Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was thinking about this a little while ago... It was incredibly difficult for the US to occupy Iraq, and this was the best and most well funded army in the world.
So I thought, what about the citizens of the US vs any military in the world. My vote goes to the US citizens for the victory. Look at how many guns this country owns privately. There is ABSOLUTELY no way any military could try to occupy 100,000,000 armed and dangerous citizens. Look at our oil reserves and food supply and arable land reserves and water supply...
All those fancy military pieces of equipment do is battle other equipment. When your trying to occupy a piece of land and you have 10000 people hiding in the woods somewhere with Ar 15s and hunting rifles, a tank or ship or plane really can't do that much, you have to resort to infantry, and I don't think military infantry would hold much of an edge on disgruntled US patriotic gun owners.
Could another military obliterate the US and everyone and everything in it? Yes, that's not too debatable, but for someone to come in and occupy and try to get any resources or people or capital out of the US I think would be virtually impossible. All that they could ever get would be the natural resources left after everything is destroyed.
If someone did want just the land and resources, Russia would be a much, much easier target. Heck, I think eastern Russia could be taken much more easily if it was citizens east of the Urals vs an army such as China's or India's.
Thoughts?
I more or less agree but if you have a ruthless enemy seeking to wipe the population out, they could do so with chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry...especially now with the advent of drones.
I was thinking about this a little while ago... It was incredibly difficult for the US to occupy Iraq, and this was the best and most well funded army in the world.
So I thought, what about the citizens of the US vs any military in the world. My vote goes to the US citizens for the victory. Look at how many guns this country owns privately. There is ABSOLUTELY no way any military could try to occupy 100,000,000 armed and dangerous citizens. Look at our oil reserves and food supply and arable land reserves and water supply...
All those fancy military pieces of equipment do is battle other equipment. When your trying to occupy a piece of land and you have 10000 people hiding in the woods somewhere with Ar 15s and hunting rifles, a tank or ship or plane really can't do that much, you have to resort to infantry, and I don't think military infantry would hold much of an edge on disgruntled US patriotic gun owners.
Could another military obliterate the US and everyone and everything in it? Yes, that's not too debatable, but for someone to come in and occupy and try to get any resources or people or capital out of the US I think would be virtually impossible. All that they could ever get would be the natural resources left after everything is destroyed.
If someone did want just the land and resources, Russia would be a much, much easier target. Heck, I think eastern Russia could be taken much more easily if it was citizens east of the Urals vs an army such as China's or India's.
Thoughts?
Most of the east coast and the west coast would go under very fast because that is where many the liberals are who cringe just at the thought of seeing a gun.
The would be out in mass saying, "can't we all just get along?"
So how do you get food from A to B without infrastructure? 70% of Kali will not survive 2 weeks, the folks who are in a survival position will be busy surviving and fighting off hungry hordes of their former countrymen, and won't be in much of a figting condition.
Think about everything. Water, where does your water come from? If it comes from a city tap it's gone. Electricity? Even if you have a generator, how long does your gas last without a resupply? What happens when the enemy destroys those big targets like power plants, refineries, bridges, dams?
On a local level some folks are ready able and willing, but I can't imagine cities holding out for any period of time. And there is no way in h-e-double hockey sticks that 70% of Kali will take up arms. At least not south of the redwoods.
Well, maybe not Kali, but Texas.... I know the infrastructure is important, but the US being a car society means that you can get stuff from A to B even if all the roads are bombed out because you can go offroading and then hop back on. That was actually one of the main reasons the interstate system was built. People could hall stuff from A to B quite capably, even water. The enemy would be stuck with another 1000 mile long front at any point in the US like another poster posted about Russia, and they have a cold winter, but we have Mountains and the rest of the states has decent rural populations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
If you wanted to be completely ruthless it would be a different story. The Germans leveled entire towns and killed everyone in it whether innocent or not.
Like I said though, the attacker doesn't get much then, because the majority of the wealth was destroyed. What's the point in going through attacking the US just for the land when Canada or Australia or Brazil or South Africa has the same thing, but its a much easier target. If the attacker destroys the people and their stuff, they just lost the whole reward for invading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamies
You forget that a LOT of people living here are NOT Americans. Probably at least 30-50 million illegals and legal resident aliens and maybe another 50 million of their offspring.
