How many troops would be needed to invade the U.S. ?

[Ladewig]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155115) some folks speculate about invading UN troops using GPS coordinates to find their way to individual homes to round up folks and/or guns. The GPS info was needed, according to the argument, because not enough troops would understand English street signs well enough to use road maps to find their way.

That made me wonder how many troops would be necessary to invade a country like the United States.

[Soapy Sam]

African or European?

[drkitten]

That made me wonder how many troops would be necessary to invade a country like the United States.

[Fox News]
Just one. Because Obama will have confiscated all the weapons that we would use in our defense and legalized gay marriage to weaken our moral fiber too much to resist.[

This can only be prevented by wearing tea bags on your hat and shouting at elected officials during town hall meetings.[/Fox News]

[rwguinn]

Are they coming from N, S, E, or W?
From the South, about 3 per household. From the West, one guy with a theory that resistance causes cancer.

[LONGTABBER PE]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155115) some folks speculate about invading UN troops using GPS coordinates to find their way to individual homes to round up folks and/or guns. The GPS info was needed, according to the argument, because not enough troops would understand English street signs well enough to use road maps to find their way.

That made me wonder how many troops would be necessary to invade a country like the United States.

Depends

You mean to survive long enough to reach the shore or actually accomplish anything?

Dont concern yourself with invading UN troops- after seeing them in combat for the last 30 years, all of them combined arent capable of "invading" the public entrance to any city park without 50% casualties ( and thats with nobody firing on them yet).

[aggle-rithm]

Technically, it would only take a few. To do so successfully would take a lot more.

[Fishstick]

Ah yes, in the era of spy sattelites and UAV's, we have to send census workers with a GPS tracker to find out where republicans live so we can round them up for our FEMA/Soylent Red camps.

Also, define "invade". What constitutes a succesful invasion, taking control of teh government? There are easier ways than pure military brute force - which would be stupid to undertake against the US anyway compared to guerilla warfare.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Technically, it would only take a few. To do so successfully would take a lot more.

That being the key word

The last known successful invasion of the US took 4 people. They were John, Paul, Ringo and George. They still hold the high ground on Billboard after over 40 years.

[Horatius]

Technically, it would only take a few. To do so successfully would take a lot more.

Heh.

I knew a guy who knew a guy.....okay, I know what you're thinking, but this really is a good story....


This guy was in the Canadian Reserves - weekend soldier types, think National Guard, but they're federal. He was on some sort of exercise, that involved driving a truck. That happened to have a few infantry guys in the back. He, for some reason, decided it would be a good idea to nip over the US border to buy some cheap smokes and beer - hey, we're Canadian, it's what we do.

He returns to Canada to be met at the border by the MPs, who charged him with "Invading an Allied Nation".


So, yeah, it really doesn't take that many, as long as they're Canadian.

[dtugg]

I think it's virtually impossible for the United States to be successfully invaded no matter how many troops might be involved. Any nation or group of nations stupid enough to try this would quickly see their invasion forces destroyed before they even made it here. And if by some miracle, a significant portion did make it, they would have a hundred million armed civilians to deal with in addition to the military.

[RoboTimbo]

According to this book (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mouse+that+roared&x=14&y=20) and movie (http://www.amazon.com/Mouse-That-Roared-Peter-Sellers/dp/B00009MEKJ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1254325729&sr=1-1), a handful wearing chainmail and armed with longbows can be successful.

[NoZed Avenger]

I've got to bring out the quote again:

"Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade." - Richard Blaine

[Ladewig]

I think it's virtually impossible for the United States to be successfully invaded no matter how many troops might be involved. Any nation or group of nations stupid enough to try this would quickly see their invasion forces destroyed before they even made it here. And if by some miracle, a significant portion did make it, they would have a hundred million armed civilians to deal with in addition to the military.

That's my opinion as well. When one combines:

1) the size of the U.S.
2) the population of the U.S.
3) the percentage of the U.S. with guns
4) the defensive armaments of the U.S.

then invading to the point where you are actually sending soldiers to specific households to perform a mission is simply impossible.

So why do the CTers believe that barcodes on the back of traffic signs are directional markers for the invading UN forces (IUNF), having GPS coordinates of houses is a sign of the coming invasion, black helicopters are also a sign of the impending IUNF, and building fences around decommissioned military bases is a sign of the coming invasion?

[Cuddles]

Around 4,250 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington).:)

[dudalb]

Does'nt matter how many, the Wolverines will get them.

[JihadJane]

Nineteen + US "incompetence".

[fuelair]

According to this book (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mouse+that+roared&x=14&y=20) and movie (http://www.amazon.com/Mouse-That-Roared-Peter-Sellers/dp/B00009MEKJ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1254325729&sr=1-1), a handful wearing chainmail and armed with longbows can be successful.

Didn't even have to hit your links!!! Don't forget glasses and the necessity of capturing a civilian with a very powerful bomb!!!

Wonderful book and film!!

[RoboTimbo]

Didn't even have to hit your links!!! Don't forget glasses and the necessity of capturing a civilian with a very powerful bomb!!!

Wonderful book and film!!

I raise my glass of Pinot Grand Fenwick to you, sir.

[grandthefttoaster]

Is the U.S. military going to fight back or are they in on it? Because most conspiracy theorists think that the U.S. government and military are part of the plan.

[Quad4_72]

This whole scenario is a bit ridiculous even to speculate on.

[Ladewig]

Is the U.S. military going to fight back or are they in on it? Because most conspiracy theorists think that the U.S. government and military are part of the plan.

Even if the military were in on it, I still don't see a successful invasion (although technically it would be more of a coup than an invasion). Yes, the CTs believe that the higher levels of the military would be in on it, but could one really rely on rank and file soldiers to fire on civilians in their homes?

Also, if the military were in on it, then couldn't they simply use roadmaps and not need GPS coordinates of each house?

[funk de fino]

Nineteen + US "incompetence".

Fail

[ElMondoHummus]

C'mon guys. Jason Voorhees took Manhattan all by himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_the_13th_Part_VIII:_Jason_Takes_Manhattan). A few more of his type and the US - hell, the world - is toast! ;)

[Sabrina]

Short answer: Lots.

Long answer: HELLA lots.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Papermache]

One to hold the ladder and -

sorry, wrong thread.

[aviolet4u]

well if the US is in on it then not a lot. If they want to get rid of huge populations they would just used bombs..even a nuke...blame it on North Korea or Iran. Hey I'm giving the NWO good ideas here.

[Caustic Logic]

How many troops would be needed to invade the U.S. ?

Oh no, no, I could tell you but you need to do your own research, alienface would-be invader. Nice try tho!

[geni]

If nukes are somehow off the table and the invadeing militry is equal to the US militry then the standard 3:1 rule would suggest between 4.4 and 8.8 million depending on how much of it's reserves the US could call up.

[geni]

That's my opinion as well. When one combines:

1) the size of the U.S.
2) the population of the U.S.

Historicaly both large and populious countries have been sucessfuly invaded.


3) the percentage of the U.S. with guns


Lightly armed and with poor logistics. Don't appear to present much of a threat during the invasion phase these days. The average citizen's milita memeber in the US falls well short of Hezbollah.


4) the defensive armaments of the U.S.


With the size of the US it's offensive armaments are likely to present you with more problems.

[geni]

Even if the military were in on it, I still don't see a successful invasion (although technically it would be more of a coup than an invasion). Yes, the CTs believe that the higher levels of the military would be in on it, but could one really rely on rank and file soldiers to fire on civilians in their homes?

Yes. Militaries have been doing that for a long time. For the actual shooting people their homes you use some varation of death squads but in general yes troops have historicaly followed orders to shoot civilians of their own countries.

[geni]

I think it's virtually impossible for the United States to be successfully invaded no matter how many troops might be involved. Any nation or group of nations stupid enough to try this would quickly see their invasion forces destroyed before they even made it here. And if by some miracle, a significant portion did make it, they would have a hundred million armed civilians to deal with in addition to the military.

Post about 2000 it's become pretty clear that any sub-hezbollah level of milita posses a fairly limited threat to a significantly skilled (remeber much of the Iraqi population was armed) or ruthless (Chechnya) invader during the invasion phase.

[rwguinn]

Post about 2000 it's become pretty clear that any sub-hezbollah level of milita posses a fairly limited threat to a significantly skilled (remeber much of the Iraqi population was armed) or ruthless (Chechnya) invader during the invasion phase.

You forget:
We had some friendly places near by to land humongus cargo, fighter, and bomber aircraft, as well as friendly ports for supply and manning up.

[jhunter1163]

I think the answer is "more than anyone has".

[geni]

You forget:
We had some friendly places near by to land humongus cargo, fighter, and bomber aircraft, as well as friendly ports for supply and manning up.

Not relivant to the issue of an armed population.

[Quad4_72]

Not relivant to the issue of an armed population.

But it IS relevant to the issue being discussed in the OP.

[geni]

But it IS relevant to the issue being discussed in the OP.

Not really. Saddam proved that it is quite possible to oppress an armed population.

[triforcharity]

Yes, by Saddam is dead. And Saddam's people were morons. Come take my gun. You can have it when you pry it out of my cold, dead, fingertips.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Lightly armed and with poor logistics. Don't appear to present much of a threat during the invasion phase these days. The average citizen's milita memeber in the US falls well short of Hezbollah.



You apparently arent too familiar with how we really are.

Let them come up from the coast. About 2 deer clubs will take them out.

