counts as US soil?
What counts as an invasion?
Does it have to be successful?

If you're implying that there's been some silliness in this thread, I'd have to agree, and before I add to it I'd just like the OP to clarify his terms.

Okay,
1.By US, I mean the actual USA, states, no territories or embassies.
2. By an invasion, I mean a foreign government landing troops in a state belonging to the US.
3. If by successful you mean prolonged occupation, then no, the troops just have to successfully land, and cause some damage, that's it.
 
Okay,
1.By US, I mean the actual USA, states, no territories or embassies.
2. By an invasion, I mean a foreign government landing troops in a state belonging to the US.
3. If by successful you mean prolonged occupation, then no, the troops just have to successfully land, and cause some damage, that's it.
Those criteria open up several scenarios. I don't doubt that if employed in a certain way, troops could land in the US - though it will require a great deal of stealth and secrecy. A blitzkrieg of San Diego, Detroit or Seattle, for example, is not out of the question if for some reason Canada or Mexico wants simply to invade the US.

But again, nothing could hold unless there's a seriously powerful alliance in place.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Grattan
The grandfather of a guy I grew up with fought along side Poncho Villa, and a brother of my grandfather was part of Pershing's expeditionary force.
Wow, that's crazy. My great grandparents met in Villa's army. My great grandmother pretty much grew up in their camps.

Yes these events are movie worthy and leonardo decaprio can star.

It will be a summer block buster. get the guys who made Babel or Warhorse to direct and produce.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Could the Russian Empire have feasibly landed troops on the west coast?, if it was a couple decades earlier, Alaska could be used as a base of operations.

I don't see how Alaska could be used as a base of operations, as it had no logistical infrastructure to speak of. They'd be better off launching an invasion directly from Port Arthur or Vladayvostok.
 
First you need a relatively close base for logistical support. Canada, Cuba, Mexico, or somewhere close by that can readily sustain a large enough concentration of troops and manpower to prepare an invasion. A transoceanic landing is folly and there are few beaches where it could be done readily in the US anyway, remember that there is limited infrastructure for large parts of the coast on both sides of the ocean. Then the US Air Force has to be dealt with for any point after about 1914, and/or the US Navy eliminated almost entirely. At the very least we're talking a UK+ entity, probably more like an EU equivalent. If the UK, Russia, and GER decided to fight together with Spain as an ally I might see it as plausible until about WWII. By that point the US has the potential for such an overwhelming advantage as to be bloody but with American boots in much of the rest of the world.

Where would you likely land such a force?

Would you try simultaneous invasions across multiple sites?

What time of year would be tried?

Does the opposing air/navy force have the capability to neutralize American infrastructure and industry?
 
Wow, that's crazy. My great grandparents met in Villa's army. My great grandmother pretty much grew up in their camps.

Crazy indeed. Now however, I have "It's a small world after all" playing over & over in my mind.:eek:



It could be possible for the Soviets to have pushed through Canada, but holding all that territory is another matter. Also, having nukes wiping out the greater portion of earth's population before it could reach this point is another matter to consider in such a scenario.

I honestly didn't think about the Soviets or nukes - must be the lingering effects of the "America is invincible" education I received as a child.
 
I'd think that if the UK really wanted to and was willing to devote a lot of blood and treasure to it, they could do it up to the 1890's or so. Their navy could rather easily blockade the USA and shatter the USN, they could build up their forces in Canada and invade south. IIRC, their military gear was better than what the USA was using at the time (don't quote me on that), and they could assemble a lot of forces... if they wanted to leave themselves thin just about everywhere else. Combine the UK with France (as was threatened during the whole Trent incident) and the USA is way outclassed. The big question here is just why they would want to do all this.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
I would say at least up until WWI. After that Europe was too weak dealing with the aftermath of such a devastating war. And the Soviets? Never. They'd never be able to contend with the USN or USAF in our home waters, which would be required for for an invasion. Nevermind the logistics of the thing, even for a temp invasion.

If Germany can't invade Britain in 1940 then there's no way in hell anyone could pull off a modern(post WWI) invasion. Simply impossible. If Congress cut navy and air force spending then you'd get into the implausable range due to logistics.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
I'd think that if the UK really wanted to and was willing to devote a lot of blood and treasure to it, they could do it up to the 1890's or so. Their navy could rather easily blockade the USA and shatter the USN, they could build up their forces in Canada and invade south. IIRC, their military gear was better than what the USA was using at the time (don't quote me on that), and they could assemble a lot of forces... if they wanted to leave themselves thin just about everywhere else. Combine the UK with France (as was threatened during the whole Trent incident) and the USA is way outclassed. The big question here is just why they would want to do all this.

I do wonder about the logistics of a such a scenario, however.

1) If we're talking before the invention of airplane spotting and indirect fire shore bombardment, i.e. WWI tech, even the Royal Navy would probably be inclined to conduct a distant blockade rather than a close distance blockade, at least after a while. Of course, the entire U.S. Coast is indefensible, but I do think the 1 land gun = 3 sea guns rule of thumb probably applies throughout the period.

2) It takes about 7-8 days to cross the Atlantic, about 5-6 days to cross the USA in the earliest parts of the Post-Civil War Pre-WWI period. Once the you're fully in the era of railroads, the advantages of internal lines of communications multiplies.

Railroads, 1900
Railroads-in-1900.jpg


Major Railroads, 1900
56376794.png


However you slice it, by the late 19th Century, you are dealing with a U.S. that can quite easily, and has multiple routes, of shipping its men, material, and industrial output anywhere in the great 48 within a couple of days time. Without them, the U.S. would of course be screwed. With them, I think it possesses some inherent advantages in a defensive war that will be hard to overcome sans New Orleans, and Chicago also falling along with the major cities of the Northeast.
 

Robert

Banned
The Civil War before 1962. The Ironclads would have made it impossible afterwards, even post-war.
 
A determined Britain that is not distracted by Napoleon (perhaps defeated decisively before 1812 which allows Britain to concentrate mostly on the US) is more than capable of taking back the US as a colony, though it would probably take many years to snuff out all resistance.

A victorious Napoleonic France that bestrides all of Europe could also pull off a reconquest of the 1810s and possibly all the way up to the 1830s period, provided if they'd already beaten England and have Canada and Mexico to stage attacks from.

Reconquest becomes impossible by the 1840s, but knocking it down several pegs is still possible. Mexico, if granted with extraordinary leadership (as in Santa Ana truly possessed Napoleonic levels of military genius) could manage to beat the US in a war in the 1840s and possibly take territory, but foreign intervention would be required to secure more than that.

The Civil War is another opportunity in which the British could really punish the distracted Union; they can wreck their fleet and launch punitive invasions from Canada and possibly capture a few major cities and force them to sign a treaty from a position of weakness.

The 1890s is the last possible date in which the British would have a distinct advantage and be able to potentially force a favorable settlement on the US, though by then its a 50/50 chance and Britain would have to denude its commitments from everywhere else to make it happen.

World War I is the last possible date in which Great Britain could conceivably fight a conventional conflict with the US within a North American theatre, as their navy would still have an advantage (but one that would gradually diminish the further along the war goes), and a US army which starts out as an oversized militia force (also one that will steadily improve in experience, doctrine and equipment). Canada though is essentially commiting national suicide by this point by siding with the British in a war against the CONUS. Yet the longer that war goes the more and more it would favor the US.

WWII would require ASB intervention; pretty much every major world power would have to ganging up on the US to even have a chance of establishing a foothold on US soil.

Anything beyond that exists only in the minds of Hollywood producers with no concept of military reality or would require aliens from outer space.
 
Top