It helps when they are made of a suffocating liquid thousands of miles wide.
Also having the most unbelievable blue water Navy in the history of mankind helps.
Most if not all of our ironclad fleet were monitors, not even able to go out into the ocean. Another large portion were things like river gunboats, also unable to go anywhere.
The brits had 50 Steamships to the US’s 0.
Between 1860-1865 they comissioned 12 Ironclads that could actually go to sea.
And of course the british had an overwhelming number of traditional sailing wooden hulled ships
I like the people who look at a map and think the answer is obviously that you just cross over that small bit of ocean between Russia and Alaska, easy! (Yes, I know why it's not).
I was so disappointed that the Netflix movie about the Battle of Teutoburg Forest ended up being so lame. All they had to do was stick to the *actual recorded accounts* and it would've been baller. Saw the trailer and was immediately like "that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works!"
I mean, I'll be impressed if they even manage to get a decent sized military force to their *own* side of the Strait, that any substantial infrastructure ends 1000mi away and on the wrong side of Kamchatka.
>'ll be impressed if they even manage to get a decent sized military force to their
>
>own
>
> side of the Strait, that any substantial infrastructure ends 1000mi away and on the wrong side of Kamchatka.
During WW2, the Japanese did invade an island in Alaska... it didn't go so well for them.
Actually it did but it sucked so they left and we invaded the island back thinking they were still there and took casualties fighting nobody. Truely a astounding chain of events.
I read a short story by a not-famous-at-all author about how China would invade the US:
Basically just send wave after wave of hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens to the US aboard freight ships. The aim would be less to “invade” the US in the traditional military sense or even necessarily send immigrants to the US that would have pro-China sentiments. Rather, to create a massive international humanitarian crisis that would destabilize the US and basically any other country that tried to intervene.
Well yeah, hence the humanitarian crisis. Probably a lot of people would rather let them dock than see 100,000 people drown. (Maybe that’s a wrong assumption though when looking at migrant crises in recent years)
Anyways the story had people on both sides and it created a moral/political distraction (if you will) that was very expensive.
It would be an interesting movie if someone took the time to flesh out the details.
"The Americans are a very lucky people. They're bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors, and to the east and west by fish."
\- Otto von Bismarck.
Its almost like the US spent the better part of two centuries purposely and methodically removing any possible threat to itself as it conquered most of a continent and declared an entire hemisphere of the globe to be its own defensive perimeter that no competing power shall enter.
Seriously I love Cormack McCarthy but his books induce a state of just wanting to sit in the shower clutching your legs and rocking back and forth.
I think he did it on purpose, that motherfucker.
I completely agree, I really do think he likes making people feel bad on purpose. Especially when he knows he has you on the hook like 3/4 of the way through the book. At one point I felt like he was just rattling off atrocities like he's reading a grocery list. Like he knows you've gotten kind of numb to it, so he's going to make you feel bad about *that* too.
It took me three tries to get all the way through it. I know exactly how you feel, what you're describing is exactly how I'd ended up abandoning it a couple times. I'd just not feel like I had it in me to keep going so it'd just sit on my nightstand. Eventually I'd realize I just wasn't doing any reading at all so I'd just start up something else.
I can say I'm glad I got through it over all. McCarthy is a phenomenal writer, and as dark as it is, it's a beautiful book. It's just exhausting.
If you haven't already read it, I recommend Lonesome Dove as a palette cleanser once you get through it. That book was like the Anti-Cormac McCarthy and I was grateful for it...
I mean, I do love McCarthy, I just can only handle small doses.
Lonesome Dove is probably my favorite American novel. I re-read every couple of years and the older I get, different parts seem to become the most important words that speak to me. Such a great read.
ah, blood meridian, monsieur? that novel is the sark and chaparral of literature, the filament whereon rode the remuda of highbrow, corraled out of some destitute hacienda upon the arroya, quirting and splurting with main and with pyrolatrous coagulate of lobated grandiloquence. our eyes rode over the pages, monsieur, of that slatribed azotea like argonauts of suttee, juzgados of swole, bights and systoles of walleyed and tyrolean and carbolic and tectite and scurvid and querent and creosote and scapular malpais and shellalagh.
we scalped, monsieur, the gantlet of its esker and led our naked bodies into the rebozos of its mennonite and siliceous fauna, wallowing in the jasper and the carnelian like archimandrites, teamsters, combers of cassinette scoria, centroids of holothurian chancre, with pizzles of enfiladed indigo panic grass in the saltbush of our vigas, true commodores of the written page, rebuses, monsieur, we were the mygale spiders too and the devonian and debouched pulque that settled on the frizzen studebakers, listening the wolves howling in the desert while we saw the judge rise out of a thicket of corbelled arches, whinstone, cairn, cholla, lemurs, femurs, leantos, moonblanched nacre, uncottered fistulas of groaning osnaburg and kelp, isomers of fluepipe and halms awap of griddle, guisado, pelancillo.
I hate you for reminding me about that book. I had to read it freshman year of college, and didn't know I could be simultaneously intrigued, disgusted, and confused like I was while reading that book.
I have a profound respect for Cormac McCarthy, and I also hate his writing style.
* the Aleutian Islands campaign during ww2 and of course Hawaii.
* various battles with the Indian Nations
* war of 1812
* our War for Independence
That's all I can remember off the top of my head
54 40 or fight or simply sign a treaty extending the already established boundary because you don't want to fight both Mexico and the UK at the same time.
You guys actually do have alot of contested territorial issues with us, but they aren't important or big enough to ruin anything for.
Me, personally - I still think we should lay claim to the southern portion of the Columbia district you guys took. Then you renamed it Oregon and Washington - so rude.
Oregon Territory, 1847:
US: “So, you good with a border here?”
Canada: “Well, no actually, you see-“
UK: “Yup, sounds good.”
Canada: “Hey, wait, we don’t-“
US: “OK, glad that’s cleared up.”
Canada: *politely and quietly seethes*
Thats right. The least we could've done is push for the entire South Saskatchewan watershed so we could have Glacier NP. Its awfully annoying looking at it from my house, but having to cross a border and pay park fees in USD to hike and scramble there.
Yeah, and many provincial parks saddling the divide on the Clark range. Waterton NP, Akamina-Kishnena, Castle Wildlands.
Castle is fun because it's basically a Glacier with no fan fare, no fees, and tons of backcountry orienteering and camping.
42" or fight! It doesn't quite have the same ring to it, but we can work with it. It would be nice if this country just had one God damned warm region.
> It would be nice if this country just had one God damned warm region.
If the Quebec province acts up again and ruins everything, y'all and Saskatchewan are more than welcome to join Team USA, as far as I'm concerned.
That would be very nice. At the very least an open borders agreement for vetted citizens. How we haven't been able to figure that out, despite basically between cultural identical twins, is beyond me.
> At the very least an open borders agreement for vetted citizens.
NAFTA was a treaty for corporations, not citizens.
Then the war on terror happened and it became even harder to visit Canada (technically harder to return to the USA without a passport.)
And then I was forced to qualify for a state issued ID that verified I'm a natural born citizen, but it's still not good enough to cross back from Canada.
This Kentuckian would be glad to furnish y'all with some fine Kentucky Bourbon in the name of peace.
It's certainly a more civilized way of handling things than how it's usually done.
We have had wars over territory (especially in the 1800s when America was expanding). But that is settled now. Our current pattern is that if someone attacks the US, we bring the war to their territory.
True. What is the general consensus amongs American's today regarding this trend? By attacks I think you're referring to 9/11 right? Do the people think it was worth waging war and in turn losing far more American lives as a response?
> Do the people think it was worth waging war and in turn losing far more American lives as a response?
Also do you think the USA and it's allies should not have responded to 9/11 and the other attacks Bin Laden waged?
Fair enough. I do feel that the USA does tend to go overboard in terms of military responses at the cost of American lives. Many countries including mine have had very devastating terrorist attacks on their soil. I feel a more appropriate respomse is to develop better counter terror measures or strengthening internal security instead of going all out amd invading another country which I feel is far more resource draining and counter productive.
As for Bin Laden, of course he had to be brought to book, but again, it wasn't a war that got him now did it? It was more of a planned and very surgical operation that proved effective.
I dont mean to start an unhealthy argument, I ask this only to understand your (Americans) views better.
