What if right now Russia or china invaded the U.S. would you be held captive or fight until the armed forces assisted you.
I would sit back and laugh, because neither nation is capable of invading the US. Other then in old comedies, or in 1980's patriotic films (or their modern remakes). Neither China nor Russia has even a prayer of invading the United States. They pretty much lack everything needed. But in an attempt to answer it even somewhat seriously, I would be one of those fighting, for obvious reasons.
If they invaded the UK I would sit back and wait for Mushroom and his friends to save me. Or I would hid out in the wood close to where I live. There is a MOD base a few miles from where I live, one of my friends lives next to it, I doubt he would be ok.
Don't worry to much about an invasion from either one. Russia has a total of 19 Amphibious Warfare ship, most of which can not even load a complete Battlion of Marines (about 8 of them can carry a complete Battalion, if they leave behind all the tanks). So even combined, they can't even land a complete Division. And they only have 2 hovercraft capable of landing troops. The 3 largest Amphibious Warfare ships of the PLAN can only carry 1 Battalion each. They do have others, but those are the only real "blue water" capable ships they have. The rest are suitable for landing on their own coastal regions or maybe as far as Tawian, but in no way for a crossing of the Pacific. As "horrible" as the Soviet (or Russian) or Chinese Army Navy may seem to some as a surfact fleet, their amphibious capability has always been on the very low end. And neither of them has anywhere close to the capability to dominate a sea area that would be needed to conduct such an invasion. And without amphibious assets, neither has the capability to take over much of anything. Let alone a nation the size of the UK or the US. Even the US (with the largest amphibious capability in the world) took months to prepare for the invasions of a rag-tag nation like Iraq. And that was with friendly nations to stage all the equipment in so they could properly mass it for a single assault. The chances of such an operation on the UK is laughable at best. And who would stage the equipment for such an operation into the US? Canada? Mexico? I don't think so.
I doubt any Russian fleet could get past the royal navy and royal air force to land any troops. We know how hard it is to invade Britain, which once united has never been taken. The French were stopped by our navy and the Germans by our air force, it took them months and years to plan and get ready for an invasion.
I'll entertain your fantasy a bit. Trying to invade the United States would involve not only defeating the most powerful military on earth, but also the most armed and combat experienced population on earth. The U.S. has the highest private gun ownership per capita and has millions of combat veterans with experience in counter-insurgency operations. It also has an almost fanatical obsession with individuality and personal freedom, and probably the most violent culture among first world nations. When you add in the massive size of the country, the dispersion of its people, the incredible diversity of terrain, and an insurgent force that would likely number in the tens of millions, it becomes an impossible task.
I would invade Russia since all their troops are here and have my way with their women! Then I would drink their vodka and (*)(*)(*)(*) on a goat!
I think an invasion from Hispanic supremacists in their "Reconquista" a much more credible scenario. The question would be if the M-13, Mexican Mafia or other violent racial group were to invade your neighborhood would you let them?
I don't think anyone would be able to invade any economically developed country today. Too much risk, too much of a task. Invasions since WW2 have generally involved large countries invading third-world states. Not many of those have worked out too well either.
Well, there is a difference between an invasion and a successfull invasion. And just because an invasion is successfull, that does not mean it will stay that way. Actually, most invasions in the last 60 years have involved one small nation invading another small nation. The Baklans, Ethiopia, Kuwait, Liberia, Lebanon, Thailand, Uganda, Cambodia, East Timor, Cyprus, South Vietnam, South Korea, Pakistan, Falklands, India, Israel, the list just goes on and on and on. The vast majority of "Invasions" by larger nations have been as part of a larger multinational force. But by far the vast majority are of one small nation trying to take out another small nation. The Third World is more in danger of other Third World nations then they are by First or Second World nations, unless it is in response to an earlier invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions#1946.E2.80.931999 Since 2000, we have had a total of 8 "invasions". 1 by Russia (Georgia), 2 by a US led coalition (Afghanistan, Iraq), and 5 by smaller "Third World" nations (Kenya, Israel, African Union, and Ethiopia). And between 1946 and 1999 there are 56 listed. In those, 7 involved the US by itself or as part of a coalition. 5 involved China, and 5 involved the Soviet Union. But it quickly becomes obvious that the vast majority of these were small countries against small countries. And actually, unless the nation getting invaded was able to call in support from a larger nation they generally did pretty good. India still controls Goa. Indonesia still controls New Guinea as well as East Timor until 2002. Tanzania successfully overthrew the government of Idi Amin. The list goes on and on. I am not sure where you get the idea that invasions since WWII "generally involved large countries invading thried-world states", but it is very-very wrong.
