Attack America.....Hypothetical

2,817 Views | 34 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by Propane & Accessories
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I love the hypotheticals that have been brought up here through the years. The threads about Hitler getting the bomb and the historical what if war scenario made me remember another thread from a year or two back where someone brought up the hypothetical of "what if Germany surprise attacked the US somewhere in the southeast (say Georgia) how far would they have gotten before we stopped them?". (Or something like that.


With all of that in mind, you're a world power with a large army, naval power to transport that army is available, and air coverage is solid (if not dominant): where do you attack the U.S. and with what strategy?

A few "limitations" for this exercise: let's assume nuclear strike options are off the table, let's leave out allied assistance, assume conventional warfare (not cyber, economic manipulation, etc) and while I know our naval forces would play hell with the oppositions logistical capabilities, let's not make it as simple as "impossible....our navy would destroy them before they got unloaded" type answers.


And go!
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is my military equivalent to the size and capabilities of the US? Also what is defensive posture are we in? Dec 6 1941? Or Height of the Cold War
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Military size is comparable.

Defensive posture: hadn't thought about that. Let's assume Cold War status. Kind of a Red Dawn type set up where we're not at full alert but we know they're the other big boy(s) on the block.
I Like Mike
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Armed or disarmed population? Thats a huge variable.
-----------------------

Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I personally think that's an overrated variable. Feel free to assume it is what it is now.

Bubba with a deer rifle or a 20 gauge versus an armored tank column or a well trained infantry platoon?
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I thint you'd have to come from one of the coasts. Probably the west. If you try to take the east coast there is too much population mass. Coming from the west you have a better chance of breaking through the shell and establishing a large presence in the mainland. If you hit the center of the country first you put yourself immediately in a two front war
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Have to add one Bubba with a deer rifle...sure no big deal. But you have millions in the us that would absolutely fight . That is a huge boost to the standing armed forces
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solid point about fighting two fronts. The challenge with coming from either coast with armor is the physical problems with the terrain (mountains and swamps).
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Willing to fight is one thing. Offering up a significant organized resistance is another.
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How many are former military. Most gun owners own more than one gun and in that situation would arm as many folks as they could. I believe you would quickly see guerilla tactics from civilians that absolutely would take an enormous toll. Sniper tactics demoralize and stop large units pretty quickly. So yeah I think they would offer a huge amount of resistance
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Awesome. Build that into your answer/scenario.
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah the terrain is problematic but the interstate highway system is a beautiful thing. The US would not want to destroy it in order to maintain mobility so it would probably stay intact across the Rockies
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Where are the armor units? Texas Kansas and Kentucky right? I guess you got Marine armor on each coast

So if invader could establish beachhead. How fast could we get armor to the coast?

I,think the biggest obstacle to anyminvader is our air power spread out all over the place
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I simply don't see it as feasible in any way to actually invade one of the coasts. The incredible logistical challenges of transporting materiel and men across oceans, past a hostile navy, and then establishing any kind of base of operations is near insurmountable. Think about what D-Day involved-- and that was across a fifty mile channel, with undisputed air and naval superiority, and the bulk of Germany's army tied down in a massive war a continent away.

Realistically, an invasion of the U.S. only comes from Mexico or Canada after a significant military buildup we watched happen.
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

A few "limitations" for this exercise: let's assume nuclear strike options are off the table, let's leave out allied assistance, assume conventional warfare (not cyber, economic manipulation, etc) and while I know our naval forces would play hell with the oppositions logistical capabilities, let's not make it as simple as "impossible....our navy would destroy them before they got unloaded" type answers.


So you missed this or just chose to completely ignore it?
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I give you the SSNs. You can't find them but they can find you. Same scenario as was in the Pacific in WW II. The US submarine force plays utter hell on invaders logistics.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Given the way military bases are now, I wonder what a Brigade plus of paratroopers seizing Fort Hoods Airfield would do? A la Red Dawn-esque seize the airfield, immediately follow on with heavier equipment and spread out to Lock down roads. Troops can't get to the armory to draw weapons, can't get ammo from the ALOC, can't get to their armor. I would think that takes the largest armored formation in the US aresenal out of the fight. I don't see it taking much more than a Brigade. Block entrance to post and I think you've sealed off base.
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

Given the way military bases are now, I wonder what a Brigade plus of paratroopers seizing Fort Hoods Airfield would do? A la Red Dawn-esque seize the airfield, immediately follow on with heavier equipment and spread out to Lock down roads. Troops can't get to the armory to draw weapons, can't get ammo from the ALOC, can't get to their armor. I would think that takes the largest armored formation in the US aresenal out of the fight. I don't see it taking much more than a Brigade. Block entrance to post and I think you've sealed off base.