They will not fight for the most part, and may even BE the enemy.
And Hypoer - the UN will spit in our faces.
Plus why would Russia or China nuke us if they wanted the land? Doesn't make sense anymore than our nuking the muslim terrorist countries of the mid east, cause then we lose the oil.
That is true, I didn't think about the illegal situation.
About Russia, attacking there they can do over land, attacking the states requires crossing an ocean. Napolean (or some French guy around that time) lost Haiti too, and Haiti doesn't nearly have what Russia had.
The whole point of doing this is trying to figure out why we need such a military? From my off the hip estimating, I don't think we would be attacked, given our status. So the military is really just a mostly offensive vehicle (minus the nukes). So why do we need such a big one? We need some offensive parts, but I don't think we need one this big.
I don't know that the US wouldn't turn into some sort of taliban if it was a direct ground force invasion though. I don't think people would be hesitant to use roadside bombs or die fighting for their country.
I don't doubt that. Please, don't assume this is about courage or lack of same. The thing with that sort of fighting (we can use maquisards as an example with less distasteful baggage) is that it only works once you are in fact occupied. And again, the guns are close to incidental. Armed civilians within rifle range of actual soldiers tend to get the sticky end of the stick. Handguns? - useful for assassinations, of course, but that's pretty much it.
Even the Swiss - whose citizens weren't just armed, but organized, well-equipped and above all, trained - completely expected to lose most of their territory in case of Nazi invasion - the cities, the plains. They were forced to plan for a "national redoubt" deep in the mountains (much harder to fight in mountains).
And that was with 20th-century gear. Night fighting has changed. Sensors on armored vehicles have changed. Effin' drones have been added. All of it in the favor of the professional soldier.
But the OP is making the mistake of thinking the army is to fight wars when its job is to prevent wars.
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" is a Latin adage translated as, "If you want peace, prepare for war". The adage was adapted from a statement found in Book 3 of Latin author Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus's tract De Re Militari.
The US is basically protected by geography in the first place--there's two massive oceans between any sort of other world power that could really be a threat and Canada and Mexico won't be making deals for Russian army bases anytime soon.
Basically though as long as the US has a navy and air force, it'd be difficult for any other nation to ever attempt a long-range invasion or the USA.
The US is basically protected by geography in the first place--there's two massive oceans between any sort of other world power that could really be a threat and Canada and Mexico won't be making deals for Russian army bases anytime soon.
Basically though as long as the US has a navy and air force, it'd be difficult for any other nation to ever attempt a long-range invasion or the USA.
True that. When it comes to anti-tank ditches, it's hard to beat an ocean.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,912,966 times
Reputation: 16451
And consider this. I have a Barrett .50, and 3,000 rounds of ammo. I can take out people and vehicles a mile away (with no wind). I also have two night vision devices.
This is what the 2nd Amendment is about. Americans CAN to some extent fight on par with (or against) our military. At least so far as small arms goes.
There are thousands of these guns in private hands. Unlike machine guns, they do not require special permits.
And MILLIONS of us are military trained. Every single member of my family, and my spouses did service. Both my BIL's are still active reserves.
If an ememy was to attack the US, we will be in the hills and cities, in positions where we can hit targets so far away they won't even know where the bullet came from, and by the time they do, we will be gone.
Remember, in WWII there were Finnish snipers, armed only with Mosin-Nagants and iron sights with hundreds and hundreds of "kills" each. There are ten of thousands of Mosins in America. And a hundred thousand Remington 700 .30-06's that can kill at over 1,000 yards.
As for the military. I agree, we could bring a lot home and tell the world to go suck eggs, AND the govt cvould stop stealing our hard earned tax money and giving it away to enrich every tin pot dicktater on the planet.
It's inevitable. We will be taken over in thenear future.
This country is nearing the end of its existence.
The American people have become too lazy to do anything.
Russia or China or whoever will have little resistance in an invasion.
If our military vanished, we not only could be taken over, we would be taken over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