What was that Cornwallis said " an army of peasants"

Its not just "having" those guns- we know how to USE them and DEPLOY them too.

[Hamradioguy]

Does'nt matter how many, the Wolverines will get them.

You beat me to it. Wolverines= "Red Dawn". Eight high school kids defeat an invading Soviet/Cuban army. We have more than enough high school kids to hold off any number of invading troops.

[Hokulele]

So why do the CTers believe that barcodes on the back of traffic signs are directional markers for the invading UN forces (IUNF), having GPS coordinates of houses is a sign of the coming invasion, black helicopters are also a sign of the impending IUNF, and building fences around decommissioned military bases is a sign of the coming invasion?


Because they are lunatics.

[ElMondoHummus]

You apparently arent too familiar with how we really are.

Let them come up from the coast. About 2 deer clubs will take them out.

What was that Cornwallis said " an army of peasants"

Its not just "having" those guns- we know how to USE them and DEPLOY them too.

Two deer clubs? Have 'em hit South Chicago or Detroit and run into gangs.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Two deer clubs? Have 'em hit South Chicago or Detroit and run into gangs.

Its the difference between urban and rural combat or a sniper force versus force on force LOL

The deer hunters in their stands and the turkey hunters sitting right in front of them- they would be picked off at 300 m before they knew they were there

[Marduk]

Depends

You mean to survive long enough to reach the shore or actually accomplish anything?

Dont concern yourself with invading UN troops- after seeing them in combat for the last 30 years, all of them combined arent capable of "invading" the public entrance to any city park without 50% casualties ( and thats with nobody firing on them yet).

but surely that just true for the american contingents of the UN forces
:D

[BlackKat]

It doesn't matter how many troops you bring.
Patrick Swayze will killz them all.
"Wolverines!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoM6IFiyRjE)
...
Oh crap, with him gone we're screwed.

[Sabrina]

It doesn't matter how many troops you bring.
Patrick Swayze will killz them all.
"Wolverines!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoM6IFiyRjE)
...
Oh crap, with him gone we're screwed.

No worries; Ah-nuld will just go Terminator on their asses. :D

[ElMondoHummus]

Its the difference between urban and rural combat or a sniper force versus force on force LOL


Okay, fine, but you gotta remember: There's a LOTTA them urban "combat" forces. Anyone remember the riots after the Bulls won the NBA championship? :D

Now imagine that being a free-fire zone. Oh, wait, I'm repeating myself... :eek::D


The deer hunters in their stands and the turkey hunters sitting right in front of them- they would be picked off at 300 m before they knew they were there

Yeah yeah... but the bangers would ride up and jump out at 3 meters, firing wildly with their 9's held sideways. This has the benefit of being both a shock assault and having music blaring to entertain you during combat. After all, you ever see Hezbollah roll up in a hot whip with spin rims and loud music? I'm tellin' ya, for all their prowess, they just peg the zero mark on style. :D

[LONGTABBER PE]

Okay, fine, but you gotta remember: There's a LOTTA them urban "combat" forces. Anyone remember the riots after the Bulls won the NBA championship? :D

Now imagine that being a free-fire zone. Oh, wait, I'm repeating myself... :eek::D



Yeah yeah... but the bangers would ride up and jump out at 3 meters, firing wildly with their 9's held sideways. This has the benefit of being both a shock assault and having music blaring to entertain you during combat. After all, you ever see Hezbollah roll up in a hot whip with spin rims and loud music? I'm tellin' ya, for all their prowess, they just peg the zero mark on style. :D

Okay, fine, but you gotta remember: There's a LOTTA them urban "combat" forces. Anyone remember the riots after the Bulls won the NBA championship? :D

Obviously you have never seen the carnage of Southern women trying to get into Wal mart for a special 50% off sale on Saturday

Yeah yeah... but the bangers would ride up and jump out at 3 meters, firing wildly with their 9's held sideways. This has the benefit of being both a shock assault and having music blaring to entertain you during combat. After all, you ever see Hezbollah roll up in a hot whip with spin rims and loud music? I'm tellin' ya, for all their prowess, they just peg the zero mark on style. :D

Man Phuleeeeze. Let me show you what happens at a red neck pig picking the night before opening day of deer season. I'm talking about serious volunteer firemen with 78 Ford 4x4's jacked up with the starship light package and siren with rifles. Nothing will survive. Throw in a few bottles extra of Southern Comfort and Mickeys with a case of Steel Reserve and they will take over the attacking country too.

[ElMondoHummus]

Obviously you have never seen the carnage of Southern women trying to get into Wal mart for a special 50% off sale on Saturday


This is true. I vaguely remember the parking lot... then the next thing I recall was waking up next to the ambulance, while the paramedic exclaimed "He's gonna make it!", all to the cheers of the Target crowd from across the street, which is where the rescuers took the survivors.

I remember one guy saying "Man, I was at New Orleans after Katrina, but this..."

And that was at a midwest Wally World. :boggled:


Man Phuleeeeze. Let me show you what happens at a red neck pig picking the night before opening day of deer season. I'm talking about serious volunteer firemen with 78 Ford 4x4's jacked up with the starship light package and siren with rifles. Nothing will survive. Throw in a few bottles extra of Southern Comfort and Mickeys with a case of Steel Reserve and they will take over the attacking country too.

You see, this is what makes America great: Diversity. The invaders may be sane when they get here, but they'll be nuttier than PayDay bar by the time they leave. And they'll never look at an SUV the same way again, regardless of whether it's mud splattered with a camoflage paint job and a four foot lift kit, or decked out in white with a dozen subwoofers in the back and a painting of Mary Magdelene holding a Glock on the hood. :D

[sts60]

Man Phuleeeeze. Let me show you what happens at a red neck pig picking the night before opening day of deer season. I'm talking about serious volunteer firemen with 78 Ford 4x4's jacked up with the starship light package and siren with rifles. Nothing will survive. Throw in a few bottles extra of Southern Comfort and Mickeys with a case of Steel Reserve and they will take over the attacking country too.

As Dave Barry said, "I doubt they could take Texas. Texas has the largest armed pickup fleet of any nation, and an invading army would by shot and run over repeatedly before they could go ten yards... especially if they invaded on Saturday night." :D

[R.Mackey]

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Probably apocryphal quote attributed to Adm. Yamamoto, but it's reasonably accurate.

There are enough armed citizens in the USA to contest virtually every town and every strategically significant asset and assembly area, unless invasion is predicated with a significant nuclear exchange, in which case the invasion itself is somewhat moot. While I don't think militia is remotely the equal of a modern military -- that's Red Dawn style fanboy nonsense -- it does serve as a phenomenal force multiplier for a standing army, and our milita would be without peer, excepting maybe Switzerland. Read your history, and go here (http://www.appleseedinfo.org/) to learn how to shoot.

[geni]

You apparently arent too familiar with how we really are.

Let them come up from the coast. About 2 deer clubs will take them out.


You average Deer club doesn't even have RPG-7s let alone the RPG-29 and high explosive reserves needed to do more than annoy a modern army.



What was that Cornwallis said " an army of peasants"


Technology changes. Go back a few centuries and other than the Swiss peasants were no match for proffessional fighters. Results from recent wars suggest that the same applies today during the invasion phase.


Its not just "having" those guns- we know how to USE them and DEPLOY them too.

So did the chechen. Knew better than any american is ever likely to. Didn't help them in the end.

[Hans]

I saw an estimate made in the 1950s that based on an attacking force with WWII (late) technology with limited nukes you'd need a minimum of 12 million men to attack the US and garrison it. I don't recall the criteria or what the assumptions were. It was thought that no known combination of countries could raise such a force, train it, equip it and most importantly supply it. Once more nukes entered the calculation the possibilty was deemed impossible - it may have been briefing information for the TRADOC concept of the Agressor force that was used to train the US forces in the 50s??

[Pardalis]

Nineteen + US "incompetence".

Wasn't much of an invasion, the idea behind "invasions" is to remain and occupy, but I guess it's useless trying to talk any sense to you.

[geni]

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Probably apocryphal quote attributed to Adm. Yamamoto, but it's reasonably accurate.

Not kept up with advancing tech Rifles VS helecoptor gunships, tanks and APCs. You can get around that if your milita is dug in and has solid fire discipline or a lot of RPG 29's and shoulder launched AA weapony.


There are enough armed citizens in the USA to contest virtually every town and every strategically significant asset and assembly area,

Not really. Once the first few lots of fools discover that trying to fight back gets you shredded by artillery the rest for the most part will leave things to the professionals. Americans are not radical islamists.


unless invasion is predicated with a significant nuclear exchange, in which case the invasion itself is somewhat moot. While I don't think militia is remotely the equal of a modern military -- that's Red Dawn style fanboy nonsense -- it does serve as a phenomenal force multiplier for a standing army,

Recent wars do not support this. Firstly they move too fast. A rifleman on foot isn't likely to cause much in the way of problems to mechanised infantry. Once they have started to work out how to fight effectively the invasion is over. Secondly modern armour is effective enough and common enough to make bullets alone a fairly limited threat. You need IEDs, RPG and real anti tank mines to stop such a force. Thirdly artillerly is getting rather good. You've got maybe one shot before 155 shells start comeing you way. Fourthly if you do manage to form a group helicopter gunships are highly problematical. With no worthwhile AA weaponry they are likely to neutralise you long before you are able to remove them.



and our milita would be without peer,


Hezbollah have better kit, more experenced fighters and frankly better tactics. The Taliban have better kit and more experence.

