Why wasn't the U.S. mainland ever attacked in WWII?

All of the fighting took place in Europe and Japan. Why is it that the mainland of the U.S. was the only mainland of the involving countries which wasn't attacked? Was our Air Force and Navy so strong, even back then, that it detered attacks on the mainland? I've always wondered this. It seems as if every war in the last 100 years or so, that the U.S. was involved in, never took place on the U.S. mainland.

EDIT:

Damn. I was wrong. I'm watching a documentary on WWII and I just learned that a German U-Boat actually emerged off the coast of Manhattan-NY and sunk numerous oil tankers. I'm very surprised by that.

There was a balloon bomb that killed some people in Oregon I remember reading.Oborozukiyo

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

[QUOTE="Oborozukiyo"]There was a balloon bomb that killed some people in Oregon I remember reading.NoobisMaxcimus

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

BluRayHiDef

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="NoobisMaxcimus"][QUOTE="Oborozukiyo"]There was a balloon bomb that killed some people in Oregon I remember reading.Oborozukiyo

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

optiow

I was just wondering, that's all. I simply find it peculiar that the U.S. has never been invaded. I guess the mainland's location is a huge advantage because it's so far from the other World Super Powers.

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="optiow"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

I was just wondering, that's all. I simply find it peculiar that the U.S. has never been invaded. I guess the mainland's location is a huge advantage because it's so far from the other World Super Powers.

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

Danm_999

Not even an air strike? They bombed Britain from the sky.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

BluRayHiDef

Not even an air strike? They bombed Britain from the sky.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

BluRayHiDef

Not even an air strike? They bombed Britain from the sky.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

Not even an air strike? They bombed Britain from the sky.

There is this big body of water in the way called an ocean, and you cant really march troops accross it or drive tanks, so its a bit difficult. Not to mention they had their hands full with Asia and Europe.

Actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_CampaignA long forgetten part of the war.

The Aleutian Islands Campaign was a struggle over the Aleutian Islands, part of Alaska, in the Pacific campaign of World War II starting on June 3, 1942. A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, but the remoteness of the islands and the difficulties of weather and terrain meant that it took nearly a year for a large U.S. force to eject them.

Unless your not counting Alaska. Which is technically mainland.

[QUOTE="optiow"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

BluRayHiDef

I was just wondering, that's all. I simply find it peculiar that the U.S. has never been invaded. I guess the mainland's location is a huge advantage because it's so far from the other World Super Powers.

It certainly could not be invaded today.

But the Japanese did occupy a remote island along the Aleutian chain near Alaska, rather an odd little place that was uninhabited.

Technical they were in U.S. territory then.

Edit: Ah, I see the guy above me caught the Aleutian island thing.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] The Japanese supply lines were stretched too far, they concluded they didn't have the resources to invade, say Australia, let alone something even further away from their sphere of influence like the West Coast, not to mention the US Navy held naval dominance following Midway. As for the Germans, they had the British navy to contend with, meaning they couldn't even make it to the British Isles before they'd be able to invade the East Coast. Not to mention they had the Russians in the rear by 1943. Basically, no Axis power had anywhere near the reach, or the lack of immediate enemies, to consider invading mainland USA.NoobisMaxcimus

Not even an air strike? They bombed Britain from the sky.

Even the American P-51 Mustang couldn't travel that distance from mainland U.S.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'd still like to know why a ground invasion on the U.S. mainland was never attempted.

67gt500

Germany certainly didn't being that they were fighting a two-front war before we entered the mix. The Japanese navy didn't have the capacity to project an invasion force accross the Pacific with any hope of victory.

Actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_CampaignA long forgetten part of the war.

The Aleutian Islands Campaign was a struggle over the Aleutian Islands, part of Alaska, in the Pacific campaign of World War II starting on June 3, 1942. A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, but the remoteness of the islands and the difficulties of weather and terrain meant that it took nearly a year for a large U.S. force to eject them.

Unless your not counting Alaska. Which is technically mainland.

Tetrarch9

Islands off the mainland of Alaska though.

http://www.japaneseballoonbombs.com/" title="http://www.japaneseballoonbombs.com/">Ballons bombs existed and some 9000 were launched from Japan against the US. U-boats operated off the US coast sinking tankers and cargo ships until the US developed better anti-submarine warfare systems.

[QUOTE="67gt500"][QUOTE="fidosim"] The Germans and Japanese were both a little busy at the time, and lacked the means to do so anyway.coolbeans90

Germany certainly didn't being that they were fighting a two-front war before we entered the mix. The Japanese navy didn't have the capacity to project an invasion force accross the Pacific with any hope of victory.

