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.
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?
Napoleon & Hitler made this same mistaken assumption too.
Napoleon & Hitler made this same mistaken assumption too.
Yeah, but a modern army such as China's would have more at it's disposal than either of these two did at their time, and both attacked from the west. In the event of a full out attack on eastern Russia, both sides are on foreign territory.
It's inevitable. We will be taken over in the near 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.
What you're saying has much more to do with logistics than US citizens having guns.
I know, it is a question of logistics, but I think there simply isn't a way to capture the people and therefore the capital of the US. Sure there's food and electric and heating and.... questions, and an invasion might kill a lot of US citizens due to attrition, but there's no way they could get them all, or even close to them all, so it would still boil down to fighting a HUGE guerrilla force.
Doubtful. It's not a matter of the number of guns - 10,000 guys with guns do not a rifle division make. And the military doesn't run on organization, logistics, communication and structure because of tradition, but because it works.
You'd have to fight attrition-style like the Taliban - low-profile, live off the land, avoid any sort of open confrontation and be willing to philosophically take 10 KIA for each of the occupier's 1. It's not fighting the redcoats by shooting from cover (not that it ever turned a battle) any more - it's roadside bombs, killing collaborators, running and hiding and making sure John Q. Civilian is more afraid of what you'll do to him if he turns you in than he is of what the occupiers would do if he doesn't.
The average America is woefully unprepared for an act of nature that interrupts the supply chain, much less an armed incursion that cuts off the gravy train.
Your premise is faulty, we didn't set out to conquer Iraq we attempted to liberate it, if we didn't have to worry about roe, civilian casulties and PR, we could have carpet bomb the whole country and marched in the rubble. If an army wants to destroy a country with no army, they could very easily if they didn't care about civilian casualties or infrastructure damage, of your sum is to destroy the country and take over the ruins. This scenario is impossible in today's world with the UN and other international intervention.
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.