[R.Mackey]

Not really. Once the first few lots of fools discover that trying to fight back gets you shredded by artillery the rest for the most part will leave things to the professionals. Americans are not radical islamists.

You are completely missing the point. I agree that militia has no place in a stand-up fight, but very little of warfare is a stand-up fight.

All those fringe cases are an enormous drain on manpower, equipment, logistics, intelligence, and schedule. That's where the militia shines. They don't take the field against the tip of the spear, they watch your back, run messages, watch the roads, cache supplies, and keep the logistics running.

The invader has none of these assets. It saps their combat potential. In Iraq, we basically buy these services from third parties, the Blackwaters and Bechtels of the world -- and it is here that we are weakest and pay the most. In defense of the homeland, we would get this for free, and with teeth.

Again, this assumes there is some remnant of the US Military that remains as a fighting force. Militia alone against this hypothetical invader is rather grim, but militia everywhere plus a few brigades of Marines and some operational air, holding down the invaders to expose them to counterattack, is eminently winnable.

Recent wars do not support this. Firstly they move too fast. A rifleman on foot isn't likely to cause much in the way of problems to mechanised infantry. Once they have started to work out how to fight effectively the invasion is over. Secondly modern armour is effective enough and common enough to make bullets alone a fairly limited threat. You need IEDs, RPG and real anti tank mines to stop such a force. Thirdly artillerly is getting rather good. You've got maybe one shot before 155 shells start comeing you way. Fourthly if you do manage to form a group helicopter gunships are highly problematical. With no worthwhile AA weaponry they are likely to neutralise you long before you are able to remove them.

I'm unaware of a recent war that is a good parallel. In the case of Iraq, what militia there was (the Fedayeen and Special Republican Guard) aren't really organic units in support of the Iraqi army, rather they were irregulars mostly compelled into service by that army. Iraq's home-grown militia like the PUK and the Badr brigades helped our invasion, not the defenders.

You will find nothing like these groups helping the invader if the USA is attacked. Absolutely nothing. Were Iraq happy with Saddam and truly united behind him, we would have been idiots to invade with the forces used in 2003. And, many will argue, we were idiots to do so as it was.

Hezbollah have better kit, more experenced fighters and frankly better tactics. The Taliban have better kit and more experence.

Don't think I agree. We have far better mobility and comm than the Taliban.

You need to stop thinking about this in terms of a set-piece battle. There aren't enough 155mm rounds and enough 500 pound bombs in existence to take on the militia. Plus, the militia serves a political purpose -- once it is clear that the invader is destroying citizenry on the battlefield, any hope of driving a political wedge is lost forever. This is how it went down at Lexington Green. Martyrs really can win wars.

[Pardalis]

You also have to consider that if the US is invaded, Canada will join in the resistance, and there's no telling how much damage our Sherwood hockey sticks can do.

[Nosi]

Ah yes, in the era of spy sattelites and UAV's, we have to send census workers with a GPS tracker to find out where republicans live so we can round them up for our FEMA/Soylent Red camps.

Also, define "invade". What constitutes a succesful invasion, taking control of teh government? There are easier ways than pure military brute force - which would be stupid to undertake against the US anyway compared to guerilla warfare.

Um yes. China did it...with cheap MP3 players, USB Drives, and other electronic crap.:eek:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2721881600_9351de96fe_m.jpg

[geni]

You are completely missing the point. I agree that militia has no place in a stand-up fight, but very little of warfare is a stand-up fight.

The invasion part is however.


All those fringe cases are an enormous drain on manpower, equipment, logistics, intelligence, and schedule. That's where the militia shines. They don't take the field against the tip of the spear, they watch your back, run messages, watch the roads, cache supplies, and keep the logistics running.


Which is your next problem Civilian logistics in the US are very reliant on moveing stuff large distances. Slightly problematical in a war zone.


I'm unaware of a recent war that is a good parallel. In the case of Iraq, what militia there was (the Fedayeen and Special Republican Guard) aren't really organic units in support of the Iraqi army, rather they were irregulars mostly compelled into service by that army. Iraq's home-grown militia like the PUK and the Badr brigades helped our invasion, not the defenders.


Lebanon, Chechnya, Sri Lanka.

Iraq is a classic case of how militias become a problem post invasion. Militia are far more of a problem for an occupying force.


Don't think I agree. We have far better mobility and comm than the Taliban.


Civilian Com systems are intenstly vulnerable to neutralisation (and the ones that are not the taliban have) and US civilian mobility is largely based on cars with limited offroad ability. The battlefield mobility of a militia without it's own AA ability is extreamly limited (Hezbollah countered this by digging in but that takes time).


You need to stop thinking about this in terms of a set-piece battle. There aren't enough 155mm rounds and enough 500 pound bombs in existence to take on the militia.

Russia would beg to differ. It tried exactly that approach. It worked for the most part.

You need to stop thinking that everyone fights like america. Anyone actualy invadeing the US is far more likely to fight like russia or imperial britian.


Plus, the militia serves a political purpose -- once it is clear that the invader is destroying citizenry on the battlefield, any hope of driving a political wedge is lost forever. This is how it went down at Lexington Green. Martyrs really can win wars.

Against a determined modern army this is highly doubtful. Back during the kurdish revolts against british rule it was found that a kurdish village could be destroyed in about 20 minutes or so. Britain won and the kurds have their own history of Martyrs.

With modern Thermobaric weapons? For the most part even the chechen cracked.

The invasion phase is a confusing time. The overwelming majority will focus on staying alive rather than trying to fight back.

The war of 1812 is consitent with the position that most of the fighting would be limited to proffessionals. Something the US has rather a lot of.

[R.Mackey]

The invasion part is however.

Uh, not remotely. The USA is too large for invasion in a single stroke. Any invasion must involve landing, exploitation, monstrous buildup of logistics, and a lengthy interior campaign. Plenty of time and space for militia to make its value plain.

The US invasion is a very, very different problem than your three cited examples of Lebanon, Chechnya, and Sri Lanka -- the latter of which wasn't invaded in the first place. I'm afraid that if your analysis is based upon those cases, I have to reject it in total.

Which is your next problem Civilian logistics in the US are very reliant on moveing stuff large distances. Slightly problematical in a war zone.

All logistics in the US are reliant on moving stuff large distances. But less so for civilian than military. More civvy stuff is locally derived. The invaders, on the other hand, are unlikely to find what they need without going back to a beachhead.

Civilian Com systems are intenstly vulnerable to neutralisation (and the ones that are not the taliban have) and US civilian mobility is largely based on cars with limited offroad ability. The battlefield mobility of a militia without it's own AA ability is extreamly limited (Hezbollah countered this by digging in but that takes time).

I think you'll find that civilian comm is not so easily silenced. You have the 'net in rear areas, hard phone lines, Ham radios, police and fire networks, on down to kids on dirt bikes and horses. We have civilian aviation and sea/riverine transport in staggering plenty. We can't even shut up the Taliban running UHF uncoded, and you think the Invader is going to silence everyone? Horsefeathers.

Hezbollah is an interesting case study, but understand they have a desperate disadvantage of terrain. They refuse to yield, indeed cannot yield, their defensive position, which limits them to a single dimension. (Hence why they are "martyr brigades" rather than effective militia.) In the US, we have literally hundreds of miles of hinterland. A smart resistance commander will yield city after city, once taking steps to degrade their strategic value. Hezbollah is squeezed into a chunk of land smaller than some ranches in the USA. Yet, even with that extreme limitation, they are often successful.

Russia would beg to differ. It tried exactly that approach. It worked for the most part.

Worked where, exactly? Afghanistan? Chechnya? Hungary? Show me a single war historian who considers these workable military solutions. And not a one even approaches the scale of the American problem.

You need to stop thinking that everyone fights like america. Anyone actualy invadeing the US is far more likely to fight like russia or imperial britian.

... two historical losers.

Against a determined modern army this is highly doubtful. Back during the kurdish revolts against british rule it was found that a kurdish village could be destroyed in about 20 minutes or so. Britain won and the kurds have their own history of Martyrs.

Ah, yes, those defeated Kurds. Again, not approaching the scale here. To draw a parallel to the United States, your hypothetical Invader would be many times the combined military might of the entire world. I'd agree, if that were the situation, it would look bleak for the defense.

With modern Thermobaric weapons? For the most part even the chechen cracked.

Non sequitur. Yes, I know what thermobarics are. This is not the make-or-break technology to crack resistances.

The war of 1812 is consitent with the position that most of the fighting would be limited to proffessionals. Something the US has rather a lot of.

Your analogy is useless. There was little professionalism in the US military until after the War of 1812. Study the history of West Point.

[geni]

Uh, not remotely. The USA is too large for invasion in a single stroke. Any invasion must involve landing, exploitation, monstrous buildup of logistics, and a lengthy interior campaign. Plenty of time and space for militia to make its value plain.

3000 miles from coast to coast. About a month at 1980s projected speeds.


The US invasion is a very, very different problem than your three cited examples of Lebanon, Chechnya, and Sri Lanka -- the latter of which wasn't invaded in the first place. I'm afraid that if your analysis is based upon those cases, I have to reject it in total.

It's based on the limited sucess of irregular units against professional militries.



All logistics in the US are reliant on moving stuff large distances. But less so for civilian than military. More civvy stuff is locally derived. The invaders, on the other hand, are unlikely to find what they need without going back to a beachhead.

How far did your lunch come from today?


