English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

We were to be attacked on our own soil from a country (or countries) with nuclear capabilities and immense manpower and resources, and state of the art weaponry? Yes, a true strategic, military invasion, NOT a random terrorist act. What would we do when even most guard and reserve units are under strength because of the "conflict" in the Middle East?

2006-08-10 05:15:59 · 6 answers · asked by Goddess of Nuts PBUH 4 in Politics & Government Government

6 answers

We only have around 155,000 of our over 1,000,000 soldiers involved in Iraq. We have more than enough troops to defend our home soil or even fight a war someplace else. Also no country has the capability of invading us by surprise. With all of our radar, satellites, and military forces all over the world nobody could even mobilize its armed forces without our knowledge. Also other than perhaps Canada and Mexico can reach us. The logistics of moving an army capable of invading the U.S is beyond the capabilities of all countries in the world. The kind of navy and transportation required to move an army across the ocean would be astronomical. Also an invasion against us would have almost no air support so we would have complete air supremacy and not to mention that if we were invaded we would also probably retaliate with a nuclear strike against the aggressor and if worse comes to worse we could just do as we have done in the past and conscript.

2006-08-10 05:28:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The only attack of that nature - one which we wouldn't have time to prepare for - would be either a missile or air strike.

Logically, this would immediately be condemned in the UN and we would likely take measures to neutralize the air threat - air strikes on the attacker's airfields and missile capabilities. We could do that even with troops overseas.

Of course, current administration considered, we would likely begin a full air campaign on the attacker's infrastructure to prevent the attacker from considering a naval invasion of the continental US, unless world sentiment and the UN intervened.

Ground troops in the Middle East would never be bothered, except for loss of air cover and resources.

2006-08-10 12:24:00 · answer #2 · answered by drumrb0y 5 · 0 0

You fail by having incorrect information.

Our Army and Marine Corps are currently busy and trading in and out of the Middle East.

The "flex" of the American Army - the Airforce and Navy - have been twiddling their thumbs throughout this whole war; so much in fact, that they are losing funding because of lack of necessity at the moment.

The US has the most powerful Navy in the world. However easy it may seem from our secluded lives, bringing an Army through the sea is an extremely difficult thing alone - and trying to bring it through the watchful eyes of traders, merchants *AND* try to get through the sattelites and Navy of the US?

Also, those little billion dollar airplanes arn't just laying around for anyone to use. There's a reason they spend so much money on the Airforce. A jet can go from California, stop and refuel in Kentucky, and get to NY in less than 3 hours.

So yeah, our army is busy, but our shores are safe still.

Until those get busy over in NK, then we are left wide open.

2006-08-10 12:25:04 · answer #3 · answered by Solrium 3 · 0 0

Part of the reason we sent so many troops over there was that we knew there was no existing external military threat to us that our remaining troops couldn't handle. If there was such an existing threat capability such as you described, we would have had to tailor our military response to Iraq accordingly. Plus, can you imagine the nightmare job it would be for any foreign army to invade and occupy us, in light of the sheer number of people who own guns and are more than willing to defend themselves at the drop of a hat?

2006-08-10 12:24:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We have over 1 million men and women in our military. About 130,000 of them are in the Middle East. I don't consider that 'under strength.'

2006-08-10 12:21:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

wouldn't happen but if it did most people would go back to canada or mexico where they came from and wait it out. I personally would stay and fight and with most of our weapons run by computer we don't need much of an army unless its a ground attack.

2006-08-10 12:33:07 · answer #6 · answered by topgunpilot22 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers