- 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 1:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote: Why would the mountains matter? have you ever seen a tank drive over a mountain? quote: Come in on the west coast, bomb and take over those cities/states. Fly over the Rockies and bomb all the major population centers and where are all the supplies for these bombers coming from?
We have railroads and roads that pass through, right? There are passes. Their supplies come from their country or what they can capture here. They've theorietically got all the time in the world. Take over the west coast and clog up passes, re supply like crazy, then clear out the passes and storm through.
1
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
we would blow the frickers up if we were being occupied. it's not like we'd turn the "off" switch and then let them turn it back on
same with our air strips and roads. we're not acting in a vacuum of normal life. we're facing occupation. we would fight dirty and frick our shite up to frick them over because we have teh understanding that they could not supply their army if we stop them from doing so
then it's a matter of suffering the losses of infrastructure and population on the west cost while the other 250M people and the 85% of our land organizes some sort of resistance. we would make that choice and the invaders would be limited. like i said, tehy take the west coast? great. have fun crossing a mountain range that crosses our nation, with a sweltering desert being the only flat area to cross
it's a logistical nightmare
I was just about to say, our best chance scenario is basically to destroy EVERYTHING. Turn this country back to a wasteland and try to beat them in a war of attrition.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:05 pm to poochie
How do y'all come up with these scenarios
shite lol
shite lol
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
have you ever seen a tank drive over a mountain?
That, and I would assume every major road going between the mountains would be destroyed before they even started the invasion with a week to prepare.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:06 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Mexico and Canada have bases and don't have an army to hold them.
what?
so they have a military but don't have a military? that makes no sense whatsoever
quote:
And Germany, UK, etc. are the ones attacking us apparently
then we will get the swiss, italians, aussies, kiwis, eastern europeans, middle eastern nations, etc on our side
the only reason teh US can invade places so easily is the fact that we have an international infrastructure that allows us to do this. the only reason that we were able to do this in europe in WW2 was because they allowed us in to liberate them.
assuming canada and mexico have no military means that the closes base would be central america, and they're not part of the invading force
it would take years to develop the infrastructure to develop an attack that could be maintained. we would have plenty of notice of this...so would canada, mexico, and whatever allies remained.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:06 pm to lsucoonass
quote:
How do y'all come up with these scenarios
shite lol
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:06 pm to fishfighter
quote:
Just pure dumb to think if the world turn against us and could over take us. Hell, once they tried to land troops, just about every house has anywhere from 2- 100 guns. Bang bang modher.
They just drop machine gun rounds from 1000' on everything. We can't shoot back.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:06 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
How the frick would it be impossible if we had no navy or airforce?
I think you're really overestimating the value of both of those. Yeah, that's a problem with coastal cities, but what about 85% of the rest of the country? The Air Force is only good for killing people, not occupying. So how is it even feasible they could conquer and occupy the nation as a whole. How would they take DFW or Atlanta in the long term, especially when the population is heavily armed and likely pretty creative?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:07 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:already done
our best chance scenario is basically to destroy EVERYTHING. Turn this country back to a wasteland
just insist the war be fought in jackson ms
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:07 pm to poochie
quote:
What are we organizing? We're just going to instantly create an Air Force to get behind their lines and attack bases? Our ground troop orginization would be child's play compared to their dumbest air squadron.
This.
It's dumbfounding that some people think we could resist. As I mentioned, they'd take everything West of the Rockies in a month, max. Our best case scenario (I guess) would be to sabotage everything to slow them down. However, like you mentioned, at this point we have ABSOLUTELY ZERO way of mounting any attack.
If, like in the scenario I mentioned it's Australia, they could basically invade the entire West Coast. Obviously we've sabotaged our infrastructure so for a while they are stuck supplying themselves, but it's not like we can seal up all our resources. They just send over engineers and rebuild the infrastructure (all supported with their still-existent modern technology while we're in the stone ages).