THIS is the kind of comments I started the thread for. Interesting thought.

If that happened, followed by a decent size landing of armor and infantry on the gulf coast of Texas to seize/disable the refineries and make a push inland from there? How would/could that play out?
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stive said:

Quote:

A few "limitations" for this exercise: let's assume nuclear strike options are off the table, let's leave out allied assistance, assume conventional warfare (not cyber, economic manipulation, etc) and while I know our naval forces would play hell with the oppositions logistical capabilities, let's not make it as simple as "impossible....our navy would destroy them before they got unloaded" type answers.


So you missed this or just chose to completely ignore it?
I didn't ignore it. I am assuming that rather than letting our navy play hell with their capabilities, any opposing force would look to establish a base of operations somewhere else than across an ocean.

Take the navy completely off the table and you are still left with an invasion force slowly steaming across an ocean for days. It's going to be tracked every step of the way and met at landing by virtually all of our U.S. based military assets. Once it's within range of the Air Force, it will be under intense fire there. I am assuming they are going to try to bring air assets, so that means carriers. We target those first and if even one gets sunk, the whole operation is suddenly much more of a close run thing.

Ok, let's assume that under heavy fire they land on one of the coasts and make a beachhead. Now there is an army on a hostile continent that you have to feed and keep supplied, but your supply chains run across an ocean.

Again, this is the history board...look at what went into trying to pull off the invasion of Europe, and that was with complete air and naval superiority and fortress England just fifty miles away. Our strategists wanted to do all they could to avoid a marine invasion of Japan, and there again, by the time it was on the table, we had established base on islands closer to the homeland and virtually destroyed the Imperial Navy and Air Force. There was a reason we went island hopping and bombed Japan heavily, rather than sit tight, build a massive fleet, and just try to float an invasion force up to the Japanese coast.

Without total air and naval superiority you don't even try a direct marine invasion. And even then, it's gonna be really close run.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

Given the way military bases are now, I wonder what a Brigade plus of paratroopers seizing Fort Hoods Airfield would do? A la Red Dawn-esque seize the airfield, immediately follow on with heavier equipment and spread out to Lock down roads. Troops can't get to the armory to draw weapons, can't get ammo from the ALOC, can't get to their armor. I would think that takes the largest armored formation in the US aresenal out of the fight. I don't see it taking much more than a Brigade. Block entrance to post and I think you've sealed off base.


How are you getting a brigade plus of paratroopers dropped over Ft. Hood before being shot down by the Texas Air National Guard? Even without that factor, where are the planes with paratroopers flying from and staging?

This is why I say any invasion is coming from Mexico or Canada, or not at all. Cuba, perhaps might be a temporary option.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well Hood is relatively close to Mexico so.....
granted I don't know jack about the TXANG but you seem to have a ton of faith that you scramble enough to seriously hinder an invasion. I don't imagine they have squadrons on a standby at a moments notice. More like a handful of fighters ready to scramble. It would probably take a significant amount of time to recall pilots from their civilian jobs, get to their airfields, get briefed, and then airborne. Like I said I don't know **** about them but I don't see them as that major of a obstacle. Plus I'm not just sending transport aircraft unescorted into the area. I'm going to have local air superiority so hopefully that would render enemy sorties useless.

Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So you chose to completely ignore it. Awesome! Thanks for answering.
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
When this started playing out in my head, Cuba was where my brain went as a jumping off point. I think that would be the most plausible in a situation like this and give you options when it comes to ground force invasions (gulf side or Atlantic side).
Maximus_Meridius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think the most likely tactic would be "D-Day." As has been said (repeatedly), there are too many obstacles in the way, even forgoing naval intervention. If you're going to hit the most powerful nation, you've got basically two objectives, in my opinion; 1) be fast as lightning, and 2) keep them on their heels and don't let them figure out what you're doing.

