In the event of...

[BojnoX]

I'm technically a noob to this site, so pardon me if any of this sounds ridiculous, but if it does, I would like to be informed of it. I want this thread to be about any possibility that the good ole' U.S. of A. would come under attack, specifically, who and why would be attacking, who would our allies be, and also any possible strategies for an attack. You can't defend against something you don't know too much about. This is not a war game, at least not right now.

[ltb]

the us government will run sinario based procurement excersises which will carry information about such things, there also should be information in the quadratic defence review, as that, as far as i am aware carried the most uptodate info on that kind of question.

State wise i would be inclined to say that the main treats to the USA come from challenges to its hegemonic status ala long cycle theory. this would be, acording to Kegly, and i am inclined to agree from PRC, India or a resurgent russia

[BojnoX]

I think that you're right on all accounts. From what I know, those are the only countries that might, and probably would, currently be able to stand against America's military by themselves. And there currently isn't any large coalitions that could stand against us either. But what if one of those three built a new coalition; say, a new Warsaw Pact, or an Asian Alliance?

[Feanor]

You mean who can invade the USA in 2008? Aliens.

[chimera]

There are silly people like North Koreans and Vietcong who were bombed out of existence and didn't have the sense to know it. The US Engineers and G Bush hit New Orleans. Be careful of Chinese fast-food price-wars.

[BojnoX]

I don't think I was thinking 2008, because this year is almost half over. Just probably in the near future - take that however you want it to be taken. China is probably the most dangerous current threat. World's biggest army, third largest air force, and even if their navy is partially Russian made, it's definitely not anything to sneer at. Depending on how many aircraft carriers we can hit with at one time, we'd probably have a hard time of it retaliating. Russia seems to be on the post-Cold War rebound, but I don't think that they have the will to fight - at least not currently.

[BojnoX]

Maybe, if we're unlucky, Putin and his puppet will want to go out and play Cold War again with the U.S. But their army looks to be a larger version of Iraq's army, with more personnel and less money (ratio-wise, anyways). They don't have the sea lift capabilities, also. China's sea lift capabilities enable them to assault, say, the RoC (Republic of China = Taiwan). However, the RoC is our ally, so we'd jump in - that's just one way we'd be starting the next war. North Korea would likely jump in for China; Russia might. That's a really big might, mind you. But if they all decided it was time to cook things off, well it'd a :nutkick.

[PullerRommel]

I doubt the US would heavily invest in RoC independence. CHina would surely lob hundreds of Anti-Ship Missiles and release there Subs. I doubt the US would invest men into the protection at all just a purely defensive strategy.

[Feanor]

I don't think I was thinking 2008, because this year is almost half over. Just probably in the near future - take that however you want it to be taken. China is probably the most dangerous current threat. World's biggest army, third largest air force, and even if their navy is partially Russian made, it's definitely not anything to sneer at. Depending on how many aircraft carriers we can hit with at one time, we'd probably have a hard time of it retaliating. Russia seems to be on the post-Cold War rebound, but I don't think that they have the will to fight - at least not currently.

China has no Navy that can contest the USN. And it has no aircraft carriers. Russia has one Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruise that carriers a squadron of Flankers and iirc 5 frogfoots. Again there is no real threat to the continental USA aside from nuclear weapons.

[PullerRommel]

And if China were to someday get there Aircraft Carrier operating would you say they could contest them to a certain extent?

[BojnoX]

Hm. China is a major trading partner, even after all of the problems we've had with Chinese made-imported goods, medicine, toys, food, etc. And because of the upcoming Olympics, China's been especially nice to everyone, even the RoC. I doubt it will last after the Olympics are over, however. And unless Pakistan and India cook it off, India isn't much of a threat. Even N.and S. Korea haven't had too much problems recently, I believe.:confused:

[Feanor]

And if China were to someday get there Aircraft Carrier operating would you say they could contest them to a certain extent?

No. China may have an aircraft carrier, possibly even two, within the next several decades. That will do nothing to change the overall strategic balance between PRC and USA, though regional balance against powers like Japan, RoK, and RoC will definetly begin to shift.

