I'm not sure anyone that has considered an invasion of the USA truly understands how many people in this country are thinking about this very scenario daily, and actually hoping that somebody is dumb enough to try.
the war fatigue over Vietnam and Iraq was largely due to the fact that we did not have to be there. they were not wars that posed an existential threat to the US. Fighting on American soil will not produce the same fatigue
They were effectively viewed as offensive wars, which are far harder to justify in the minds of the public. An actual assault on the core territory of a well established country with a strong sense of national identity is another matter entirely. America wouldn't be unique here. A similar sort of outcome resulted because of the Nazi German invasion of the Soviet Union. They were citing failures in Finland as examples of military weakness, but they gave the Soviet people a large enough existential threat so any initial failings of the military fell by the wayside, and the Soviet people were willing to support their government in a sheer attritional slugfest. Great Patriotic War indeed. Something similar also happened to Britain during the Blitz, where assaults on the British home islands only provoked a hardend resolve, rather than forcing a surrender. If you give the people of a country enough good reason to fight tooth and nail, they're going to do so.
@@Flight_of_Icarushis is why we should avoid war with Russia. Sure the Russian people seemingly don't want to fight Ukraine but they will willingly fight us. The Russians are strong people hardened by cold and economic hardship and they fear us. The moment we cross their western border, all of those conscripts become volunteers. There are also 130 million of them. Again the largest insurrection in history.
The first problem I see with Canada's brilliant plan to kick off the invasion of the US by taking several cities in Maine (3:40), is the difficulty in finding several cities anywhere in Maine.
Canada could kill us all with their sheer kindness. lol Of course a conventional invasions whether by land or sea would likely be futile, but let's not discount being hit with hundreds or thousands of nuclear missiles all at once, which could overwhelm the US's space defences.
Retired driver that lives atop the southern end of the Appearance chain of big hills. Grew up in the Rockies so to me these are big hills. As a heavy truck driver yes with nothing trying to stop you generally it's not that hard to cross these hills. However rock slides, trash on the roads that kind of stuff can make the crossing very difficult. I can only imagine what some hillbillies with some pry bars could do to a enemies supply chain. It is one thing to drive down the road unopposed quite another when a small band of patriots oppose you. As a truck driver I have crossed almost all major United States passes on both sides of the nation. Any one would be hell for a army to pass through if opposed. As for the relative flat land accessable from Canada or Mexico? Those routes have major liabilitys as well like we're do you get your water and cover. Hiding A tank in North Dakota would be a problem much less a armored division. If the enemy can see you, you will die!
As much as the US is divided right now, I can’t think of a more unifying event than an invasion of the US by the rest of the world. I can only imagine what sheer dread an invading soldier must be imagining at the thought of having to face tens of millions of heavily armed Yanks fighting not just for our country but from annihilation.
Good morning Bro, Good Morning Dawg, Good morning Dude, Good morning homie, good morning Billy, good morning Tyrone, good morning Jose, good morning Karen, good morning Sonja, good morning Maritza, Good morning Rose, Good morning Shaqwanda, Hey Shaniqa, Psst yo Sahniqa, you want to go swimming later today at that one spot we found? ....... Ppplllleeeeaaaasssseeeee Invade us , im dying to have new friends and family.
The yanks aren't even near the most well-armed, they should really fear the southerners 100x more. ...and never refer to a southerner as a yank unless you want to actually start a war.
Maybe yes maybe no. A Gallup poll last year asked this question and abiut half of people polled said they would either surrender or just run away. Only about 30-40٪ polled said they'd take action against invaders. I know a poll on this isn't reality but I was galled by it
The short answer is a direct invasion would be extremely difficult to even attempt let alone succeed. But assuming the entire world is invading it would be possible, but still extremely costly. The US could inflict horrific losses just as it falls back across the oceans which would make the actual land invasion that much harder. But then comes the next problem, there are more guns in the US than there are people. It would become the largest insurgency in human history and not even the US could win a 20 year insurgency in Afghanistan. And this is all assuming the US maintains that it won't carry out first strike nuclear attacks if it was being invaded. Something that is almost as unrealistic as the entire world joining together to fight the US. If you want to stop America, it's far better to pit its people against themselves and let the house fall onto itself.
@@lenny5774ea, but the us would just invade Canada and Mexico first and force a capitulation. We don’t even need occupation just neutrality. That’s what a lot of these videos miss out on. The US would almost definitely play on the offense. The next step what be strategic bombing of all oil producing countries along with major ship producing ports. With most of the world navy not being expeditionary and all non-submarine ships being useless against aircraft carriers. The US would shutdown every major seaborne trade line. Every country that relies on imported food would be force into neutrality. eventually you end up with around a 1/3 of the world under forced neutrality to make the violence stop and get food and the remaining 2/3 playing the long game which would probably sit at a stalemate until someone has a civil war or government collapse.
@@warbrain1053 yep, never said anything about trying to be secretive. But Canada/US have the longest land border in the world. Good luck holding it with a million personnel. Add Mexico and then what? Should have listened to the Donald and built that wall.
Fun fact: nearly half (44% to be exact) of military recruits come from the Southeast alone (aka the American south). There are southern states that have more military recruits than norther states several times their size.
The Siege of Stalingrad in WWII lasted 6 months and was conducted by 600k German forces and allies, only to be defeated. At 450,000 population at the time, it was slightly larger than St. Louis is today. If the world turned on us, then they'd have to face and win a few hundred Stalingrads.
The Germans were the ones besieged in Stalingrad in the winter, not the Soviets, -who kept throwing waves of soldiers from the other side of the river. Leningrad was besieged by the Germans.
@@JDDC-tq7qm We're already at each other's throats in peace time, with a common and direct enemy I think we would be fine. We don't have anyone to truly hate so we manufacture problems for ourselves to stir up activity.
@@alexanderyoung1910 first time I've ever seen anybody actually thank someone after getting corrected on a comment section, there's still hope for this world.
As Chris Rock so eloquently once said "The US took Iraq in a month. The whole world wouldn't even be able to take Baltimore in a month!" At this point, I don't think the U.S. could even invade the U.S.! It is ridiculously big and LUDICROUSLY well armed. Giving the American people a common enemy at which to direct their rage would be the worst mistake the world ever made.
Yeah, I think it wasn't focused enough on two big issues. Americas two biggest weaknesses are that war fatigue and how divided we are. Even the south is sick of things. But invade the US and all that goes away. As has been stated, this is every southern boys dream come true and all that pent up rage from all sides would be unleashed. Honeslty, besides use of high tech equipment such as aircraft and tanks, the military should just sit back and defend key locationsfor a few months because controlling any amount of US territory is going to be a massive headache to put it mildly. As you said, I don't think the US could take the US.
The Louisiana bayou alone puts a shiver down my spine. Then there are states like Utah,Idaho,Wyoming, parts of Colorado, the Dakotas, Texas, etc.. an invading force would literally have to fight for every blade of grass and every rock and tree.
Same with Washington state. Puget Sound is one of the worlds largest enclosed waterways, effectively it's one of the worlds largest natural harbors and filled with inlets, islands, and peninsulas and it has several shipyards and harbors including 2 naval bases with tons of nuclear subs in Bangor and a large surface fleet including super carriers in Bremerton. Nearby is JBLM a massive army, national guard, and air force base, one of the largest in the Americas. Those subs also mean Washington is one of the few places in the world to have sizable nucealr weapon deposits ready to launch. Those bases also al have their own special forces detachments including Navy SEALS and JBLM is a major training location for Rangers and Green barets thanks to the dense forests. Speaking of the state is also home to one of the few rain forests in North America and is extremely densely forested. There's also 2 mountain ranges to get through: the smaller Olympic mountains and the massive, virtually impassable Cascades with a few passes/choke points and _more_ bases on the eastern side of the state. The state is also a bread basket being one of the largest producing areas on earth for apples and hops in addition to other crops, and unlike most states the food they produce is meant for human consumption producing around 10% of the US's fruit and vegetables ranking just below California in both regards.
Texan here, when he mentioned a part of the country I grew up in being a vulnerable point of attack/invasion I just laughed. Thats FAFO territory (one of many in the country)
Never mind the patriotic citizens! I dated an American once, and was utterly shocked at how many guns you have per person. My Auntie who was American even had a gun in a hollowed out bible. Ya'll don't play.
As a Canadian, I know we don't have the most fearsome reputation but I would not let my big brother USA go down without a good fight. I'm not alone i'm sure.
I think that Brazil, on the other hand, wouldn't care too much: the US has attacked our democracy in more than one occasion (like, back in the 60s, investing millions of dollars on anti-democratic politicians and then sending material for a possible land invasion of Brazil and a civil war in 1964 - then supporting a nazi-like civil-military dictatorship who had a fetish of kidnapping, torture and murder (everything taught by the CIA) and then the support of the Car Wash Operation and the attempt to buy the entire country)
I had a conversation about this with friends not from the US and they all said they would fight for the US even if it were against their home country. Wild
I am from Arizona that served in the Army. I was stationed in the South. Those Southern boys are armed to the teeth and will come up with the most genius ways of blowing stuff up.
The idea that McDonald's being natuonalized would be enough to cause all the world to forget how much they hate each other to unite to crush us made me laugh out loud. I mean this genuinely it was a great hypothetical with great conedic affect.
Even North Korea which hasn't got a single McDonald's in its street decided that this was outrageous. 🤣 Kim Jong-Il probably wants that happy meal so badly. 😂
"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." - Abraham Lincoln
This is kind of silly for when he said it though (in 1838) - as the British had torched the US capital just 24 years prior and the US wasn’t anywhere near the military powerhouse it is today.
I dont even know why alaska would be used as a staging ground u would have to march through the canadian costal and rocky mountains for a hundreds of miles cant imagine a much harder supply line than that
For the west coast, you forgot about the coastal mountain ranges, like the Cascades, Sierra Madre, etc. An invading force would never even get close to the Rocky Mountains, because these high mountain ranges would be virtually impassable if defended.
And in the case in which Los Angeles or San Diego is the starting point, during the summer they don't reach the mountains as Death Valley would live up to its name if any army tries crossing in July or August.
This such a huge overlooked factor. America basically has to be invaded from the South- East states or through the heavily metropolitan North-East. Quite frankly I’m not sure which strategy is worse. Think larger more fortified Stalingrad up north or larger heavily armed Vietnam down south. Terrible options.
@@NewNewColt And even from the northeast, if an invading army made it past the cities, they would soon hit the Appalachians. They could maybe avoid the Appalachians by going around the southern end, but the southern coast also has fewer decent harbors.
@@NewNewColtAnd the fun part of invading the southeast is it has the most people who believe they are morally obligated to be ready to fight a tyrannical government and have armed themselves accordingly. People who reload their own ammunition for fun.
Not even that..CA has the Central Valley smack dab in the middle of it. Hills east of The Bay Area OR north of LA militarily can function as bottles before you get into that valley..way before you even get to the Sierra Mountains. Basically..mini Switzerland…before Ukraine..and mini-Switzerland part two..and once you make it there..it’s Iraqlike desert in Nevada and southwest or Afghanistan-style mountains with the Rockies
Yeah given how tenacious the US military is (both in games and real life) and how big guns are for the military and the regular populace, it would be hell for any invaders.
@dagdamor1 bro that would he so interesting to see. All the black, latino, Asian, white gangs getting together. Lol imagine bikers with crips and bloods 🤣🤣🤣 biker "Aye brother we gon fight these invaders" crip "on crip we gon smoke em" 🤣🤣
I think it's safe to say that if the ENTIRE world tried to invade the US it might be able to do it. The fact that it's not a guarantee just goes to show how utterly OP the US military is. I've seen a Nimitz class aircraft carrier and it's hard to even put into words how big those fuckers are, and they aren't even the new ones.
A single carrier battlegroup can out match the majority of countries air forces around the world. It would be a blood bath, if the US decided to just start targeting foreign command structure.
This doesn't even get into the idea of the U.S. counter attacking with the simplest thing. Bombing the Iranian straight and cutting off oil supplies to the majority of the world. Why do you think Russia and the U.S. keep folks in the middle east? We have oil, we don't need theirs... But the rest of the world does.
In the best case Scenario for the world, maybe after a brutal war of attrition over years of fighting then yes. In the best case for the USA the world would have no chance of even attempting a invasion.
I love that for this to be considered a conceivable idea the entire world has to put aside their differences and come together to even maybe have a chance
I was going to make this point - the World would have to come together, for the first time EVER under anything other than our own hegemony, and STAY together through the toughest fight that many of them have ever had, and anyone save Russia and Ukraine has had in more than 70 years. That alone is as much a suspension of disbelief as the rest of the thought exercise.
I lived a lot of my life outside of the US, from the former Yugoslavia to Germany. I live in the Midwest US now and all I can say is good luck. Police forces here could take a lot of military forces, and if they have any, and I mean any type of military backup shit good luck is all I can say. Like a Japanese General I belie it was said "invading the USA is impossible, there's a gun behind every blade of grass"
Not to mention just how vast and large America actually is. I mean a lot of European countries could fit inside Texas and California alone. Then you have people who have been dreaming and training for such a scenario to take place. It just wouldn’t end well for anyone to put right attack us. Now if they were to quietly infiltrate best they can and get into every aspect of government and military control from within it might be possible to take on, but I just don’t see that happening and actually working large scale.
Actually U.S. military is required to offer certain military hardware to police forces at no charge. Amazingly civilians can buy a lot of military hardware for personal use, and do. @@tealablu3759
As an addendum, I would also like to point out that any South American military force attempting to move into Central America CAN ONLY do so via seaborn transport. This is because there are NO ROADS that connect Panama with South America, and the area along the Panama/Columbia border is heavily jungle and mountainous. While there are trails that might be used (drug smugglers have many such overland routes), good luck getting a modern mechanized military through that.
Yeah I don’t think even the US military would try to cross the Darién Gap by land, you’d probably get a mortality rate close to that of building the Panama Canal trying to cut a path through that jungle
@@meglukes My understanding is that there have been a number of proposals to build a road through that gap, but the US State Dept. keeps getting those efforts shut down because they don't want to give drug trafficers an easy route north. Remember, Medellin Columbia (home to the Medellin Cartel) is nearby, and such a link would be a godsend to them.
Feasibly, the best thing the United States could do here was pointed out by Simon in the video. Basically conquer all of Central America, all the way down to the narrowest points, to maximize defensive effectiveness! I would go all the way down to the Darien Gap! I wouldn't stop at Guatamala, as Simon suggested! Fortifying the Darien Gap would basically CUT THE LEGS OUT from any southern-based invasion force, no matter how gigantic that force managed to get!