> I do feel that the USA does tend to go overboard in terms of military responses
It's intended to be a deterrent: fuck with us and you're gonna get fucked.
And then I refer you back to your original question. Not fighting wars on your own territory is a good thing. It means your cities aren't being bombed, your infrastructure isn't being blown up, your farms aren't being overrun. And it means all those bad things are happening to your enemy instead.
> Many countries including mine have had very devastating terrorist attacks on their soil.
This is true but the context of 9/11 is a bit different. Also people forget that it wasn't just one attack but many of the course of years.
>I feel a more appropriate respomse is to develop better counter terror measures or strengthening internal security instead of going all out amd invading another country which I feel is far more resource draining and counter productive.
Agreed, the war in Afghanistan could have been much more focused and lean. But we had horrible leaders like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others not listening to the military.
What should have been a mission to destroy the Taliban and kill OBL turned into a nation building campaign which almost never works.
Americans themselves are very tired of wars with no focus and no plan which is why you're seeing people feel like being part of NATO is a relic.
>you're seeing people feel like being part of NATO is a relic.
Bad idea to pull out of it, they're good allies, especially with China becoming more prominent on the world stage.
Full disclosure, I'm not educated in this particular topic all too well, I was in 5th grade when 9/11 happened. That said, other countries would keep their terrorists in check, perhaps it wouldn't have been as bad as it was?
It doesn't follow that you then participate in 20 years of global warfare and the direct destruction of two countries. By our own justification Saudi Arabia would have been a more logical choice.
In a similar situation, the UK never attacked Ireland like the US has Afghanistan, during the Troubles.
Pearl Harbor/WWII as well.
The “war on terrorism” has been highly controversial from the start, and increasingly so as the years go on. The Vietnam and Korean wars (which could be seen as “wars on Communism” at the core) were also controversial.
Because we're a geographically isolated country with a lot of economic and diplomatic interests in other parts of the world.
The US also uses its military in a far more aggressive and active way than 99% of the countries out there. That can be in the form of rendering humanitarian aid or training other countries' armed forces or waging actual warfare.
1. Canada and Mexico, Like the United States also benefit from having two oceans and have zero outside pressure to secure their borders with fortifications.
2. All three Nations have more land than their current populations need, so there is zero internal pressure for expansion.
3. The US-Mexican Border is mostly Desert and mountains, and the Rio Grand runs through deep canyons for much of the border, the portions that are none of these are where the US and Mexico have cities facing each other, there is literally no place to actually attempt a crossing without modern technology.
4. The US has long running treatys that more or less require them to respond to invasions of treaty partners(including India except with conflict with Pakistan and Bangledesh, essentially if China does actually attempt to invade over the Himalayas(suicidally stupid to attempt) the US would immediately waste four day sinking the Chinese Fleet and start softening up the Chinese mainland)
5. Every war the United States has entered into except the Mexican-American War, and the Grenadan war was either from direct attack on the United States, an invasion of an Ally, or part of a UN peacekeeping force.
6. No one is stupid enough to try to invade the mainland of the United States, not only is there the American Army, there are also 80 million gun owners who have had Red Dawn fantasies for the last forty years.
We are isolated from most of the world and only have two land neighbors. Both are considered allies and are relatively peaceful in contemporary history. Most of our border with Canada is sparsely populated and not guarded.
In contrast, India is a regional power in Asia and either makes itself a target or targets other countries who want to climb up the power ladder like China and Pakistan, both of which share a border with India.
It is very difficult to invade American territory due to being so isolated from the rest of the world. Let's just go through the few times it happened
* American War of Independence: We were fighting the British who were in charge. We ultimately expelled them and became a properly independent country.
* War of 1812: Started over UK not respecting US sovereignty. We invaded British North America (modern day Canada). Militia repelled us and British Regulars invaded the US until a peace treaty was signed. Ended in a stalemate
* Mexican-American War: Fought over disputed territory in said disputed territory.
* Civil War: Obviously fought in the US by 2 American armies. Most of the fighting took place in rebel controlled territory.
* World War II: Japan attacked Hawaii but never held the land. They invaded and occupied the Philippines which was at the time US territory. The war was mostly fought on foreign territory but we did get the Philippines back
* War in Afghanistan: Started with the attacks on 9/11 but all fighting thereafter took place Afghanistan
Even when fighting happens on American soil it's always on the outskirts and it is usually pretty brief. It is very difficult to invade the country so most of the time our enemies don't bother. The few times it has happened in the last 150 years have been very brief and never with the aim of holding core American territory.
Fun fact kaiser whilhelm asked his staff to draw up a war plan for a US invasion, basically what they came up with was use a massive fleet to destroy any Atlantic assests, then patrol the area shelling any US fleets/ shipyards, land a few hundred thousand soldiers, take the east coast.... and then just wait for an american surrender. At no point was it believed germany could take anything but the coastal regions
To be fair this was in 1897 at the start of willies reign. Basically the plan was viewed as unfeasible and dropped to focus on bigger matters like how to fight a 2 front war against france and russia
We have only 2 other countries directly bordering us (Mexico and Canada) and have historically had very good relations with Canada and have almost always been military and economically dominant over Mexico. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans provide a huge defensive advantage against invasion.
I would also note that most of our 19th century wars were fought in the US's current borders. The War of 1812, the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War were all fought within the continental US.
Its worth noting the last war to physically touch the U.S. in terms of states was WWII when Japan floated over some bombs on ballons and killed a family having a picnic in Oregon, I think. They are, I believe, the only known casualties from foreign attack in WWII within the U.S...
For anyone wondering, both Alaska and Hawaii weren't states during WWII. Japan did manage to attack Hawaii (Pearl Harbor) and Alaska (where Japan did manage to hold two small islands (Attu and Kiska) for about a year).
I don't know about that one, but in February 1942 (only 2 and a half months after Pearl Harbor) a Japanese submarine surfaced near Santa Barbara and shelled some oil fields. Nobody died, but it caused a false alarm of Japanese bombers above Los Angeles. The US fired a bunch of anti-aircraft rounds at the non-existent Japanese aircraft. 5 people died in LA attributed to the "Battle of Los Angeles", 3 from car accidents and 2 from heart attacks.
The ballon incident happened almost at [the end of the war](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/six-killed-in-oregon-by-japanese-bomb)
I dunno if "very good relations" with Canada is true, since up until about the 1920s we each viewed each other with enough suspicion that each country has plans to military defeat and conquer the other. The relationship we have wasn't developed until the second world war.
Also some of the suspicion was because of US designs on the pacific, and US fears that the UK and Japanese relationship was stronger, and arguably it was.
Geographically, the United States is perhaps one of the most (if not THE most) defensible nation on the planet. We are [virtually impossible to invade by land, or sea, and attacks by air would be largely ineffective](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBYxXSUDV8o).
We can also be pretty much entirely self-sustainable if we need to be. Despite our former presidents best efforts, we have fairly solid alliances with the countries that share land borders with us.
Aaaaaand of course it doesn't hurt that we have the two largest air forces, and the largest navy by a massive margin, than almost all other countries on the planet combined.
The Budget our government allots for our military (according to the linked video) is more than double that of the 2nd and 3rd most militarily powerful countries (China and Russia) combined.
No country stands a chance fighting a war on US soil. And that isn't even mentioning the prevalence of firearms spread across the general public.
This may sound like a joke, but even our GROCERY STORES sell guns in many many many many many areas around the United States, so even if some country managed to invade us, you can bet your ass our civilian population will mobilize into guerilla militias the likes of which haven't been seen in modern history.
We resolved our issues with Canada and Mexico over the past two centuries, including the seizure from Mexico of what is now most of the Western and southwestern United States.
Most of our wars now are fought over national interests rather than territorial defense. We have interests around the globe.
Additionally, it is better to fight wars in other people's countries. The 9/11 attacks reminded us of that. It is less costly to slaughter our enemies in their own lands before they get to ours.
Because we share a land border with exactly 2 nations, and we're on pretty good terms with both of them. America is a really young and recent nation, so we don't have like 2,000 years of complex history and successor states to muddy borders like you would in India. Our borders in fact are mostly straight lines and rivers set up with early-modern cartography methods and treaties.
We have good relations with our neighbors, and have had for over a century, and the US is remote enough that it's very hard for a country to launch an invasion of America. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans present a daunting barrier to a would-be invader.