[BojnoX]

Supposedly, China will only use nukes in a retaliation to a nuke strike. China looks to be where we were in the early 20th century, i.e. a lot of people producing things, except with better technology and worse government. And if you do fill the air with ship-ship missiles, no CIWS will be able to take them all out. Technology and training make up for a lot, but quantity has some qualities of its own. The only thing we can do is be thankful that we live on a different continent, because if we went into a land war with China, I have serious misgivings about our capabilities against China's numbers, and they aren't half-wit barbarians.

[Ender]

A better question would probably be what would happen if the U.S. army somehow lost and the U.S. was invaded/occupied.-

My guess would be high resistence. The U.S. has more guns per household than any other country in the world. The U.S. also has shown historically that it's people are decently nationalistic, expecially in time of crisis. When Pearl Harbor, it took 3 days (correct me if I'm wrong with that number) to get a declaration of war from Congress. 9/11 gave us a war in Afghanistan. I think foreign soldiers killing our soldiers and then occupying the U.S. would probably piss off enough people into a strong resistence.

Nationalism + Guns = :nutkick :D

[Feanor]

I don't see any army that has the logistics to occupy the US. Do you?

[BojnoX]

Heck yeah! I'd defend the U.S. But occupations normally don't work well. Look at Iraq right now. Roadside bombings, snipers... The difference is we have no active militias like they do over there, except for groups like hunters and such, even though they don't typically do 'militia' type things. I may be only 15 + a bit, but I already have my hunters license, so I'm not trying to offend hunters. And we may have guns, but I personally know of only one gun store in my area that has heavier weapons. That store is A-! Tactical, and they also own a retired M113 APC. They have what seems to be a mini-gun/Gatling gun, I'm not really sure, and a couple of heavy machine guns. And another store has a mortar, but I'm guessing that its been decommissioned. However, the best thing would be for the U.S. military to widely distribute and train as many partisan fighters as possible, including heavy weapons training. And if they can secret away some heavier stuff, like tanks or choppers, even better. Maps, because GPS may or may not be down, survival gear, generators, any useful technology, anything. Hurricane supplies+weapons, basically...right?

[Ender]

U.S. "militia" forces in the event of an occupation would probably have weapons close to modern gangs and hunters. Sidearms, light assault weapons, and and hunting rifles would be common. I'm sure you would see heavier weapons and RPGs pop up.

Another problem with occupying the U.S. is geography. The U.S. is massive. Imagine trying to control a country thats width is the across the entire continent and is home to 300 million people. Adding onto this, the U.S. is home to many types of landscapes and cultures. Adds up badly for the invaders.

[BojnoX]

I don't really see any countries that can defeat ours AND occupy us. Major difference from just occupying or just defeating our army. Back to a multi-nation coalition attack, maybe?

[Chrom]

I don't really see any countries that can defeat ours AND occupy us. Major difference from just occupying or just defeating our army. Back to a multi-nation coalition attack, maybe?

History lessons tells us - if regular army is defeated, then reliably occupying the country (however large) is the question of genocide. If invading forces are ready to conduct very harsh behavior - then partisans / militia / insurgents have no chances. They wouldnt even inflict sizable losses to regular army.

[BojnoX]

Well, it also depends on who we'd be invaded by, and their current political/military leadership, and the state of the rest of the world. If no one cares that U.S. citizens are being slaughtered, then they probably will be; that is, if we're invaded by someone who currently only refrains from such behavior because of world opinion. If world opinion no longer matters, then who knows what could happen.

[tonyget]

Hm. China is a major trading partner, even after all of the problems we've had with Chinese made-imported goods, medicine, toys, food, etc.

That's right, the US does not want to destroy China. What US wants, is an economically strong China, but militarily controlled by US, just like Japan or other US satellite state.

[BojnoX]

But how did they get that way? Wasn't it through war? Ha, maybe they can be the next state.

[PullerRommel]

Ya through war. but I seriously doubt the US would even consider invading China. Casualties ,i think, would be much to high.

[BojnoX]

I don't think China would let themselves be under our control. They're much too strong as a culture, let alone a country. The attrition rate would be enormous; think of how many soldiers are against the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we wouldn't have an army to fight with.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Are you guys seriously considering an occupation of CONUS? Red Dawn styles? Are you frigging kidding me? Never ever ever going to happen, even if the US is defeated in conventional terms, the worlds largest nuclear power would simply turn the big scary bad guys into a pancake (along with 1/4 of the planet). Therefore even if the US is defeated conventionally it will never be occupied.

