Talk:Invasion of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modern age[edit]

I agree it's original research right now but not sure what can be done about it. Right now mainland USA is certainly vulnerable to nuclear attack (see e.g. [1], which has a figure with the range of SLBMs operated by the UK). However I've not seen anything at all about the feasibility of actually landing soldiers on the US mainland. I presume war planners of e.g. Canada and Russia would've thought about it, but if so, the plans would probably be classified also.

I'm going to rewrite the section to say that mainland USA can be hit by hostile powers' nuclear weapons, but not mention anything about actual invasion. If anyone has a source on that, feel free to write it in. Banedon (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that section could be massively expanded. I just havent had time to do it. Its great to see activity on the article in any case. -OberRanks (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also should mention the possible invasion of Alaska by russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.216.206 (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington DC Invasion Removal[edit]

I sourced the two entries for media depiction of an invasion of America's capitol. If there is a further reason to remove this material, lets discuss it here before blanking. -OberRanks (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Inclusion[edit]

I'm just curious, based on the map of the estimated Soviet ICBM targets, shouldn't San Diego be included? I mean, there was Camp Pendleton in the north, and the other Marine and Navy facilities. And, the U. S. was testing its SeaMaster and its Sea Dart. If I were them, just in case there was still testing there, I would at least send a single ICBM into the heart of the county, say, Ramona. Sandvallia (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. FEMA made the map around 1983. You would think they would have included that. There is a much more precise declassified target map that I have off line and may be able to upload someday if I have the time and figure out the licensing. -OberRanks (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

175 Divisions[edit]

I've removed this as disputed material per WP:FRINGE. The material cited that a single theory existed in 1951 about 175 divisions would need more sources to be included in the article. This is particularly the case since the theory isn't mentioned in most mainstream history texts; on the contrary, military strategy during this period thought the chance of a Soviet-US attack negligible which prompted US action in Korea. -OberRanks (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous US and British intelligence reports led to exaggerated NATO estimates of Soviet conventional forces, however; at least one estimate in 1951 foresaw 175 combat divisions allegedly prepared to simultaneously attack Western Europe, the United Kingdom, the Balkans, the Middle East, and North America.[1]

References

  1. ^ Mastny, Vojtech (March 2002). "NATO in the Beholder's Eye: Soviet Perceptions and Policies, 1949–56" (PDF). Cold War International History Project. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Retrieved 2013-05-06.

Why nuclear talk?[edit]

This is a response of sorts to the topic above. I respectfully must say that I do not think it is a good idea to put a nuclear target map on a page that is supposed to be about an invasion. A nuclear attack is not an invasion. A catastrophe sure, but an invasion, not so much.

I get that there are obvious feasibility problems with landing troops on the U.S. shoreline. But I think nuclear talk should be on a separate page, like maybe something discussing U.S. plans for a possible nuclear strike.

A better page image I think ( and perhaps something that should be mentioned in the article) would be one from the LIFE magazine article during World War II that depicted what they saw as possible scenarios for an Axis Powers invasion. Now we all know that neither Germany nor Japan had the capabilities needed (especially as they were bogged down in other places), but LIFE didn't have access to intelligence that the military did at the time. And it still reflected fear among the population at the time.

Secureline (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. The opening picture can certainly be changed if a better one is available. -OberRanks (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Tag[edit]

Why was a reference improvement tag added, does anyone know? The article has a reference section with ten primary and secondary citations. If we need more, they can certainly be provided. -O.R.Comms 16:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Not enough citations, sir?"
What do you mean? Most of the content in the article lacks an inline citation. Based on the online sources (which I checked) and the names of the remaining sources, there is no reference for the "Early doctrine" and insufficient references for the "Modern era" section. The "European threats" and "Cold War" sections have no inline citations and the only apparent reference for the latter is the Carl Sagan book, which doesn't even cite a chapter or page numbers...it needs to be more specific to really be of use. The BBC article basically only supports the fact that the UK has nuclear weapons. AHeneen (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the BBC article about the UK and nuclear weapons, so I thought I'd point out that the article does support the fact that the UK can hit the US with nuclear weapons: see the image near the end with the range of a submarine-launched nuclear weapon with the submarine in the middle of the Atlantic. I agree more references would be good for the article, though. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sir, we don't want to start a nuclear war unless we really have to, do we? -Group Captain Mandrake (-O.R.Comms 02:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Defense Scheme No.1[edit]