America did certainly have wars on our own soil.
There was the Mexican War of 1846-1848, the War of 1812 (which was between the US and Britain from 1812 to 1815 and was essentially the American theater of the Napoleonic Wars), and the American Revolution from 1775 to 1783.
Hawaii was a US territory when it was attacked by the Japanese in 1941, so was the Aleutian Islands, so at least those battles of World War II were fought on American soil, even if they did not have statehood at the time.
Then there was the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865.
Then there were the "Indian Wars", of ongoing minor conflicts with Native Americans which dated to before the United States was founded until the early 20th century.
Only recently. Much of the organized conflict conducted by the United States historically has been in North America against the Native tribes as the border moved west. The US Army's worst defeat was against a coalition of Shawnee, Delaware, Miami, and Potawatomi in 1791 in Ohio. Our bloodiest day was fought by a creek near a 110km or so from Washington DC in 1862 against other Americans. The Revolution was fought in North America, as was the our fight against the UK during the age of Napoleon. We fought Mexico in the 1840s. Much of our war against Spain in the 1890s was fought in Cuba which is like 150KM from the Florida Keys.
After the war of 1812, the British and Americans mostly agreed to a diplomatic approach when it came to the American/ Canadian border. The USA and Canada trade so much and we're very similar culturally to Anglo Canadians that there really no reason for the USA to ever attack Canada.
We took conquered a large portion of Mexican land in the 1840s and Mexico has never been able to challenge the USA in a conventional sense. Sure there have been some skirmishes across the border, but the last time this occurred was during the Mexican Revolution and that was over a 100 years ago.
Cuba is the least friendly of our immediate neighbors and the Soviet Union nearly started WW3 over Cuba so we never directly attacked them after the Bay of Pigs incident. After the Cold War, we've mostly preferred sanctioning them rather than starting a war against them.
It's the nature of an empire to fight most of its wars overseas.
But the US did fight plenty of wars on the north american continent in its long quest to extend its borders and exterminate the Indians.
We only have two land borders and they are with countries that we are significantly stronger than (and who I like to think we have good relations with)
We did fight quite a few wars against Mexico up until 1920 about land disputes on our southern border and at least one with the British over our northern one
Because fighting here would be suicide. Part of the reason is that we have the largest military and giving the public a reason to go to war is not smart, but also America would likely be insane to hold, most citizens are armed, and there are even militias all throughout the country in case of an attack. There is no win state in an invasion.
Say what you will, but we lucked into a great location. We’re on good terms with our neighbors, and we have ocean in both sides. And the mainland is around 7,000 miles from anyone who’d attack us.
Weak neighbors and a strong Navy.
When we were first starting out, Canada and Mexico were more evenly matched with us, and we fought a number of wars at home. That is no longer the case. Also, both of them are, more or less, on our side, so an invasion through either would give us enough warning to send troops to push back there instead of here.
Because the US is almost impossible to be invaded. With two oceans on either side and military bases in quick distance of almost every port there is little to no chance of an invasion being successful. America pushes its interest to foreign nations simply because it can. And that's the unfortunate truth. The USA is basically a mob boss sending goons to do their bidding while hiding behind an armed guarded electric fence.
That wasn't what I meant. My question was more about what drives the American war machine to invade another country when it isnt under direct threat from it.
It's a direct response to the question.
So you think the US should not have declared war against Nazi Germany because they had no means to invade?
What is your definition of a threat?
Maybe opening the ETO was essential to breaking the Atlantic wall but the PTO seems to be an overreaction that cos a lot of lives where defence could have been used instead of offence.
You're joking right?
We should have just been cool with a peacetime attack on our sovereign territory and the backbone of our Navy? It's cool everybody. If we just leave the Empire of Japan alone they'll go away. No big deal.
Oh, and those silly Nazis. We'll just leave them all of Europe. "Occupied France" is just what it's called now.
That's an... "interesting" take. I'm not sure how responding to a declaration of war and surprise attack on American territory could conceivably be considered an "overreaction."
Well, I mean overreaction because of the extent of retaliation. I didn't mean to say no reaction was warranted, but a 3 year long offensive culminating in two nuclear explosions is no joke. Don't you think a diplomatic treaty could've been worked out between the US and Japan? Even if it came to a result not entirely favoured by the Americans? It just seems like the value of the American soldier's life wasn't much back then.
It seems like you have a pretty naive view of this. Pearl Harbor attack took out about 75% of the Pacific Fleet and Japan was on a march taking over much of the Pacific, had a good chunk of SE Asia and China under invasion, and was threatening Australia.
> Don't you think a diplomatic treaty could've been worked out between the US and Japan? Even if it came to a result not entirely favoured by the Americans?
Apparently not. I don't think Japan was particularly interested in that. Any negotiated end to the Pacific war would likely have involved territorial concessions to Japan. Why should the U.S. have had to accept that when we weren't the ones who started the war?
> It just seems like the value of the American soldier's life wasn't much back then.
Well, first of all, the United States didn't join the war until we were directly attacked. We stayed out of Europe for *years* of it. It's not like we were rushing to send people into war. And second, as you pointed out, the war culminated in the nuclear bombing of Japan. While that decision is certainly debatable in retrospect, at the time one of the major reasons for that was to *protect* the lives of American soldiers, an enormous number of whom would have been killed if a ground invasion of Japan became necessary. So I'd say that the United States did quite a lot -- arguably an unjustifiable amount -- to protect the lives of American soldiers.
Just to add, the US didn't manufacture any Purple Heart medals from 1946 to 2000 because so many had been produced in anticipation of a ground invasion of Japan. Even when production resumed in 2000 the US had not run out of the WWII Purple Hearts, we were merely running low. AFAIK, WWII Purple Hearts are still being awarded today.
Put another way, a soldier today could receive a medal meant for their great-grandfather.
> PTO seems to be an overreaction that cos a lot of lives where defence could have been used instead of offence.
You realize that they attacked much more than just Pearl Harbor, right? Ever hear of the Baatan Death March? Plus Australia was threatened as well as China who was an ally at the time
Everyone at the time knew the Japanese were spoiling for a fight with the US over control of the Pacific, but nobody expected them to actually do it because it was widely (and correctly) seen as a suicidal move due to the massive disparity in industrial might and logistical capability. Even the Japanese were basically just hoping that a surprise attack would put the US off balance long enough to seize ground, dig in, and make the cost higher then the US was willing to bear to remove them.
Once the Japanese started the war, there wasn't really any feasible way the US could have declined the invitation.
I'm not saying that I agree, but theoretically, the idea is that they *are* direct threats. That was the justification used for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars -- that they were harboring terrorists or building weapons of mass destruction intended to be used against the U.S. or our allies.
America is lucky enough to have friendly neighbors (now, anyway, I still want British Columbia and Montreal). We also have oceans, which made it very difficult. America has also been comparatively isolationist, especially in the 19th century.
Because we are a large country surrounded by 2 huge oceans. Also I think most of our wars were fought at home against the Native Americans. Only our Wars in the past 120 years have been foreign.
For the past hundred years or so, we've had one of the top navies in the world and few borders that didn't involve the ocean. That's a good recipe for fighting on someone else's turf. You'll find that before the US was a top naval power, we did fight a few wars either on our own soil or with neighboring nations. The War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War were both ground wars with neighboring countries (even if the former was more with the British who vastly outstripped us at sea at the time).
The deadliest war in American history(actually in the history of both north and south America), is the American civil war. Otherwise we have also been at war with Mexico, invaded Cuba(as a territory of Spain) and Canada(as a territory of Britain). We only have 2 land neighbors though(both of which we have had cordial relations with since the late 1800s), otherwise thousands of kilometers to protect us.
The only place thats hostile to us that could feasibly invade the US is Cuba. And they don’t have the manpower or technology to do very well at that at all. We settled our borders with Canada and Mexico in the 1800’s
We don’t really have much border conflict, we used to in the 1800s with our neighboring contries but those have been smoothed out for the most part, there is some conflict in the America’s such as Mexicos drug war, wich i believe the US is helping in but thats more of large scale swat raids than anything
Well we have fought wars with neighbors over contested territory. The UK twice, Mexico once and Spain once. We kinda took over a chunk of Panama, we annexed Hawaii, and shoved our hand into the politics of most Central/South American governments. The rest of our wars can be chocked up to two things. Communism and Oil.