They could have used their Kamikaze-tactic.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="67gt500"] To be honest, I think they certainly had the means to do it -- the prospect of attacking a country whose civilian populus have a Constitutional right to bear arms was probably a little unnerving... would you want to attack a country that has more guns than people?BluRayHiDef

Germany certainly didn't being that they were fighting a two-front war before we entered the mix. The Japanese navy didn't have the capacity to project an invasion force across the Pacific with any hope of victory.

They could have used their Kamikaze-tactic.

Ah yes, the kamikaze. Wouldn't do much for an invasion force and only remotely effective against boats. Terribad idea.

The US mainland DID get attacked actually. One Japanese sub shelled LA, only did $500 worth of damage. That same sub shelled a base in washington, doing very little damage. And an Airplane was launched from another sub to fire bomb a forest (don't ask why) but the fire bombs didn't work as it ha djust rained. The only reason w enever hera of it is becasue the damage was sooooo insignificant.

The biggest advantage the US has over most other countries is that invasion is almost impossible. I say almost because it could still be done but it would take a massive effort. The US is surrounded by two oceans and two friendly countries. In order to successfully invade, they would have to either ally themselves with Mexico and/or Canada to use their land as a staging area (similar to how we used Kuwait as a staging area to invade Iraq in 2003) or they would have to have the most powerful Navy and Air Force in the world. The former scenario with them using Canada or Mexico is highly unlikely since they're two of our biggest allies. The latter scenario would mean they have the means to get their ships and planes all the way across the planet (depending on who's doing the invading) and then be able to sustain a constant supply line for their troops during the duration of the war.

This is part of the reason most people who have basic military knowledge laugh at the plots of Homefront and Modern Warfare 2, both of which had US land invasions where they were able to fly halfway across the planet to nearly annihilate us. Most civilians with no military experience don't know the logistics an invasion would take and just assume it's as simple as gathering a bunch of tanks, jets, and ships and attacking said country. Granted, there were attacks on US soil. However, you have to look at what kind of attacks they were. Pearl Harbor was a suicide attack, the pilots who attacked knew they wasn't coming back alive and their only mission was to cause death and destruction at the sacrifice of their lives. Alaska wasn't nearly as occupied and it was close enough to not be as hard to reach. The other missions were stealth missions or hit and run missions that wasn't at the level of an invasion.

They could have used their Kamikaze-tactic.

BluRayHiDef

They could have used their Kamikaze-tactic.

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Germany certainly didn't being that they were fighting a two-front war before we entered the mix. The Japanese navy didn't have the capacity to project an invasion force across the Pacific with any hope of victory.

coolbeans90

They could have used their Kamikaze-tactic.

Ah yes, the kamikaze. Wouldn't do much for an invasion force and only remotely effective against boats. Terribad idea.

What I meant is that since they couldn't launch an effective ground invasion on the U.S. mainland, they could at least use Kamikaze attacks to hit multiple civilian targets.

The biggest advantage the US has over most other countries is that invasion is almost impossible. I say almost because it could still be done but it would take a massive effort. The US is surrounded by two oceans and two friendly countries. In order to successfully invade, they would have to either ally themselves with Mexico and/or Canada to use their land as a staging area (similar to how we used Kuwait as a staging area to invade Iraq in 2003) or they would have to have the most powerful Navy and Air Force in the world. The former scenario with them using Canada or Mexico is highly unlikely since they're two of our biggest allies. The latter scenario would mean they have the means to get their ships and planes all the way across the planet (depending on who's doing the invading) and then be able to sustain a constant supply line for their troops during the duration of the war.

This is part of the reason most people who have basic military knowledge laugh at the plots of Homefront and Modern Warfare 2, both of which had US land invasions where they were able to fly halfway across the planet to nearly annihilate us. Most civilians with no military experience don't know the logistics an invasion would take and just assume it's as simple as gathering a bunch of tanks, jets, and ships and attacking said country. Granted, there were attacks on US soil. However, you have to look at what kind of attacks they were. Pearl Harbor was a suicide attack, the pilots who attacked knew they wasn't coming back alive and their only mission was to cause death and destruction at the sacrifice of their lives. Alaska wasn't nearly as occupied and it was close enough to not be as hard to reach. The other missions were stealth missions or hit and run missions that wasn't at the level of an invasion.

ad1x2

The more I learn about the near futility of the U.S. being invaded or having a conventional threat being posed to it any time soon, the more skeptical I get over the notion of soldiers and the military "fighting for [our] freedom". I think they can think of a more honest and realistic rallying cause than that. If they're trying to keep the geopolitical equation tilted in the favor of the U.S.'s or believe that they are instead helping people of other countries, that's still very important and fine. But don't give that half lie.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

They could have used their Kamikaze-tactic.