Game over comrades... :lol3

[chakos]

See i think the Red Dawn approach is probably the only way it is remotelly conceivable to invade the USA. A forced landing on any part of the states is fairly impossible. Too well defended in the sense that it pits the strongest part of the US armed forces (Navy and Air force) against the weakest of the Chinese forces (Navy) and the Chinese are the only realistic enemies i can see with any potential (Maybe the Chinese and Russians allying.. possibly)

A more realistic way to do it would be to get nice and cosy to a Latin American country. I was thinkin Venezuela at first but the US would simply bomb it back to the stone age the second it got wind of it. I would say Brazil would be the best bet. Large, Democratic, and on relativelly friendly terms with the rest of the world.

Once your nice and cosy then establish a few bases there. Maybe a naval base or 3 and several army and air force bases. Then, over a period of a couple of years start moving in the troops, slowly at first untill you have enough assets in place to defend against an attack and then when the games up start bringing over divisions in bulk. All at the same time whilst vetoing any UN resolution as well as feeding problems to keep the US busy in other parts of the world (Iraq, Iran, whoever).

Invent an enemy of Brazils and use that as an excuse to 'protect' your new ally as well as using the excuse of protecting oil fields, etc. People may start getting suspicious when you go from 1 to 10 to 70 divisions but you carry on like nothings happening. All at the same time as acting as peaceful and as pleasant as you can be, hell, even give back Tibet if you must (You can always reinvade later) As long as the stupid western masses believe your a friend of small furry animals and orphaned children.

Then one day, with no warning... INVADE. You will be using the strongest part of the Chinese military against the weakest part of the US military (The armies) Push North no matter the cost, noone said its going to be a walk in the park. wave after wave of infantry divisions fighting up Central America, no need to use the heavier stuff yet. The US will obviously try to intervene, but the Chinese standing army is massive, and the US will need the time to pull the reserves, introduce conscription etc.

By the point you have gotten to the US/Mexico border you may have eaten up a couple of dozen or more infantry and mechanised divisions but you have well and trully bled most of the professional US Army or gone a good way towards it. THEN you unleash your A units, your combined arms groups, your digital armored divisions and brigade combat teams etc.

You will be using the varsity of your forces against US reserves and conscripts as well as what remains of the professional forces. They will be outnumbered and the skill and technological advantage has been almost nullified. Again you will receive massive casualties, but you can.. the United States cant.

Dont stop till you capture Canada. Leave nothing in North and South America the US could use as a base of operations for the units based outside CONUS to marshall themselves.

At the same time, threaten the US with nuclear holocoust if it attacks with WMD. Dont use any of yours and treat all prisoners and civilians that dont fight back with decency. Make them understand through carrot and stick that surrender is the only option.

There is no point in the US going nuclear if it knows that it will only be sacraficing its population for no good reason.

As to the militias... Where is CNN now??? SLAUGHTER THEM. Who cares if your tactics may seem a little nasty. China can control its media (not that it needs to.. its media is pro Beijing without even being told nowdays.. it just knows).

Once hostilities are over then treat the USA as a Hong Kong. One China 3 systems. Make the new government not too different in the way it smells to the last. Just no guns or criticism of the government allowed.

After a while they will get used to it when they discover that to submit means to prosper and to resist means that you and your family will have their backs to a wall.

Thats how i would do it anyways. :lam

[Chrom]

See i think the Red Dawn approach is probably the only way it is remotelly conceivable to invade the USA. A forced landing on any part of the states is fairly impossible. Too well defended in the sense that it pits the strongest part of the US armed forces (Navy and Air force) against the weakest of the Chinese forces (Navy) and the Chinese are the only realistic enemies i can see with any potential (Maybe the Chinese and Russians allying.. possibly)

ABy the point you have gotten to the US/Mexico border you may have eaten up a couple of dozen or more infantry and mechanised divisions but you have well and trully bled most of the professional US Army or gone a good way towards it. THEN you unleash your A units, your combined arms groups, your digital armored divisions and brigade combat teams etc.

You will be using the varsity of your forces against US reserves and conscripts as well as what remains of the professional forces. They will be outnumbered and the skill and technological advantage has been almost nullified. Again you will receive massive casualties, but you can.. the United States cant.


At the same time, threaten the US with nuclear holocoust if it attacks with WMD. Dont use any of yours and treat all prisoners and civilians that dont fight back with decency. Make them understand through carrot and stick that surrender is the only option.