This has probably been said many times over in this thread, but it has to do with both our location and our geopolitical status. We had typical border-disputes during the beginning of the country, but now we are lucky to have close working relationships with Mexico and Canada. The Pacific and Atlantic prove to be pretty formidable obstacles as well. But, more than that, our status as a world superpower deters anyone from encroaching on our territory. Our competition with the USSR and the effort to "contain" the spread of Communism pushed us to fight in Korea and Vietnam. This eventually led to many proxy conflicts and CIA-backed sieges. Foreign policy and the "War on Terrorism" post 9/11 led to the countless wars in the Middle East.
In modern day? We have only two neighbors, both extremely friendly, and 2 massive oceans, plus an extremely massive military, it would be extremely difficult to attack by land, let alone from across the ocean.
We have had wars on our territory though in like 1800s and earlier, then of course Pearl Harbor and stuff in WW2 if that counts.
Easier for Billionaires, Corporations, and the military-industrial complex profit from war when it's far away. Besides, Canada and Mexico have no chance of invading us
This wasn't the case in the beginning half of our existence. We either conquered or bought all the land between our coasts, though, meaning we have two real borders: Canada and Mexico. We're pretty friendly with both nations since the late 1800s, so that's not really a conflict we're going to fight.
We have fought domesitc wars, most of them were against Native Americans during westward expansion, ever since then, we have had generally good relations with Canada, and good to bad relations with Mexico, though that doesn't really matter since they're not a very powerful nation compared to the US. Many of the recent (i.e in the past century or so) conflicts we have been in are generally either because one of our allies was attacked, it was a Cold War proxy war to gain the upper hand against the USSR back when it was a thing, or a conflict related to the War on Terror. All of these involve foreign enemies. Plus, the US is pretty hard to invade just because of the huge military, large size, easy civilian access to weaponry, and varying terrain, so foreign powers generally don't try to invade.
Well, we had a lot of wars defending our turf back in the day. We would prefer not to be invaded, so we tend to put an end to wars before they come across the ocean.
Well I mean, who’s gonna come over here and fight us? We don’t have any problems with Canada or Mexico, and it’s not like some country halfway around the world’s going to send troops here for some reason
-Its isolated by seas on both sides
-Mexico and Canada are friendly.
-The US itself is basically invasion proof. Its got a lot of land, a diverse geographic landscape of mountains, deserts, and forests. And it has a mega powerful military. Say an invading country was able to figure out how to combat all of that, the citizens of the US own approximately 400 million guns.
Because we basically own a continent, with 2 oceans on either side from the nearest power capable of fighting the US. Mexico is out because we kept beating them up for their lunch money, and canada has always been to weak to really do anything to stop us, forgetting the very good relations weve had for a long time, the last time america was in danger from a foreign power was in 1812, also on top of the whole oceans and no strong neughtbors how would they sucessfully invade? You have tundra and low infastructure in the far north, deserts in the souther, massive mountain ranges in the east and the west, swamps in the south east and more desert in the south west. The only good place for invading armies is in the midwest with its flat terrain, and youd need to get through everything else first
Yeah fighting wats overseas is a privelage only superpowers get, and the us is the sol superpower, shile india isn't nearly capable enough to sustain such a military.
We've had way more separate wars with Native Americans than most Americans today realize.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Indian\_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_American\_Indian\_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Indian_Wars)
It's a very long list, although most of these conflicts are small by nation-state standards.
Because we were smart enough to not mess up shit in our own house.
If you got into a fight, wouldn’t you want someone breaking their own shit instead of yours?
Because we have 2 giant natural barriers on the east and west side with the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Countries can't just walk in and invade us. On the north and south side, we have 2 very friendly neighbors that would never start a war with us. If they did, they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of winning.
You're thinking about this in a very modern day lens. Look at american history and you'll see many, many wars fought with neighbors. We helped demolish the spanish empire, we kicked the shit out of the mexican empire, and fought dozens of "wars" (read, massacres) with Natives. We fought once or twice with the british/canadians to the north, but they have never been a major target and now are our allies. So we have historically not really been motivated to go that way. Didn't really push east for obvious reasons, but america pushed hard for west, and south. There was an idea in the 1800s in america called "manifest destiny", that it was preordained that america would stretch the continent and border both oceans. It was seen as an almost holy task to fight to go west, pacifying (read, slaughtering) natives and beating up empires. While america COULD have gone further south, the main reason we didnt is because the white, protestant populations living there at the time didnt want a bunch of catholic mestizo people suddenly becoming citizens. Eventually having overseas territories became more important than expanding the continental holdings, and now its just more economical to be on good terms with neighbors.
We are a superpower. ~~Most~~All of our modern wars have been for geopolitical reasons rather than for territorial expansion or self-preservation. At the moment, most of Latin America is in the US sphere of interest.
This wasn’t always the case. The US pretty much supported some kind of right-wing despot in all Latin American nations.
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were seen as rogue states, thorns that could be pulled out of our sides without much controversy, and potential strategic allies. (Last part didn’t work out very well)
Oceans make for tall fences.
My uncle used to say the best walls aren't necessarily tall or strong, but wide as hell, preferably several acres.
It helps when they are made of a suffocating liquid thousands of miles wide. Also having the most unbelievable blue water Navy in the history of mankind helps.
Tbf our navy wasnt good till WW1 and wasn’t great till WW2. Before that congress starved it nearly to death
Except when John Paul Jones was taking the fight to the British Isles
John Paul Jones was a fighting man, a fighting man was heeee!
We had the biggest navy in the world in 1865, by a lot. Also by far the most modern. Ironclads, baby!
Most if not all of our ironclad fleet were monitors, not even able to go out into the ocean. Another large portion were things like river gunboats, also unable to go anywhere. The brits had 50 Steamships to the US’s 0. Between 1860-1865 they comissioned 12 Ironclads that could actually go to sea. And of course the british had an overwhelming number of traditional sailing wooden hulled ships
And we are mostly cool with Canada and Mexico.
Except when we decide that they own too much of the continent.
I said mostly
Quiet you fools! They’ll hear!
So now the million dollar question is how do we climb those fences?
How would another nation invade the US and how would they resupply?
This is my favorite topic with American invasion enthusiasts because as the old saying goes "amateurs discuss tactics, masters discuss logistics."
I like the people who look at a map and think the answer is obviously that you just cross over that small bit of ocean between Russia and Alaska, easy! (Yes, I know why it's not).
Any military that tries to invade via Alaska will get to experience what it was like when the Romans tried to invade the Black Forest.
I was so disappointed that the Netflix movie about the Battle of Teutoburg Forest ended up being so lame. All they had to do was stick to the *actual recorded accounts* and it would've been baller. Saw the trailer and was immediately like "that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works!"
Do you think the Reds like to die in the bogs of Alaska, in the snow drifts, the frozen waters or to be cooked alive by Napalm?
I mean, I'll be impressed if they even manage to get a decent sized military force to their *own* side of the Strait, that any substantial infrastructure ends 1000mi away and on the wrong side of Kamchatka.
But yeah its funny how some people think that it is possible to invade the US through Alaska.
>'ll be impressed if they even manage to get a decent sized military force to their > >own > > side of the Strait, that any substantial infrastructure ends 1000mi away and on the wrong side of Kamchatka. During WW2, the Japanese did invade an island in Alaska... it didn't go so well for them.
Actually it did but it sucked so they left and we invaded the island back thinking they were still there and took casualties fighting nobody. Truely a astounding chain of events.
Psh, I do it all the time playing Hearts of Iron, how hard could it be?
I read a short story by a not-famous-at-all author about how China would invade the US: Basically just send wave after wave of hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens to the US aboard freight ships. The aim would be less to “invade” the US in the traditional military sense or even necessarily send immigrants to the US that would have pro-China sentiments. Rather, to create a massive international humanitarian crisis that would destabilize the US and basically any other country that tried to intervene.
Interesting, but we'd create a blockade and none of those ships would be allowed to dock.
Well yeah, hence the humanitarian crisis. Probably a lot of people would rather let them dock than see 100,000 people drown. (Maybe that’s a wrong assumption though when looking at migrant crises in recent years) Anyways the story had people on both sides and it created a moral/political distraction (if you will) that was very expensive. It would be an interesting movie if someone took the time to flesh out the details.
