[ccday]

A great quote from Lincoln:

> From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.

[OJFord]

That is a great quote. But isn't the obvious answer From the South, or Canada, or a fracturing of states within?

(I'm not American nor living there btw, I don't mean it as any sort of political point.)

It is also perhaps dated in the send that it assumes crushing defeat happens on the battlefield.

[ccday]

This is purely my opinion: Lincoln’s point was that the threat of civil war or violent dissent (what we today would call domestic terrorism) is a much greater threat to the US than foreign states. I think this remains true today. In fact, what you mention when you say a fracturing of states within was exactly what he was talking about.

A foreign state would need to cross the Atlantic ocean, contend with the most powerful Navy on earth several times over, land in either Canada or Mexico, both of which are US allies, and then mount a land invasion on the US homeland. It’s hard to imagine how that would be possible.

You raise a good point when you say crushing defeat does not necessarily happen on the conventional battlefield. Nuclear weapons create the possibility of MAD, and other “battlefields” like the cyberspace or global economic warfare have developed since Lincoln’s time. I still think the essence of what he said is true though: the greatest threat to the US comes from within.

[vba616]

Drones will change things before long.

I'm thinking of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu-Go_balloon_bomb

almost forgotten, but how different it would be if they were intelligent.

Talk about an amazing coincidence:

"On March 10, 1945, one of the last paper balloons descended in the vicinity of the Manhattan Project's production facility at the Hanford Site. This balloon caused a short circuit in the power lines supplying electricity for the nuclear reactor cooling pumps, but backup safety devices restored power almost immediately."

[nautilius]

How would smart balloon bombs make the U.S. more 'invadible'?

[vba616]

Not literally balloons, but guided drones generally. They would make the US "more invadable" by being an invasion. Think about it being just a constant for years, and disrupting American society kind of like covid. People would have to change their lives, consider everything in relationship to defense, even if there were few casualties. It would be demoralizing if most of the existing weaponry was no use.

I haven't gone out of my way to familiarize myself with the perennial rocket launches at Israel, but that's the general sort of thing I'm picturing. Harassment that would demonstrate people are never safe, while not rising to the level where the international community would accept massive retaliation.

[nautilius]

How are drone attacks an invasion? So from your own argument, do you consider Israel an occupied country because rockets are constantly launched at it? How about London during the Blitz? I don't think either group would ever consider themselves having been 'invaded'.

[b112]

Lincoln’s point was that the threat of civil war or violent dissent (what we today would call domestic terrorism) is a much greater threat to the US

Which us why those which dislike the US's place in the world, focus so much on fanning any flames of discontent, or political differences they can.

[bshipp]

Agreed. Even when the forces were more balanced and Hitler had declared war on the USA the German army never stepped foot on the lower 48. the closest they got a few uboats picking off merchant shipping but even that was pushed back after a few months of horrendous American losses.

I'm truly surprised Hitler never tried some sort of guerrilla attack with a small force just to cause chaos and terror in the heartland. it's not like the USA was very well defended at all from any sort of coordinated landing back in the early 40's.

[dugmartin]

There was a rather incompetent attempt that was quickly rolled up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

[BlueTemplar]

By the point the USA declared war, he had basically just lost the war against the USSR (as it's in those days that his Blitzkrieg definitely ground down, in visual sight of the Kremlin, to add insult to injury). So he just didn't have anything to spare for such an attack.

[vba616]

Hitler made the rather peculiar decision to declare war on the US first, a few days after Pearl Harbor.

Supposedly it was pointed out that their agreement for mutual defense with Japan didn't require them to declare war if Japan was the aggressor. But that was ignored.

[SllX]

A lot of Canada doesn’t have what you would call “infrastructure” until you’re well within range of the US Border. They’re also about equally insulated from foreign invasion and I think any US invasion that called for invading Canada first would be facing challenges that make invading Russia in the winter look like a pleasant stroll in the park.

Mexico is also about equally protected from foreign invasion. I guess their biggest threat would be us, and not without precedent, but they are not a threat to us. And just as Mexico is not a threat, neither are the nations south of Mexico a threat to Mexico. This was all true even in Lincoln’s time.

So, yeah, suicide it is. That includes any kind of internal fracturing.

[bshipp]

I enjoyed this comment. Our Canadian defensive strategy is to simply keep walking away from the attackers. I remain convinced here are many places in Canada that no human has yet laid eyes on.

We have forest fires in the northwest territories that span hundreds of thousands of acres and its a coin flip if they'll even send a plane up to observe them. No one cares because no one lives within 500 km of them.

If you average the number of people per square kilometer, from a statistical perspective, this country is completely empty.

[craftyguy]

canada isn't even in the top 10 countries with the smallest population density: https://wikiless.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies...

[mkl]

Being pedantic, but yes it is. (I investigated as I found your statement surprising). That table is sorted by rounded value, which means the six countries whose density rounds to 4 are in more or less random order relative to each other, and also several entries near the bottom are not actual countries. Canada is the 8th least dense actual country there, counting Western Sahara. Here are the densities based on the population and area numbers in that table (reordered):

  Mauritania: 4.272157756864267
  Botswana: 3.8729690721649486
  Libya: 3.7956278345476657
  Canada: 3.712146921230246
  Guyana: 3.6238062232228834
  Suriname: 3.5159931632279333
  *French Guiana (France): 3.387099863528623
  Iceland: 3.2690582524271843
  Australia: 3.2368791361025395
  Namibia: 2.9702730179990002
  Western Sahara [note 10]: 2.13309022556391
  Mongolia: 2.0268419989310256
  *Falkland Islands (UKOT): 0.2656699252443933
  *Svalbard and Jan Mayen (Norway): 0.04253308128544423
  *Greenland (Denmark): 0.026113459945726992

[bshipp]

50%+ of Canadians live south of the 45th parallel. However, that's only a minute fraction of Canada's land area. I've driven the road between Baie-Comeau, Quebec, and Labrador City, NL/Labrador. Seven hours at 100km/h, at least 5 hours of which the only signs of human life you see are the occasional vehicle driving in the opposite direction. Not much different if you drive around Northern Ontario, or start heading north from Edmonton or Prince George.

So yes, Canada has 37 million people and may or may not rank up there with the lowest densities in the world. But if you actually drive around Canada you'll quickly realize that the entire family is packed into one tiny closet when the rest of the house is completely empty.

[brokenmachine]

Australia's pretty similar FWIW. Everyone lives near the coastline.

[argsnd]

With a strict definition of “country” it is exactly number 10

[not2b]

Mexico did suffer invasion and occupation by the French in the 1860s. The US was busy with the Civil War and in no position to try to enforce the Monroe Doctrine (Monroe's statement saying the US would oppose any European attempt to re-establish colonies in the Western Hemisphere).

[SllX]

A fair point, but that story ends with French withdrawal and Maximillian I’s execution after a Republican victory.

You may be interested in the Revolutions podcast though which touches on these events from a couple of different perspectives, but includes an entire part dedicated to Revolution in Mexico.

[vopi]

The fracturing of the states is what he is referring to: "we will live forever or die by suicide".

It case you don't know, he was the president when states did fracture (US civil war).

[the_af]

> or a fracturing of states within?

That's precisely Lincoln's point:

> if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher

[vasco]

He admittedly didn't know about computers. No need to walk in anymore.