I think you'll find that civilian comm is not so easily silenced. You have the 'net in rear areas, hard phone lines,

Not after the power is knocked out. Emergency generators will keep the phones going for a short time but not long and of course you can target the telephone exchanges if required.


Ham radios, police and fire networks, on down to kids on dirt bikes and horses.

Now that is where things become hard to knock out but you are down to taliban level.


We have civilian aviation and sea/riverine transport in staggering plenty. We can't even shut up the Taliban running UHF uncoded, and you think the Invader is going to silence everyone? Horsefeathers.

Working up civilian planes for a combat zone takes time.


Hezbollah is an interesting case study, but understand they have a desperate disadvantage of terrain. They refuse to yield, indeed cannot yield, their defensive position, which limits them to a single dimension. (Hence why they are "martyr brigades" rather than effective militia.)

More mobile militias have not fared to well against Isreal. Hezbollah's ability to dig in caused more issues for the IDF.


In the US, we have literally hundreds of miles of hinterland. A smart resistance commander will yield city after city, once taking steps to degrade their strategic value.

So your smart resistance commander is going to hurt civilians on his own side while giveing up his most defensible position? In aditition takeing a bunch of people used to liveing in cities and moveing to the countryside is a great way to neutralise their effectiveness. Groups of resistance fighters/bandits roming the countryside is a problem for the occupation phase.


Hezbollah is squeezed into a chunk of land smaller than some ranches in the USA. Yet, even with that extreme limitation, they are often successful.


Hezbollah have RPG-29s, IEDs dug in positions and that whole shia fight to the death or you are wasteing your life mentality. It also has decades of organiseing and network forming behind it. Any US militia is going to lack those things.


Worked where, exactly? Afghanistan? Chechnya? Hungary? Show me a single war historian who considers these workable military solutions. And not a one even approaches the scale of the American problem.

Grozny the second time around. Urban warfair is less of a problem if you first remove the city.

Of couse the spanish managed a few times back when they were building their american holdings. The Germans managed to pull it off in German South-West Africa.


... two historical losers.


For economic reasons for the most part which is again an issue for the occupation phase.


Ah, yes, those defeated Kurds. Again, not approaching the scale here. To draw a parallel to the United States, your hypothetical Invader would be many times the combined military might of the entire world. I'd agree, if that were the situation, it would look bleak for the defense.

Well if you are strong enough to challange the regular US armed forces in an offensive war then yes you are going to have many times the combined military might of the entire world. The standard 3:1 advanatage needed for attacking means that the invasion would need between 4.4 and 8.8 million US army quality troops depending on how much of it's reserves the US could call up.



Non sequitur. Yes, I know what thermobarics are. This is not the make-or-break technology to crack resistances.


They appeared to work in chechnya for the most part and that's significant.

The chechen are everything the US are not. Islamic fundimentalists with massive birth rates and a long history of being hammered by invadeing forces. Stalin deported the entire nation but they held together. A death in battle is considered a fairly normal career path. And yet they cracked. I suppose it's just about posible that some of the shia groups may be tougher but your average middle class american? Unlikely.


Your analogy is useless. There was little professionalism in the US military until after the War of 1812. Study the history of West Point.

Exactly my point. Little professionalism but what proffessionals there were did far better than the militias and there was no general milita attack on the british forces. The lession from 1812 was that the US army needed to go more proffessional becase the relying on militias to fight hadn't worked too well.

[dtugg]

What might happen in the US in the event of an occupation is irrelevent. First the invading forces would have to actually make it the US, which is likely impossible. Any nations(s) that might try to do this are seperated by a large ocean and the US Navy and Air Force are by far the most powerful in the world and could easily destroy any enemy ships and planes that try to make it over.

[R.Mackey]

3000 miles from coast to coast. About a month at 1980s projected speeds.

Sorry, but with that comment it grows quite difficult to take you seriously.

It's based on the limited sucess of irregular units against professional militries.

You gave three examples -- Lebanon, Chechnya, and Sri Lanka. All of these are better described as "civil wars" than invasions. Lebanon has complicated factions that make even understanding the conflict difficult, and there has been no military resolution; those factions are still there. Chechnya fought the Russian Army to a standstill, inflicting disporportional damage on one of the largest armies in the world and forcing a cease-fire. And in Sri Lanka, the LTTE never exceeded a single division in strength, yet kept the conflict going for about 25 years.

These are not poster children for the futility of irregular warfare. Quite the opposite. And irregular warfare in the United States would have many decisive advantages that these cases lack, as I've already explained to you.

How far did your lunch come from today?

An average of 17 kilometers.

Not after the power is knocked out. Emergency generators will keep the phones going for a short time but not long and of course you can target the telephone exchanges if required.

I've run emergency communications in the aftermath of major earthquakes, where primary power was out for up to a month. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Now that is where things become hard to knock out but you are down to taliban level.

The Taliban, also, persists. Good enough is good enough.

Working up civilian planes for a combat zone takes time.

Again, you just aren't grasping the big picture. You don't arm civilian planes. You use them for recon, communications, moving supplies and key people, evacuation. All rear echelon stuff. But that rear echelon stuff is what makes or breaks warfare. With a handful of Cessnas I can fly in a Green Beret, a couple of crew-served weapons, and a box full of RDX melted out of old artillery shells to my local cell of rabble-rousers, and all of a sudden I've got an effective and totally expendable asset that can arise anywhere.

The United States of America has literally hundreds of thousands of such aircraft at her disposal.

More mobile militias have not fared to well against Isreal. Hezbollah's ability to dig in caused more issues for the IDF.

They haven't even tried the alternate doctrine. The First Chechen War, which I believe you brought up, is a terrific example of insurgent mobility as a decisive factor.

So your smart resistance commander is going to hurt civilians on his own side while giveing up his most defensible position? In aditition takeing a bunch of people used to liveing in cities and moveing to the countryside is a great way to neutralise their effectiveness. Groups of resistance fighters/bandits roming the countryside is a problem for the occupation phase.

Again, you just don't understand. The resistance commander doesn't hurt civilians on his side. He or she declares open cities when they are lost. Those left behind become a drag on the invader. And sick as it may be, the key is to make it appear that all civilian suffering is the invader's fault, whether true or not. But it's an easy story to sell.

Hezbollah have RPG-29s, IEDs dug in positions and that whole shia fight to the death or you are wasteing your life mentality. It also has decades of organiseing and network forming behind it. Any US militia is going to lack those things.

I don't personally know anyone with an RPG, but I don't see why they can't be obtained. And, yet again, these are the tools for a stand-up fight. Those militias would be even more effective if they played the long game rather than going out in a blaze of direct fire.

Grozny the second time around. Urban warfair is less of a problem if you first remove the city.

Again, your invader will extinguish any hope of winning over the population once it starts eradicating cities.

Of couse the spanish managed a few times back when they were building their american holdings. The Germans managed to pull it off in German South-West Africa.

Funny, I thought your argument was based on modern technology? Why the examples from ancient history?

The reasons those occupations worked were largely economic. No invader will have such a card to play.

For economic reasons for the most part which is again an issue for the occupation phase.

They aren't distinct phases.

Well if you are strong enough to challange the regular US armed forces in an offensive war then yes you are going to have many times the combined military might of the entire world. The standard 3:1 advanatage needed for attacking means that the invasion would need between 4.4 and 8.8 million US army quality troops depending on how much of it's reserves the US could call up.

And that's to defeat the US military in a set piece battle. Add landing to the equation and it's not 3:1, it's 5:1. Add conquering and holding down the homeland, and you'll need more still. You might want to review the calculations for Operation Olympic, and consider that at that stage of the war, the Japanese military was shattered, its industries ruined, and its hope for resupply nonexistent. None of those preconditions would apply here.

They appeared to work in chechnya for the most part and that's significant.

They worked so well that the Russians called a cease-fire and withdrew.

Your summary of the Chechen mindset is entirely too simplistic. The Chechen militia fell apart later under their own power. If they hadn't radicalized, if a functional government had appeared in Chechnya, they would be indepedent today. The Chechen militia won the war, it merely lost the peace.

In the USA, we wouldn't be starting from zero, so avoiding radicalization should be relatively easy.

Exactly my point. Little professionalism but what proffessionals there were did far better than the militias and there was no general milita attack on the british forces. The lession from 1812 was that the US army needed to go more proffessional becase the relying on militias to fight hadn't worked too well.

I'll remind you that we won the War of 1812. But you've got it quite backwards. The lesson is that professional leadership is a force multiplier, and that with such leadership, militia and volunteers are highly effective.

There is no great change in personnel or Army organization after 1816. What there is, instead, is a formal program of training for staff officers. The army we had was quite effective where there was proper leadership, the problem is that such leadership was erratic. Following the War of 1812, the US military shrank back to pre-war levels and stayed there until the Mexican Wars.

Now, again, you are ignoring the fact that I'm not talking about set-piece battles. Even so, it is true that militia requires good leadership. However, we happen to have approximately 23 million veterans in the United States, or about 8% of the general population. This is human capital that we can take immediate advantage of in a time of need. The old Vietnam vet with a bad back and poor mobility may not be able to hold the front line, but he sure as heck can tell the neighborhood how to prepare and organize. The leadership required is already here, already trained.

Pavel Grachev once bragged about being able to subjugate Chechnya with a single regiment in a matter of days. You seem to share his mindset. History simply does not agree.

[SpitfireIX]

I think it's virtually impossible for the United States to be successfully invaded no matter how many troops might be involved. Any nation or group of nations stupid enough to try this would quickly see their invasion forces destroyed before they even made it here. And if by some miracle, a significant portion did make it, they would have a hundred million armed civilians to deal with in addition to the military.