There is no point in the US going nuclear if it knows that it will only be sacraficing its population for no good reason.

As to the militias... Where is CNN now??? SLAUGHTER THEM. Who cares if your tactics may seem a little nasty. China can control its media (not that it needs to.. its media is pro Beijing without even being told nowdays.. it just knows).

Once hostilities are over then treat the USA as a Hong Kong. One China 3

Thats how i would do it anyways. :lam

Ha-ha. The original question was if occupation work. NOT if USA army could be defeated. This is entirely another matter.

The answer - IF regular USA army is defeated (including nuclear forces, let it be green humanoids from Tau-Ceti ) - then occupation might work depending if invading forces are ready to conduct very harsh behavior toward civilians. Simply as that.

[BojnoX]

Both of you came up with excellent points. Come to think of it, the original question isn't all that important, we're still in the general area. Besides, that would probably work... Maybe we should get rid of it before someone uses our ideas?:idea2

[chakos]

Both of you came up with excellent points. Come to think of it, the original question isn't all that important, we're still in the general area. Besides, that would probably work... Maybe we should get rid of it before someone uses our ideas?:idea2


Nobody is using my idea but me. I put a lot of thought into the invasion and conquest of the United States and if anyone is going down in history as the one who pulled it of it will me .. ME.... MEEEEEE MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol2 (evil laugh)

[PullerRommel]

Someones going to be monitored.... :)
Has anyone played World in Conflict because in the game the Soviets invade the US through Portland by arriving in Cargo ships. Its quite good. They get defeated of course.

[Feanor]

It's bullsh*t. You need a ridiculous number of cargo ships. And it's not just a matter of landing. It's a matter of supplying your forces across a hostile sea. It's a matter of air support which is impossible without carrier support. It's a matter of reinforcements, C2, and many other things that make it impossible.

[BojnoX]

I own the game; if you remember, the Allied forces were already engaged in a pitched battle over Europe, meaning that U.S. forces were drawn off into Europe. Now, U.S. Forces are engaged in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving the U.S. with ~177,000 less U.S. Army, Reserves, National Guard, etc... I wonder if anyone in our government realized what National Guards are for - maybe guarding our nation? We don't have the cargo capacity to bring our troops home all at once. We would have to 'borrow' regular airliners for the troops, with heavy Air Force lifters for the armor and supply units, and probably cargo ships would be 'borrowed'. And these would have to be protected on their way home, meaning that if they came under attack, we might start losing combat personnel and equipment. That's 1/10 of our entire military, if I figure correctly, that would be in danger. However, if the U.S. does notice some Central/South American country coming under someone's 'arm', they might just start bringing troops home. Then again, most people like to believe that they would never, ever, get attacked...so, based on that assumption, we would be caught in a two-fronted war, including the home front. By the way, has anyone read the book Red Army, by Ralph Peters? In there, everything is from the Soviet point of view. Not exactly what we're talking about, but the general concepts are similiar; Speed - shock the enemy into making mistakes, and to encircle and 'trap' enemy forces so that if nuclear weapons become a question, you have hostages to say 'look, we don't want to die in here'. The NATO forces never expected a war; they may have been 'prepared', but they had no fixed defenses, and so they waited until attack was imminent to build them (this was only in the book; actual NATO fixed defenses of that time period, i don't know), and Soviet forces moved too fast for fixed defenses to work. Which is why fixed defenses are only used when you have no room for a mobile defense.

[Cooch]

Barring the sudden appearance of new weapon systems that are as far above current capacity as the A-Bomb was above conventional explosives, the possibility of a successful invasion of the US mainland is effectively zero. The reasons have already been outlined.

An attack of some sort, however, is entirely possible.
Another even similar to the WTC attacks, perhaps involving a WMD is quite within reason.
Alternatively, consider an unconventional attack affecting the US economy and means of production.