@@jacob4920 even if its not defended the darion gap is full of mountains and thick jungle an invasion force will not be able to move massive troops and machinery there anyway. Constant rain there causes floods.
Not to mention one thing about the guerrilla tactics. All the American veterans. We spent the last twenty years studying and insurgency. We've been learning counterinsurgency tactics. And most of us have no rules of engagement anymore. All of us are willing to teach this to the others.
This is a reason I believe somewhere like Alaska was written off a little too easily. Alaskans are tough and capable. They couldn't meet a standing force in a field, but the psychological damage of randomly seeing 1-2 fellow soldiers drop randomly can only be understated.
Roger that. Hell even the Roman Emperors realized the potential danger veterans all in one place could pose. Thus, the emperors were keen on spreading veterans out by spreading out the plot of lands vets were given when they retired.
When I lived in Germany a lot of people seemed to underestimate the shear size of America. If started a trip in the far west side of Texas and drove east for 12 hours, I’d still be in Texas, and that’s in my good gas mileage, aerodynamic, air conditioned car and not getting shot and ambushed ever few miles. And don’t get me started on trying to get through the Rockies in an army, that’d be a logistical nightmare from hell no matter the season
And shit comes to shit and the US deems the west coast a total loss, it could realistically blow up the major roads through the Rockies forcing even more bottlenecks for the invading forces. Cause remember the US can rebuild what get the destroyed an invading force can not
There’s only a couple of realistic places you could take an army across the Rockies, and it wouldn’t be that difficult to turn them into maginot lines. Yes, of course the United States could be invaded. Conquered is another question.
I think it's important to consider a few things: Alaska has a massive amount of guns. Most people there are by nature survivalist who have experience with the incredibly harsh involvement. There are a lot of gangs in the coastal cities. The militarized police force. The insane amount of survivalists who prepare for that exact situation. And the list goes on
@@Bob-sq1us no.... alaska has shit for population density.... the issue with invading through alaska would be its geography. I would almost say invading the continental us through alaska is useless.... in fact, you would be better off landing at a port in canada.
@@Bob-sq1us Well I agree it would be a nightmare... But the main thing Afghanistan and Vietnam had in common wasnt just the geography, But a somewhat large and very determined population to fight back. The people that are in Alaska might fight back but there just wouldn't be that many... I think...
Oh yes, let's wargame whether William the conqueror could still win a rematch 1000 years later! Could France invade the UK to liberate Scotland from Westminster's rule? 😂😂
As an American it might seem odd to others in other countries watching us constantly arguing politically and we do however ive seen a few times in my life when either the community i was living in had a natural disaster and came together or on 911 when the whole country was visibly pissed off and wanted revenge within hours. Japan thought we were soft and assumed we would sue for peace after pearl harbor was attacked but that just pissed us off in a time when the country wanted to stay out of war - that anti war opinion changed in hours. Attack the U.S. directly and there is no doubt who did it ,we would fight to the last man and woman i promise .
Lets add one thing missed. While we talked about the militias, we didnt talk about the inner city gangs. Philly, Chicago, NYC, LA, etc. Can you imagine if all the rival gangs, who know the cities extremely well decided to work together against an invading force.
@@thesurnamewithnoname7188have you seen an inner city gang actually defend their neighborhood from another one? It's BRUTAL and unrelenting. Now imagine were it a foreign invader. I guarantee it's ten times worse, and they wouldn't need to get paid. They would just keep the weaponry they recovered. Just because their ranks are filled generally with dropouts and criminals doesn't mean they aren't smart; they know they have a better chance at life under our system of rights than any other countries. They'd fight against the invaders using inner-city guerrilla tactics that most militaries aren't prepared for.
@@thesurnamewithnoname7188yeah that's sadly cynical dude. Gangs are very nationalist and territorial just in their own way right. I hate these kind of takes because your basically insinuating that they're a lesser, more treacherous people that would sell out their own land. When in reality all of humanity is just as corrupt. If you actually know the history and know why gangs are as prevalent as they are today, you'd know it's because uncle Sam and American whites being thugs and gangsters first in the first place. Search up black codes and Jim Crow laws of you need further context. Urban cities didn't just get gangs and shit out of nowhere. They became thugs after getting treated like thugs by thugs.
There is a big difference between losing the will to fight when your military is fighting a war in a foreign country that doesn't benefit your country or your people in the slightest versus fighting a war on your own soil to protect your own country and your own brothers. As you said look at Ukraine for an example of this type of determination in War. The US population may lose interest in fighting wars in other countries but considering the patriotism throughout America I highly doubt very many people would lose interest in protecting their own country from an invasion regardless of the cost
Abraham Lincoln once said "if all the armies of Europe, Africa and Asia were to be lead by a man like Bonaparte, they would not be able to get a drink from the ohio" and more recently Yamamoto "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" really puts into reality of a scenario like this
I grew up in the Appalachain mountains of PA, and I can say with confidence that any fighting in that terrain would be some of the most brutal combat ever seen. Whether conventional or guerilla, someone is being bled white.
And that can be said for a lot of areas. Could you imagine fighting across the Rockies. Or the terrain across the deep south, or the deserts of the South West.
I'm also an Appalachian Pennsylvanian and there are some mountains in my area that funnel into such small valleys that mountain to mountain warfare would be crazy.
As someone who lives by the Adirondacks it would be hell to conquer them, so imagining an army trying to fight through the Appalachians makes my skin crawl
"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 (Jan. 27, 1838 : Springfield, Illinois)
Invasion from South America would be seriously impeded by the Darien Gap. There are no roads connecting North America and South America, because a section of jungle on the south side of Panama is too heavy. There are people who cross it - Venezuelan refugees in recent times - but it is extremely harrowing.
The minute it be became clear this was happening. Mexico and Central America would be Occupied as strategic buffers and choke points. Allowing our Military to hit those locations where troops are amassing. Same for Alaska, and that window would only be open during a few months out the year. We could EASILY bottle those armies up in the frigid north, year after year. Hell, Mexico might even just let us in in exchange for "open markets/access".
The Darien Gap would probably be paved over in a situation where the entire world united against the USA and was able to prevent American forces from occupying all of Central America. It would be simply too crucial to have supply lines stretching across the area. Sure, it would be extremely difficult from an engineering point of view and would have to be done in a crude, environmentally devastating way - but the primary reason for the Darien Gap’s existence have always been political, not technical.
Yeah, that and the fact that the US Navy will have a definite interest in holding the Panama Canal means an invasion from Brazil is, from a logistics standpoint, about the same difficulty as one from the other country that speaks their language.
I'm a bit surprised the fact that the US would immediately invade Canada and capture the country before it could be used as a staging area wasn't brought up. Canada has roughly 60,000 or 70,000 men, and they get run over by an invasion from the south. That would open up huge tracts of land to use as a battlefield, and the US has significant experience fighting in Alaska and Canada.
Actually, we're pretty trash at cold-weather fighting. Second of all, you don't invade and capture ally nations so they "won't be used as a staging area." You would be ceding millions of square kilometers to terrain that needed to be defended. You would WIDEN the border that needs defending. Please stay out of this sort of thing, let the adults handle it. Dude said "surprised nobody mentioned invading all of Canada, just in case." Fucking Americans
I don't think the US would allow itself to be cut off from the Alaskan oil reserves without a fight. The western part of Canada is so sparsely populated it would make sense for the US to occupy a corridor from the Midwest to Alaska, or at least Washington, Idaho, and Montana up to Alaska.
