Ross Perot says America could be "taken over" by a hostile force.

[Deleted]

You are pretty naive if you think that US cant be "taken over" by a hostile force.
It is not very likely that someone we know about today will ever try, because the costs heavy outweights the reward.

We never know what could happen in the future. Aliens invasion, goverments collapsing or a extrem powerful pandemic could of course change the setting very drastic.

I think that US is most likely the most well defended country on earth, but no one is safe from everything.

[Deleted]

Just one of it's many benefits. We have guns, and everyone knows it. It is both a deterrent and a defense.

It's not the 18th century anymore. Your guns are no deterrent against a modern military with modern hardware.

[Deleted]

Well some time ago a well-known war-advisor and geopolitical scientist (don't know if those are right words because i am not a native english), said that if USA get into war with China ONLY, they would fail. Why? Because even if every missile/tank/plane would hit and destroy at least 1 of china's tank/plane/etc... they would still have enough man-power and war machines to ravage through the northren and western states like there is no tomorrow. Cause even if Chinas army is not so technologically advanced and modern as US one, they still have way way more stuff out there.
That was said when mrs Clinton said how much USA owes China in terms of long time debts.

Moreover, he states that the one and only solution would be to launch nuclear missiles to "win" such war, but anyway China's got their own nuclear missiles, many of them and it's not likely that every1 of those would be destroyed before it would reach it's target in US. Not to mention there is a Russia near China who won't stay neutral agaist such act, not to mention Pakista/India etc.

Every country might be brought down out there, and every leader/government know this...and that's also the reason the are no major wars going on out there.

[Deleted]

they would still have enough man-power and war machines to ravage through the northren and western states like there is no tomorrow. Cause even if Chinas army is not so technologically advanced and modern as US one, they still have way way more stuff out there.

All of this is pretty academic since neither country has the capability to physically move enough troops safely and quickly enough across the pacific to mount any kind of real ground assault.

[obdigore]

Well some time ago a well-known war-advisor and geopolitical scientist (don't know if those are right words because i am not a native english), said that if USA get into war with China ONLY, they would fail. Why? Because even if every missile/tank/plane would hit and destroy at least 1 of china's tank/plane/etc... they would still have enough man-power and war machines to ravage through the northren and western states like there is no tomorrow. Cause even if Chinas army is not so technologically advanced and modern as US one, they still have way way more stuff out there.
That was said when mrs Clinton said how much USA owes China in terms of long time debts.

Moreover, he states that the one and only solution would be to launch nuclear missiles to "win" such war, but anyway China's got their own nuclear missiles, many of them and it's not likely that every1 of those would be destroyed before it would reach it's target in US. Not to mention there is a Russia near China who won't stay neutral agaist such act, not to mention Pakista/India etc.

Every country might be brought down out there, and every leader/government know this...and that's also the reason the are no major wars going on out there.

China has no way of getting its troops across the ocean, much less any hope of supporting them logistically. They can't even move more than ~20% of their army out of their territory without facing riots and uprisings. The quote was that our forces do not have enough bullets, currently, to kill all of the men china could call upon. It said nothing about bombs/missiles, nor did it say anything about china actually moving out of their territory, if I remember correctly.

[Cakka]

All of this is pretty academic since neither country has the capability to physically move enough troops safely and quickly enough across the pacific to mount any kind of real ground assault.

This is the real issue which 95% don't seem to understand. It's not about US being able to mount a defence on US soil, but there simply isn't ANYONE even able to mount the offence.

Edit: And obviously even that is after the fact that something like that would doom the country trying economically and politically so there is absolutely no country that would even consider it, but the above is just for pure fantasy speculation that some country actually even wanted to do it.

[CptEgo]

Maybe not a single hostile force, but certainly to the European Union collaborating against USA. With USA not being able to set up bases or use harbors in Europe, it would be a very difficult war for the Americans.

[Cakka]

Maybe not a single hostile force, but certainly to the European Union collaborating against USA. With USA not being able to set up bases or use harbors in Europe, it would be a very difficult war for the Americans.

You don't understand it, it's not about numbers it's about logistics. I don't know if you are European but there has been some talk about here how poorly European countries can project force. EU countries couldn't even handle bombing the of Libya without US help and thats a country right next to us and which we could hit from our own bases and that just was just air superiority and strikes. Same goes for Russia and China.

