The part about not being invadable isn't true. The British made a good try in 1812 and were stopped largely because they didn't control the Great Lakes. had Perry been defeated at Lake Eerie or Jackson been defeated at New Orleans, it is doubtful we would have gotten out of that one with our territory intact. The open land border to the south is a highway if invasion every day.
Note that those rivers work as supply lines for an invader quite well, the Civil War being a case in point.
If the US were so invadable, why didn't the British re-invade the Great Lakes after the US took control of Lake Erie in Sept 1813? UK had the most powerful navy in the world. Perhaps it had to do with logistical barriers to invasion. In fact, the Gulf Campaign that ended in total disaster at New Orleans was launched as a diversion, to divert American attention from Canada.
The Civil War was not a foreign invasion, unless I'm missing something. It is, however, a case in point in another way. Foreign powers interested in dividing the US nevertheless stopped well short of providing active aid or intervening militarily to break the Union blockade.
"If the US were so invadable, why didn't the British re-invade the Great Lakes after the US took control of Lake Erie in Sept 1813?"
Because to Britain, the war in America was peripheral. The war with Napoleon was existential. The war with Bonaparte absorbed the vast majority of Britain's military power.
After Napoleon abdicated, they offered Wellington command in North America. He declined and advised the British government to make peace with America. He expected further trouble from Napoleon. (And got it!) He pointed out that an invasion of America, at least from Canada, would have to go by water due to the lack of roads and thus required control of the lakes, something Britain did not then have.
Given the mostly poor performance of the Army in the war of 1812, I doubt we ewould have lasted long against Britain in a one on one fight, but then it was the war against Napoleon and consequent demand for sailors to keep a large fleet at sea that led the British to impress American sailors, which si what started the trouble.
"The War of 1812 is a poor example of a foreign invasion."
The residents of Washington when the British army torched the place might beg to differ. In the Revolution, the British army rarely got more than twenty miles from a navigable river, and could land in difficulties when it did, as General Burgoyne learned to his sorrow.
"The Civil War was not a foreign invasion, unless I'm missing something"
The residents of Atlanta when Sherman torched the place, or the Shenandoah Valley when Sheridan burned the crops and barns might beg to differ. From the time that Grant captured Forts Henry and Donelson, opening up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers, western and central Tennessee lived in pawn. A Union army with a river as a supply line was always assured of supply. A river, unlike a road or railroad, cannot be wrecked or cut.
The point being that navigable rivers are, to an invading army, a perfect supply line and a road into the heart of the enemy's country. To believe that North America cannot be invaded across the oceans, when America defeated Germany and Japan across those same oceans, is both complacent and arrogant. The invasion and conquest of North America is perfectly feasible given the right precondition.
All that stuff about 1812? It just shows what a bad idea invading America was and still is--even with a bad US army and next to no US navy. DC, Burgoyne, etc. all goes to the same point. Invading America is simply a very bad idea.
Civil wars aren't foreign invasions. Period. The point of America being uninvadable is two oceans and impossible logistics for supply. The point of the Civil war is, no need to invade America--both sides were already here and had their much shorter supply lines in place.
The War of 1812 is a poor example of a foreign invasion. It was the US that declared war on the UK, and a major aim of the US was to invade and acquire territory in Canada. The UK war effort was aimed, not at seriously invading the US, but at preventing the US from taking Canada--thus the diversion at New Orleans. In fact, the UK had long before realized that its interests were better served by trading with the US rather than conquering the US--the UK was very ready for peace in 1814 because of the ill effects of their blockade on their own economy. The two oceans are a formidable barrier to foreign adventures, in both directions. Our very mixed record of foreign adventuring is an example in the opposite direction.
"US per capita energy production is not that high."
But the resources are there.
"The great Lakes are large, Lake Baikal contains more fresh water than all of them combined."
But 1) Baikal is in the middle of nowhere and doesn't connect to any continuously navigable waterway. 2) The Great Lakes not only connect to the Atlantic but also to the Gulf of Mexico and numerous and large navigable tributaries throughout the Heartland. 3) The Great Lakes fresh water is also located in the industrial Heartland.
The U.K will be screwed - there would literally be nowhere to hide out from the hoard.
The part about not being invadable isn't true. The British made a good try in 1812 and were stopped largely because they didn't control the Great Lakes. had Perry been defeated at Lake Eerie or Jackson been defeated at New Orleans, it is doubtful we would have gotten out of that one with our territory intact. The open land border to the south is a highway if invasion every day.
