- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If America was attacked by other countries how would we defend with no military?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:18 pm to windshieldman
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:18 pm to windshieldman
Your first paragraph appears pretty outlandish.
0
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:18 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
How the frick would it be impossible if we had no navy or airforce?
the US destroyed the Iraqi and Afhani militaries, built bases of operations, and couldn't occupy their countries
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
we couldn't occupy Iraq or Afghanistan effectively. we were dealing with poor people without a real military, also
you think people could conquer a nation 3000 miles across with various terrain and hundreds of millions of people and guns?
If they didn't care about collateral damage, then absolutely.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the US destroyed the Iraqi and Afhani militaries, built bases of operations, and couldn't occupy their countries
Because of the Geneva convention, and multiple treaties laying out the rules of engagement.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
we couldn't occupy Iraq or Afghanistan effectively. we were dealing with poor people without a real military, also
you think people could conquer a nation 3000 miles across with various terrain and hundreds of millions of people and guns?
I'm thinking the same, it would be alot tougher than people think, even with us having no military.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:21 pm to KosmoCramer
look there could be an invasion force, but their supply lines would be impossible to develop with the ocean
it's not like they're going to drop in with 100M soldiers on our coast with an ability to support them for any length of time
it's not like they're going to drop in with 100M soldiers on our coast with an ability to support them for any length of time
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:21 pm to KosmoCramer
Fwiw, you can't compare what we're doing in the Middle East to this scenario. Yes, we have the biggest and best, but we're not focusing all that energy into occupying. And also we have to play by our rules. If we were just going into the Middle East and bombing the f out of everyone and every thing (military and civilian alike) we could take those places over in a heartbeat.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:22 pm to windshieldman
quote:
We have no Air Force, tanks, battle ships...
they do have whatever Air Force they have and can do aerial assaults...
How long do y'all think it would take to totally capture the entire country and we surrender
Not long
Day one they take out our electrical grid
Day two they take out our oil refineries
Day three they wait for the looting to start
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:22 pm to poochie
quote:
If other countries have armies/navies/af's, we're fricked. But again, this is retarded.
I've already agreed this is retarded, still wanted to see other's opinions. I think many people here and in other countries feel American citizens are soft, I feel with our backs against the wall we would be some of the most brutal people on earth.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:24 pm to windshieldman
It's not about us being soft, it's about bringing a roll of dental floss to an ICBM fight. You can have all the ar-15's and binelli sbe-II's and they'll come I with their jets and no rules and just wipe the floor.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:25 pm to windshieldman
everyone facing occupation and extermination will get brutal as shite. oh so the occupying force won't have rules? neither will we
this is like a "zombie apocalypse" scenario but with more fearsome opponents
this is like a "zombie apocalypse" scenario but with more fearsome opponents
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:25 pm to windshieldman
I'm not sure how big those armies are added up, I'm sure alot bigger than our population of people that could fight. I would imagine in this scenario kids as old as 12-14 and old folks even close to their 70s, plus women, would be armed. I figure 200 million people doing guerrilla warfare would be more devastating then people would think.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
But no rules and a military >>>>> no rules and folks with guns.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:27 pm to poochie
quote:
It's not about us being soft, it's about bringing a roll of dental floss to an ICBM fight. You can have all the ar-15's and binelli sbe-II's and they'll come I with their jets and no rules and just wipe the floor.
they would win the "war" but could not occupy the territory, just like nobody could do the same to china or russia
there is ONE group in the HISTORY OF MANKIND who pulled that off
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:29 pm to poochie
quote:
But no rules and a military >>>>> no rules and folks with guns.
not in terms of occupation
knowing the terrain, knowing your social groups, and having exponentially larger numbers would make occupying this much terrain is the advantage
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
Depends, what is their endgame? If it's to occupy and not extirminate, then I agree. If they just want our land, then I disagree the imbalance between us and them would be too great. Any resistance by our rebels and they just fly a few jets in and poof, they gone. They'd basically be like contra playing with unlimited lives. The true question is, at what point do we break? 100mm dead, 200mm dead? 250mm? They can just keep hammering away.
Again, this is just retarded though because in reality we'd be on a level playing field.
Again, this is just retarded though because in reality we'd be on a level playing field.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:33 pm to poochie
quote:
If it's to occupy and not extirminate, then I agree. If they just want our land, then I disagree
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:34 pm to poochie
quote:
Depends, what is their endgame? If it's to occupy and not extirminate, then I agree. If they just want our land, then I disagree the imbalance between us and them would be too great. Any resistance by our rebels and they just fly a few jets in and poof, they gone. They'd basically be like contra playing with unlimited lives. The true question is, at what point do we break? 100mm dead, 200mm dead? 250mm? They can just keep hammering away.
Again, this is just retarded though because in reality we'd be on a level playing field.
It would be to occupy. You have to taken into account those countries funding to do this invasion. They don't have an endless supply of funding. Just like Russia in Afghanistan, money would be an issue at some point for them.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don't think they would have an issue taking over the North East region. Those skinny jean wearing losers would panic and obviously not have the weapons to compete
South of the mason dixon could as well be Afghanistan and south of i-10 is basically an ISIS equivalent
South of the mason dixon could as well be Afghanistan and south of i-10 is basically an ISIS equivalent
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:37 pm to windshieldman
Better than any other country in the world. The U.S. is really unconquerable. Everyone here is armed and spread out. It's not even feasible we have a land invasion, even without the military.
Page 2 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News