5 ms·
Your first sentence is correct but I don't think the second tracks. US is surrounded by massive bodies of water and has no land border with a hostile nation. In
by throwaway290 3y ago
Your first sentence is correct but I don't think the second tracks. US is surrounded by massive bodies of water and has no land border with a hostile nation. Invading it is not very practical. The tendency of civilian population to carry weapons may be a bigger deterrent to invasion.
It can sound cheeky but perhaps the biggest thing you have to show for it is overall more free and less murdery world thanks to people wanting to prosper and stuff. Going to war is suddenly unappealing (unless you are very small and have nothing to lose, but then you do less damage comparatively).
- WalterBright 3y agoThe US in WW2 invaded two other continents across oceans. Hitler thought the US wouldn't fight, and that the Soviet Union was too weak. Having a strong military and a willingness to fight, means you don't have to fight.
- throwaway290 3y agoAre you alluding to Allies vs Axis? Because I don't think US have invaded a country unilaterally in that war. It would be similar if Mexico/Canada/Cuba together declared war at US and then Russia joined them. Because then sure Russia can have a decent chance of successfully invading US across a sea and then strong military could make a difference. But Mexico and Canada won't and countries who could are inconveniently far. This is why I say lack of attempted invasions may be more thanks to good geopolitical situation and civilian population equipped for defense than strong military.
- WalterBright 3y agoThe US has had territorial wars with both Canada and Mexico.
- throwaway290 3y agoWas it the aggressor or the defender?
- WalterBright 3y agoThat usually depends on your point of view :-/