All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.


--Abraham Lincoln

[cwalner]

Also, if the military were in on it, then couldn't they simply use roadmaps and not need GPS coordinates of each house?

Depends upon where they were trying to control. My general experience with large cities, is that even speaking English and having a road map does not help much in finding your way around when such names only exist on the maps and are not backed up with say actual signs.

[LONGTABBER PE]

You average Deer club doesn't even have RPG-7s let alone the RPG-29 and high explosive reserves needed to do more than annoy a modern army.




Technology changes. Go back a few centuries and other than the Swiss peasants were no match for proffessional fighters. Results from recent wars suggest that the same applies today during the invasion phase.



So did the chechen. Knew better than any american is ever likely to. Didn't help them in the end.

You obviously have little knowledge of how things really work here do you?

You average Deer club doesn't even have RPG-7s let alone the RPG-29 and high explosive reserves needed to do more than annoy a modern army.

This mainly applies to the southern states but explosive making, trapping and blasting are common knowledge in these parts. I grew up blasting stumps with Ammonium Nitrite and home made fireworks and we have a veteran heavy population with plenty of experience with field expedient explosives.

Also, a career hunter who can outsmart deer and turkey is a great equalizer.

Also, since I "am" a part of a modern army and was SF in Afghanistan wih the Muhajadeen fighting the Russians- i can attest personally at the total devastation and total ass whipping those "ill equipped" forces can inflict on this "modern army" you speak of.

See, we have a saying here and its what makes the day: "It aint the size of the dog in the fight- its the size of the fight in the dog that makes the difference". Theres plenty of "fight" in the average American. Dont test that theory unless you want your ass handed back to you in a to go box.

Its not just our technology that sets us apart- its our attitude about fighting to the death for what we believe in and a refusal to lose or surrender to an enemy.

Technology changes. Go back a few centuries and other than the Swiss peasants were no match for proffessional fighters. Results from recent wars suggest that the same applies today during the invasion phase.


See the above- there is no "technology" that will defeat a spirit that wont accept defeat and will fight to the death.

So did the chechen. Knew better than any american is ever likely to. Didn't help them in the end

Hardly a proper comparison.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Not kept up with advancing tech Rifles VS helecoptor gunships, tanks and APCs. You can get around that if your milita is dug in and has solid fire discipline or a lot of RPG 29's and shoulder launched AA weapony.



Not really. Once the first few lots of fools discover that trying to fight back gets you shredded by artillery the rest for the most part will leave things to the professionals. Americans are not radical islamists.



Recent wars do not support this. Firstly they move too fast. A rifleman on foot isn't likely to cause much in the way of problems to mechanised infantry. Once they have started to work out how to fight effectively the invasion is over. Secondly modern armour is effective enough and common enough to make bullets alone a fairly limited threat. You need IEDs, RPG and real anti tank mines to stop such a force. Thirdly artillerly is getting rather good. You've got maybe one shot before 155 shells start comeing you way. Fourthly if you do manage to form a group helicopter gunships are highly problematical. With no worthwhile AA weaponry they are likely to neutralise you long before you are able to remove them.




Hezbollah have better kit, more experenced fighters and frankly better tactics. The Taliban have better kit and more experence.

I'm curious now. I'm a 30 yr vet, a member of America's Elite and chosen soldiery and have been in EVERY armed conflict ( and some unpublished ones) from the Falklands to present except Mogadashu and have done it on every continent except Anarctica and faced about every type of enemy there is and have beaten them.

Where does your vast knowledge come from?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And irregular warfare in the United States would have many decisive advantages that these cases lack, as I've already explained to you.


Absolutely. The U.S. wouldn't be the U.S. if irregular warfare didn't have its advantages over a modern military.

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm curious now. I'm a 30 yr vet, a member of America's Elite and chosen soldiery and have been in EVERY armed conflict ( and some unpublished ones) from the Falklands to present except Mogadashu and have done it on every continent except Anarctica and faced about every type of enemy there is and have beaten them.

Where does your vast knowledge come from?

You're pretty talkative for a snake eater. I call ********. If I'm wrong I'll be the first to profusely apologize. But I've heard this song before a hundred times. EVERY armed conflict from Falklands to Mogadishu? That in and of itself is unlikely, but blabbing about it on an internet forum sure as hell is. There wasn't any US military involvement in the Falklands conflict. Were you SAS and then somehow wound up in USSOCOM? And if there HAD been US military involvement in the Falklands, you just violated your NDA.

Please clarify, because your hints of "been there done that" seem too believable to be true. Unless you actually are some kind of modern-day Audie Murphy and feel like puffing your chest out on internet forums.

[LONGTABBER PE]

You're pretty talkative for a snake eater. I call ********. If I'm wrong I'll be the first to profusely apologize. But I've heard this song before a hundred times. EVERY armed conflict from Falklands to Mogadishu? That in and of itself is unlikely, but blabbing about it on an internet forum sure as hell is. There wasn't any US military involvement in the Falklands conflict. Were you SAS and then somehow wound up in USSOCOM? And if there HAD been US military involvement in the Falklands, you just violated your NDA.

Please clarify, because your hints of "been there done that" seem too believable to be true. Unless you actually are some kind of modern-day Audie Murphy and feel like puffing your chest out on internet forums.

Dude, spare me

First, we dont do NDA's- we do NSA/NSC statements so get your acronyms straight and my 214 speaks for itself- it doesnt need your commentary.

Dont counsel me on what you think or got from TV about what clearances mean and what you can and cannot do. You dont understand it yourself apparently.

I got news for you- you will find "advisors" and "various " jobs in ALL major actions of our allies. Thats part of what we do. ( Like in the Iran/Iraq war and the Soviet/Afghan war- which was in my AO)

They didnt tell you because you dont have the need to know.
Run along now and get back to your playstation

[Nosi]

You're pretty talkative for a snake eater. I call ********. If I'm wrong I'll be the first to profusely apologize. But I've heard this song before a hundred times. EVERY armed conflict from Falklands to Mogadishu? That in and of itself is unlikely, but blabbing about it on an internet forum sure as hell is. There wasn't any US military involvement in the Falklands conflict. Were you SAS and then somehow wound up in USSOCOM? And if there HAD been US military involvement in the Falklands, you just violated your NDA.

Please clarify, because your hints of "been there done that" seem too believable to be true. Unless you actually are some kind of modern-day Audie Murphy and feel like puffing your chest out on internet forums.

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[JoeyDonuts]

First, we dont do NDA's- we do NSA/NSC statements so get your acronyms straight and my 214 speaks for itself- it doesnt need your commentary.

I'll be the first to admit I was never SF, and am for the most part unfamiliar with their admin procedures. But I know about NDA's. If you held clearance as laid out in DCID 6/1 you would have been required to sign one upon separation.

Dont counsel me on what you think or got from TV about what clearances mean and what you can and cannot do. You dont understand it yourself apparently.

You don't have the slightest idea who I am, or what my background is. It has provided me with sufficient experience and context to find your public claims of derring-do inconsistent with someone who's seen half the combat action you're claiming.

I got news for you- you will find "advisors" and "various " jobs in ALL major actions of our allies. Thats part of what we do. ( Like in the Iran/Iraq war and the Soviet/Afghan war- which was in my AO)

Oh really?!? Thanks for the news flash. So you didn't fight Russians with the mujahadeen now? You didn't see action in EVERY major conflict since the Falkland Islands War? You were just an 'advisor.' I've heard that one before.

They didnt tell you because you dont have the need to know.
Run along now and get back to your playstation

You're deflecting. Once again, you don't know where I worked, what my experience was, if I had a clearance, what level it was, what I was read into - because it's none of your damned business. Every other SF person I've ever come across (and that number is VERY small) hasn't taken it upon themselves to publicly spread tales of their bravado around.

If you really did half this stuff, I find it highly unlikely you'd feel the need to brag about it on the internet.

I mean, CSM Eric Haney doesn't even claim as much action as you.

[Nosi]

No worries; Ah-nuld will just go Terminator on their asses. :D

Um, his current project is a bit overbudget...

:dl:

[Corsair 115]

You also have to consider that if the US is invaded, Canada will join in the resistance, and there's no telling how much damage our Sherwood hockey sticks can do.


Well, if hockey games are any indication, we clearly like a good fight!

[JihadJane]

Why would anyone want to invade the US anyway? Its oil production peaked in the nineteen seventies.

[funk de fino]

I call BS on the Falklands thing.

The US could not be invaded IMO.

[funk de fino]

Why would anyone want to invade the US anyway? Its oil production peaked in the nineteen seventies.

Wars are not about oil except in woo woo land. Or sexpest Ruppert's books.

[Fishstick]

Why would anyone want to invade the US anyway? Its oil production peaked in the nineteen seventies.

Your delicious supply of Freedoms.

[icerat]

I'm curious now. I'm a 30 yr vet, a member of America's Elite and chosen soldiery and have been in EVERY armed conflict ( and some unpublished ones) from the Falklands to present except Mogadashu and have done it on every continent except Anarctica and faced about every type of enemy there is and have beaten them.

Personally I'm pretty curious about which armed conflict you were involved in on the continent of Australia at any time, let alone the last 30 years.

[JihadJane]

Your delicious supply of Freedoms.

What about the moxy?

[JihadJane]

Personally I'm pretty curious about which armed conflict you were involved in on the continent of Australia at any time, let alone the last 30 years.