It seems more likely we would take Canada before Mexico, Canada has a smaller population and exists at the US’s pleasure anyways. I would think we would certainly want to link up and defend Alaska. Mexican border is half the size and harsh terrain or brutal Desert and every deer blind would be a pillbox.
The war fatigue in the US only exists because the past few wars have seemed pointless to its citizens and a massive waste of resources and human life to make already rich politicians and oil barrens even richer. But that wouldn’t be the case in the event of defending our home land. We would instantly put aside our petty political differences and would come together to defend our land.
Abraham Lincoln said it best. He knew once the US stretched from the East Coast all the way to the West Coast, it will be essentially unassailable. His one point was that if the US were to fail, it would be done by Americans themselves. The exact speech he made has been misquoted several times, but the general gist doesn't seem to dissipate. In the Lyceum address Lincoln said, “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.”
@@mh8748 no, more like the ideologically radical leftists taking over every institution from inside and then purging the right wingers and conservatives
@@corerlt Those "invaders" want to be Americans. Give it a couple generations and most of them will have assimilated, while meanwhile most of the bad ideas their culture has will be discarded, and most of the good ideas their culture has will be adopted. Go take a good hard look at Ukraine and Israel if you want to see a real invasion. Some Americans have always been paranoid about immigrants from the very beginnings of the country and their fears have proven to be unfounded.
This was fun, although there was a distinct lack of addressing the probable attacks against opposing infrastructure and assets. The US isn't best known for playing defensively.
I think we would be attacking the lead countries against us first. Whomever the lead country is I would expect the US to get out in front of the problem and throw the first punch.
I believe the phrase is "default aggressive." He made mention of the international bases getting overrun, which would happen. What he doesn't really go into detail about is just how much equipment would be lost taking those bases.
@@Asmallbeaver or the chaos if those bases were told to use asymmetric warfare tactics to simply destabilize the countries they are in rather than try to hold onto the bases (which is a dumb idea to begin with).
@@Asmallbeaver We would know that this is coming long before the rest of the world got the nuts up and the military they would need to do so. We would have long pulled out of these places to set up defense of the homeland becoming isolationist. we are one of the largest exporters of oil and would cut that off from the rest of the world using it for ourselves. It would not be possible to launch a surprise attack on every Over seas base at the same time.
Something to seriously think about in this scenario: the idea of landing troops in South America and moving north through Central America is not just outlandish, it's impossible. The Darien Gap in Southern Panama is home to the most dense jungle in the world and acts as a natural barrier between North and South America. Panama intentionally left this part of its territory completely undeveloped in order to prevent the Colombian Army from ever marching northward to re-annex Panama, not to mention to prevent the drug cartels from being able to drive into Panama to ship drugs because there are literally no roads through the Darien Gap. The terrain in the Darien Gap is so unforgiving, that no military would ever be able to move northward from South America. This would then force the global coalition into landing their troops in Central America itself for their southern front, where they are more likely to be intercepted by the Air Force or American warships operating in the Gulf of Mexico, or the Pacific, assuming there are deep water ports to sustain such landings, though that would be very few in number. Also, there is another hypothetical scenario to consider in a war between the US and the World: one in which America goes on the offensive first when it sees global opinion shifting against it. Suddenly, the overseas bases that this video describes as liabilities that would be encircled become staging grounds for operations that would harass host nations (if they aren't pulled out immediately beforehand) while broader forces are at play, such as the US 5th Fleet blockading the Persian Gulf and US Marines seizing Saudi oil fields, putting a stranglehold on the world's oil-driven economy, or US Naval Forces in the Atlantic establishing a picket line in the North Atlantic that bottles Europe in while submarines hunt anything that moves in those waters, keeping much of the rest of that ocean largely clear. It is entirely possible that the US could wage war against the world without there ever being a possibility of the continental US being invaded at all, when the US has made considerable commitments to developing the world's best logistical support network and support fleet of ships and aircraft to rapidly deploy troops and supplies worldwide. Few nations, if any at all, have the level of logistical capabilities as the US does, as we're seeing in Ukraine, logistics required for sustained operations beyond one's borders. It's those lack of logistics, as this video points out, that would result in land forces on the Northern and Southern fronts being annihilated before those forces can be reinforced and resupplied from overseas. I know the point of the video was to ask if the US could be invaded, which would assume a defensive posture by the US, but it certainly stands to reason that the world wouldn't ever begin to be able to invade the US if they don't first clear out overseas American forces or deal with the very real possibility of the US being able to put a chokehold on the global economy if it seized oil fields in the Persian Gulf. This would be a Step Zero before the world would even be in a position to contemplate an invasion of the US.
Cut out the heart, and the global body will die. No Oil, no ability to fight back. Marching into Canada wouldn’t be hard. With the well over 65-70% of its population living right next to the US. Two of the western Hemisphere’s top Oil and NatGas producers right there. Cutting the Persian gulf would cripple every other country on the planet, and it would be a tough time to stop us. Edit: Sufficed to say… be thankful that each and everyday you wake up… Uncle Sam decided to be merciful.
Oil production from the rest of the world would cease to exist. Russian, Middle East, Africa and South America oil producers would be taken out quickly…
That was actually a really cool analysis! One thing to consider - timing. You'd have to attack in narrow windows in the Spring and Fall to have any hope of fully using any land attack. In the Winter, the north would be a frozen hell hole, and that northern border would be absolutely brutal to cross. In the Summer, you'd be dealing with absolutely brutal heat trying to push a land force through central America, which already would be a challenge thanks to a lack of good infrastructure. Maybe a hurricane or two as well. Could definitely go on but the US is insanely hard to attack even without military superiority. Let's hope we never nationalize chicken nuggies though.
The frozen part gets even worse. It's cold enough to snow in most states north of the deep south during winter. Hell even the Sierra Nevada in California is deadly cold in the winter. Weather would be a nightmare to figure out for an invading force just cause it varies so much across the US.
Shortly before WWI kicked off, Kaiser Wilhelm II was visiting Switzerland. He asked his Swiss hosts "How does such a small country protect itself from an invasion?" A Swiss government official responded "All the Swiss people step out their front doors, fire one shot, and the war's over." There's a reason why Switzerland wasn't invaded in either world war, and it isn't because of their banking system.
Swiss mercenaries were known as the most capable and terrifying guerrilla warriors in Europe for centuries. The Swiss cantons were constantly under attack from the most advanced civilizations (Austro-Hungarians, French, Italian and German factions, etc., which would try to invade and get absolutely massacred as soon as they entered the mountains.
Very impressive Knowledge of the Lower 48 US States. A couple points that could be added is the Logistical Struggle of moving large numbers of troops and equipment through Panama (the very definition of a choke point) and the strength of the Air Force in Alaska, which is set up to defend the Tip of the spear of a full scale Russian Assault. Great work Warographics.
There's also the small fact that, as I understand it, there is simply not enough logistical capability to actually move forces to the continental US. Having significant expeditionary capability is actually rather unusual, with most national militaries being geared for the defense of their homeland.
to the best of my knowledge, the USA is the only nation with anywhere close to the logistic required to successfully make an invasion happen across an ocean (and it still isn't enough, it's just way mroe than anyone else has). and since they won the coin toss and elected to receive, they don't have to make use of it in this scenario lol
The US has the vast advantage when it comes to moving the logistics across oceans. The reason is simple, the US has known that they really cant be invaded, so no other country really has a need to have this ability since they would likely be fighting countries close to it. The US on the other hand cant project its military power without it.
@@delphy2478 From what I can recall I believe US military doctrine is centered around being able to fight in at least two separate theaters of war if a massive conflict was to breakout. Considering they were able to successfully do that in WWII(European and Pacific) I don’t doubt the US can successfully supply an invasion of a foreign country especially with all of its military bases and allies. America is the king of military logistics
@@123GOHANZ That has been watered down over the last 20 or so years, the US still has an incredible overmatch in any conventional war through. The other comments here about logistical capacity is spot on. No country on earth (even if you would duplicate the US forces and add it to the enemy side) could invade the US mainland and hope to have any type of success. I doubt that the entire world including adding a duplicate US would be able to attack and capture Hawaii from a defensive US. Alot of this video simply looked at numbers and said wowowow look the world has 60 million people in armies.... that would beat the US.... .yea ..... no..... the actual number of front line troops would be far fewer then that... and the number of minimally equipped front line troops would be even fewer, then average (for the world) equiped even less. and comparing high end mechanized forces (like most of the US troops are) we would quickly see that the US would dominate. The lower 48 is such a wonderfully defensible land mass its not even fair. West coast has California which would be almost impossible to attack due to the amazing defensive mountain ranges, then deserts then more mountains. then on the other side of california you have arizona with deserts and mountains, or Nevada with deserts and military bases........ Oregon and Washington state are even worse to try to attack, incredibly dense forests, mountains with sheer cliffs blocking advances and you have to go through and supply 100s of miles of this type of terrain. good Luck. I always laugh when I see anyone think that the US doesnt have the will to stay in a long term war. Where did this come from? decades long wars in Vietnam, iraq, and Afghanistan? Im not sure what makes people seriously think that the US staying and fighting for decades before we left some of these places counts as a lack of will.... in none of these places were there any real long term goal that the public could see and we still stayed for several decades.... Now compare that to an actual war of survival yea, totally different stakes and people don't think that the average American wouldn't be willing to fight for a year or two? That is getting into the realm of lunacy. The Japanese thought this in WW2 and figured we would settle at some point for negotiations, I guess the US did stop at the negotiating table, but the terms was unconditional surrender for the japenese after their major cities were leveled from fire bomb raids, almost all their ships sunk and those not sunk were heavily damaged and uncrewed. A serious famine killing thousands across their mainland cause of the tight blockade. And a military and public that was still incredibly supportive even if an invasion of their mainland was needed. This might be fun as a thought experiment or a game, but in real life it would be a serious disaster for the world as a whole. I wouldnt be surprised if half or more of the world population died from famine and the complete shutdown of the entire world trade network.
Thanks Simon!!! I'm a a US citizen so this was great news for me. I have read that the Japanese decided not to invade the continental US because they expected to encounter an American with a gun behind every blade of grass...
@@velvetgrimm No, they weren't. You ammosexuals need to stop. You, and everyone like you, would have done nothing but hoot-n-holler, roll coal, and get shot trying to plant Russian flags in the dirt.
That is actually a quote from a Japanese General. He said this to the Japanese Emperor when he returned from studying war in the U.S. He warned against fighting us.
I'm in Nebraska, USA. Spot on with the protecting ones own plot of land. Differing ideology turns to unity and a duty to armed intervention of civilians
Not to mention the U.S. Army National Guard. They practice this. Each State has one even Puerto Rico has one. They would be the initial defense force and could further train and command local volunteers. VA and TX have their own separate state volunteer miitias too.
@@ganymedehedgehog371I’m pretty sure most interior states have an Air Force National Guard. I get a lot of Ads for both the Civilian Air Force and Utah National Guard Air Force
Imagine landing on the east coast and meeting the Appalachian Mountains and its inhabitants. It would be like the door-dash equivalent for those wanting the valor of defending the country without the inconvenience of leaving their own property 😂😂😂
I can see it now, 3 million pissed off Rednecks revving their engines holding their shotguns our the window with their friend and family in the bed of the truck waving flags and firing shots in the air. 😅 That would honestly be a beautiful GLORIOUS sight 😁
As an American the fact that publicly our military is that big is wild I’m sure we have a lot of other things up our sleeve but our conventual arsenal is nuts
Most of that standing military is beaurocracy. In the event of an actual home defense, all the reservists and national guard, past and present, would be called in to do the fighting, while "regulars" would mostly stay in administrative roles, unless they're Airborne, Special Forces, Rangers, etc.
I love how Alaska is written off as an easy place to take even though it’s some of the roughest and most dangerous land on earth with some of the roughest and most well armed populations on earth
The funniest part of this to me would be if an enemy did get boots into the states... like the timing and planning on pushes and offensives would be ridiculous. Gotta wait until winter to take phoenix. Gotta wait until summer to take Chicago, and then Gotta wait for a lucky day to get Seattle
@@TheProtagonistDies Technically speaking, they could take Texas. Mind you, it would probably cost them half their forces to do it, something that no commander with two braincells to rub together would consider even remotely worth the cost, but TECHNICALLY speaking, they could do it.
@@TheProtagonistDiesThe invincible protagonist still may die one day. It is already rotting internally from the inside. The chinese have successfully dealt a devastating blow to the US society. Not via military, but tiktok can be considered a weapon that has wrecked american society.
I know this video was primarily focused on the military vs militaries aspect of a U.S invasion and how the geography of the U.S would play a role in it, but it’s often overlooked in videos like this just how extreme our weather is compared to other nations and how that would narrow the window for any kind of invasion. During the summer, we have massive tropical storms/hurricanes, sandstorms, heat waves and hundreds of tornadoes. Then during the winter, we have catastrophic blizzards and cold spells that at times can make Siberia seem warm. Any invasion would have to proceed very quickly to avoid being caught in any weather pattern that any military couldn’t feasibly prepare for without making significant supply line sacrifices.
Yeah there's almost no time of year when you can attack from the North and the South at the same time; in the summer, extended movements in the South is going to be very difficult, particularly for foreign troops not acclimated to heat, and will really stretch their supply lines. In the North, it's really hard to attack in the winter because it's just brutal, and they'd have to be marching through northern Canada in like, late fall into early winter? Good luck with that one None of this is counting the way the population is distributed; the US has a relatively spread out population with alot of low density towns. Even bombing campaigns against the main areas of most towns won't hit the majority of the population in that town and might not even knock out the infrastructure. And holding 100 towns of 10,000 people is harder than holding one city of a million people. And *that's* not getting into the fact that the regions most likely to be invaded are the lowest in population concentration and the highest in gun ownership and military support. A conservative estimate, assuming the US sees it coming, is that you could mobilize 50-100 million people on a full war footing because we actually have the guns to arm them all. That's 4-8x what the Germans had in WW2. Double to triple what the Soviets could arm in WW2. The Ukraine War right now involves like, 4mil troops tops, and I think that's counting support and logistics. There's a reason nobody tries it lol
During the Vietnam war, the US Marines sent a company to Australia to study the Australian troop preparations before deployment. ALL Australian personnel being sent to Vietnam had to complete a 6 weeks jungle training course at Puka or Kapooka. That included people like cooks and administrators! After 1 week the yanks left saying it was 'too hard' for their troops...