Assuming preemptive strike, time is on your side. You position your pieces then hit. I would start (God, I hope I don't end up on some government list for this) by "importing" strike forces. Multiple teams of 50. Don't do it all at once, and don't come in at the same place. The border with Mexico is where your tools and weapons come from. Smuggle weapons, explosives, etc. While this is going on, utilize container ships to ferry over vehicles (keep them out of port, obviously). You can have larger forces with these as well. It's also not out of the realm of possibility to have a ship disguised as a container ship that can quickly convert and launch helicopters

When you're ready, everything hits, but in sequence. If it all goes at once, you risk making the govt. realize it's a coordinated strike too soon and they begin mass mobilization. Start by attacking the power grid, which is absurdly weak. Utilize cyber-attacks where possible (and yes, I realize you "limited" them, but that's just stupid considering what we've seen the past decade), or one of your pre-inserted strike forces to do more permanent damage. Start with NYC as it will cause massive panic and consume US resources trying to keep people calm. I'd also consider hitting LA. Again, you want chaos. Shortly after, you have the most difficult part: you need an air force base. You've gotta establish a supply chain with home, and you need air support. This requires a large airstrip so you can land your heavy cargo aircraft. Knocking out some US fighters as well would be a bonus. So let's say you go for either Luke AFB in Arizona, or you go for broke and hit Lackland in San Antonio. You launch your strike helicopters, either from your converted container ship or from covert bases in Mexico. You launched multiple cargo craft and fighters, timed to arrive with the strike force for further support. JABQ04's idea of hitting Ft. Hood is also a good idea.

Now is when it gets real. Assuming you've got the ability to sneak and launch helicopters from a ship that isn't suspicious, let's say you've somehow gotten into Chesapeake Bay. You have already snuck several strike teams into DC. Now you launch the helos and aim to destroy the Pentagon and the White House. Assault Congress. Essentially, you are going to see if you can get the US govt. to capitulate while they're still trying to figure out what the heck you're doing. If so, great. If not, well, cause as much hell as you can to further disrupt things.

There's a lot more that you could do, too. If we're pretending the Navy isn't paying attention and you've been able to position your ships (with an aircraft carrier) such that you can reach port in an hour or two, you have further ability to land more forces. Personally, I'd try to land around Houston (especially if you are taking out Lackland for your AFB). This puts the US in a fuel crunch, and it also gives you a fuel supply for yourself.

I could go on, but I've wasted enough time on this as it is. I'll admit I'm not the most well versed in current military abilities and defense systems. I'm sure many of you will be able to shoot my ideas to doll rags, and I'm not even saying that this would even work due to the quality of our armed forces. My main point is that I don't think the most likely way is a Normandy style invasion. You're going to go for speed and confusion. Even then it's an uphill climb. An interesting (and somewhat disturbing) thought experiment.
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My intent with the "no cyber" comment in the OP was to keep the generic "just attack the U.S. debt through economic warfare and watch it fall apart" type comments at bay. For an exercise like this, I didn't want it to be "line up a bunch of hackers in Russian computer labs and start tearing us apart through clouds and hard drives".

If it's being mixed into a scenario like above I thinks it's absolutely part of the attack and a strong one.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lest I derail the serious "what-if History" discussion....

I would follow the strategy laid out by the Soviets in "Red Alert 2".
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stive said:

So you chose to completely ignore it. Awesome! Thanks for answering.


How did I ignore it? I laid out explicitly why I think a coastal invasion is not likely even without the navy factoring in due to air superiority and the extended supply lines.

I guess I am not getting the exercise.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

Well Hood is relatively close to Mexico so.....
granted I don't know jack about the TXANG but you seem to have a ton of faith that you scramble enough to seriously hinder an invasion. I don't imagine they have squadrons on a standby at a moments notice. More like a handful of fighters ready to scramble. It would probably take a significant amount of time to recall pilots from their civilian jobs, get to their airfields, get briefed, and then airborne. Like I said I don't know **** about them but I don't see them as that major of a obstacle. Plus I'm not just sending transport aircraft unescorted into the area. I'm going to have local air superiority so hopefully that would render enemy sorties useless.




I'm assuming a war doesn't come out of nowhere, our spy satellites are working, as well as our current HUMINT/SIGINT capabilities. If a hostile power had recently moved a battalion of elite paratroopers, transports, and fighter support near the U.S. border, then pretty much ever air unit under NORTHCOM are on high alert and we have likely been moving assets back from overseas.

Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's fair.

The point of the hypothetical and exercise is to play out the different possibilities of how, not "if". If someone simply says, "Navy....they couldn't get here. Can't happen", it makes for a pretty boring hypothetical and exercise right?

We all know the logistical challenges of getting here; the fun of a thread like this is you either have to come up with a way to circumvent the extremely difficult, or start with where you'd like to end up and work backwards from there. The idea above where you build up large(r) units of commandos in the states and somehow get helicopter squadrons close enough to enact a quick strike on a key base/location is an interesting one and doesn't require the immediate logistical infrastructure that traditional attack and overrun tactics would require.
ABATTBQ87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I would send a diversion from the southern part of Mexico and have the media cover the arriving "refugees" as a distraction. I would then signal a two pronged attack, one along the Mexico/New Mexico/Arizona border and the other from the north into North Dakota/Montana in a snow storm (Ardennes offensive 1944).

My intent would be to strike fear into Americans and prove how unsafe their country is against attack as well as destroying military and structural targets.

I would fight with guerilla tactics, hit and run and then get back to the safety of our bases.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maximus_Meridius said:

I don't think the most likely tactic would be "D-Day." As has been said (repeatedly), there are too many obstacles in the way, even forgoing naval intervention. If you're going to hit the most powerful nation, you've got basically two objectives, in my opinion; 1) be fast as lightning, and 2) keep them on their heels and don't let them figure out what you're doing.

Assuming preemptive strike, time is on your side. You position your pieces then hit. I would start (God, I hope I don't end up on some government list for this) by "importing" strike forces. Multiple teams of 50. Don't do it all at once, and don't come in at the same place. The border with Mexico is where your tools and weapons come from. Smuggle weapons, explosives, etc. While this is going on, utilize container ships to ferry over vehicles (keep them out of port, obviously). You can have larger forces with these as well. It's also not out of the realm of possibility to have a ship disguised as a container ship that can quickly convert and launch helicopters

When you're ready, everything hits, but in sequence. If it all goes at once, you risk making the govt. realize it's a coordinated strike too soon and they begin mass mobilization. Start by attacking the power grid, which is absurdly weak. Utilize cyber-attacks where possible (and yes, I realize you "limited" them, but that's just stupid considering what we've seen the past decade), or one of your pre-inserted strike forces to do more permanent damage. Start with NYC as it will cause massive panic and consume US resources trying to keep people calm. I'd also consider hitting LA. Again, you want chaos. Shortly after, you have the most difficult part: you need an air force base. You've gotta establish a supply chain with home, and you need air support. This requires a large airstrip so you can land your heavy cargo aircraft. Knocking out some US fighters as well would be a bonus. So let's say you go for either Luke AFB in Arizona, or you go for broke and hit Lackland in San Antonio. You launch your strike helicopters, either from your converted container ship or from covert bases in Mexico. You launched multiple cargo craft and fighters, timed to arrive with the strike force for further support. JABQ04's idea of hitting Ft. Hood is also a good idea.

Now is when it gets real. Assuming you've got the ability to sneak and launch helicopters from a ship that isn't suspicious, let's say you've somehow gotten into Chesapeake Bay. You have already snuck several strike teams into DC. Now you launch the helos and aim to destroy the Pentagon and the White House. Assault Congress. Essentially, you are going to see if you can get the US govt. to capitulate while they're still trying to figure out what the heck you're doing. If so, great. If not, well, cause as much hell as you can to further disrupt things.