Peter

[BojnoX]

Well, our economy is getting pretty weird. Inflation, gas prices, 1 in 20 houses are in foreclosure. It probably wouldn't take much to make it all tumble down. But there are no countries ready to strike us if it does, and I can't imagine a civil war... I mean, along what lines would the sides be struck? Left versus Right? Orson Scott Card wrote a book along those lines, entitled Empire, if I remember correctly (My copy is on my bookshelves somewhere). So while we would have to pull back our troops and rebuild, what would everyone else be doing? While the 'World's police' are indisposed, what kind of problems would spring up?
-China and Taiwan
-Russia and its ex-Soviet Socialist Republics
-Colombia and its neighbors, possibly?
-Mexico is being ripped apart internally by drug lords with more money and less fear than Mexico's own police.
-China into Russia's vast, virtually untapped Eastern areas?

[Cooch]

Don't make the mistake of just thinking "now".
Think in terms of decades.

What if you have a rapidly developing economy and a large population. Looking to the future, you might well covet your neighbour's resources or living space. If you are thinking that in maybe 20 years, you might like to indulge in a little local conquest without US intervention, you might think it worth your while to try and engineer a situation in which the US is (a) spending a lot less on the military and (b) looking inwards at internal problems, rather than outwards.

Recall that the Japanese strategy in WW2 contained the idea that they could conquer the Pacific area before the US could prevent them, and then convince the US voters thatthe cost of kicking them out was too great. In that case, they badly underestimated US national resolve and willingness to fight once given the incentive ....... but what if you were thinking of repeating history whilst taking steps to ensure that the US population was unlikely to support a war this time?

No democracy can long sustain a major war that is not supported by the majority of voters. Some might consider that your weak point.

Peter

[X6958]

The only real threat to the US is gradual degradation of hegemony in regions outside of Europe and NA. Public opinion against US culture in foreign countries. Raids on worldwide US bases, invasion of US allies, only after many years of gradual and constant damage to the US could this occur. This is already underway in a limited extent. Every empire falls eventually. And whoever said invade Canada needs to GO to Canada (I live there). Canada is bigger than the USA. There are alot of rural people, and since we have a pretty low pop density it would be hard to monitor civvies. In addition, people don't realize that we own ALOT of guns. Most of them are hunting rifles, easily modified for sniping. Canada is also a HUGE country, The only potential aid to an occupier is that a third of the pop lives in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area, not Grand Theft Auto), and we have extensive highways. And yes, I have World In Conflict, the story isn't that outrageous, most of the US soldiers are overseas, and the USSR doesn't land a very large force.

[Feanor]

The outrageous part is that they land at all. It makes no sense, and there is no reason to do it. Soviet method of striking the US was ballistic missiles.

[PullerRommel]

They do it to get the US out of Europe. The US does end up using a Tactical Nuke on the Soviets. The reason they invaded btw was because the US had just released "Star Wars" and the place were it was supposedly based. (Somewhere on the westcoast.) They were going straight for it. So the US used the TN to stop them from finding out ti was a hoax.

[Water-Man]

The USA has more to fear from it's own government than anyone else.

[Feanor]

The USA has more to fear from it's own government than anyone else.

Hehehe. Anyone has more to fear from the U.S. government then from anyone else. Because it's the most powerful one on the planet.

[Cooch]

Hehehe. Anyone has more to fear from the U.S. government then from anyone else. Because it's the most powerful one on the planet.

In principle, I disagree.

Risk is a combination of the probability of an adverse event and the degree to which it affects us.

It is not the most powerful that we should fear.
It is those who are sufficiently powerful, and belligerent.

An evil man with a club is more dangerous than a good man with a gun.

[Feanor]

I don't consider the U.S. government a good man. To extend your point, the "good" U.S. has done far more interventions, coups, and other hostile and usually military activities then most "evil" third world dictatorships.

[Chrom]

I don't consider the U.S. government a good man. To extend your point, the "good" U.S. has done far more interventions, coups, and other hostile and usually military activities then most "evil" third world dictatorships.
I would be hard pressed to find 5 other "evil" third would dictatorships which combined done as much interventions and coups as USA. However, USA government, given its power, is certainly by far not as bad as it could be.

[swampfox]

A better question would probably be what would happen if the U.S. army somehow lost and the U.S. was invaded/occupied.-

My guess would be high resistence. The U.S. has more guns per household than any other country in the world. The U.S. also has shown historically that it's people are decently nationalistic, expecially in time of crisis.

Nationalism + Guns = :nutkick :D


While we do have the most guns per household, most are handguns and hunting rifles, and so they wouldn't do all that much against an occupation. You need to remember that the resistance forces in France, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq had (and have) military-grade weapons, not a couple of revolvers.