I am going to write up an entry of Canada's Defense Scheme No. 1 inside the pre-WWII section. This was a plan drawn up by a member of the Canadian military as their version of War Plan Red. the idea was to invade the northern U.S. if they believed an attack was imminent. they would secure key bridges and roads. The plan was to hold the line and wait for Britain to send aid. This scheme was dismissed by the Canadian military as unrealistic, but it is still an entry worth mentioning. Secureline (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"insulate"[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a very odd statement or if "insulate" is simply the wrong word:

The Southwestern United States' desert and Midwestern United States Great Lakes insulate the major U.S. population centers from invasion

They self-evidently don't protect the major centres from, for example, land invasion across most of the Canadian border, or coastal invasion. Clearly the latter, in particular, would be very difficult for other reasons touched on in the article - but not thanks to the Great Lakes or the desert! Barnabypage (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically the sentence is cited, but the video linked is behind a paywall. With that said, the description of the video says "Stratfor examines the favorable geography that has enabled the United States to become a global superpower", so I would guess that the reference is reliable for the sentence, even though as you wrote there are self-evident issues with it. Banedon (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mainland invasion of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he country has been physically invaded on several occasions—once during the War of 1812, once during the Mexican–American War, several times during the Mexican Border War, Well, I would like to note that in those wars the United States itself initially invaded the territory of Canada and Mexico 37.54.230.242 (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bandit War[edit]

I have included some details of the Seditionist raids invading Texas during the Bandit War. The Seditionists were a proxy army set up by the Mexican government, their publicly stated goal was to reconquer the areas Mexico had lost to the United States in the Mexican American War, but the Mexican governments aim in supporting them was to force the hand of the United States in recognizing Carranza as the legitimate president of Mexico in exchange for a withdrawal of Mexican government support for the raiders.XavierGreen (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the United States also got into the affairs of Mexico, especially after the start of the First World War, as it thought that Mexico could be used by the German government to invade the United States 37.54.230.242 (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mainland invasion of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign power?[edit]

The American War of Independence circa 1776 - mentioned in the second paragraph of the article - suggests that the military history of the United States started with that of a "foreign power on US soil". There are a few things wrong with this simplistic statement. First of all, it is a subjective statement. Even the name of the war is subjective: War of Independence versus a civil war. After all, it was only a war of independence because the separatist side won. Had it gone the other way, it would still have been called a civil war. Subjectively speaking, it was a civil war - fought between two side of the same country, over the issue of separatism.

Secondly, it's subjective (and technically incorrect) to suggest that there was a "foreign power" on "US soil". The United States of America wasn't set up until either the 4th of February, 4th of March, 6th of April or 30th of April 1789. The 'power' that was in the 13 colonies wasn't "foreign" (ignoring, for the sake of discusion, the native Americans and of course the USA itself should subjectively be considered a "foreign power" to this day). The 'power' and the citizens thereof were already present in the colonies well before the war was declared. A large majority of the people who fought on either side were either from the "foreign power" directly, or descended from people who were. They were all British subjects - even the people who were German or descended from Germans etc.

Is there a way of rephrasing this sentence in the second paragraph so that it's less subjective? --82.21.97.70 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guam[edit]

Why does invasion of Alaska when it was a territory of the US (aka, not yet a state) count as invasion of USA, but not Guam, which is/was also a territory?

2nd amendment power[edit]

There is no mention of Japan wary of invading full force due to the large number of civilians with guns. "Behind every blade of grass" 

 There also is no mention of the feasibility of a modern invasion with the civilians in possession of millions of firearms and the ammo to go with it, as well

as the popularity of night vision and infrared scopes, etc... in the hands of civilians. 

I can assure you, every enemy considers that carefully when considering an invasion of the USA. 135.26.105.191 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invasion_of_the_United_States&oldid=1206030805"