Disrupting infrastructure via Stuxnet-like attacks and EMP seems to be a good idea, too.
Invaded States of America
- Thread starter Tagaziel
- Start date
Tagaziel said:
That's a relatively realistic solution, "realistic" here being stretched to its maximum limits.
But I don't think it will be that hard to heavily destabilize US in the foreseeable future. It will destabilize itself, actually, and several nudges here and there should be enough to speed up the process.
But there's still a problem over who would invade.
Russia and/or China? North Korea?
I don't think NATO countries would try it, and will probably stand by US, which, again, results in global conflict.
Unless US itself, NATO and possibly EU fall apart first, there's little possibility of US being invaded without provoking a conflict on a global scale, and even then it will be a great risk.
Best solution, and the most unrealistic one - invade all US silos, or at least majority of them, point their own nukes at them, watch 'em burn, invade later on (if anything is left to invade) and you're good.
Yep, we're definitely on CIA watch list now.
realistically you would have to ask first why someone would invade the US. Is there a serious reason for a nation like China or Russia to invade US soil? So the question is what they would gain from it. Resources maybe? Political/ideological motivation? What I mean is that any risk you take here, like trying to conquer the USA, has to be outweighed by the gain.
TheGM
The voice of reason
The problem with the Economic Collapse scenario, is for that to work, to have US to be in such a state, do to Globalization the rest of the world would be in the same predicament.
Another problem with the America Civil War 2: The Revenging scenario is that no matter how much New York and Texas don't see eye to eye, they do get along on the whole not liking Not-America.
What I want to know is, what happens to the millions of troops who would be left here to fend for themselves after such a invasion failed.
Another problem with the America Civil War 2: The Revenging scenario is that no matter how much New York and Texas don't see eye to eye, they do get along on the whole not liking Not-America.
What I want to know is, what happens to the millions of troops who would be left here to fend for themselves after such a invasion failed.
depends I think, the US could be in a bad situation without the rest of world suffering from it. The US has sure some influence, but they are after all just a part of the world.
TheGM
The voice of reason
Well look what the housing bubble bursting did to the global economy. The EU got shaken up pretty bad, and we didn't even hear about the Chinese Investment groups do to the media black out over there.
That was nothing compared to entire an global infrastructure collapse that would make such a scenario possible.
That was nothing compared to entire an global infrastructure collapse that would make such a scenario possible.
valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Who knows, perhaps the mighty U.S. will bomb itself someday:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961
and we also managed to overcome it. Shaking up is a rather strong word I would say. The US is in my opinion in a worse position the Europe right now. But I am not some expert around economy. Could be wrong here. The economy world wide has issues, but those are if you ask me more because of global financial transactions with a very high frequency rather then a cause by the US economy alone. Is the world having issues because of the US? Or does the US have trouble because of the economic issues the world has? I tend to belive its more because the world as whole is creating bubbles, economic mistakes etc. I say it again, yes, the US is a very huge factor as far as the big picture goes, but I think the effect the US has on the market is also very overrated. Would it be bad if the US collapsed tomorrow? Sure. But I think the rest of the world would recover quickly.TheGM said:
and you're painting it like the US is the main power behind the world as whole. As I said already. The US is important on the world scene. But seriously, give the other nations a bit more credit as well. If the US would dissapear tomorrow do you really believe humanity as whole could not adabt somehow and move on? It would be harsh I never denied it. But it wouldn't be impossible.
Crni Vuk said:
Aside from painting, he has a point though.
If US would suddenly go down, it would bring a huge economy crisis to the world, a crisis in which many would, inevitably, suffer hard while others would potentially prosper, but I think more would be in the former situation.
US is still one of the biggest exporters and the biggest importer in the world. Imagine if it would go black. The consequences would be devastating to the economy.
Nonetheless, I suspect it would take far more than a decade for things to get in order, if order could be achieved at all. Economy is a fragile thing, as evidenced in 2008, and is tied to almost every human action on this planet. Just imagine the repercussions.
I'm no expert, but yes, I don't think the whole of the world would recover quickly. Some countries, sure, but the world on the whole would take quite some time to recuperate fully.