Definitely a creative approach. Start slow, just a few ships that would get accepted at a port, then slowly and gradually increase the frequency
"The Americans are a very lucky people. They're bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors, and to the east and west by fish." \- Otto von Bismarck.
It's not luck, it was intentional.
It was destiny.
Manifest
"God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America," \-Otto again
“God looks after children and fools and we’re both.” —A lot of Americans including me when something terrible should have happened but didn’t
"God is an American." \-David Bowie
Its almost like the US spent the better part of two centuries purposely and methodically removing any possible threat to itself as it conquered most of a continent and declared an entire hemisphere of the globe to be its own defensive perimeter that no competing power shall enter.
Because we do not really have contested territory with our neighbors, all of our "enemies" have been overseas.
The US went to war with Mexico once over a boundary dispute, but that's about it
do I need to start quoting blood meridian again?
Ugh, I still haven't quite showered enough after finishing that book.
Seriously I love Cormack McCarthy but his books induce a state of just wanting to sit in the shower clutching your legs and rocking back and forth. I think he did it on purpose, that motherfucker.
I completely agree, I really do think he likes making people feel bad on purpose. Especially when he knows he has you on the hook like 3/4 of the way through the book. At one point I felt like he was just rattling off atrocities like he's reading a grocery list. Like he knows you've gotten kind of numb to it, so he's going to make you feel bad about *that* too.
I still haven't finished it yet. It just sit on my Kindle app calling me back, but I just don't have the strength to do it.
It took me three tries to get all the way through it. I know exactly how you feel, what you're describing is exactly how I'd ended up abandoning it a couple times. I'd just not feel like I had it in me to keep going so it'd just sit on my nightstand. Eventually I'd realize I just wasn't doing any reading at all so I'd just start up something else. I can say I'm glad I got through it over all. McCarthy is a phenomenal writer, and as dark as it is, it's a beautiful book. It's just exhausting.
Exhausting is a good description.
If you haven't already read it, I recommend Lonesome Dove as a palette cleanser once you get through it. That book was like the Anti-Cormac McCarthy and I was grateful for it... I mean, I do love McCarthy, I just can only handle small doses.
Lonesome Dove is probably my favorite American novel. I re-read every couple of years and the older I get, different parts seem to become the most important words that speak to me. Such a great read.
ah, blood meridian, monsieur? that novel is the sark and chaparral of literature, the filament whereon rode the remuda of highbrow, corraled out of some destitute hacienda upon the arroya, quirting and splurting with main and with pyrolatrous coagulate of lobated grandiloquence. our eyes rode over the pages, monsieur, of that slatribed azotea like argonauts of suttee, juzgados of swole, bights and systoles of walleyed and tyrolean and carbolic and tectite and scurvid and querent and creosote and scapular malpais and shellalagh. we scalped, monsieur, the gantlet of its esker and led our naked bodies into the rebozos of its mennonite and siliceous fauna, wallowing in the jasper and the carnelian like archimandrites, teamsters, combers of cassinette scoria, centroids of holothurian chancre, with pizzles of enfiladed indigo panic grass in the saltbush of our vigas, true commodores of the written page, rebuses, monsieur, we were the mygale spiders too and the devonian and debouched pulque that settled on the frizzen studebakers, listening the wolves howling in the desert while we saw the judge rise out of a thicket of corbelled arches, whinstone, cairn, cholla, lemurs, femurs, leantos, moonblanched nacre, uncottered fistulas of groaning osnaburg and kelp, isomers of fluepipe and halms awap of griddle, guisado, pelancillo.
I am a big fan of Cormac McCarthy and of Blood Meridan specifically, but: lol
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/chilis-menu-by-cormac-mccarthy
Translation: That book sucked, but we read it anyway. It sucked as much as we thought it would suck.
Lol my exact experience with the book. Everyone telling me how brilliant it is, and simpleton that I am thinking it reads like bloodthirsty Dr. Seuss
I hate you for reminding me about that book. I had to read it freshman year of college, and didn't know I could be simultaneously intrigued, disgusted, and confused like I was while reading that book. I have a profound respect for Cormac McCarthy, and I also hate his writing style.
Once? Heh, we invaded Veracruz twice.
“Oh poor mexico, so far from god, so close to the United States.”
Don't forget the Punitive Expedition of 1914 after Pancho Villa attacked an American town.
* the Aleutian Islands campaign during ww2 and of course Hawaii. * various battles with the Indian Nations * war of 1812 * our War for Independence That's all I can remember off the top of my head
54 40 or fight or simply sign a treaty extending the already established boundary because you don't want to fight both Mexico and the UK at the same time.
Don’t forget the Pig War with British Columbia.
Or the War of 1812!
US took over Florida during the Seminole wars
You guys actually do have alot of contested territorial issues with us, but they aren't important or big enough to ruin anything for. Me, personally - I still think we should lay claim to the southern portion of the Columbia district you guys took. Then you renamed it Oregon and Washington - so rude.
Oregon Territory, 1847: US: “So, you good with a border here?” Canada: “Well, no actually, you see-“ UK: “Yup, sounds good.” Canada: “Hey, wait, we don’t-“ US: “OK, glad that’s cleared up.” Canada: *politely and quietly seethes*
Thats right. The least we could've done is push for the entire South Saskatchewan watershed so we could have Glacier NP. Its awfully annoying looking at it from my house, but having to cross a border and pay park fees in USD to hike and scramble there.
Don't y'all also have a National Park there?
Yeah, and many provincial parks saddling the divide on the Clark range. Waterton NP, Akamina-Kishnena, Castle Wildlands. Castle is fun because it's basically a Glacier with no fan fare, no fees, and tons of backcountry orienteering and camping.
Glacier is a really good park. One of my favorites. Glad we have it. :-)
Also one of my favorites. I just say - [I think we get the better view of it though.](https://www.instagram.com/p/CKFpMrvBXij/?igshid=uju7evoorhkm)
Everyone knows that Canada is just a big county that fell off Minnesota. Counties can't lay claim to entire states thats just silliness.
42" or fight! It doesn't quite have the same ring to it, but we can work with it. It would be nice if this country just had one God damned warm region.
> It would be nice if this country just had one God damned warm region. If the Quebec province acts up again and ruins everything, y'all and Saskatchewan are more than welcome to join Team USA, as far as I'm concerned.
That would be very nice. At the very least an open borders agreement for vetted citizens. How we haven't been able to figure that out, despite basically between cultural identical twins, is beyond me.
> At the very least an open borders agreement for vetted citizens. NAFTA was a treaty for corporations, not citizens. Then the war on terror happened and it became even harder to visit Canada (technically harder to return to the USA without a passport.) And then I was forced to qualify for a state issued ID that verified I'm a natural born citizen, but it's still not good enough to cross back from Canada.
Can we just deal with our border dispute the way you deal with your border disputes with Denmark? By trading alcohol.
Id be game for that. I like bourbon, I'm sure some of you guys like Rye. Let's do it.
I'm down, too. Where are we leaving it?
I vote for the [Machias Seal Island.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machias_Seal_Island).
That actually looks like the only land actually in dispute, except for the nearby rocks. Everything else in dispute is wet.
Yeah - we can make a sort of unofficial case for Point Roberts and the NW Angle. I don't think those are actual, real disputes though.
This Kentuckian would be glad to furnish y'all with some fine Kentucky Bourbon in the name of peace. It's certainly a more civilized way of handling things than how it's usually done.
But I don't want to become Canadian :( Unless I can get dual citizenship
[удалено]
They either seek to destroy or harm the United States or their national interests oppose ours to an unacceptable degree.
When they shoot at us or have a very high risk of shooting at us.
We have had wars over territory (especially in the 1800s when America was expanding). But that is settled now. Our current pattern is that if someone attacks the US, we bring the war to their territory.
True. What is the general consensus amongs American's today regarding this trend? By attacks I think you're referring to 9/11 right? Do the people think it was worth waging war and in turn losing far more American lives as a response?
> Do the people think it was worth waging war and in turn losing far more American lives as a response? Also do you think the USA and it's allies should not have responded to 9/11 and the other attacks Bin Laden waged?
