- 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 the entire world attacked the USA...
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:44 am to UpToPar
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:44 am to UpToPar
quote:
do you think those people may try to obtain arms from somewhere most likely by force? This is the exact problem. There would be chaos, looting, a civil war between the haves and the have nots.
Good. We could purge those shite bags before things got real. Who do you think is gonna fair better? Gun owners or those trying to take them?
1
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:46 am to SmackoverHawg
quote:
Good. We could purge those shite bags before things got real. Who do you think is gonna fair better? Gun owners or those trying to take them?
Obviously the gun owners, but that means you just eradicated a majority of your population.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:47 am to KCM0Tiger
quote:And you've given little thought to it.
There needn't be much analysis, it's an absurd thought to entertain.
You're already ignoring the fundamental issues of transportation and support, but then when you factor in air/navy, the numbers of opposing forces you seem fixated on are ash. And there is no way around that.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:51 am to UpToPar
quote:Which is relevant how?
Do you remember the spike in firearm and ammunition prices after Sandy Hook? That was just because there was a fear that there MIGHT be gun control legislation.
quote:Well, assuming we have a government with a brain, e.g., Nobama, I think they would recognize the value of maintaining a balance with arms/ammo for the military and citizens. They'd be stupid not to.
As for the us having all the supplies they need, for a war of this magnitude, I think the us would attempt to stockpile as much firepower and ammo as possible creating a scarcity of available firearms and ammo to the general public.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:51 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I think some folks are just dismissing the sheer numbers of men and hardware in the "rest of the world.
We arent dismissing the numbers out there. We are talking about how hard it would be to even get them all in Canada and Mexico and ready for a war. Could Mexico even house and sustain 1 billion people in that time frame?
quote:
They have the rest of the world to store materials and send wave after wave after wave.
Send wave after wave of what?
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:51 am to UpToPar
quote:
but that means you just eradicated a majority of your population.
You mean the part that would loot and pillage? And that already don't own firearms? Hmmmm...sounds like a net win. 90% would be shite bags that would contribute nothing and would suck up resources. "Good" people would be armed by friends, military, LE or legal means. Common sense is to arm as many as possible. Gun owners would be far more generous than you give them credit.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:52 am to SmackoverHawg
quote:A THIRD fundamental assumption that would make/break the entire thing. So we're starting to have to assume a lot before the first shot is even fired.
And to those mentioning infighting and chaos here, what countries are going to send all their troops and leave their home countries defenseless? Iran or Iraq? Hell no, Israel would take that shite. Any of the African nations? China? Russia? Where are these troops going to come from. They still have to defend themselves from each other. And they still have to have law enforcement and means of production back home.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:54 am to Deactived
quote:
We arent dismissing the numbers out there. We are talking about how hard it would be to even get them all in Canada and Mexico and ready for a war. Could Mexico even house and sustain 1 billion people in that time frame?
With a year to bring in men over time, and supplies, Canada, Mexico, Central America and S. America all would be staging areas.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:56 am to USMCTiger03
Yea the assumptions are kind of out of hand.
People thinking we are going to lose are acting like our country is going to be helter skelter while the world is going to be this unified perfect fighting force.
I like our chances of defending our land against the world. After the first initial onslaught, the future attacks will be less and less as fierce. Once our forces take out some of their transportation on the water, they literally wont even be able to get here. This would probabaly be before most Americans even see a foreign soldier.
People thinking we are going to lose are acting like our country is going to be helter skelter while the world is going to be this unified perfect fighting force.
I like our chances of defending our land against the world. After the first initial onslaught, the future attacks will be less and less as fierce. Once our forces take out some of their transportation on the water, they literally wont even be able to get here. This would probabaly be before most Americans even see a foreign soldier.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:57 am to SmackoverHawg
quote:
Hmmmm...sounds like a net win. 90% would be shite bags that would contribute nothing and would suck up resources.
I don't think it's fair to say that 90% of the people that don't own substantial firepower are shitbags. It's probably not feasible to continue manufacturing and such with half the workforce.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:58 am to Deactived
quote:
People thinking we are going to lose are acting like our country is going to be helter skelter while the world is going to be this unified perfect fighting force.
With a year to organize, I'd assume both sides would be very well coordinated.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 12:58 am to Deactived
quote:
quote: They have the rest of the world to store materials and send wave after wave after wave.
quote:
Jones
Send wave after wave of what?
Exactly! Have y'all seen the rest of the world?