BluRayHiDef

Ah yes, the kamikaze. Wouldn't do much for an invasion force and only remotely effective against boats. Terribad idea.

What I meant is that since they couldn't launch an effective ground invasion on the U.S. mainland, they could at least use Kamikaze attacks to hit multiple civilian targets.

Might as well throw rocks. Zeroes weren't exactly Boeing 747s. And the Japanese air force possessed only 1500 aircraft at the beginning of the war. Yet again, a minuscule percentage of those could be transported to within flight range by carrier. So, no.

The more I learn about the near futility of the U.S. being invaded or having a conventional threat being posed to it any time soon, the more skeptical I get over the notion of soldiers and the military "fighting for our freedom". I think they can think of a more honest and realistic rallying cause than that. If they're trying to keep the geopolitical equation tilted in the favor of the U.S.'s or believe that they are instead helping people of other countries, that's still very important and fine. But don't give that half lie.

jetpower3

I would say that the war in Afganistan is a war that is genuinely for the sake of the safety of the U.S., since Afganistan harbors terrorists.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

The more I learn about the near futility of the U.S. being invaded or having a conventional threat being posed to it any time soon, the more skeptical I get over the notion of soldiers and the military "fighting for our freedom". I think they can think of a more honest and realistic rallying cause than that. If they're trying to keep the geopolitical equation tilted in the favor of the U.S.'s or believe that they are instead helping people of other countries, that's still very important and fine. But don't give that half lie.

BluRayHiDef

I would say that the war in Afganistan is a war that is genuinely for the sake of the safety of the U.S., since Afganistan harbors terrorists.

I don't know about that. Since we can seem to no longer reach most of the operating region of Al Qaeda in the frontier region of North-West Pakistan, the mission has seemed to morph into one in the nature of struggling tremendously to cement at least an Afghan government that will last when the U.S. and NATO are gone.

Regardless though, it just seems to be a phrase that gets tossed around too much, and I'm always sickened by the fact that the U.S. seems to put a verydisproportionateamount of care towards its military in comparison to the people they are actually fighting in support for.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

The more I learn about the near futility of the U.S. being invaded or having a conventional threat being posed to it any time soon, the more skeptical I get over the notion of soldiers and the military "fighting for our freedom". I think they can think of a more honest and realistic rallying cause than that. If they're trying to keep the geopolitical equation tilted in the favor of the U.S.'s or believe that they are instead helping people of other countries, that's still very important and fine. But don't give that half lie.

jetpower3

I would say that the war in Afganistan is a war that is genuinely for the sake of the safety of the U.S., since Afganistan harbors terrorists.

I don't know about that. Since we can seem to no longer reach most of the operating region of Al Qaeda in the frontier region of North-West Pakistan, the mission has seemed to morph into one in the nature of struggling tremendously to cement at least an Afghan government that will last when the U.S. and NATO are gone.

Regardless though, it just seems to be a phrase that gets tossed around too much, and I'm always sickened by the fact that the U.S. seems to put a verydisproportionateamount of care towards its military in comparison to the people they are actually fighting in support for.

Sometimes I wish that we just evacuated the civilian population of Afganistan from the areas where the terrorists are located and just nuked the whole region. That should kill them all off.

The Japanese flew "baloon bombs" into California.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I would say that the war in Afganistan is a war that is genuinely for the sake of the safety of the U.S., since Afganistan harbors terrorists.

BluRayHiDef

I don't know about that. Since we can seem to no longer reach most of the operating region of Al Qaeda in the frontier region of North-West Pakistan, the mission has seemed to morph into one in the nature of struggling tremendously to cement at least an Afghan government that will last when the U.S. and NATO are gone.

Regardless though, it just seems to be a phrase that gets tossed around too much, and I'm always sickened by the fact that the U.S. seems to put a verydisproportionateamount of care towards its military in comparison to the people they are actually fighting in support for.

Sometimes I wish that we just evacuated the civilian population of Afganistan from the areas where the terrorists are located and just nuked the whole region. That should kill them all off.

Sounds like something my father would say :P. Although he doesn't seem to care about any of them and would not hesitate to nuke everyone everywhere in the Middle East.

The Japanese flew "baloon bombs" into California.

dkrustyklown

I just read about it on Wikipedia. They launched 9,300 balloons which caused a total of 6 deaths. Most of them were horribly ineffective. I love the following quote from the Wikipedia article.

Article

...they were designed as a cheap weapon intended to make use of the jet stream over the Pacific Ocean and wreak havoc on Canadian and American cities, forests, and farmland.Article

Lol. They didn't live up to the intended idea. Fail.