All the continents of the world can be found in LONGTABBER PE's mum's basement ;)

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'll be the first to admit I was never SF, and am for the most part unfamiliar with their admin procedures. But I know about NDA's. If you held clearance as laid out in DCID 6/1 you would have been required to sign one upon separation.



You don't have the slightest idea who I am, or what my background is. It has provided me with sufficient experience and context to find your public claims of derring-do inconsistent with someone who's seen half the combat action you're claiming.



Oh really?!? Thanks for the news flash. So you didn't fight Russians with the mujahadeen now? You didn't see action in EVERY major conflict since the Falkland Islands War? You were just an 'advisor.' I've heard that one before.



You're deflecting. Once again, you don't know where I worked, what my experience was, if I had a clearance, what level it was, what I was read into - because it's none of your damned business. Every other SF person I've ever come across (and that number is VERY small) hasn't taken it upon themselves to publicly spread tales of their bravado around.

If you really did half this stuff, I find it highly unlikely you'd feel the need to brag about it on the internet.

I mean, CSM Eric Haney doesn't even claim as much action as you.

that much is obvious

I mean, CSM Eric Haney doesn't even claim as much action as you

You havent given him enough PBR

[Nosi]

Well, I get the feeling someone on this planet is laughing their :rule10 off right now... why I don't know...

[icerat]

All the continents of the world can be found in LONGTABBER PE's mum's basement ;)

Indeed, no antarctica ....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_248274ac5e11beb302.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17724)

[LONGTABBER PE]

Well, I get the feeling someone on this planet is laughing their :rule10 off right now... why I don't know...

More than most probably realize.

This one got printed and shown around the entire ODA camp here. ( inbetween missions in countries less than 100 km from here where there is no "fighting" and no American military presence in LOL)

The general populace really has no clue as to what goes on around this globe every day and who/how actually does it but they are certain they do.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread and JJ loses again

[icerat]

so you're claiming there's been armed military conflict *in Australia* in the last 30 years (since about 1980)

rriiighht.....

[Damien Evans]

so you're claiming there's been armed military conflict *in Australia* in the last 30 years (since about 1980)

rriiighht.....

Even if we were to call the acts of civil disobediance during Vietnam battles, they were well over 30 years ago.

So what have you done in Australia Longtabber? Stormed the Aboriginal Tent Embassy I suppose?

[Nosi]

More than most probably realize.

This one got printed and shown around the entire ODA camp here. ( inbetween missions in countries less than 100 km from here where there is no "fighting" and no American military presence in LOL)

The general populace really has no clue as to what goes on around this globe every day and who/how actually does it but they are certain they do.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread and JJ loses again

Please don't tell me this abysmal thread is being passed around as "Hello, this is America folks". I'm dying of embarrassment here!:eek: :blush::blush:

[JoeyDonuts]

Please don't tell me this abysmal thread is being passed around as "Hello, this is America folks". I'm dying of embarrassment here!:eek: :blush::blush:

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=90453

NSFW language there. They don't do autocensors.

[JihadJane]

"What if the Russians invaded?"

If The Russians Did This To Us, We’d Kill ‘Em (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23618.htm)

[Normal Dude]

This one got printed and shown around the entire ODA camp here. ( inbetween missions in countries less than 100 km from here where there is no "fighting" and no American military presence in LOL)

Real professional there, posting crap like this on the internet, and especially while you are in the sandbox. I thought it was "Quiet Professionals"? Starting to have my doubts as well.

ETA: A scan of that incredible 214 with the personal bits blacked out?

[JoeyDonuts]

If the base of the Russian Invasion Force is anything like their naval personnel, they'd be far too busy eating once they got over here to think about taking us over.

[JoeyDonuts]

ETA: A scan of that incredible 214 with the personal bits blacked out?

I'll throw mine up for comparison. I don't remember which poster it was here that was instrumental in exposing Lauro Chavez's DD-214 as a fake (stilicho, maybe?) but they're welcome to have at mine.

Rather not do it publicly, but because I can see a pissing match in the future it should probably be done - and the fact that I've already been vetted by Bullshido probably won't track much here although it damn well should.

[Nosi]

Settles in the trenches, awaiting eagerly Operation :rule10 Slurry....

[ElMondoHummus]

Real professional there, posting crap like this on the internet, and especially while you are in the sandbox. I thought it was "Quiet Professionals"? Starting to have my doubts as well.

ETA: A scan of that incredible 214 with the personal bits blacked out?

I'll throw mine up for comparison. I don't remember which poster it was here that was instrumental in exposing Lauro Chavez's DD-214 as a fake (stilicho, maybe?) but they're welcome to have at mine.

Rather not do it publicly, but because I can see a pissing match in the future it should probably be done - and the fact that I've already been vetted by Bullshido probably won't track much here although it damn well should.

Guys, not to be overly paranoid, but the DD-214's also need to be verified, right? Here are reasons number one (http://www.homeofheroes.com/rollofvalor/dd214.html) and number two (http://www.homeofheroes.com/rollofvalor/va_fraud.html) why I'm asking.

[icerat]

Given the track of this discussion, this story out of Australia this week (http://www.smh.com.au/national/pow-chief-a-prisoner-of-his-own-lies-20091002-ggid.html) has some relevance. Seems the guy elected to run the ex-POW association hadn't even been in the military. Made a whole background up based on what he'd read on books and lived the lie as a hero for decades.

[JoeyDonuts]

Guys, not to be overly paranoid, but the DD-214's also need to be verified, right? Here are reasons number one (http://www.homeofheroes.com/rollofvalor/dd214.html) and number two (http://www.homeofheroes.com/rollofvalor/va_fraud.html) why I'm asking.

The DD-214 can be the first sign that something's amiss. It will have a summary of a person's training/military education (block 14) and decorations/medals/badges/citations, etc (block 13.)

If someone claims Special Operations or a slew of awards, it will appear on this document. No questions asked. None of this "it's so classified it doesn't even exist crap."

And yes, they do have to be verified. Records can be pulled, and facts checked. Anyone who claims military service of any kind can be verified regardless of the nature of their work while in.

[MarkCorrigan]

from the Falklands

You were in the falklands?

Were you attached to 2Para, 3Para or the 3rd Commando?

Seriously. We had zero American assistance in that war. Unless you snuck in somehow just to get your jollies from killing Argentinians, I seriously doubt this element of your story at least.

[JoeyDonuts]

Ohhhh snap.

But you've got it all wrong. He only said that so you'd take the bait, and it would throw you off the trail of what he REALLY did.

I'm not making that up - that's what he's been telling me via PM.

[JamesB]

I have always found this theory amusing. Having spent some time in Bosnia, where the UN could not successfully control an impoverished country of 4 million people, I am mystified as to how they could successfully occupy one with over 300 million.

[funk de fino]

You were in the falklands?

Were you attached to 2Para, 3Para or the 3rd Commando?

Seriously. We had zero American assistance in that war. Unless you snuck in somehow just to get your jollies from killing Argentinians, I seriously doubt this element of your story at least.

Thats the thing that got me suss on this one.

[JoeyDonuts]

And I'm sure he'll be able to tell us what military unit he was with when he stormed the Falklands.

[gtc]

And I'm sure he'll be able to tell us what military unit he was with when he stormed the Falklands.

Maybe he was seconded from Easy Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy_Company_(comics)) to serve alongside Captain Hurricane in the Royal Marines (http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/caphurr.htm)?

[JihadJane]

I have always found this theory amusing. Having spent some time in Bosnia, where the UN could not successfully control an impoverished country of 4 million people, I am mystified as to how they could successfully occupy one with over 300 million.

Simples. Just give the UN more money so that it can pay its enemies not to attack it.

[Travis]

Hmm. Interesting question this thread poses it does (channeling Yoda).

The first issue would be just getting the forces into place. A seaborne invasion would have to defeat the US Navy first and then have to defeat US ground forces once arrived. An airborne force would have to defeat the US Navy's air defenses and then deal the US Air Force before then having to deal with US ground forces.

Now if we suppose they intend to use either Mexico or Canada as launching pads they would still have a lot of work cut out for them. If it were done with the collusion of the country (Canada or Mexico) there would be the risk of the CIA or NSA finding out. Even if they didn't find out amassing a huge invasion force would be noticed. At that point the US would be mobilizing it's own forces and positioning them to defend with the possibility of launching a spoiling attack.

On the other hand if they just invade Canada or Mexico then that country becomes a US ally and US forces move into that country to fight as soon as possible. Oh and either way they would have to contend with the US Navy anyways because it's gonna attempt to cut off resupply and reinforcement (if the troops are coming up from South America the USMC would set up defenses in Panama).


In other words I think you can have all the troops in the world and it wouldn't matter if you don't first deal with the Navy and Air Force.

[aggle-rithm]

An army defending its own land can defeat a far superior army from overseas without winning a single battle.

It happened in the American Revolutionary War. Something similar happened in Vietnam.

[aggle-rithm]

If it were done with the collusion of the country (Canada or Mexico) there would be the risk of the CIA or NSA finding out.

Also, things would get mighty awkward at NORAD.

[kookbreaker]

Maybe he was seconded from Easy Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy_Company_(comics)) to serve alongside Captain Hurricane in the Royal Marines (http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/caphurr.htm)?

nah. He fought with the Argentinians because he was bored. This was after his stint as 'Agent Orange' in Vietnam and before that he was a ninja!

