UNthinkable: The UN Invasion of The United States

Conspiracy theorists have been contemplating the invasion of the United States by foreign powers for decades.  Although many of the worlds worst dictators and militaries have gone to war with us over the last 150 years, none have successfully invaded our homeland.  Even the German and Japanese armies believed such an idea to be lunacy.  The U.S. is simply too vast, too populated, and too heavily armed for such an invasion to be successful.  How then do modern conspiracy theorists want us to believe that an inept and historically failed organization such as the United Nations could, or would even contemplate, an attempted invasion of the United States?

un troops 1

Well, it is because those conspiracy theorists are idiots.  We could easily end this article now, right here, but I will continue anyway.  I have some free time.

un troops 2

Based on the most recent census figures, the population of the United States is somewhere between 317 and 320 MILLION people.  With hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing into our country every year, it is impossible to know the exact figure.  For simplicity purposes, we will go with 320 million, which is most likely low.  The land mass of the United States is 3.79 MILLION square miles.  That’s flippin huge!  Depending upon where you do your research, the U.S. is the third or fourth largest nation on the planet based on land mass.

Not all UN troops are scary.  wocka wocka

Not all UN troops are scary. wocka wocka

Experts in such things as troop ratios and the invasion/stabilization of countries vary slightly in their opinions on how many troops are required to invade, hold, and stabilize a foreign country.  Prior to our own invasion of Iraq in 2003, then Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki told Congress he would need “several hundred thousand troops” to ensure the operation was a success.  Of course, the pinhead, suit-wearing politicians disagreed with him and assigned just over 100,000 troops to the task.

Bear in mind that during Desert Storm, a war only designed to push Iraq out of Kuwait and diminish Saddam’s military capability so he would no longer be a threat to his neighbors, the United States committed 500,000 troops. That war did not involve the occupation of the enemy nation that boasted a population of some 25 million people.  That was just our forces needed to drive Iraq from their southern neighbor.  Well, we saw how well Operation Iraqi Freedom progressed, didn’t we.  What did we expect with such figures?  It was determined before we put boots on the ground.

Experts and analysts consider a ratio of 20 troops per 1,000 citizens to be about right when it comes to occupying and stabilizing an entire nation.  Various experts and organizations have studied this and issued reports on their findings.  Here are some links to studies done by MIT, then one by John McGrath for the Army’s Combat Studies Institute, which by the way suggests a much lower percentage of troop density than MIT.  McGrath uses several historical examples that are between 60 and 110 years old to support his position and the examples most prominent, Germany and Japan, are cited.  What is neglected is that those enemies were utterly defeated at the time of our occupation and stabilization missions.  That would give you a much easier time than trying to occupy a country where a great number of its citizens want to lop off your head for Allah.  Just saying.

Then there is a paper by Steven M. Goode that sort of summarizes the other studies and adds a few of his own opinions.  Basically, when you look at historic occupations and stabilizations, the troop density levels, the number of troops per 1,000 citizens, ranges from 62% to 2.2% or even lower.  It all depends on the passivity of the population and innumerable other factors like terrain, etc.

Americans are not well known for their passivity.

Peacekeepers from the United Nations Int

When facing an incredibly hostile citizenry, like Russia’s attempts to pacify Chechnya, figures are considerably higher.  Russia’s troop density level was 150 per 1,000 citizens.  France used a density level of 60 troops per 1,000 citizens in Algeria.  So, with all of these historic examples in hand, let’s talk about the real numbers.

If you wanted to have a successful invasion and occupation of the United States, the smallest troop density level I would recommend would be 10/1,000.  That would require 3.2 MILLION troops.  Bear in mind that those should be combat forces.  They will also need support troops to keep them supplied and patched up so they can stay in the fight.  So, with a support to combat troop ratio of 3 to 1, which is very low, you would need more than 10 million troops.  That’s on the low end.

To go the Russian route of inundating a region with forces, you would need 48 MILLION combat troops, not including support forces.  The French approach, 19 MILLION combat troops without support forces.  Taking the U.S.’s own advice in the Iraq war, a troop density ratio of 7.2 per 1,000 citizens, you still come up with more than 2.3 MILLION troops – without a support structure included.

Middle of the road estimate to invade and successfully occupy/stabilize these United States = 6.4 million combat troops plus support of approximately 18 million additional troops.  THAT IS MORE THAN 24 MILLION TROOPS!

That ain’t happenin’, folks.  Ever.

The truth of the matter is that there are several armored vehicle companies in the United States who manufacture, repair, and refit armored vehicles for numerous organizations around the world INCLUDING THE UNITED NATIONS.  Also, when the U.S. participates in a U.N. Peacekeeping mission in places like the Sinai or Bosnia, they often need vehicles.  I know I went through a lot of math in order to convince you that the assertion of a U.N. invasion is not only ludicrous, but unmanageable.  I hate math but it was necessary so you could see the ridiculous nature of these assertions.  Russia, China, and the EU combined do not possess the forces required to pacify and successfully occupy the United States, let alone a bunch of third world banana republics from the United Nations.

To top off my debunking, here are a few photos taken from websites of armored vehicle manufacturers here in the United States.  They clearly show that the United Nations is one of their clients.  Those vehicles have to be transported and delivered somehow.  The company can’t just teleport the damned things across the ocean to their final destination.  Most armored vehicles are moved by sea.  If you live near an active port, it is likely that during your lifetime, if you sat there and watched, you will see a UN marked vehicle heading for its transport.  I will leave you with these pictures to ponder.

ArmourGroupArmoredGroupLLCSteitArmor

There is enough to worry about in this world.  Stop creating imaginary ones.  Ignore BeforeItsNews, FreedomOutpost, RedState, RedFlag, Alex Jones, InfoWars, DC Clothesline, and all of the other conspiracy theory, shape-shifting lizard men, alien invasion websites posing as news sources.  Check here often as I seem to never run out of idiots to disprove.

Ross

 

 

 

 

 

One thought on “UNthinkable: The UN Invasion of The United States

  1. Based on my limited view of the UN, the contributing nations don’t have the will to endure the occupation. There are only a few nations with the backbone needed to undertake such a operation. No, UN troops occupying American soil is a cloud coo-coo land dream.

Comments are closed.