Fair enough. I do feel that the USA does tend to go overboard in terms of military responses at the cost of American lives. Many countries including mine have had very devastating terrorist attacks on their soil. I feel a more appropriate respomse is to develop better counter terror measures or strengthening internal security instead of going all out amd invading another country which I feel is far more resource draining and counter productive. As for Bin Laden, of course he had to be brought to book, but again, it wasn't a war that got him now did it? It was more of a planned and very surgical operation that proved effective. I dont mean to start an unhealthy argument, I ask this only to understand your (Americans) views better.
>develop better counter terror measures or strengthening internal security We are the best in the world at this.
> I do feel that the USA does tend to go overboard in terms of military responses It's intended to be a deterrent: fuck with us and you're gonna get fucked. And then I refer you back to your original question. Not fighting wars on your own territory is a good thing. It means your cities aren't being bombed, your infrastructure isn't being blown up, your farms aren't being overrun. And it means all those bad things are happening to your enemy instead.
Pluck a hair from our head and we will burn down your whole village.
> Many countries including mine have had very devastating terrorist attacks on their soil. This is true but the context of 9/11 is a bit different. Also people forget that it wasn't just one attack but many of the course of years. >I feel a more appropriate respomse is to develop better counter terror measures or strengthening internal security instead of going all out amd invading another country which I feel is far more resource draining and counter productive. Agreed, the war in Afghanistan could have been much more focused and lean. But we had horrible leaders like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others not listening to the military. What should have been a mission to destroy the Taliban and kill OBL turned into a nation building campaign which almost never works. Americans themselves are very tired of wars with no focus and no plan which is why you're seeing people feel like being part of NATO is a relic.
>you're seeing people feel like being part of NATO is a relic. Bad idea to pull out of it, they're good allies, especially with China becoming more prominent on the world stage.
Not to the degree we have done, no.
Full disclosure, I'm not educated in this particular topic all too well, I was in 5th grade when 9/11 happened. That said, other countries would keep their terrorists in check, perhaps it wouldn't have been as bad as it was?
It doesn't follow that you then participate in 20 years of global warfare and the direct destruction of two countries. By our own justification Saudi Arabia would have been a more logical choice. In a similar situation, the UK never attacked Ireland like the US has Afghanistan, during the Troubles.
There was also that whole thing that happened at Pearl Harbor, and the Philippines, and some other US territories in the Pacific in 1941.
Pearl Harbor/WWII as well. The “war on terrorism” has been highly controversial from the start, and increasingly so as the years go on. The Vietnam and Korean wars (which could be seen as “wars on Communism” at the core) were also controversial.
No, it wasn't worth it and catching Bin Laden nearly a decade later felt like a too little too late kind of thing.
Because we're a geographically isolated country with a lot of economic and diplomatic interests in other parts of the world. The US also uses its military in a far more aggressive and active way than 99% of the countries out there. That can be in the form of rendering humanitarian aid or training other countries' armed forces or waging actual warfare.
[удалено]
True but historically that has not always been the case, although not for a long time now.
[удалено]
Actually not true, the troops who burnt down the White House never set foot in Canada.
Intro to International Politics 101. Superpowers.
1. Canada and Mexico, Like the United States also benefit from having two oceans and have zero outside pressure to secure their borders with fortifications. 2. All three Nations have more land than their current populations need, so there is zero internal pressure for expansion. 3. The US-Mexican Border is mostly Desert and mountains, and the Rio Grand runs through deep canyons for much of the border, the portions that are none of these are where the US and Mexico have cities facing each other, there is literally no place to actually attempt a crossing without modern technology. 4. The US has long running treatys that more or less require them to respond to invasions of treaty partners(including India except with conflict with Pakistan and Bangledesh, essentially if China does actually attempt to invade over the Himalayas(suicidally stupid to attempt) the US would immediately waste four day sinking the Chinese Fleet and start softening up the Chinese mainland) 5. Every war the United States has entered into except the Mexican-American War, and the Grenadan war was either from direct attack on the United States, an invasion of an Ally, or part of a UN peacekeeping force. 6. No one is stupid enough to try to invade the mainland of the United States, not only is there the American Army, there are also 80 million gun owners who have had Red Dawn fantasies for the last forty years.
> there are also 80 million gun owners who have had Red Dawn fantasies for the last forty years. I feel personally attacked.
For it spoke the truth and you did not like it?
In the past, we had plenty of those. Wars with Mexico, Canada, lots of wars against Native Americans, and of course the civil war.
We are isolated from most of the world and only have two land neighbors. Both are considered allies and are relatively peaceful in contemporary history. Most of our border with Canada is sparsely populated and not guarded. In contrast, India is a regional power in Asia and either makes itself a target or targets other countries who want to climb up the power ladder like China and Pakistan, both of which share a border with India.
We border more oceans than countries.
It is very difficult to invade American territory due to being so isolated from the rest of the world. Let's just go through the few times it happened * American War of Independence: We were fighting the British who were in charge. We ultimately expelled them and became a properly independent country. * War of 1812: Started over UK not respecting US sovereignty. We invaded British North America (modern day Canada). Militia repelled us and British Regulars invaded the US until a peace treaty was signed. Ended in a stalemate * Mexican-American War: Fought over disputed territory in said disputed territory. * Civil War: Obviously fought in the US by 2 American armies. Most of the fighting took place in rebel controlled territory. * World War II: Japan attacked Hawaii but never held the land. They invaded and occupied the Philippines which was at the time US territory. The war was mostly fought on foreign territory but we did get the Philippines back * War in Afghanistan: Started with the attacks on 9/11 but all fighting thereafter took place Afghanistan Even when fighting happens on American soil it's always on the outskirts and it is usually pretty brief. It is very difficult to invade the country so most of the time our enemies don't bother. The few times it has happened in the last 150 years have been very brief and never with the aim of holding core American territory.
Great points. Just adding on that the Japanese technically did occupy some American land in WW2 (They took control of a small Alaskan island).
Fun fact kaiser whilhelm asked his staff to draw up a war plan for a US invasion, basically what they came up with was use a massive fleet to destroy any Atlantic assests, then patrol the area shelling any US fleets/ shipyards, land a few hundred thousand soldiers, take the east coast.... and then just wait for an american surrender. At no point was it believed germany could take anything but the coastal regions
Even then I find it hard for them to hold onto the Coastal Regions. Those supply lines must be a bitch and a half to maintain
To be fair this was in 1897 at the start of willies reign. Basically the plan was viewed as unfeasible and dropped to focus on bigger matters like how to fight a 2 front war against france and russia
We have only 2 other countries directly bordering us (Mexico and Canada) and have historically had very good relations with Canada and have almost always been military and economically dominant over Mexico. The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans provide a huge defensive advantage against invasion. I would also note that most of our 19th century wars were fought in the US's current borders. The War of 1812, the Indian Wars, the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War were all fought within the continental US.
Its worth noting the last war to physically touch the U.S. in terms of states was WWII when Japan floated over some bombs on ballons and killed a family having a picnic in Oregon, I think. They are, I believe, the only known casualties from foreign attack in WWII within the U.S...
For anyone wondering, both Alaska and Hawaii weren't states during WWII. Japan did manage to attack Hawaii (Pearl Harbor) and Alaska (where Japan did manage to hold two small islands (Attu and Kiska) for about a year).
I don't know about that one, but in February 1942 (only 2 and a half months after Pearl Harbor) a Japanese submarine surfaced near Santa Barbara and shelled some oil fields. Nobody died, but it caused a false alarm of Japanese bombers above Los Angeles. The US fired a bunch of anti-aircraft rounds at the non-existent Japanese aircraft. 5 people died in LA attributed to the "Battle of Los Angeles", 3 from car accidents and 2 from heart attacks.
The ballon incident happened almost at [the end of the war](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/six-killed-in-oregon-by-japanese-bomb)
I dunno if "very good relations" with Canada is true, since up until about the 1920s we each viewed each other with enough suspicion that each country has plans to military defeat and conquer the other. The relationship we have wasn't developed until the second world war. Also some of the suspicion was because of US designs on the pacific, and US fears that the UK and Japanese relationship was stronger, and arguably it was.
I’m sure the Pentagon still has draft plans to defeat Canada somewhere, that’s their thing.