[Nosi]

Mexico's got it's knickers in a twist in that drug war down there. It's relatively vulnerable.

[dudalb]

Maybe he was seconded from Easy Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy_Company_(comics)) to serve alongside Captain Hurricane in the Royal Marines (http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/caphurr.htm)?


You got his original unit wrong, It was Sgt.Fury's Howling Commandos.

[beachnut]

1 really upset marine

[Jontg]

One ticked-off military history major.

[dudalb]

One ticked-off military history major.

Make that Two. A couple of people in this thread have shown they know nothing about Military history.
For example: one..who I shall not name...who claims the supereor Technology will always defeat an inferiorly armed force. Guess he never heard of Guerilla warfare, The American Experience in Vietnam, or the Russian Experience in Afghanistan.

[Jontg]

To be fair to whoever that is, I've been wondering myself if there's a point at which the technology gap really does become impossible to cross. Could any amount of guerilla tactics or military genius allow, say, the Celts to defeat a modern fighting force? It's true that a man is just as dead whether he's been shot with an AK or an LSAT--but shortbows and copper arrows are another matter altogether. Honestly, how many opportunities do you get to ambush a man when he can see you from the other side of a brick wall, and you think that asymmetric warfare involves charging toward him screaming your head off and painted bright blue?

[fitzgibbon]

An army defending its own land can defeat a far superior army from overseas without winning a single battle.

It happened in the American Revolutionary War. Something similar happened in Vietnam.

Happened in the War of 1812 too. Stoney Creek was as far as the States got by land from Niagara on the Canadian side of Lake Ontario. This with a much smaller (and arguably apathetic) Canadian populace vs. the U.S. population which then as now is about 10 times the number of their Canadian counterparts.

[Travis]

To be fair to whoever that is, I've been wondering myself if there's a point at which the technology gap really does become impossible to cross. Could any amount of guerilla tactics or military genius allow, say, the Celts to defeat a modern fighting force? It's true that a man is just as dead whether he's been shot with an AK or an LSAT--but shortbows and copper arrows are another matter altogether. Honestly, how many opportunities do you get to ambush a man when he can see you from the other side of a brick wall, and you think that asymmetric warfare involves charging toward him screaming your head off and painted bright blue?

If the Ewoks taught us nothing else, and they didn't, it's that primitive pre-iron age weapons can defeat even the most sophisticated of military's if they're cute and led by androgynous androids.

Or maybe they just taught us that George Lucas was slowly going insane?

[JoeyDonuts]

Or maybe they just taught us that George Lucas was slowly going insane?

This.

http://www.cracked.com/article/119_6-star-wars-characters-too-retarded-film/

[Klimax]

Don't forget differencies in each conflict/operation and its theater of op.
Goes both ways.

[Travis]

This.

http://www.cracked.com/article/119_6-star-wars-characters-too-retarded-film/


I love Cracked.com.

[MarkCorrigan]

Nice to note that Real American Hero GI Joe hasn't posted in a while. I wonder if it's because his contracting company computers won't let him anymore....

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Nice to note that Real American Hero GI Joe hasn't posted in a while. I wonder if it's because his contracting company computers won't let him anymore....

Golly, I hope not. Flashing, blinking and noisemaking objects are more enticing to certain people than sharp objects.

[Nosi]

If he was in a sandbox for real, something could have happened to pull him away...or not.

:chores030:

[Unsecured Coins]

i guess this dude doesn't seem to know why the SpecOps guys are called "Quiet" Professionals.

[BazBear]

I think it's virtually impossible for the United States to be successfully invaded no matter how many troops might be involved. Any nation or group of nations stupid enough to try this would quickly see their invasion forces destroyed before they even made it here. And if by some miracle, a significant portion did make it, they would have a hundred million armed civilians to deal with in addition to the military.
Yeah, for whatever the downside of armed citizens may be, this makes any nation foolish enough to try think twice...I am armed (then Baz laughs hysterically that this question even came UP!!).

Answer: No one has enough.

[Klimax]

I see for such resistance force one problem - supplies(at least ammunition). Without supplies you're done.

[rwguinn]

I see for such resistance force one problem - supplies(at least ammunition). Without supplies you're done.
The invader has the same problem, but is worse off. His supply line extends across an ocean and must be brought in despite all those folks shooting at the supply transport.
90% of the folks I know have reloading capability, plus ammo mfg is local in many cases.
Just getting here is 3/4 the battle...

[Klimax]

The invader has the same problem, but is worse off. His supply line extends across an ocean and must be brought in despite all those folks shooting at the supply transport.
90% of the folks I know have reloading capability, plus ammo mfg is local in many cases.
Just getting here is 3/4 the battle...

Local as in manufactured locally?

And I agree about crossing ocean. And I'd say if such force will manage to get there despite Navy and Airforce,then something like local militia won't bother you that much...

[R.Mackey]

I see for such resistance force one problem - supplies(at least ammunition). Without supplies you're done.

There's not a target shooter I know who doesn't have at least two or three hundred rounds on hand at all times.

It's enough.

Gasoline / diesel will be the biggest supply issue, not ammunition.

[JoeyDonuts]

Gasoline / diesel will be the biggest supply issue, not ammunition.

Uncap the wells in the Midwest. The refineries are already in place.

That problem could be solved. It'd take effort, and the refineries would have to be heavily defended.

Of course, I've yet to see a plausible scenario where an invader would be able to establish aerial supremacy. No one else has our airborne C2 capability, with the exception of the A-50 Mainstay...and that bird's pretty old.

I mean, how many F-16 ANG squadrons are spread out all over the country? Short of hitting every single Air National Guard base with a targeted MIRV, how would they accomplish this?

[Klimax]

There's not a target shooter I know who doesn't have at least two or three hundred rounds on hand at all times.

It's enough.

Gasoline / diesel will be the biggest supply issue, not ammunition.

But for how long?(Reminder:Never served,don't have a gun.) How long would average gunholder last before resupply needed?

Of course, I've yet to see a plausible scenario where an invader would be able to establish aerial supremacy. No one else has our airborne C2 capability, with the exception of the A-50 Mainstay...and that bird's pretty old.

I mean, how many F-16 ANG squadrons are spread out all over the country? Short of hitting every single Air National Guard base with a targeted MIRV, how would they accomplish this?

How many squadrons are able to be deployed in minutes? How long rest.

Follow up. How well are bases and equipment protected from EMP and what magnitude would be survivable?

Idea is to lunch or sneak and detonate number of EMP bombs/missiles near bases. Hence my question,where answer dictates how feasible it would be.

And to tell truth,i wonder how many ballistic/tactical non-nuclear missiles would be needed for disruption of bases and nuclear bases when you include anti-missile measures like AEGIS.

[R.Mackey]

But for how long?(Reminder:Never served,don't have a gun.) How long would average gunholder last before resupply needed?

If your average militiaman or woman has enough ammo for a single hot engagement, it's enough. And for comparison, in WW1 and 2 the average GI carried under 200 rounds into battle.

The bigger drain on ammo is training. However, those who know what they're doing can keep fresh using dry-fire practice, which turns out to be surprisingly effective.

The better marksman you are, the less ammo you need. ;)

[Nosi]

My biggest worry is Mexico. The country is our Ally I know, but the government is weaker than America would like, it's relatively easy for a baddy to slip in through that vulnerable American 'belly'.

[JoeyDonuts]

How many squadrons are able to be deployed in minutes? How long rest.

Don't know. That'd be a better question for an air-force type. I don't really know reaction times in general, but they're going to be shorter depending on what readiness condition the bases/squadrons are in.

Follow up. How well are bases and equipment protected from EMP and what magnitude would be survivable?

JSTARS and most airborne C2 assets I'm aware of have some degree of EMP shielding. As far as what magnitude would be survivable, I really don't know how much "voltage" would be induced into the target's circuits. I guess that would depend on the weapon, atmospherics, and the design of the circuit in question.

And to tell truth,i wonder how many ballistic/tactical non-nuclear missiles would be needed for disruption of bases and nuclear bases when you include anti-missile measures like AEGIS.

The standard loadout for an AEGIS-equipped ship is probably not going to have more than a dozen or so missile interceptors, unless a nuclear attack became imminent - and there goes your sneak attack scenario. Even then, the ships would have to go to NWS Yorktown for refit on the east coast. I don't know where they'd go on the west, although I'm fairly sure there's a magazine at Pearl.

[Klimax]

If your average militiaman or woman has enough ammo for a single hot engagement, it's enough. And for comparison, in WW1 and 2 the average GI carried under 200 rounds into battle.

The bigger drain on ammo is training. However, those who know what they're doing can keep fresh using dry-fire practice, which turns out to be surprisingly effective.

Looks,like I put there wrong sort of weapon. Good.Thanks

The better marksman you are, the less ammo you need. ;)
I know. I just didn't know estimation for average gunholder... ;)
I presume they would use hit-and-run.

Don't know. That'd be a better question for an air-force type. I don't really know reaction times in general, but they're going to be shorter depending on what readiness condition the bases/squadrons are in.

That is logical.Let say that we have at most second lowest level of alert.

JSTARS and most airborne C2 assets I'm aware of have some degree of EMP shielding. As far as what magnitude would be survivable, I really don't know how much "voltage" would be induced into the target's circuits. I guess that would depend on the weapon, atmospherics, and the design of the circuit in question.

It was sort of question which cannot be answered or enemy coulod quickly develop strategy...

Is it known if there is protection on incoming power lines to base?

