- 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 12:38 pm to windshieldman
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:38 pm to windshieldman
quote:
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.
There's a difference between occupation and extermination with annexation.
They could exterminate the vast majority of us, then move their people into our new lands and just rule it as their own.
The issue would be dividing up the land.
There is a new show coming out called "The Man in the High Castle" that deals with what would have happened if the US lost WWII and Germany and Japan split the US in two. The pilot was interesting.
1
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:39 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
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.
I remember someone telling me, that I think a Japanese commander, or someone during WW2, was not wanting to try and attack us. Something of the nature of behind every blade of grass there is a gun. Now, granted, he was also taking our military into account. I can't remember who it was that said that or what it was exactly that was said.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:39 pm to VermilionTiger
let's assume they can take the west coast
there is still a huge arse moutain range they have to cross before they can even enter the southwest/plains
that area is also very dry without much water. resupplying will be hard as frick and progress will be difficult
and for everyone talking about their air strength, how teh frick are they going to supply, launch, and commit to an air campaign? how would they even get an initial air campaign going? it's not like they can fly bombers over from china in a single trip
there is still a huge arse moutain range they have to cross before they can even enter the southwest/plains
that area is also very dry without much water. resupplying will be hard as frick and progress will be difficult
and for everyone talking about their air strength, how teh frick are they going to supply, launch, and commit to an air campaign? how would they even get an initial air campaign going? it's not like they can fly bombers over from china in a single trip
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:41 pm to poochie
Again, we would know this was coming at least a year in advance. Long enough to mine ports and airfields. Begin manufacturing ground to air defenses, weaponize existing planes, ships ect. While we begin production of real war type weapons.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
knowing the terrain, knowing your social groups, and having exponentially larger numbers would make occupying this much terrain is the advantage
I don't think it would matter, they wouldn't be the ones hunting the militias down they would use other Americans for that.
No major American city would last weeks without power, water, or supplies all the while being under the constant aerial bombardment. A force of a few thousand troops aligned with locals or a disenfranchisement part of the area would control a city.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:43 pm to unbeWEAVEable
quote:
What a dumb fricking scenario.
For sure. There is no scenario where another country can invade us and take over the country as a whole. Maybe individual cities or states, but there's no way an invading army could control 300 million people spread out over 7 time zones. There's a lot of distance between cities in the U.S. and plenty of them to where any military invading the U.S. would be decimated quickly if they leave major urban centers.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:44 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
That would be completely untrue in this scenario. The reason why it would be impossible is because of our Navy, Air Force and Air Defense systems.
The reason it would be impossible is because America is fricking huge, has three major population hubs and most everyone has their own firearms. An invading force wouldn't be able to walk half a mile in any direction without having someone shooting at them through the trees.
You can't conquer 300 million people spread out across a country bigger than all of continental Europe, especially not when the majority of those people have access to weapons and know how to use them.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:45 pm to windshieldman
Some of you truly have no concept of modern military capabilities if you think the US could withstand an attack from someone like Russia if we had no organized forces of our own and just small arms to resist.
Have yal seen what modern Navy's and Air Force's look like? Also, it's not that the Middle East can resist us because of their awesome guerrilla tactics. They can resist us because of our restraint and rules of war. If we wanted to we could turn that area into a Ghengis Khan-type wasteland in a month.
In this scenario, the US is a wasteland in a month as well.
Have yal seen what modern Navy's and Air Force's look like? Also, it's not that the Middle East can resist us because of their awesome guerrilla tactics. They can resist us because of our restraint and rules of war. If we wanted to we could turn that area into a Ghengis Khan-type wasteland in a month.
In this scenario, the US is a wasteland in a month as well.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:45 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
No major American city would last weeks without power, water, or supplies
and an occupying military would last without power, water, or supplies?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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
And you get to choose between invading via desert or frozen tundra.
It's fricking impossible and not because of our military. The US is essentially an island.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:46 pm to windshieldman
It's Saturday and you're thinking about this dumb shite?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
a. we will still know they're coming. this isn't star trek where they can teleport over
So?
quote:
b. we have a HUGE country with 300M people and 300M guns for personal use
So?
quote:
look, the US is the most powerful military in the history of the earth, with spy/satellite tech taht is almost magical
In this scenario, all that shite is (somehow) gone, though. Maybe we still have satellite tech, but whatever if we have nothing but small arms to combat them with.
quote:
we couldn't occupy Iraq or Afghanistan effectively. we were dealing with poor people without a real military, also
Again, our restraint and rules of war are the only things that stopped this. We could turn that place into a parking lot if we wanted to.
quote:
you think people could conquer a nation 3000 miles across with various terrain and hundreds of millions of people and guns?
Yes, effortlessly.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:49 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
There is a new show coming out called "The Man in the High Castle" that deals with what would have happened if the US lost WWII and Germany and Japan split the US in two. The pilot was interesting.
The pilot might have been interesting but the premise is fricking retarded. Japan and Germany divide up the United States?
BWHAHAHAHAHA
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:49 pm to OMLandshark
Before we go on, let's determine the level of occupation. There have been several scenarios laid out. So op, what level are they occupying?
•Not looking to but don't care if they kill us all?
•preemptive scorched earth?
•Try not to kill too many of us, just want to own the land and be peaceful?
In all three (and others), they could technically occupy.
(I think I have several misspellins in this post but my autocorrect ain't workin)
•Not looking to but don't care if they kill us all?
•preemptive scorched earth?
•Try not to kill too many of us, just want to own the land and be peaceful?
In all three (and others), they could technically occupy.
(I think I have several misspellins in this post but my autocorrect ain't workin)
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:49 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:
Some of you truly have no concept of modern military capabilities if you think the US could withstand an attack from someone like Russia if we had no organized forces of our own and just small arms to resist.
a. this scenario presumes we have no allies. if we had no military, we'd still have the militaries of canada, mexico, australia, NZ, etc. they would not sit idly by and watch their major economic partner be destroyed. hell it would take europe less time to get over here to help than for china/russia to cross the pacific. if the US was destroyed, Europe would be destroyed economically
b. that army could not sustain any sort of operation. they would not have the supplies or ability to supply itself. destroying our infrastructure destroys their ability to sustain the invasion. it's a catch-22. the US gets around this by having bases and allies EVERYWHERE. this invasion would not have this advantage
quote:
Have yal seen what modern Navy's and Air Force's look like?
with these modern militarizes, how would they even get bombers to the US? China and Russia have how many aircraft carriers? and those support air fighters more than bombers. and once they got here, they couldn't go back
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:51 pm to windshieldman
quote:
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.
Lol, some of yal have watched The Patriot and Braveheart way too much.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:51 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:
The pilot might have been interesting but the premise is fricking retarded.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:51 pm to poochie
And this belongs in this thread.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and an occupying military would last without power, water, or supplies?
they would restore those things once the city surrendered, similar to WWII
Under the OP's scenario, we have no military, the United State government wouldn't last long. The occupying military would be bolstered by locals.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:52 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:
In this scenario, all that shite is (somehow) gone, though.
that's not the point. our military is vastly better than china's and russia's. with that advantage, we failed
and we failed in areas without the same logistical issues that the terrain of the US
and we failed in areas without the level of personal numbers of weapons
quote:
Again, our restraint and rules of war are the only things that stopped this. We could turn that place into a parking lot if we wanted to.
from our bases in the region
something, again, that China/Russia would not have
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News