There's a lot more that you could do, too. If we're pretending the Navy isn't paying attention and you've been able to position your ships (with an aircraft carrier) such that you can reach port in an hour or two, you have further ability to land more forces. Personally, I'd try to land around Houston (especially if you are taking out Lackland for your AFB). This puts the US in a fuel crunch, and it also gives you a fuel supply for yourself.

I could go on, but I've wasted enough time on this as it is. I'll admit I'm not the most well versed in current military abilities and defense systems. I'm sure many of you will be able to shoot my ideas to doll rags, and I'm not even saying that this would even work due to the quality of our armed forces. My main point is that I don't think the most likely way is a Normandy style invasion. You're going to go for speed and confusion. Even then it's an uphill climb. An interesting (and somewhat disturbing) thought experiment.
The container ship idea is a fascinating one, but I am not using helicopters. The targets you mention in DC post 9-11 are probably the most invulnerable to air assault in the world short of places like the Cheyenne Mountain Complex and strategic nuclear sites. The air assets that guard them go on immediate alert once weird stuff starts to happen in anywhere inside CONUS, the distraction theory doesn't work here-- it actually works against you. Instead, I have my disguised container ship(s) converted to fire cruise missiles at these and other military targets within range. Helicopters fly slow and light up radar, they are going to be shot down easily.

I am also not using my strike forces on anything that does not have immediate military value. The chaos value of targeting symbolic targets in NYC or other cities is not worth it. Even with say, five teams of fifty, you are looking at 250 commandos vs. 40,000 pissed off NYPD, including multiple highly trained, effective SWAT and tactical units playing a home game. Ditto for places like LA and Chicago. Instead, I am targeting things like the power grid and the most vulnerable military command and control centers I can find. The idea here is to disrupt things long enough to stage my main invasion force and tie up as many military assets as I can to keep them away from my army/fleet.

In reality, though, I think that the only gambit you can take is a massive asssault across land borders with the aim of complete victory or at least tying down virtually all of the US military. If your commando gambit fails, then suddenly your invasion force is a sitting duck for Us naval and air power. That force is likely the bulk of your military, which then leaves your own homeland, wherever that may be, open to retaliation from the only other nation in the world capable of global power projection. This would come at the end of a long game aimed at eroding the U.S's economy, influence, and diplomatic currency around the world and very shrewd maneuvering into a position where Mexico and Canada let you stage your military there and you paint the U.S. into a corner that prevents us from striking while you are weak. Basically, you are acting like Germany before World War II, arming under our noses and striking deals with dupes like Stalin-- and doing so from beyond and ocean.

If we change the rules up, there is one way I can see the commando gambit succeeding, and that is if they manage to sneak small nuclear weapons into several major population centers and then blackmail the government into capitulation. But then you are playing with deterrence theory and you may just end up vaporizing most of the world.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Stive said:

I personally think that's an overrated variable. Feel free to assume it is what it is now.

Bubba with a deer rifle or a 20 gauge versus an armored tank column or a well trained infantry platoon?
Bubba with a deer rifle vs. a tank column? Not an issue.

Bubba with a deer rifle, after he's made contact with the other Bubbas, and military officers separated from their units and veterans, in the occupied territory behind the front? Now, he is a "partisan" and very much is an issue. He will be playing havoc with your supply lines, destroying bridges and railways, and harassing your transport convoys. He will be tying down valuable military assets that you should be using to fight a war and stirring up the local population against you.

The Taliban is in many ways not much more than the Afghan version of Bubba with a deer rifle.
chickencoupe16
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheFirebird said:

Stive said:

I personally think that's an overrated variable. Feel free to assume it is what it is now.

Bubba with a deer rifle or a 20 gauge versus an armored tank column or a well trained infantry platoon?
Bubba with a deer rifle vs. a tank column? Not an issue.

Bubba with a deer rifle, after he's made contact with the other Bubbas, and military officers separated from their units and veterans, in the occupied territory behind the front? Now, he is a "partisan" and very much is an issue. He will be playing havoc with your supply lines, destroying bridges and railways, and harassing your transport convoys. He will be tying down valuable military assets that you should be using to fight a war and stirring up the local population against you.

The Taliban is in many ways not much more than the Afghan version of Bubba with a deer rifle.