I didn't make my point well at all. I meant to imply that any invasion which has had a great/superpower as an antagonist has generally not gone very well. Like Vietnam is the most obvious example. The USA, the "worlds greatest military power" vs a Third World country, resulting in a loss for the US after decades of war, thousands of lost lives and billions of Dollars in expense. Imagine the outcome if the USA tried to invade somewhere more developed, let alone China. It will not work. The losses on either side could quite quickly result in considering Nuclear... making the invasion somewhat pointless. Then you consider the UN, who's major players are bound to get involved in someway. Like I said, I don't think anyone would be able to invade any economically developed country today. Too much risk, too much of a task.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the UK could take the Republic of Ireland easy. The US could take Canada easy, Italy could take Malta easy, France could take Belgium easy, Spain could take Andorra easy, the list goes on and on. The US and allies aren't going to invade China, my guess is that like WW2 more developed countries find it easier to rebuild after defeat, so in you can win the war it's would be better to invade a first or second would country, rather than a third world one.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the UK could not take Ireland easily if any other great power condemned such action and supported Ireland, which would undoubtedly happen. The US could not take Canada easily if the EU/Russia/China supported Canada, regardless of how much kit they have. If this is not true, why did the US not win in Vietnam? Why did the Soviet union get pushed out of Afghanistan? Why did the UK/France/Israel have to change their ideas about the Suez Canal (albeit not an invasion)? An invasion today involving the invasion of any developed country would undoubtedly result in an unsuccessful campaign and potentially a world war.
Well it really all depends on how the UK does it. If it's a British military attack without warning for no reason, then there would be a problem, but if Britain did want to take Ireland back it would use economic as a bases for a take over of Ireland, UK could say to Germany that Britain will take on Irish debts and that it will increase Irish business taxes, it wouldn't be that hard to do, plus the UK could give Ireland devolution of powers like Scotland and get them out the Euro. The US would take Canada easy a week or two into the war the Canadians would run out of American made ammo and be forced to surrender, what are the Chinese going to do, are the Russians going to send a 1 million man army over the Arctic to save Canada? It's not true, Britain built the largest empire ever by taking out thied world countries. The US isn't their to colonise these countries and set up it's own government it's their to defeat the Viet cong and go home, the Russian when into Afghanistan to stop the civil war, the British went into Suez to stop it from being nationalised as it was an international water way built by the British and France, it was the Americans and USSR that stopped it from being taken. All of these third world countries had back from a great power. Canada is backed by the US and Ireland by the UK.
And once again, you have your facts totally skewed. Yes, Vietnam was an invasion, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. And both sides had the support of a superpower behind them. The US did not invade South Vietnam, it was part of a multi-national force that tried to repel the invasion, like in Korea a decade earlier. If the US had actually "invaded" North Vietnam, we would not be having this conversation right now. Because they would have pretty well destroyed their capability to invade their neighbor for at least a decade. But of course, that never happened, and other then a few operations and air missions, the US stayed in South Vietnam. And the US is not going to be invading anybody without support from other nations. It simply lacks the kind of Naval assets needed to conduct such an operation outside of Canada and Mexico (unless we are talking about a very small island). But the idea of the US invading CHina is about as silly as that of China invading the US. And I fail to see your obsession with Nuclear War. That is another subject altogether, and has nothing to do with an invasion of any kind. What exactly was your point again? Sorry, but I seem to have lost it in the flood of incorrect assumptions and false analagies you made.