One key oversight with the land forces building up in South America is the Darien gap. There would be no feasible way to move any worthwhile amount of forces or run supply lines up from the continent by land. Also, would have to consider the mountainous terrain of central Mexico. Moving an army in from the south would be so slow and difficult at best until closing in on the border. American bombers would have plenty of time to keep them from getting that close.
I was also thinking about the Darien gap. It is essentially impossible to move a vehicle through there. The conditions would grapple the troops if they for some reason thought they could walk it, plus it would take so much time. And then they would have to get vehicles to the other side. Even if they used boats to go past that part, the water, nature, critters, diseases in that area are unreal. That would devastate any army before they even get through Central America.
One addundum to the Guerilla warfare aspect: State and Local Police. There are more cops in the US that most countries have soldiers in their armies. They usually know the area the police like the back of their hand. They would become very handy in coordinating between Partisans and the military. I remember heading that during the Battle of Britain, the Government of the UK gathered / had info on local police and was expected to use them if Operation Sealion ever came to be.
Did anyone actually watch some of the bud light reaction videos? Rednecks shooting at boxes of beer, emptying whole magazines with maybe 1 bullet in 20 hitting it's target? Nevermind that actual video evidence. NATO troops have faced populations with large numbers of AK-47's and the consensus always is that the average citizen is not a threat to an organized trained military. What makes the US/NATO so deadly is their ability to communicate and coordinate, something these bud light hating AR-15 packing rednecks just don't have. Is it a factor? Yeah. A deciding one? No. It would be america's large, well coordinated and trained military that would be the deciding factor.
@@CouchDoritos You underestimate the guerilla potential of the Appalachian people. They pretty much already live like militias, with tight communities living in heavily forested mountains. I don't think any conventional army could ever completely dislodge the Appalachian hillbillies
The entire Pacific Northwest can render itself almost completely unsuitable for an invasion and become unusable for anyone in a single afternoon during the summer months just by dynamiting a handful of mountain highways across the Cascade Range, forcing a bottleneck into the super exposed Columbia River Valley. And that's during the early summer months when there aren't wildfires (which, who're we kidding, there are always wildfires now. Some of them now have their own wikipedia pages). Starting in late october early november, chaotic rainfall can and does, flood out and wash away entire highways and towns. After mid-november, the entire region becomes a nightmare of heavy snowfall, avalanches, and dangerous alpine terrain. The coastal areas become almost undriveable in the snow because of the topography. There's reasons we call it Snowmageddon every Christmas. And Cali gets mad wildfires and extreme heatwaves too, plus earthquakes. The Southeast of the country has swamps, heatwaves, hurricanes, and the killer tornadoes. And the Plains get the blizzards and the big tornadoes Anyone trying to invade the US has to come dressed to fight in Russia, Afghanistan, and Vietnam ALL AT ONCE... and then just peel off layers at diff times of the day... while fighting a bunch of militias The US would be a logistical nightmare to invade
and the north east can have temperatures as cold as Antarctica (Mt Washington) rocky beaches nor easterners and 5 000ft mountains. And Hawaii has every climate in the world. California as bigass trees the hottest and snowiest places in the world (Sierra Nevada and death valley). And Alaska have bigass mountains constantly coverd in snow ( one over 20 000ft) rainforests big ass earthquakes tsunami's and volcanoes (yes volcanoes) temperatures as low as -80f and maybe colder.
Keep in mind along with police and military we are 330 million people with about 200 million of our own guns, that we will use without hesitation if invaded
This could really be it's own series. Each region within the American interior and it's immediate reach could have it's own miniseries due to the geographical layout and strongholds that would power offensive and defensive capabilities. And, to add what wasn't mentioned was the cities listed in the hypothetical snatch near the end are massive centers of military power or within an hour or two of one by drive. Jacksonville is pretty famous for this on it's own and San Antonio and Houston are very near many including Fort Hood. All in all, once individual militarizes are broken up like breaking down a high concentration of certain specific countries forces, the morale of sending troops across the sea by, say Serbia, and losing 50% of them would be devastating and other countries might would look at that and consider the cost and decrease military aid and switch to other types of aid. Very interesting watch, keep flanking us with thought-provoking content.
As a history nerd, I love these videos. I think they're intelligent and entertaining. Simon's delivery is hilarious; I couldn't help but see the British grin at the thought of an invasion of the United States 😆
I love this analysis because it’s just “a dozen reasons not to try it”. Also something you didn’t mention, the average US soldier is better trained and equipped than almost anyone, and our logistics and command personnel are objectively the best in the world at what they do.
I feel it wouldn't be out of the question for the US government to distribute military stockpiles to the public and provide basic training if things got desperate. Could you imagine what Cletus and Barney might manage to do with an M2 Browning and a few boxes of cartridges in the face of an infantry column. A couple of good ole boys could reenact D-Day on I-20 then high tail it in their F-150 they had Uncle Bubba cover in steel plates for armor
You're implying we don't ALREADY have a browning with several thousand rounds of ammo, steel scrap, and the pickup rigged for off road. Military would be late.
"Dang it, Cletus, I told you to keep quiet about that!!! At least you didn't tell them what we did with the bulldozer... DANG IT, CLETUS!!!!!"😠😠😠 😅😅😅😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
Never, and I mean NEVER underestimate rednecks and hillbillies. Never underestimate hillbilly engineering either. An analogue to this is the insurgent forces we saw in Afghanistan, imagine same idea with a little more brains and better tools. All you gotta tell these guys is the soldiers coming to attack them hate Jesus, football, and beer and it will be game over. Now add in these people know their area, roads and off road without maps or gps. A US insurgent force would be a nightmare for any military. Then you have people like me who have lived thru massive blizzards, extended power outages, etc and have planned and learned accordingly. My family became what is called a prepped today after the blizzard of 77. My parents keep several months of food and water. And between my dad and I we keep resources in case they need to come here or we need to go there. Sort of like Raid 5 in computer data. We have redundancy built in. I just finished my standard winter prep of my home, vehicles and machinery and will be doing his next. Whether it be civil unrest near me or massive storm near them we are ready. And we have a secret third location in case all hell breaks loose. We aren't crazy preppers, we've just lived and learned. We also all have get home bags and roadside kits in our cars. We live with the philosophy that help is not on the way because we've lived thru help being days or longer away. "A country boy can survive."
Our military power at home combined with civilian firepower is a force that simply cannot be invaded. We would have to severely deteriorate economically and militarily for that to even be a possibility of a land invaded assault.
I find it interesting that people seem to think having more guns than people is odd or extreme. It takes a minimum of 5 to cover all your basic firearm needs. A pistol, shotgun, .22LR, a full sized rifle like a .308 or 30.06 and your carbine like an AR or AK. Sometimes you want a more specialized tool, like for bench rest shooting. Then there is upgrading to a better quality gun. It isn't hard to find yourself with 10 or more. Its like having saws. There is a circular saw, a jigsaw, a chainsaw, a pole saw, a coping saw, chop saw, miter saw and more. My wife might think i have too many saws but they each have a purpose. Guns are the same way.
@@Hunter_Nebid Just because you can do something does not mean you should. Always best to have the right tool for the job, as opposed to attempting to make do with whatever is on hand.