[StevoJH]

While we do have the most guns per household, most are handguns and hunting rifles, and so they wouldn't do all that much against an occupation. You need to remember that the resistance forces in France, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq had (and have) military-grade weapons, not a couple of revolvers.

Hunting rifles kill to you know, the Semi-Auto's are at least as lethal as the full-auto's because someone firing one is more likely to take aim. And the older bolt action rifles wouldn't exactly be useless either (longer range and better accuracy). Hunting rifles are generally designed to have a decent range, and probably a bigger shell then assault rifles.

As people have said, the military strength of the country as such is relatively irrelivent, it is the size of the country that is important, invading the US, Canada or Australia would be like the German invasion of the USSR in WW2. Destined for failure, the distances are so large that even if you managed to occupy the country, you'd never find all of the resistance forces.

[chakos]

From an Aussies perspective i would have to say that size most definatelly matters.. That and having a hostile environment that the local population is used to but that an invading power would find alien. Lets not forget that the Russian winter was a far bigger killer of German soldiers than the Russian partisans.

[Nick4444]

it would be a co-ordinated strike by th emerging alliance comprised of the PRC, the Russian Federation, and Iran ... the bulk of the force directed against the USA would be from the PRC, with the other two directing their attentions against possible allies

[Cius]

I don't think its really feasible now but if it did happen it would be an alliance between China, India, North Korea, Russia, and Iran + a few other minors.

A more feasible situation is a spider game where someone like China uses economics to destroy the US first over a period of years. They might then also create total chaos by trying to hack or break the US finance system (similar to Tom Clancy's debt of Honor) while having a pearl harbor type attack that cripples the US pacific fleet. In Clancy's book he had an "accident" happen during a joint military initiative that disabled carriers.

Any land invasion would have to be carried out through Mexico. Still, its a far fetched scenario with the current standings of the USN.

Things to think about:
China is growing exponentially economically while the USA is facing a debt crises that could cripple the economy if someone managed to produce another sub prime mortgage level financial event.
India and China together have a formidable military.
China is creating partners all over the world. The biggest bank in China just bought a huge chunk of South Africa's biggest bank and this is happening all over the world.
China spends a lot on hiring and training hackers to control the internet.
I think the next world war will be fought on many many plains including sea, land, air, the internet and space (satalite control).

[Nick4444]

India's participation would be a question mark.
What we will likely see is a nuclear missile attack on the heart of the nation (Atlantic seaborad from New York City down to Washington, D.C.), from any of the following platforms: Cuba, Venezuela, the Russian Federation, Chinese submarine, or even space, contemporaneous with the disabling of our communication satellites, internet disablement, and television and radio jamming.
One should also expect strategic, surgical strikes against NORAD locations, missile silos, etc.
From Mexico, and internally, I could see the release of biological agents that their own soldiers would have been innoculated against.
Then I can see an incursion of more conventional forces (e.g., troops and tanks) landing in Florida (from their base in the Bahamas), and of course a massive incursion up and down the entirety of the West Coast.
The nuclear attack would also hinder any possible assistance from the European side, and depending on Canadian capabilities at the time, (I don't see Canada as much of a factor in the defense of the USA as an ally) but assuming some assistance could be expected there, perhaps the nuclear seal would be extended along that border.
(BTW, these are the capabilities that I see the PRC trying to develop; Currently, they wouldn't be able to carry this out).

[Maverickjag]

If the US military were ever defeated. (Which I don't see happening anytime soon.) Then, once the enemy had attempted to occupy the US, they would be killed off by attrition. Judging from history alone, the more oppressive and violent the occupation forces were, the more rebels they would be fighting. That's the American spirit. I may be delusional about that at this point though because I am a soldier so I look at our country a bit differently. In any case, if a massive war doesn't come along soon, our nation is in troulbe. Every major war we have had united our country and motivatedus to rebuild the economy and look out for each other again. We are stagnating.
Were anyone to invade the US, they could not effectively occupy it. There are too many places to go. For example, I'm from Tennessee...there are plenty of woods and mountains where someone could hide while building a partisan force to fight back. I think the only way it could happen is if it was similar to Red Dawn but the whole nation would never be occupied. If it were, there would be places that the invaders would lose control of very quickly. Then they would have to choose to leave the whole nation a bombed out shell or to leave. The more you do, the harder we fight.