The US put 850,000 troops in to the country in order to try to take/keep democratic control in the south - An invasion. When the Allies entered France in ww2 that too was an invasion. It has nothing to do with what side your on, or if the original occupiers of that country were friendly or not. Sorry, but you seem to not understand the simple idea of this. You say the US had invaded north Vietnam we would not be having this conversation now? I am sorry, but that is rubbish. The US was constrained by the fact it had underestimated the enemy and was scared of the Chinese intervening further... and that was when the Chinse were no were no where near as powerful as they are now. Lets not forget, only 170000 Chinese and 3000 Soviets were on the other team. The US and South Vietnamese outnumbered the Communists about 3-1. I fail to see what else the US could have done. Effectively, what you have said here is that the US could have won if it wanted too, but it chose not too. That sounds quite disrespectful to those who fought in that war, to be honest... or perhaps just ridiculous, one or the other And you say I am obsessed with Nuclear war - I am not. Its just the same outcome would ultimately come from any developed (or in some cases undeveloped) country with nuclear friends invading any other. Invasions or attacks on any off these nations from any other would result in Nuclear action being considered. It is MAD doctorine. Yes I go on about MAD, but it is what the western world will continue to use to live in peace from other nations for hundereds of years from now. The closest the world has come to a nuclear war is the Cuban Missile crisis. Cuba... a pretty insignificant country in the grand scheme of things. It had backing from a nuclear power. If the US had invaded Cuba then, we all know what the very possible outcome could have been. If that's was the case then, imagine the result if the US invaded Canada, or China invaded the US. Your view is skewed by the fact that you love the conventional US military. Agreed, it has an ability to project power in places like Iraq but anything more than that would be a push. look at Iran - If it were not for the Russians and Chinese supporting them verbally via the UN, we all know that NATO would have been in there 12 months ago shooting s*** up. The fact is, that is the limit of what your or any other conventional military can do. Who has nukes controls who goes to war - Not who has the most Aircraft Carriers. No matter how f***ed up the world was, China would not invade the US or any western nation. Not because it is afraid of NATO, not because it is afraid of conventional western military technology, but it would be scared of the Wests ability to wipe out 1+ billion if its citizens in 20 minutes and having to try to do something about that with the nukes they have, which we all know are not as good. REMEMBER THE COLD WAR. Proxy wars were nothing but attempts to control the worldwide political scene in developing nations. Political stalemate kept the world alive. If the politics had failed to moderate the situation, nobody talked of what troops would be sent where - We all talked about who would launch first. That is how it was, and always will be between great powers, as longs as weapons as powerful as nukes exist. The UK is 10th the size of the USA. Even if it were alone in the world, do you really think China would even consider trying to invade us? 250 nuclear warheads landing in their flourishing land would destroy it. It just wouldnt happen with any sane person in control... ever.
If your trying to imply that the USA's military spending implies it holds 48% of the worlds military power, you are very wrong. The Russinas spend 1/10th of the money the US does. Is the US military 10 times more powerful than Russia's? Simple answer -No.
No, The US would not get away with the invasion of Canada. The international community would condemn it completely. The US would be completely on its own. Be it political or militarily, the US would be pretty messed up... as would the rest of the world. Globalisation and Nukes have changed the world forever. If your seriously suggesting the UK could just invade Ireland with Germany's backing then you really are quite stupid.
No, I am saying Germany wouldn't do anything to stop it. A country like the US doesn't need the rest of the world, it with the taking of Canada would get huge minerial reserves, oil and gas, it has enough food, so the US wouldn't really be effected by economic and political blockade. The only country that would have a major problem with the US taking Canada, rather then controlling Canada is the UK.
... and the rest of NATO. And probably Russia, just to save face. Oh, and the majority of the UN. Pretty much everyone actually.