@@Hunter_Nebidtechnically there’s nothing any gun can do that a barrett.50 cal can’t do, but if your out hunting rodents with a .50 cal your a psychopath, different tools for different uses
@@szlava3641No, that's just called a dysfunctional immigration system built on racism and discrimination. It is entirely the US government's own fault.
I'm pretty sure we'd succeed actually. Granted we have to use nukes on some places but I'm pretty sure we could. We could probably even take Switzerland, it would take time but over some time we could....
Infographics did it, we won. Started by taking over the middle east to deprive the rest of the world oil. The US would capture or destroy those oil fields.
We also don't want to mention that we do have a 3 prong response system. 1 police 2 nation guard/air guard then 3 military, and that doesn't even involve civilians (which yes was mentioned)
I have heard that if you count just the known gun owners of just four midwestern states centered around Ohio you have the largest standing army in the world. Then there is the fact that each fall millions of Americans spend all day hiding in trees in the cold just waiting for something to come along that they can kill and in a nation full of ready to purchase meat these people do this for fun. Since each season they may only get one of two chances to hit their mark these people train the rest of the year. Whilst these people may not be Chris Kyle level snipers they are nonetheless effective shooters, harvesting approximately 6 million deer each year. This is just the 11.4 million registered deer hunters. Now add in the millions more who are handy with a rifle or shotgun purely to keep varmint off their property. And we cannot forget the millions of inner city gang members who would most likely drop their disagreements to keep foreign invaders out of their territory. And I haven't even gotten to the millions of skill useful and skilled veterans living in this country, non-hunting sport shooter, police, and grandma with the .357 in her purse.... Good luck world, you'll need lots of it. Imagine what Ukraine would look like today if it had the gun culture that exists in the US. Whilst a civilian AR15 or AK47 are not full auto like their military counterparts they do use the same ammo making civilian resupply possible from military ammo depots. Aside from all that we have Jerry and Lena Miculek.......
You are forgetting that a lot of big time gun people have their own ammo stockpiles and the ability to crank out more ammo by the case, along with enough methamphetamine to keep them going till their heart explodes.
Two words forces gather in South America. Darien Gap. The Darien is virtually impassible by mechanized forces due to the combination of terrain (mountainous) and environment (rain forest). The Darien is the only portion of the Trans-America Highway that has not been constructed due to these (and many other) considerations.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto I am one of those with a rifle behind grass…..
Really enjoyed the video. As a thought experiment, it’s a topic that’s interesting to discuss, especially with the various attempts in fiction to portray some scenario where something like this could happen, typically involving a lot of nerfing, sci-fi elements, or suspension of disbelief to move the plot along, so it was intriguing to hear a Warographics contribution to the discussion. Something I would add would be possibly expanding the scope of how troublesome personnel based in other countries could be for those nations, especially in Europe. While I would argue it’s likely the bases in larger nations would be overwhelmed, they would more than likely put up a serious resistance before that. Depending on the scenarios mentioned in other parts of the video involving satellites and intelligence, these bases would have ample time to prepare for a major defensive battle regardless of whether that means resisting or evacuation and either moving or destroying assets. In the scenario where they’re caught off guard without any form of forewarning and a preemptive strike ignoring defenses, I still believe it’s likely that at least some air units would survive and could potentially be used for some form of rapid retaliation either in a more defensive role or critical infrastructure. A big detail could also be that there are plenty of special forces who are trained to infiltrate, blend in, sabotage, and operate with destabilization in mind whether that means targeting military assets, infrastructure, or leadership. In a worst case scenario for opposition forces, they would have guerrilla forces within their own nation that could either cause critical or even fatal damage, or just be a major thorn in their sides. Either way, it would undoubtedly tie up a lot of forces and resources in these nations for defense. Overall, it’s a really intriguing topic. It would be interesting to read a work of fiction which took everything from military, geographic, economic, and sociological aspects into account. Great video.
Nothing happens in a vaccuum. Would be more likely that most overseas personnel would be recalled. No point in keeping 25K service members in S Korea if they are turning against us.
They would be destroyed easily just like the bases in guam, wake islands and the philipines were during the second world war. The usa's biggest strength has been that no one has ever really bothered to invade them.
I agree, but I was thinking within the parameters of what were brought up in the video which seemed to suggest the US had either been blindsided by the rest of the world somehow forming some global coalition without them realizing it or knowing about it in advance and just continuing operations as usual. It’s a fairly unlikely scenario no matter what and the video doesn’t cover every aspect of how things would play out beyond just military decisions but I definitely agree the US would recall and consolidate forces as you suggested. Eh. Eventually. The question wasn’t whether or not they would fall, but how long they would last, how much impact they would have in the short term, and the potential long term effects afterwards. I’m not sure if WWII is necessarily the best example in this case considering the World Wars were still a learning experience for the world where there were a lot of untested factors and situations no one had completely accounted for or experience in their entirety at the time. We’ve learned a lot of lessons since then, gained more experiences (as well as having based attacked, not the mainland/continental states), and our military and available technology are different from back then. It’s too broad of a topic with too many variables to come purely dismiss as one way or another across the board. As much was mentioned in the video.
Short answer: No. Long answer: Noooooo. Intelligent answer: No, because of geography, the size of available U.S. forces and also logistics are hard. Most countries can barely deploy their forces in a significant capacity across their borders, let alone across the world. None of this is an attack on the channel, I really liked this episode. Just a few observations: The biggest hurdle to cross is that most other Armed Forces in the world barely organize cooperation across branches within their own military, let alone with partners across languages and cultures. Meanwhile while there's still competition among the US military branches, you do NOT see commanders disobeying or countermanding orders in a joint task force because "Oh well they're Navy brass and I'm an Air Force pilot. You have to talk to Air Force Operations to get me to target what you're telling me," and in many other armed forces that's still the case. There's also the fact that it doesn't matter if you have 10,000 tanks if you can supply them only 50 km from a railway depot (looks at Russia). Same thing for "all those submarines." Cool, but most of the world's subs aren't build for transoceanic operations, they're coastal patrol boats. Those "other aircraft carriers" are also not nearly as capable as the Nimitz or Ford classes, though the De Gaulle is alright and eventually the PLAN does want to build similarly-sized carriers. The idea that simply Zerg-ing the USN or USAF would overwhelm them is just not reality, when you consider that most warships in other navies are Corvettes, Frigates, or at most, small destroyers who don't have the range or weapons to do operations in the deep Pacific, which would be the primary theater of naval operations. Goes double for aircraft, where the USAF has a huge advantage in aerial refueling. Even if they were to refuel over US territory, that still extends their range far into the Atlantic or across the borders, whereas most non-us air forces don't do aerial refueling at all, meaning their predominantly 4th gen aircraft would be limited to bases closer to the front, and more vulnerable. It also means less aircraft could actually participate in the conflict overall, since you need space to actually park and service the aircraft. You can't just "amass forces" like a HOI game. You have to be able to line up and deploy and supply and service and rotate those forces dexterously in order to avoid simply making the USAF send you GPS-guided welcome gifts. "Seattle, San Diego, Phoenix would be vulnerable." Yes, the city where the nuclear submarines are based, the city that's the HQ to US Pacific Fleet and 1st Marines, and the city where the Air Force literally trains their F-16 and now F-35 pilots. Sure sounds like easy pickings. Even the EMP angle doesn't make much sense when you think about it. When the Allies invaded France, they actually had to stop bombing strategic points in the country because they figured they'd be slowing themselves down more than the Germans in the long run. Destroying the infrastructure the invaders would need to supply and transport their forces in a push to the interior would be a really stupid move, not to mention likely push the civilian population much more in favor of continuing to resist (see literally every attempt at strategic bombing campaigns for further info). Not to mention the US could return the EMP favor pretty easily from longer range. Or just destroy satellites. Like almost all of them. Also I'm pretty certain that most navies/air forces simply don't have the correct ordnance to sink US carriers. You can't just lob a bunch of "generic missiles" at the target and wait for the health bar to drop to zero. Only larger anti-ship missiles have the oomph needed to actually damage a ship that large enough (and fast enough) to sink it. So really we're just talking about navies that actually focus on anti-capital ship weaponry, which again trims down the actual effective pool of hardware. Those remote US military bases include Guam, Diego Garcia, Lajes Field in the Azores, and Puerto Rico. Some of those, especially the Azores and Puerto Rico would make excellent areas to launch strategic strike campaigns from to hit logistics nodes or targets of opportunity.