Then, whenever they want they zoom over and destroy the rest of us. This seriously is not a debate.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:08 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
The B-52 Stratofortress an unrefueled combat range of 8,800 miles so I figure their capabilities are somewhere in that ballpark.
nobody has a bomber close to equal that plane
just like nobody has the aircraft carriers or navy that we have
think of it in terms of this pic
apply that to all military vehicles
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:09 pm to lsucoonass
quote:
How do y'all come up with these scenarios
shite lol
Honestly, the thread about the captured soldiers in Japan and how they were tortured by Japanese military had me thinking. Also with the stuff going on in the ME and how people are being treated I was thinking how Americans would fare with our backs against the wall. Would we be soft and treat enemy invaders well once we captured some, or would have them begging us to just kill them within hours. Then, it just branched off into what I got in OP with defending our homeland.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:09 pm to FootballNostradamus
Seems like a bad scenario. Seeing as we don't have a military, it seems as though the invading forces are fighting civilians.
If this is the case, I take it they aren't following any rules of war. I don't see a case where they use many ground troops.
And I don't think there would be much to gain if there were that many countries were invading, I doubt they would be in much of a hurry to get things done. Main purpose seems like it'd just be to annihilate us.
Air assault would be slaughter, our smalls arms would have pretty much no effect. They'd slowly and steadily wear us down, then clean up with ground troups. I don't think it'd be good for us at all...
Honestly sounds like a dumb scenario though.
Kinda like asking if a bunch of nerds and a jock or two could kick Randy Couture's arse
...but but but first one of his arms and both his legs are cut off
If this is the case, I take it they aren't following any rules of war. I don't see a case where they use many ground troops.
And I don't think there would be much to gain if there were that many countries were invading, I doubt they would be in much of a hurry to get things done. Main purpose seems like it'd just be to annihilate us.
Air assault would be slaughter, our smalls arms would have pretty much no effect. They'd slowly and steadily wear us down, then clean up with ground troups. I don't think it'd be good for us at all...
Honestly sounds like a dumb scenario though.
Kinda like asking if a bunch of nerds and a jock or two could kick Randy Couture's arse
...but but but first one of his arms and both his legs are cut off
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:11 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:
I was just about to say, our best chance scenario is basically to destroy EVERYTHING. Turn this country back to a wasteland and try to beat them in a war of attrition.
and we would. the easiest thing to do after a war is rebuild infrastructure. and other than self-destruction, these hypothetical bombers would destroy a lot (and would have to in order to destroy things like power, industry, etc). that's the catch-22
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:11 pm to OMLandshark
So you're saying a navy and air force aren't valuable?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
But if we have none, whatever they have is infinitely better. Take that one Russian carrier and a few destroyers and park 50 miles off San fran. We can't attack it because we don't have ships. So they just keep running bombing raids to their planes are worn out. Waylay everything west of the Rockies the come on in.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:13 pm to Tunasntigers92
quote:
So you're saying a navy and air force aren't valuable?
they are valuable in a traditional war scenario, but not occupying. the US has found this out over and over again
we can beat any nation on earth, and probably everyone at once
we can't occupy iraq or afghanistan
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:14 pm to poochie
quote:
But no rules and a military >>>>> no rules and folks with guns.
Not in an occupation. If you're getting in and out of there quickly, then yeah, but when you have a long term occupation, you are dealing with a group of people that know a hell of a lot more about the environment than you do, and they likely vastly outnumber you as well. The scenario isn't like Iraq or Afghanistan where we turn it back over to the people. This is a hostile scenario where every last man, woman, and child will be against you. How are they supposed to continue a supply chain when people would most certainly rig roadways to blow pretty consistently and in big cities, any fricking amateur with a riffle could easily snipe an enemy troop from their apartment. Occupation would be impossible.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:15 pm to poochie
quote:
But if we have none, whatever they have is infinitely better.
i'm not saying we would still have them. the point is that we can't include american tech in the foreign forces
they don't have what we have, and they don't have nearly as much that we do.
quote:
Take that one Russian carrier and a few destroyers and park 50 miles off San fran. We can't attack it because we don't have ships.
and they could supply a single invasion force. nobody is doubting that
they can't supply that force or offer another invasion force anytime soon
quote:
So they just keep running bombing raids
where dot hey get the bombs? fuel? they'd have to make a trip back across the pacific every time they ran out
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Posted by SlowFlowPro
quotewe can't occupy iraq or afghanistan
Stop trying to compare it to this! We're going in there to help them defend themselves then turn it back over. We're barely trying (in the sense that it's a tiny fraction of our might) AND we have to play by rules.
Page 5 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News