The rest of the World has been relying on US for the most part to be their protector, they're a joke.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 1:00 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
Which is relevant how
Anytime there is a shortage scare there will be a price jump.
quote:
Well, assuming we have a government with a brain, e.g., Nobama, I think they would recognize the value of maintaining a balance with arms/ammo for the military and citizens. They'd be stupid not to.
You would hope, but this is far from a sure thing.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 1:01 am to LaFlyer
quote:
I disagree on the argument of airpower as a winner of anything ever. Strategic bombing(non nuclear) has never in the history of war ever won. It could be argued that it is in fact a costly failure that drains resources of the nation doing the bombing in manpower and equipment,(developing the B29 during WWII was only second in cost to the Manhattan project) while actually hardening the resolve of the country being bombed. i.e. The Blitz and North Vietnam. The US and Britain bombed Germany night and day from Mid 1942 to 1945 with no end in sight until June of 1944 when the Allies attacked from the west and Russia continued advance from the east.
Your thinking is about 40 years outdated. In Desert Storm we achieved air superiority and reduced the 4th largest army in the world, 10th largest armor, etc., to stinking ash.
Air superiority is everything in this age, ESPECIALLY in a defensive posture where you're not relying on boots on the ground to have to occupy hostile territory.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 1:04 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
Air superiority is everything in this age, ESPECIALLY in a defensive posture where you're not relying on boots on the ground to have to occupy hostile territory.
Not to mention the shite that no one knows about. We probably be zapping their arse from space. We haven't been up there fricking around just for phones and shite.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 1:05 am to LaFlyer
quote:Water has certainly won wars. Trafalgar. Salamis. Actium. Just to name three, and I'd assert that Midway essentially defeated Japan. The nukes just hastened the inevitable.
Air and water have never won a war
Posted on 3/27/14 at 1:07 am to RogerTheShrubber
See that was one part of the hypothetical that was unclear.
One side said well we can just stop that before it happens. The other side said well that cant happen until the year is up. Well the movement of troops is technically a war time activity.
Bringing in supplies to Canada in a strategic position once the war starts will be hard.
Once again, could they really sustain a billion people and have them prepared for war?
I guess S. America could be a staging area. We could easily lock down the Panama Canal area so anything leaving S. America would have to be by ship.
Back to getting people and supplies here. This act in itself would take up so much time and effort that how much could be devoted to the other necessary things for war?
Oh you transported a billion people to Mexico and are ready to invade a fortified U.S. border filled with superior soldiers and fighting equipment who have been preparing for a year? Good luck with that.
The carnage that the U.S. military would lay down on an invading force of malnourished and outgunned soldiers would be unreal
One side said well we can just stop that before it happens. The other side said well that cant happen until the year is up. Well the movement of troops is technically a war time activity.
Bringing in supplies to Canada in a strategic position once the war starts will be hard.
quote:
Mexico, Central America
Once again, could they really sustain a billion people and have them prepared for war?
quote:
S. America all would be staging areas.
I guess S. America could be a staging area. We could easily lock down the Panama Canal area so anything leaving S. America would have to be by ship.
Back to getting people and supplies here. This act in itself would take up so much time and effort that how much could be devoted to the other necessary things for war?
Oh you transported a billion people to Mexico and are ready to invade a fortified U.S. border filled with superior soldiers and fighting equipment who have been preparing for a year? Good luck with that.
The carnage that the U.S. military would lay down on an invading force of malnourished and outgunned soldiers would be unreal
Posted on 3/27/14 at 1:07 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:So in addition to moving enough troops to make a difference, you're also moving enough mechanized infantry to defeat our navy/air?
I think some folks are just dismissing the sheer numbers of men and hardware in the "rest of the world." Russia, China GBR, Germany alone could overwhelm the US.
It's so fricking ludicrous I wonder what magic would do this? Without air superiority, our air would obliterate them.Posted on 3/27/14 at 1:09 am to UpToPar
quote:In today's US a huge percentage doesn't even work anyway but takes resources, so no big deal if they have to..."go".
Obviously the gun owners, but that means you just eradicated a majority of your population.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 1:15 am to LaFlyer
He was fighting on only one front at first his major mistake was taking on Russia and allowing an ally to bring the sleeping giant into the war.
He also had complete controll or over site of every aspect of the war his distrust or his paranoia led to delays in troop movements, counter attacks, or strategic plans.
He also had complete controll or over site of every aspect of the war his distrust or his paranoia led to delays in troop movements, counter attacks, or strategic plans.
Page 11 of 17
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News