America can get conquered

The advantages advanced by Con (size, isolation, technology, powerful alliances, a well-armed populace) have been foundational elements to US defense since 1776 and remain essential, but have nevertheless failed to preclude the possibility of existential threats to America (i.e. Bladensburg, Fredericksburg, Pearl Harbor, October Missile Crisis, 9/11, etc.). Clearly then, there is more to the notion of an unconquerable America than merely preventing full-scale invasion. Western democracies conquered the USSR without invasion. The four largest empires in history (British, Mongol, Russian, Spanish) were conquered by internal division rather than by invaders from without. More Romans were killed by Romans then died under a barbarian sword just as an American today is far more likely to be killed by a fellow citizen then a foreigner. Nations are vanquished more by suicide than murder. American Foreign Policy confirms this inasmuch as Wikipedia lists US participation in 102 wars, none of which can be said to have represented an attempt by non-Americans to permanently absorb a US state in part or in whole, but all of which were seen as a sufficient threat to US security to warrant armed response. [1] Certainly all of the advantages put forward by Con are present deterrents against invasion, but that"s not the same thing as guarantees of future security. All of these defenses have potential vulnerabilities, potential breaches. For example, Con posits that the US "is very, very far from other major powers" but the world is a much smaller place than it used to be. The oceans did not insulate us from foreign attacks on 9/11, our distance from China did not prevent a cyber intelligence "Pearl Harbor" last year. [2]. Nuclear subs and ICBMs make possible the destruction of cities in hours without overseas transfer of materiel. Likewise, technological advantages, while vital, are not guarantees of safety. Each innovation forces adaptation in the opposition, escalating variables to new heights of uncertainty. Early adoption of Springfield rifles for example, gave Union armies superior accuracy and range but Union generals were slower to appreciate the tactical advantages such weapons offered entrenched defensive lines with catastrophic results. [3] Size is an important economic advantage, but less certain strategically. In war, maintaining the shorter interior lines of communication and transportation along a battlefront confers an important advantage that larger nations sometimes struggle to uphold. Russia"s size was used to powerful effect against Napoleon and Hitler but those same distances severely hampered Russian defenses against the Japanese in 1905 and the Allied occupation of Siberia in 1919. A well-armed populace can sometimes slow down invaders, but are seldom as effective as one might expect. After all, 26 million Iraqi civilians were about as well armed in 2003 [4] as the US civilian population and the American invaders were frequently attacked by civilians but 130,000 ground troops took the capital nevertheless and toppled the government in 5 weeks. Militias tend to pursue agendas separate from the common defense that can do more harm than good. Texas militias might defend their borders stiffly but if the East Coast was invaded they might simply secede, taking men and materiel away from the federal cause. Alliances likewise depend on common interest and are highly situational. Any full-scale attack on the US would necessarily be preceded by a major shift in the geopolitical landscape. The murder-suicide threat of nuclear weapons is an effective deterrent but I"m not sure unconquered counts for much post-extinction. Consider that the current GOP front runner has suggested the use of nuclear strikes against ISIS targets in Syria. [5]. How much less essential might America seem after such incaution? How quickly might our network of alliances crumble if we contaminated Israel or Turkey with radiation? I think Con"s confidence relies too heavily on 20th (even 19th) Century conceptions and has failed to consider the challenges of the 21st Century. ASYMMETRIC WARFARE Con"s vision of conquest seems confined to a mass combined arms invasion. I think we can both agree that a D-Day type scenario is fairly unlikely in the near term but then successful invasions are usually the endgame, the consequence of decades or centuries of bad policy. More worrisome at present is the difficulty of containing non-traditional attacks from rogue states, terrorist organizations, even individual criminals. At present, even the most spectacular of terrorist attacks would not qualify as conquest but they can extract a price well out of proportion to the cost of the attack and the collective effect can be profound. The most effective example was probably 9/11, when al-Qaeda was able to extract an estimated $3.3 trillion dollar loss from the US at the price of $500,000- a 6,600,000:1 ratio. [6]. Survivable by itself, how many terrorist attacks at what frequency could the US sustain before permanently damaging the nation"s economy and societal well-being? We can continue to invest in prevention but prevention is also a costly drag on productivity (not to mention liberty). The worst-case scenario would likely be the detonation of some type of WMD at scales that kill tens of thousands and render whole cities uninhabitable. Even only one or two of such attacks might cause profound changes to the American psyche, economy, and quality of life. HI-TECH Con is correct to consider US technological aptitude as a bulwark against her enemies but every innovation is followed by a period of unintended consequence and adaptation, increasing uncertainty in the battlefield. Our spy satellites and communications networks are incredible intelligence tools but vulnerable. If solar flares or a Kessler cascade event were to wipe out large portions of that network in the space of an hour, could we adapt? How effective are other nation"s anti-satellite tech? Hard to say. Furthermore, the internet itself represents a vulnerability as increased interconnectedness makes it increasingly difficult to isolate strategic targets. Israel and the US successfully destroyed a fifth of Iran"s nuclear centrifuges by cyberattack. To what degree US infrastructure (power plants, dams, missile silos,etc) is vulnerable is entirely unknown at present, but we can be certain that many foreign actors are well motivated to seek out exploitable weaknesses. It's clear that AI and robotics will play important roles in the next generation of weapons. Drones are already rapidly replacing pilots on missions in Afghanistan and Syria. We are already engaged in a new arms race which will require a massive new investment over the next few decades. Are we prepared to keep pace with emerging economies or else lose our edge? Traditionally, control of the high ground confers one of the most important tactical advantages and the new high ground that must be held is in space. But the US is scaling back investment in space technology and exploration while China is doubling down. [7] FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCY Another important vulnerability that will require a major new investment in the coming years is our dependence on oil. In 2008, the US military consumed 14.7 million gallons of oil per day, while the US only produced 9.3 million gallons. In a war in which foreign oil supplies might be threatened or denied and in which the price of oil would certainly skyrocket, the US"s powerful war machine might grind to a halt or force new battlefields for control of oil supplies. In the coming years we need to find a way to make aircraft, tanks, battleships, transports run just as effectively on electric and nuclear power sources. Indeed, our entire energy infrastructure must upgrade to more sustainable sources if the US is to escape the looming threat of oil scarcity. GLOBAL WARMING Relatedly, global warming is already introducing new strategic variables into the strategic landscape. Climatologists predict major geopolitical changes over the coming decades in response to change in climate patterns. Food and water shortages may damage economies, force migrations, and escalate tensions. The Syrian Civil War was preceded by 5 years of drought, for example. [9] Agricultural conditions in northern climes like Russia and Canada will likely improve while farms in US southern states decline. Sea level rises might provoke mass population shifts to higher ground. How these variables might impact the US"s long term security is impossible to say, but President Obama considers climate change the number one threat to American security and the Pentagon agrees. [9] CIVIL WAR The most important threat to US integrity came not from without but from within. While the possibility of internal division seems remote at present, the kernel of secession is intrinsic to the American character. This month, 22 GOP conventions in Texas voiced support for that state"s succession from the Union in their platforms. [10]. The rise of demagogues like Trump widen the lines of political fracture within our nation. The potential for future internal disruptions to conquer our nation from within can't be entirely dismissed. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.latimes.com... [3]https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [4]http://m.csmonitor.com... [5]http://fortune.com... [6]http://www.nytimes.com... [7]http://spacenews.com... [8]http://m.usni.org... [9]http://m.washingtontimes.com... [10]https://www.washingtonpost.com...