TheGM
The voice of reason
Shaken is applicable because it was. It wasn't dented, it wasn't cracked, it was shaken up a bit, and shaken up a bit to the point that the weaker members were close enough to the edge see a economic collapse that they had to hit the brakes.Crni Vuk said:
Parts of Europe would disagree with you. The U.S. much like The E.U. depends on where. Some are places doing stronger than others.
Economies go up and down, but globalization increases the effects exponentially. look at the Panic of 1890, one English Bank fails and it dominoes across the globe
Then you don't know the US Economy. There are states with higher GDP than nations. Texas alone has a higher one than most European countries and they aren't even number 1.
Would the human race get over it? Sure, but I don't see how species relations has to do with the economic repercussions of such a thing. The economy and lifestyle that we know would vanish for quite sometime for most of the planet. and I'll say the same thing if the EU of China fell. the economies of the world are too connected to not avoid the aftermath of such a event.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
So none of you slapdicks has ever played Fortress America I take it?
Too many interdependencies. USA runs huge trade and borrowing defecits. Losing a market/borrower like that would drag more than just the US down with it. What the fuck's China going to do with warehouses full of plastic SpongeBob nativity scenes?TheGM said:
maybe I should have been more specific, when I said "quickly" i meant faster then from the collapse of the roman empire.
Look. I never denied the importance of the USA on the world or economy, be it Europe, or anywhere else. And yes it would be a huge tragedy with lots and lots of tears and all that stuff when the US would go down (economically speaking). But please don't think so much in "black or white" scenarios here, you guys understand that its a rather complex topic and I am just making general statements.
But I believe that just like in the past, when some "empire" or "super power" disappeared, someone or something else would fill that hole. Its just natural. The US is not some special snowflake here and its the US that needs the world not the world the US, to speak so.
Look. I never denied the importance of the USA on the world or economy, be it Europe, or anywhere else. And yes it would be a huge tragedy with lots and lots of tears and all that stuff when the US would go down (economically speaking). But please don't think so much in "black or white" scenarios here, you guys understand that its a rather complex topic and I am just making general statements.
But I believe that just like in the past, when some "empire" or "super power" disappeared, someone or something else would fill that hole. Its just natural. The US is not some special snowflake here and its the US that needs the world not the world the US, to speak so.
Shoveler said:
The US does need the world.
It isn't elitism, it is very good old fashioned common sense.
I like americans. I like the culture. I like what they try to achieve, what the nation is trying to strive for.
But sorry to say it like that, yes some Amurricans need a reminder that they are not the center of the world nor the world politics, that they are a part of this world and that they depend on it just as much like any other nation does.
But sorry to say it like that, yes some Amurricans need a reminder that they are not the center of the world nor the world politics, that they are a part of this world and that they depend on it just as much like any other nation does.
I don't see it happen in the current situation. Too costly and risky for a dubious benefit. If a country or a coalition of countries have the resources to try something like that they probably could waste the US with nukes or bios. Of course they would have to suffer retaliation and we could play out Fallout for real afterwards.
As you pointed out in your scenario tag, only by weakening the US, possibly breaking them up, an invasion could work. But at that point, why bother? As crni vuk said, you need a good reason to try an invasion on this scale, a reason that outweighs the risks. So, if the US is perceived as an enemy and you successfully weakened them and split up the union, why bother with invasion, taking the risk of uniting them again against a common enemy? Even if there was no united front against an aggressor, a few well placed nukes will make sure no one benefits from the invasion. I think the scenario would only be possible at a point where it is no longer necessary. Wasn't there that funny 80's movie where a bunch of kids formed a resistance movement after a sovjet invasion of the US? Stuff like that won't happen.
Though I wondered what would happen if some really ugly disaster happened, that forced people to migrate/invade, no matter what the cost. Was it in "day after tomorrow" where the US evacuated to mexico and in some scene the president thanked the Mexican government? I think if shit like that went down, the US would simply invade central America and not ask politely to get a place in a refugee camp. So, if somehow china got uninhabitable (nuclear contamination? Some biological weapon turned loose?) they might consider invading some other place, even if it was dangerous to do so. Still, I think Australia would be a better candidate for this than the US.