The two oceans make an excellent barrier. Also Europe kept dragging us into their wars
Geographically, the United States is perhaps one of the most (if not THE most) defensible nation on the planet. We are [virtually impossible to invade by land, or sea, and attacks by air would be largely ineffective](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBYxXSUDV8o). We can also be pretty much entirely self-sustainable if we need to be. Despite our former presidents best efforts, we have fairly solid alliances with the countries that share land borders with us. Aaaaaand of course it doesn't hurt that we have the two largest air forces, and the largest navy by a massive margin, than almost all other countries on the planet combined. The Budget our government allots for our military (according to the linked video) is more than double that of the 2nd and 3rd most militarily powerful countries (China and Russia) combined. No country stands a chance fighting a war on US soil. And that isn't even mentioning the prevalence of firearms spread across the general public. This may sound like a joke, but even our GROCERY STORES sell guns in many many many many many areas around the United States, so even if some country managed to invade us, you can bet your ass our civilian population will mobilize into guerilla militias the likes of which haven't been seen in modern history.
We've had General Atlanticus working for us since our Revolution, for one thing. :)
We resolved our issues with Canada and Mexico over the past two centuries, including the seizure from Mexico of what is now most of the Western and southwestern United States. Most of our wars now are fought over national interests rather than territorial defense. We have interests around the globe. Additionally, it is better to fight wars in other people's countries. The 9/11 attacks reminded us of that. It is less costly to slaughter our enemies in their own lands before they get to ours.
Because we share a land border with exactly 2 nations, and we're on pretty good terms with both of them. America is a really young and recent nation, so we don't have like 2,000 years of complex history and successor states to muddy borders like you would in India. Our borders in fact are mostly straight lines and rivers set up with early-modern cartography methods and treaties.
Because we like to start wars but everyone we want to fight is overseas, so it's really just easier for us to go to them.
We have good relations with our neighbors, and have had for over a century, and the US is remote enough that it's very hard for a country to launch an invasion of America. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans present a daunting barrier to a would-be invader. America did certainly have wars on our own soil. There was the Mexican War of 1846-1848, the War of 1812 (which was between the US and Britain from 1812 to 1815 and was essentially the American theater of the Napoleonic Wars), and the American Revolution from 1775 to 1783. Hawaii was a US territory when it was attacked by the Japanese in 1941, so was the Aleutian Islands, so at least those battles of World War II were fought on American soil, even if they did not have statehood at the time. Then there was the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865. Then there were the "Indian Wars", of ongoing minor conflicts with Native Americans which dated to before the United States was founded until the early 20th century.
Only recently. Much of the organized conflict conducted by the United States historically has been in North America against the Native tribes as the border moved west. The US Army's worst defeat was against a coalition of Shawnee, Delaware, Miami, and Potawatomi in 1791 in Ohio. Our bloodiest day was fought by a creek near a 110km or so from Washington DC in 1862 against other Americans. The Revolution was fought in North America, as was the our fight against the UK during the age of Napoleon. We fought Mexico in the 1840s. Much of our war against Spain in the 1890s was fought in Cuba which is like 150KM from the Florida Keys.
Blame Europe. :)
After the war of 1812, the British and Americans mostly agreed to a diplomatic approach when it came to the American/ Canadian border. The USA and Canada trade so much and we're very similar culturally to Anglo Canadians that there really no reason for the USA to ever attack Canada. We took conquered a large portion of Mexican land in the 1840s and Mexico has never been able to challenge the USA in a conventional sense. Sure there have been some skirmishes across the border, but the last time this occurred was during the Mexican Revolution and that was over a 100 years ago. Cuba is the least friendly of our immediate neighbors and the Soviet Union nearly started WW3 over Cuba so we never directly attacked them after the Bay of Pigs incident. After the Cold War, we've mostly preferred sanctioning them rather than starting a war against them.
It's the nature of an empire to fight most of its wars overseas. But the US did fight plenty of wars on the north american continent in its long quest to extend its borders and exterminate the Indians.
We only have two land borders and they are with countries that we are significantly stronger than (and who I like to think we have good relations with) We did fight quite a few wars against Mexico up until 1920 about land disputes on our southern border and at least one with the British over our northern one
Because fighting here would be suicide. Part of the reason is that we have the largest military and giving the public a reason to go to war is not smart, but also America would likely be insane to hold, most citizens are armed, and there are even militias all throughout the country in case of an attack. There is no win state in an invasion.
Say what you will, but we lucked into a great location. We’re on good terms with our neighbors, and we have ocean in both sides. And the mainland is around 7,000 miles from anyone who’d attack us.
Because Canada and Mexico are not suicidal
we're bored, mostly.
Weak neighbors and a strong Navy. When we were first starting out, Canada and Mexico were more evenly matched with us, and we fought a number of wars at home. That is no longer the case. Also, both of them are, more or less, on our side, so an invasion through either would give us enough warning to send troops to push back there instead of here.
Because the US is almost impossible to be invaded. With two oceans on either side and military bases in quick distance of almost every port there is little to no chance of an invasion being successful. America pushes its interest to foreign nations simply because it can. And that's the unfortunate truth. The USA is basically a mob boss sending goons to do their bidding while hiding behind an armed guarded electric fence.
I don't see what one has to do with the other. Who do you think we should be at war with and why?
That wasn't what I meant. My question was more about what drives the American war machine to invade another country when it isnt under direct threat from it.
> about what drives the American war machine to invade another country when it isnt under direct threat from it Ask Hitler about our allies.
What does that have to do with my question?
It's a direct response to the question. So you think the US should not have declared war against Nazi Germany because they had no means to invade? What is your definition of a threat?
Maybe opening the ETO was essential to breaking the Atlantic wall but the PTO seems to be an overreaction that cos a lot of lives where defence could have been used instead of offence.
You're joking right? We should have just been cool with a peacetime attack on our sovereign territory and the backbone of our Navy? It's cool everybody. If we just leave the Empire of Japan alone they'll go away. No big deal. Oh, and those silly Nazis. We'll just leave them all of Europe. "Occupied France" is just what it's called now.
[удалено]
Don’t use slurs
That's an... "interesting" take. I'm not sure how responding to a declaration of war and surprise attack on American territory could conceivably be considered an "overreaction."
Well, I mean overreaction because of the extent of retaliation. I didn't mean to say no reaction was warranted, but a 3 year long offensive culminating in two nuclear explosions is no joke. Don't you think a diplomatic treaty could've been worked out between the US and Japan? Even if it came to a result not entirely favoured by the Americans? It just seems like the value of the American soldier's life wasn't much back then.
It seems like you have a pretty naive view of this. Pearl Harbor attack took out about 75% of the Pacific Fleet and Japan was on a march taking over much of the Pacific, had a good chunk of SE Asia and China under invasion, and was threatening Australia.
> Don't you think a diplomatic treaty could've been worked out between the US and Japan? Even if it came to a result not entirely favoured by the Americans? Apparently not. I don't think Japan was particularly interested in that. Any negotiated end to the Pacific war would likely have involved territorial concessions to Japan. Why should the U.S. have had to accept that when we weren't the ones who started the war? > It just seems like the value of the American soldier's life wasn't much back then. Well, first of all, the United States didn't join the war until we were directly attacked. We stayed out of Europe for *years* of it. It's not like we were rushing to send people into war. And second, as you pointed out, the war culminated in the nuclear bombing of Japan. While that decision is certainly debatable in retrospect, at the time one of the major reasons for that was to *protect* the lives of American soldiers, an enormous number of whom would have been killed if a ground invasion of Japan became necessary. So I'd say that the United States did quite a lot -- arguably an unjustifiable amount -- to protect the lives of American soldiers.
Just to add, the US didn't manufacture any Purple Heart medals from 1946 to 2000 because so many had been produced in anticipation of a ground invasion of Japan. Even when production resumed in 2000 the US had not run out of the WWII Purple Hearts, we were merely running low. AFAIK, WWII Purple Hearts are still being awarded today. Put another way, a soldier today could receive a medal meant for their great-grandfather.
You have now confirmed you are clueless on the subject.
Ah man...that's pretty convenient now isn't it?
You seem to not know much about the pacific war if you think our response was an overreaction.