[Deleted]

China is already 80% done with their invasion, they just go about it differently

[Reeve]

You don't understand it, it's not about numbers it's about logistics. I don't know if you are European but there has been some talk about here how poorly European countries can project force. EU countries couldn't even handle bombing the of Libya without US help and thats a country right next to us and which we could hit from our own bases and that just was just air superiority and strikes. Same goes for Russia and China.

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, eh?

[poser765]

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, eh?

Behind every great leader is a greater logistician

[Lumineus]

It's already happening.

Unless you think those troglodytes in the Tea Party don't qualify as a "hostile force."

[Reeve]

It's already happening.

Unless you think those troglodytes in the Tea Party don't qualify as a "hostile force."

The Tea Party isn't taking over squat. They're winning Republican primaries and possibly getting some Republican senators elected, which could shift the balance of the Senate. That'll change again in a couple years. They aren't going to win the presidency.

Basically, the more extreme elements of the Tea Party aren't doing Republicans any favors, because they're changing the tone of the party in ways that aren't sustainable long term. Republicans are going to have to move away from the Tea Party and back towards the center if they want any hope of staying relevant over the next couple decades.

[Deleted]

I don't know if you are European but there has been some talk about here how poorly European countries can project force.

It's because EU member states are not building their military forces to project force, but to rather defend their territories. And personally I don't think EU should ever aim to do it (look at where it has lead the US).

[Deleted]

Do you think America could be invaded and taken over by a hostile force?

Not currently, but if the trend continues for long then it will become reality. In that sense he's right.
And it's true that the US debt is a major issue that nobody is willing to admit. You will become the next Greece if you continue like this.

Also, the public opinion in the US is very skewed. Many seem to think that the US could never be the victim of a major attack.
Maybe it's because of the constant feeding of patriotism (American flags everywhere, saying America is the greatest country in the world, etc), but many are actually clueless as to the possibilities.

It's not impossible for the US to suffer a major attack by another country. Probably today they're still able to win.
But what about 10 or 20 years from now? 50 years from now? I don't see a bright future ahead for the US.

---------- Post added 2012-10-03 at 03:08 PM ----------

I don't know if you are European but there has been some talk about here how poorly European countries can project force.

That's true. Not long ago our most important weapon was economics. We could project force by sheer economic power.
So yeah, currently we're not that great either. The EU is still the biggest economic power block, but we're definitely weaker than a few years ago.

[pavdon]

No, a lot of our citizens have guns. Even if the force could destroy our government and military the occupiers would have to face pissed off US citizens with guns. It'd be a blood bath and very costly for all.

[Jackmoves]

Insurgents in the Middle East are basically making fertilizer bombs and using hand-me-down rifles from whatever organization that's supplying them and look at what they've accomplished. We've had a heavy presence in that area for how long now and we still don't have everything under wraps?

Less video game logic, more real life logic please

Are western people as batshit crazy as middle eastern insurgents though?
Are we ready to blow ourselfs up to kill a few "occupying" soldiers(like that dude that killed a few ISAF troops yesterday I think it was), he get on his bicyle straped a bomb on his chest and went "allah akbar".

Are we ready to be cannon fodder for our cause?
Are we as brave/crazy as those 3 dudes who will attack a full platoon, they know(or should know that their chances are slim) they will die, but they do it anyways.

Are we?

On-T: No army or country can invade the US or take it over.

[Suikoden]

Ross Perot was pretty over exaggerate about a "hostile" take over. A lot of our citizens have guns but that goes without saying. >.>;

[poser765]

Are western people as batshit crazy as middle eastern insurgents though?
Are we ready to blow ourselfs up to kill a few "occupying" soldiers(like that dude that killed a few ISAF troops yesterday I think it was), he get on his bicyle straped a bomb on his chest and went "allah akbar".

Are we ready to be cannon fodder for our cause?
Are we as brave/crazy as those 3 dudes who will attack a full platoon, they know(or should know that their chances are slim) they will die, but they do it anyways.

Are we?

On-T: No army or country can invade the US or take it over.

People do some crazy things when their homeland is invaded. Military occupations are typically NOT nice regardless of what country is doing it. It's also really dangerous to underestimate the effectiveness of partisans.

I would like to point out also that the US is huge. I mean really, bloody big! With a shit ton of people! I would imagine trying to occupy the United States would be like juggling knives. Sure you can get three going, but when a fourth is introduced you drop one and it cuts you.

[Reeve]

Ross Perot was pretty over exaggerate about a "hostile" take over. A lot of our citizens have guns but that goes without saying. >.>;

Ross Perot wasn't talking about a military takeover.