As for the economic debate: the US economy is essential for the world to operate the way it did and does. It is not essential if the chips are down and war threatens. It is completely uninteresting for a country in wartime if the citizens don't get the new x-box or can no longer get a new car every two years. It does not matter if traded company stock goes down the drain or banks get a headache. You need money? Print it, after all it's just a way to regulate and facilitate trade and use it as a rationing system (I have a million loaves of bread so I turn out a million coupons and fuck the exchange and the "worth" of bread).
Only the ability to grow food, the ability to keep your troops operational and a way to impose internal order are the very basic necessities of a nation. No one stopped firing in WW I or II because they ran out of money, but because they ran out of people, ammunition and land to fight for. The economic impact of a war is only relevant after it's end. And if you win, there are no debts afterwards. If you loose, you got other problems than a big bill. And after the Invasion there would be a winner, if it’s the Chinese (or whoever) they will use that currency and system to get things going again. If the US wins, it's back to the dollar. All those companies worth billions, brand names traded for billions, putting a price tag of billions on real estate no one has ever seen and trading that stuff is just fluff. Any country can disown land and property, can release a new currency or go back to using the very basic economic unit which is not a dollar, a yen or a piece of gold but a bullet out of a gun of a soldier or policeman.
It will make the citizens pretty angry of course, but a nation will do a lot to prevent it from dying. And as long as you promise jam for tomorrow, everything will be fine. And who knows? There might be jam.
As you pointed out in your scenario tag, only by weakening the US, possibly breaking them up, an invasion could work. But at that point, why bother? As crni vuk said, you need a good reason to try an invasion on this scale, a reason that outweighs the risks. So, if the US is perceived as an enemy and you successfully weakened them and split up the union, why bother with invasion, taking the risk of uniting them again against a common enemy? Even if there was no united front against an aggressor, a few well placed nukes will make sure no one benefits from the invasion. I think the scenario would only be possible at a point where it is no longer necessary. Wasn't there that funny 80's movie where a bunch of kids formed a resistance movement after a sovjet invasion of the US? Stuff like that won't happen.
Though I wondered what would happen if some really ugly disaster happened, that forced people to migrate/invade, no matter what the cost. Was it in "day after tomorrow" where the US evacuated to mexico and in some scene the president thanked the Mexican government? I think if shit like that went down, the US would simply invade central America and not ask politely to get a place in a refugee camp. So, if somehow china got uninhabitable (nuclear contamination? Some biological weapon turned loose?) they might consider invading some other place, even if it was dangerous to do so. Still, I think Australia would be a better candidate for this than the US.
As for the economic debate: the US economy is essential for the world to operate the way it did and does. It is not essential if the chips are down and war threatens. It is completely uninteresting for a country in wartime if the citizens don't get the new x-box or can no longer get a new car every two years. It does not matter if traded company stock goes down the drain or banks get a headache. You need money? Print it, after all it's just a way to regulate and facilitate trade and use it as a rationing system (I have a million loaves of bread so I turn out a million coupons and fuck the exchange and the "worth" of bread).
Only the ability to grow food, the ability to keep your troops operational and a way to impose internal order are the very basic necessities of a nation. No one stopped firing in WW I or II because they ran out of money, but because they ran out of people, ammunition and land to fight for. The economic impact of a war is only relevant after it's end. And if you win, there are no debts afterwards. If you loose, you got other problems than a big bill. And after the Invasion there would be a winner, if it’s the Chinese (or whoever) they will use that currency and system to get things going again. If the US wins, it's back to the dollar. All those companies worth billions, brand names traded for billions, putting a price tag of billions on real estate no one has ever seen and trading that stuff is just fluff. Any country can disown land and property, can release a new currency or go back to using the very basic economic unit which is not a dollar, a yen or a piece of gold but a bullet out of a gun of a soldier or policeman.
It will make the citizens pretty angry of course, but a nation will do a lot to prevent it from dying. And as long as you promise jam for tomorrow, everything will be fine. And who knows? There might be jam.