I have 7 guns and a few thousand rounds, colloquially known as a “small collection”. Imagine what other people have access to. Not to mention 90% of the invaders will have never touched a firearm before they’re sent wave style to die. Let’s also not forget that there simply aren’t enough ships to transport the troops AND equipment across.
Right. Me and 5 guys from work could arm my whole (small) town. But we don’t need to cuz everyone in this town could arm another town. And the kit is all higher quality than anything Putin is handing out these days. Not one of us is pulling out a Mosin at the range these days
June 5th was 6.5 Creedmore day and couple places has sales. One of my buddies said “I got nothing chambered in 6.5, but I’m still gonna stock up”. We’re fine.
It's wild how many non military Americans are ready and prepared for this exact situation. As someone snuggled up against the rockies, the thought has never even crossed my mind.
Hahahahahahaha I think of Red Dawn every single time I think of any invasion. World knows, all I hear on my video games. You Amwricans are crazy with all your guns. Man I wish we could have guns like yall. The World Knows
@@mariom1653 yep, just need to watch Nat Geo. Shows youball there locations. What company built them. Where the blueprints are and how they work. How far away the vents are so you can breath. It's a great wealth of information. For when all the stores run out of supplies. Lmao Just messin with ya
I love the initial idea that the world NEEDS McDonalds and if America denies it to the world they will invade us is hilarious and probably accurate! 🤣 😂 😆
One aspect not discussed that would be hugely important is the issue of a multinational force comprised of dozens of militaries (with differing military philosophies and languages) someone agreeing to and successfully working together towards a common goal. This, while the United States would enjoy homogenous language and tactics in defense of its own homeland, with all of the associated advantages that would bring.
i don't know man, I'm from Boston, you put me in a unit with a guy from deep West Virginia and a cajun and we are gonna need subtitles. 😂 all joking aside that's a damn good point that was missed.
Exactly my thoughts as well. Although this is clearly just a thought experiment in which we are granting all of the “best case scenarios”. The reality is the world is far too fractured and disorganized to ever unify in such a massive way as to successfully invade the U.S. homeland. Like you mention, the language barrier alone, would be a huge hurdle, then organizational structures, power dynamics, cultural differences, religious differences, etc, etc. it would be an absolute mess. Just look at how effective the Viet Cong and Iraqi insurgents were in their homelands compared to a homogeneous US force. Now picture a fractured and disparate invading world force fighting the homogeneous US Americans in their own backyards. I believe it would be an absolute slaughter.
Is everyone forgetting. The alphabet boys and our black budgets. Most of the leaders in the world are CIA pawns that are controlled by multinational corporations. Money speaks. American intelligence and special forces would destroy command control networks before they could even start. We literally have spies in every country in the world. We can literally land a group of special forces anywhere in the world in 12-24 hours to destroy a country from within. Each continent has its own special operations command and intelligence systems along side a bunch of black sites and cyber intelligence systems in place. American would win before a conventional war would even start
I live in Washington State and I have to say a force attacking from Canada towards Seattle would have a hell of a bottleneck in the North of the state. Much of Washington, especially north Washington is very Mountainous and highways are almost completely surrounded by high hills. This might protect transports from air attack, but I believe it could make them very vulnerable to partisan actions and sabotage.
It's crazy I've been all over the country. I've thought of scenarios in my head over the years. It would be nearly impossible to invade anywhere. Can you imagine an invasion near the Puget sound? It would be a nightmare and if you somehow take it. You have the massive cascade mountains, with their huge forests.
I never knew how badly I needed you to do this video until I found it Simon. Thank you, and thank you for this channel. (Geographics, represent though!)
Many Americans don’t like our intervention in foreign wars (Vietnam, Iraq etc) but an invasion of our homeland would without question unite every single American citizen and we are a VERY well armed populace… as the famous quote goes “there would be a gun behind every blade of grass”
As someone who lives in Arizona, any country would have a hard time taking either Arizona or Texas even from the general public much less including our military power.
The irony is, Texas is the most vulnerable in the south, as it lacks significant mountains and its deserts are small and far to its west. But it is armed to the fucking teeth
A single US carrier houses more aircraft and weapons than most of nations outright... we have 11 of them. Even if just 1 of them slips through and strikes back it will cause heavy losses. moving on to the air force, there is no rival. and on land, well.. as Simon says "There are enough guns in America for every man, woman and child."
@@rufusshinra9124 Hypersonic missiles owned by the rest of the world are 1. overrated 2. rare 3. produced by American companies. You can be pretty freaking sure Raytheon isn't selling weapons to other countries that the US doesn't have an answer to for the last decade.
21:30 There's actually a board game for that called "Fortress America." We used to play it on the ship, along with Risk, Axis and Allies and Dungeons and Dragons, when I was in the US Navy in the 1980's. The game was back in print the last I knew. It involves the Warsaw Pact invading the east coast, Cuba invading Florida, and China invading the west coast. America gets its ass kicked for a couple of turns, but then the American player starts getting much tougher to beat for many of the reasons (like geography and guerilla insurgency) that you pointed out. If the three invading players didn't win early, they almost never won late, or at least, that's my recollection of it.
@@HeadCannonPrime Yeah, I liked it better than Risk, Axis and Allies, and losing money playing Spades, but not as much as Dungeons and Dragons. I remember it as a really great game.
I remember it too. I used to wonder why the 'enemy' forces only had a few waves of troops to land. This was before I learned about a thing called 'logistics'.
I been hoping for this scenario for such a long time. Give Americans a blatant reason to come together for a cause and you will see something beyond astounding.
White House adviser for Eastern Europe asks to see President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942: “Mr. President,” the adviser announces, “the kingdom of Hungary has declared war on us.” “Who is the present king of Hungary?” “This kingdom doesn’t have a king. It is ruled by a rear admiral.” “Mm . . . a rear admiral . . . How strong is the Hungarian navy?” “There’s no navy. Hungary has no sea.” “Wars are often waged for religious reasons. So what is the main religion there?” “Catholicism.” “So this Catholic rear admiral . . .” “He is Protestant, Mr. President.” “So I assume since Hungary has declared war on us it has some territorial claims against the United States?” The adviser replies, “It has none.” “So, it must have some against one of our allies, the Soviet Union, England . . .” “None either.” “So, against whom?” asks Roosevelt. “Against Romania,” says the advisor. “So Hungary has declared war on Romania?” “No, Mr. President. Romania and Hungary are allies.”