Note that those rivers work as supply lines for an invader quite well, the Civil War being a case in point.
If the US were so invadable, why didn't the British re-invade the Great Lakes after the US took control of Lake Erie in Sept 1813? UK had the most powerful navy in the world. Perhaps it had to do with logistical barriers to invasion. In fact, the Gulf Campaign that ended in total disaster at New Orleans was launched as a diversion, to divert American attention from Canada.
The Civil War was not a foreign invasion, unless I'm missing something. It is, however, a case in point in another way. Foreign powers interested in dividing the US nevertheless stopped well short of providing active aid or intervening militarily to break the Union blockade.
"If the US were so invadable, why didn't the British re-invade the Great Lakes after the US took control of Lake Erie in Sept 1813?"
Because to Britain, the war in America was peripheral. The war with Napoleon was existential. The war with Bonaparte absorbed the vast majority of Britain's military power.
After Napoleon abdicated, they offered Wellington command in North America. He declined and advised the British government to make peace with America. He expected further trouble from Napoleon. (And got it!) He pointed out that an invasion of America, at least from Canada, would have to go by water due to the lack of roads and thus required control of the lakes, something Britain did not then have.
Given the mostly poor performance of the Army in the war of 1812, I doubt we ewould have lasted long against Britain in a one on one fight, but then it was the war against Napoleon and consequent demand for sailors to keep a large fleet at sea that led the British to impress American sailors, which si what started the trouble.
"The War of 1812 is a poor example of a foreign invasion."
The residents of Washington when the British army torched the place might beg to differ. In the Revolution, the British army rarely got more than twenty miles from a navigable river, and could land in difficulties when it did, as General Burgoyne learned to his sorrow.
"The Civil War was not a foreign invasion, unless I'm missing something"
The residents of Atlanta when Sherman torched the place, or the Shenandoah Valley when Sheridan burned the crops and barns might beg to differ. From the time that Grant captured Forts Henry and Donelson, opening up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers, western and central Tennessee lived in pawn. A Union army with a river as a supply line was always assured of supply. A river, unlike a road or railroad, cannot be wrecked or cut.
The point being that navigable rivers are, to an invading army, a perfect supply line and a road into the heart of the enemy's country. To believe that North America cannot be invaded across the oceans, when America defeated Germany and Japan across those same oceans, is both complacent and arrogant. The invasion and conquest of North America is perfectly feasible given the right precondition.
All that stuff about 1812? It just shows what a bad idea invading America was and still is--even with a bad US army and next to no US navy. DC, Burgoyne, etc. all goes to the same point. Invading America is simply a very bad idea.
Civil wars aren't foreign invasions. Period. The point of America being uninvadable is two oceans and impossible logistics for supply. The point of the Civil war is, no need to invade America--both sides were already here and had their much shorter supply lines in place.
The War of 1812 is a poor example of a foreign invasion. It was the US that declared war on the UK, and a major aim of the US was to invade and acquire territory in Canada. The UK war effort was aimed, not at seriously invading the US, but at preventing the US from taking Canada--thus the diversion at New Orleans. In fact, the UK had long before realized that its interests were better served by trading with the US rather than conquering the US--the UK was very ready for peace in 1814 because of the ill effects of their blockade on their own economy. The two oceans are a formidable barrier to foreign adventures, in both directions. Our very mixed record of foreign adventuring is an example in the opposite direction.
I'm not convinced.
The natural environment in what became the USA did not seem to stop Europeans from invading and subjugating the indigenous peoples.
US per capita energy production is not that high.
GDP growth? Liars do statistics!
The great Lakes are large, Lake Baikal contains more fresh water than all of them combined.
Much of the prime farmland will revert to grassland as the Ogallala Aquifer and fertilizer becomes unavailable.
Last and most critical, the population is too divided, we won't cooperate!
"US per capita energy production is not that high."
But the resources are there.
"The great Lakes are large, Lake Baikal contains more fresh water than all of them combined."
But 1) Baikal is in the middle of nowhere and doesn't connect to any continuously navigable waterway. 2) The Great Lakes not only connect to the Atlantic but also to the Gulf of Mexico and numerous and large navigable tributaries throughout the Heartland. 3) The Great Lakes fresh water is also located in the industrial Heartland.
As they say in R/E: Location, location, location.
Grassland? Grass fed Buff and Antelope.
Got an Army buddy near Fruitland. Gotta visit someday.