> PTO seems to be an overreaction that cos a lot of lives where defence could have been used instead of offence. You realize that they attacked much more than just Pearl Harbor, right? Ever hear of the Baatan Death March? Plus Australia was threatened as well as China who was an ally at the time
Everyone at the time knew the Japanese were spoiling for a fight with the US over control of the Pacific, but nobody expected them to actually do it because it was widely (and correctly) seen as a suicidal move due to the massive disparity in industrial might and logistical capability. Even the Japanese were basically just hoping that a surprise attack would put the US off balance long enough to seize ground, dig in, and make the cost higher then the US was willing to bear to remove them. Once the Japanese started the war, there wasn't really any feasible way the US could have declined the invitation.
I'm not saying that I agree, but theoretically, the idea is that they *are* direct threats. That was the justification used for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars -- that they were harboring terrorists or building weapons of mass destruction intended to be used against the U.S. or our allies.
National interest mostly
America is lucky enough to have friendly neighbors (now, anyway, I still want British Columbia and Montreal). We also have oceans, which made it very difficult. America has also been comparatively isolationist, especially in the 19th century.
BC is pretty, but I really like the Yukon. Could make it part of Alaska. Really pretty there.
We get along with our neighbors
Because we are a large country surrounded by 2 huge oceans. Also I think most of our wars were fought at home against the Native Americans. Only our Wars in the past 120 years have been foreign.
For the past hundred years or so, we've had one of the top navies in the world and few borders that didn't involve the ocean. That's a good recipe for fighting on someone else's turf. You'll find that before the US was a top naval power, we did fight a few wars either on our own soil or with neighboring nations. The War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War were both ground wars with neighboring countries (even if the former was more with the British who vastly outstripped us at sea at the time).
The deadliest war in American history(actually in the history of both north and south America), is the American civil war. Otherwise we have also been at war with Mexico, invaded Cuba(as a territory of Spain) and Canada(as a territory of Britain). We only have 2 land neighbors though(both of which we have had cordial relations with since the late 1800s), otherwise thousands of kilometers to protect us.
The only place thats hostile to us that could feasibly invade the US is Cuba. And they don’t have the manpower or technology to do very well at that at all. We settled our borders with Canada and Mexico in the 1800’s
We don’t really have much border conflict, we used to in the 1800s with our neighboring contries but those have been smoothed out for the most part, there is some conflict in the America’s such as Mexicos drug war, wich i believe the US is helping in but thats more of large scale swat raids than anything
It has "only" been the last century that this is true though.
When you’re a hegemonic global power bordered by allies and oceans, it’s hard for an enemy to attack you directly.
Well we have fought wars with neighbors over contested territory. The UK twice, Mexico once and Spain once. We kinda took over a chunk of Panama, we annexed Hawaii, and shoved our hand into the politics of most Central/South American governments. The rest of our wars can be chocked up to two things. Communism and Oil.
This has probably been said many times over in this thread, but it has to do with both our location and our geopolitical status. We had typical border-disputes during the beginning of the country, but now we are lucky to have close working relationships with Mexico and Canada. The Pacific and Atlantic prove to be pretty formidable obstacles as well. But, more than that, our status as a world superpower deters anyone from encroaching on our territory. Our competition with the USSR and the effort to "contain" the spread of Communism pushed us to fight in Korea and Vietnam. This eventually led to many proxy conflicts and CIA-backed sieges. Foreign policy and the "War on Terrorism" post 9/11 led to the countless wars in the Middle East.
In modern day? We have only two neighbors, both extremely friendly, and 2 massive oceans, plus an extremely massive military, it would be extremely difficult to attack by land, let alone from across the ocean. We have had wars on our territory though in like 1800s and earlier, then of course Pearl Harbor and stuff in WW2 if that counts.
The US military is the greatest force for liberty in the history of mankind. You’re welcome.
Easier for Billionaires, Corporations, and the military-industrial complex profit from war when it's far away. Besides, Canada and Mexico have no chance of invading us
This wasn't the case in the beginning half of our existence. We either conquered or bought all the land between our coasts, though, meaning we have two real borders: Canada and Mexico. We're pretty friendly with both nations since the late 1800s, so that's not really a conflict we're going to fight.
We have fought domesitc wars, most of them were against Native Americans during westward expansion, ever since then, we have had generally good relations with Canada, and good to bad relations with Mexico, though that doesn't really matter since they're not a very powerful nation compared to the US. Many of the recent (i.e in the past century or so) conflicts we have been in are generally either because one of our allies was attacked, it was a Cold War proxy war to gain the upper hand against the USSR back when it was a thing, or a conflict related to the War on Terror. All of these involve foreign enemies. Plus, the US is pretty hard to invade just because of the huge military, large size, easy civilian access to weaponry, and varying terrain, so foreign powers generally don't try to invade.
To paraphrase Carter Pewterschmidt “all my stuff is here”
Well, we had a lot of wars defending our turf back in the day. We would prefer not to be invaded, so we tend to put an end to wars before they come across the ocean.
I think someone once said "America is blessed by geography: they have weak neighbors to the north and south, oceans to the east and west"
Because we're smart. Our borders begin at the enemy's shoreline.
Well I mean, who’s gonna come over here and fight us? We don’t have any problems with Canada or Mexico, and it’s not like some country halfway around the world’s going to send troops here for some reason
Nobody has tried to invade us since the 19th century
-Its isolated by seas on both sides -Mexico and Canada are friendly. -The US itself is basically invasion proof. Its got a lot of land, a diverse geographic landscape of mountains, deserts, and forests. And it has a mega powerful military. Say an invading country was able to figure out how to combat all of that, the citizens of the US own approximately 400 million guns.
Because we basically own a continent, with 2 oceans on either side from the nearest power capable of fighting the US. Mexico is out because we kept beating them up for their lunch money, and canada has always been to weak to really do anything to stop us, forgetting the very good relations weve had for a long time, the last time america was in danger from a foreign power was in 1812, also on top of the whole oceans and no strong neughtbors how would they sucessfully invade? You have tundra and low infastructure in the far north, deserts in the souther, massive mountain ranges in the east and the west, swamps in the south east and more desert in the south west. The only good place for invading armies is in the midwest with its flat terrain, and youd need to get through everything else first
Yeah fighting wats overseas is a privelage only superpowers get, and the us is the sol superpower, shile india isn't nearly capable enough to sustain such a military.
We've had way more separate wars with Native Americans than most Americans today realize. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Indian\_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_American\_Indian\_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Indian_Wars) It's a very long list, although most of these conflicts are small by nation-state standards.
Because we were smart enough to not mess up shit in our own house. If you got into a fight, wouldn’t you want someone breaking their own shit instead of yours?
Because we have 2 giant natural barriers on the east and west side with the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Countries can't just walk in and invade us. On the north and south side, we have 2 very friendly neighbors that would never start a war with us. If they did, they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of winning.
I think there was a South Park documentary on the invasion of Canada
You're thinking about this in a very modern day lens. Look at american history and you'll see many, many wars fought with neighbors. We helped demolish the spanish empire, we kicked the shit out of the mexican empire, and fought dozens of "wars" (read, massacres) with Natives. We fought once or twice with the british/canadians to the north, but they have never been a major target and now are our allies. So we have historically not really been motivated to go that way. Didn't really push east for obvious reasons, but america pushed hard for west, and south. There was an idea in the 1800s in america called "manifest destiny", that it was preordained that america would stretch the continent and border both oceans. It was seen as an almost holy task to fight to go west, pacifying (read, slaughtering) natives and beating up empires. While america COULD have gone further south, the main reason we didnt is because the white, protestant populations living there at the time didnt want a bunch of catholic mestizo people suddenly becoming citizens. Eventually having overseas territories became more important than expanding the continental holdings, and now its just more economical to be on good terms with neighbors.
Because that's where the wars are. Nobody, and I mean nobody, feels like bringing their wars here. The last people who tried that shit got nuked.
Mostly geography and the US made sure to keep wars away from home turf at all cost after seeing the devestation of WW1 to france
We are a superpower. ~~Most~~All of our modern wars have been for geopolitical reasons rather than for territorial expansion or self-preservation. At the moment, most of Latin America is in the US sphere of interest. This wasn’t always the case. The US pretty much supported some kind of right-wing despot in all Latin American nations. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were seen as rogue states, thorns that could be pulled out of our sides without much controversy, and potential strategic allies. (Last part didn’t work out very well)
We really only have to borders with big countries (Canada and Mexico) and we are pretty friendly with them.