Not your bridges and railways, Bubba's. Everything about this country is his. You're in a foreign land but Bubba has gone spot lighting on every backroad in the county and half in the neighboring counties. Plus, Bubba works for the electric co-op and knows exactly how to screw up your power lines in the least time possible. Bubba's cousin is an engineer for Union Pacific and knows exactly how to screw up your railways in the least time possible. And Bubba's neighbor is the guy with the airboat that has fished every creek, swamp, and lake within 50 miles. And so on and so forth.

The Mujahideen proved very effective against the Russians. The Taliban has proved effective against the US. These guys are literally goat herders and foreign fighters. Bubba has so many resources at his disposal in comparison.

This said, I think that you have to try to establish a foothold in the areas with as few Bubbas as possible. This nocks out the Gulf Coast and the East Coast is also very heavy with Bubbas until you get to the north east. The west coast is pretty Bubba-sparse, but the Rockies are a huge barrier. Not to mention, the west coast isn't terribly heavy with the necessary resources for a war machine.

So maybe you come from Mexico and shoot to take the southwest? Could try an airborne attack on Lackland, Bliss, and Hood with a main thrust into the southwest from Mexico? But you really need to drive into Texas to get ports and resources and there are a lot of Bubbas in Texas.
TheFirebird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chickencoupe16 said:

TheFirebird said:

Stive said:

I personally think that's an overrated variable. Feel free to assume it is what it is now.

Bubba with a deer rifle or a 20 gauge versus an armored tank column or a well trained infantry platoon?
Bubba with a deer rifle vs. a tank column? Not an issue.

Bubba with a deer rifle, after he's made contact with the other Bubbas, and military officers separated from their units and veterans, in the occupied territory behind the front? Now, he is a "partisan" and very much is an issue. He will be playing havoc with your supply lines, destroying bridges and railways, and harassing your transport convoys. He will be tying down valuable military assets that you should be using to fight a war and stirring up the local population against you.

The Taliban is in many ways not much more than the Afghan version of Bubba with a deer rifle.


Not your bridges and railways, Bubba's. Everything about this country is his. You're in a foreign land but Bubba has gone spot lighting on every backroad in the county and half in the neighboring counties. Plus, Bubba works for the electric co-op and knows exactly how to screw up your power lines in the least time possible. Bubba's cousin is an engineer for Union Pacific and knows exactly how to screw up your railways in the least time possible. And Bubba's neighbor is the guy with the airboat that has fished every creek, swamp, and lake within 50 miles. And so on and so forth.

The Mujahideen proved very effective against the Russians. The Taliban has proved effective against the US. These guys are literally goat herders and foreign fighters. Bubba has so many resources at his disposal in comparison.

This said, I think that you have to try to establish a foothold in the areas with as few Bubbas as possible. This nocks out the Gulf Coast and the East Coast is also very heavy with Bubbas until you get to the north east. The west coast is pretty Bubba-sparse, but the Rockies are a huge barrier. Not to mention, the west coast isn't terribly heavy with the necessary resources for a war machine.

So maybe you come from Mexico and shoot to take the southwest? Could try an airborne attack on Lackland, Bliss, and Hood with a main thrust into the southwest from Mexico? But you really need to drive into Texas to get ports and resources and there are a lot of Bubbas in Texas.
This discussion raises a different issue that's critical to the exercise-- what is your war aim with the invasion?

Is it a simple territory and resource grab-- you want to take down the U.S. flag and put up your own, claiming the country as your colony or territory? Do you want to install a figurehead U.S. government presumably more friendly towards your own? Are you happy with seizing something smaller than the whole U.S. and coming to terms with Washington on the new border? Are you happy with weakening the U.S., forcing some concessions, and leaving?

These questions will in many ways drive your strategy when it comes to pacifying the local populace and conducting counter-insurgency. The past 70 year since have taught us that this is key for any military operation.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I would start in the schools, fill their heads with ideas about social justice, the evils of their past history and about changing the world to fix those sins. Then I'd start tearing down statues and monuments to heroes that only appeal to a small base of the country, then I would expand that to lesser known presidents and heroes, continually expanding the web to incorporate all the heroes of the past, sort of a slow boil so the frog won't know what is happening...
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.