The standard loadout for an AEGIS-equipped ship is probably not going to have more than a dozen or so missile interceptors, unless a nuclear attack became imminent - and there goes your sneak attack scenario. Even then, the ships would have to go to NWS Yorktown for refit on the east coast. I don't know where they'd go on the west, although I'm fairly sure there's a magazine at Pearl.

Hm.How easy is it to track such missiles?Both balistic and tactical.

Anyway there could be theoretically way around detection I think.
Lunch a satelite with hidden/secret load of missiles.Would take care of a lot of time for detection... (something like last stage of balistic missile)

[stilicho]

The invader has the same problem, but is worse off. His supply line extends across an ocean and must be brought in despite all those folks shooting at the supply transport.
90% of the folks I know have reloading capability, plus ammo mfg is local in many cases.
Just getting here is 3/4 the battle...

Logistics is absolutely the most important consideration.

Unorganised militias have historically had trouble when facing regulars.

In the event of a real invasion of US soil, its federal government would quickly disarm and disband local militias since they would get in the way of effective military operations.

Some folks contrarily argue that it is unorganised militias that have been successful in Afghanistan and Iraq but that is completely different. The rules of engagement are completely lop-sided in favour of the locals. The US military would not handcuff itself in the same way in dealing with invaders (or with militia defender wannabes).

Simply, the invasion force wouldn't get inland very far before its supply routes were decimated, and its country-of-origin's entire infrastructure paralysed by American counterattack.

[stilicho]

My biggest worry is Mexico. The country is our Ally I know, but the government is weaker than America would like, it's relatively easy for a baddy to slip in through that vulnerable American 'belly'.

The French tried that and the guy wound up being executed. Next to try were the Germans (the Zimmerman telegram) and the result was American intervention in the First World War. Nobody's been crazy enough to try it since and there's no reason to believe that either the Mexicans or the Americans would let it come near to fruition.

[stilicho]

Make that Two. A couple of people in this thread have shown they know nothing about Military history.
For example: one..who I shall not name...who claims the supereor Technology will always defeat an inferiorly armed force. Guess he never heard of Guerilla warfare, The American Experience in Vietnam, or the Russian Experience in Afghanistan.

See my above post.

There could be a strong argument in both cases (Vietnam and Afghanistan) that the invading force was crippled by rules of engagement that would not have been enforced if the home country was under invasion. The success of irregulars more often than not depends on the unwillingness of the invader to pull out all the stops.

A counter-example would be the British Army in its two wars to defeat the Boers in South Africa. They won chiefly by resorting to tactics we would consider barbaric today but which accomplished the goal of strategic victory over an irregular force defending its homeland. Neither the Americans in Vietnam nor the Soviets in Afghanistan used a full complement of available force in their regional wars.

[JoeyDonuts]

Anyway there could be theoretically way around detection I think.
Lunch a satelite with hidden/secret load of missiles.Would take care of a lot of time for detection... (something like last stage of balistic missile)

Not all that realistic. Our capabilities to detect a launch event via IR are light years beyond what they were in the Cold War, as is our Electro-Optical technology. While our HUMINT deficiency continues to hamper us in places like Afghanistan, we are still in many respects fully equipped to win an engagement against Eastern Bloc technology, and that includes ballistic missiles.

[FramerDave]

My biggest worry is Mexico. The country is our Ally I know, but the government is weaker than America would like, it's relatively easy for a baddy to slip in through that vulnerable American 'belly'.

True, but there is a lot of land between Mexico and the US. We could fight them there long before they got close to our southern border. That's the nice thing about our location: we have a lot of room between us and a potential enemy.

[Rogue1stclass]

Logistics is absolutely the most important consideration.

Unorganised militias have historically had trouble when facing regulars.

In the event of a real invasion of US soil, its federal government would quickly disarm and disband local militias since they would get in the way of effective military operations.

You are thinking of paramilitary militias. What I think most of us are talking about are pre-equipped and, in many cases, trained partisans, millions of them, who will already be behind the enemy lines as soon as those lines are established. These partisans may not be much of a match for tanks and IFVs, but they'll give the enemy's supply clerks, truck drivers, and off-duty soldiers all kinds of problems.

[Klimax]

Not all that realistic. Our capabilities to detect a launch event via IR are light years beyond what they were in the Cold War, as is our Electro-Optical technology. While our HUMINT deficiency continues to hamper us in places like Afghanistan, we are still in many respects fully equipped to win an engagement against Eastern Bloc technology, and that includes ballistic missiles.

I had deleted before posting a word."Bomb". How would it be difficult to make a larger bomb capable atmosphere entry ,guided and how well those can be detected?

Simply, the invasion force wouldn't get inland very far before its supply routes were decimated, and its country-of-origin's entire infrastructure paralysed by American counterattack.

Of course assuming that they would not have good defense and that they had to put wast majority of army to invasion. I think however that this limits even in theory only to few countries or blocks - Russia,China and E-NATO (European part of NATO)

Russia - would have to wastly modernise its army and take better care of soldiers
China - don't know
E-NATO - allies,only catastrophical change in politics of USA and some threats would move politicians to even consider anything close to military intervention. MIlitary is less funded ,so some newest technologies are not in use.

I think that best chances(not much anyway) would have Russia as they got closest to America.

[JoeyDonuts]

I had deleted before posting a word."Bomb". How would it be difficult to make a larger bomb capable atmosphere entry ,guided and how well those can be detected?

"Atmosphere entry?" You mean released from an orbital platform? I don't think most ordnance would survive re-entry. R.Mackey can speak to this better than I, but such a weapon would be rather large and covered with heat shielding.

Not really the best way to carry out a nuclear attack. You can't really carry out a large-scale one without launching a great deal of MIRVs (which we'd see coming) or setting off suitcase nukes at a coordinated time in major cities. In the case of the suitcase nukes, these would be the smaller tactical versions. Horrible casualties in large population centers, but not really devastating, particularly when set off at ground level.

If I'm remembering my NBC stuff correctly, the worst sorts of detonations are done some distance above ground to maximize the blast wave. Ground-level detonations will be tamped to some degree by the earth. I also believe the EMP would be reduced.

This is a lot of interesting questions you're asking here. Working on a science fair project?

[Fishstick]

"Atmosphere entry?" You mean released from an orbital platform? I don't think most ordnance would survive re-entry. R.Mackey can speak to this better than I, but such a weapon would be rather large and covered with heat shielding.



You'd be surprised. Project Thor is basically that:



Project Thor is an idea for a weapons system that launches kinetic projectiles from Earth orbit to damage targets on the ground. The most described system is 'an orbiting tungsten telephone pole with small fins and a computer in the back for guidance.'

There is no requirement to deploy missiles, aircraft or other vehicles. Although the SALT II (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons.

The idea is that the weapon would inflict damage because it moves at orbital velocities, at least 9 kilometers per second. The amount of energy released by the largest version when it hits the ground is roughly comparable to a small nuclear weapon or very large conventional bomb.[citation needed] Smaller weapons can deliver measured amounts of energy as small as a 500 lb conventional bomb.[citation needed]

[JoeyDonuts]

You'd be surprised. Project Thor is basically that:

I get it - but in this case the damage is caused by the enormous kinetic energy imparted by such a dense material. Tungsten should hold up well in those conditions...and I'm not certain the ballistic trajectory would take it completely exo-atmospheric anyway.

Nuclear weapons require sophisticated firing circuits that would have to be protected from the ridiculous heat caused by re-entry.

[Klimax]

"Atmosphere entry?" You mean released from an orbital platform? I don't think most ordnance would survive re-entry. R.Mackey can speak to this better than I, but such a weapon would be rather large and covered with heat shielding.

Not really the best way to carry out a nuclear attack. You can't really carry out a large-scale one without launching a great deal of MIRVs (which we'd see coming) or setting off suitcase nukes at a coordinated time in major cities. In the case of the suitcase nukes, these would be the smaller tactical versions. Horrible casualties in large population centers, but not really devastating, particularly when set off at ground level.

Only minor thing. I explictly started with non-nuclear.(Or I had mistakenly forgot "non-")
But anyway according to what I read,you are correct.(again - what a suprise)

And then it would be still ineffective,enemy needs to target bases,not cities as military would otherwise get quickly on him.(I presume USA got enough capacity to do both at once - rescue and counterattack)

This is a lot of interesting questions you're asking here. Working on a science fair project?

No.But military and military technology interest me(and wars).
And I like to think about hypotheticals.(Same thing I do about in asembler-level optimisation)

I get it - but in this case the damage is caused by the enormous kinetic energy imparted by such a dense material. Tungsten should hold up well in those conditions...and I'm not certain the ballistic trajectory would take it completely exo-atmospheric anyway.

Nuclear weapons require sophisticated firing circuits that would have to be protected from the ridiculous heat caused by re-entry.

I didn't know about that project and it looks like it would workaround some limitaitons and problems...

------

I think I know what confused you. I was thinking about purely EMP bomb,no nuclear or fusion bomb.
And I suspect that if the blast will be strong enough to get through shielding,then outside of it,no human will survive.(Brain functions out)

[Peter i]

Space based kinetic weapons seem nice, but it takes a lot of resources ($$$ and lifting capability) to place them (end the fuel, and the guidance systems and so on) in orbit.

Once you want to use them, you have to use fuel to brake them to leave the orbit and change the orbit to make them impact the desired target. The fuel is one thing, but it will also use the most costly resource in any battle: Time. It might be useful against a fixed installation, bot against anything else... nope!


Invading the US?

Why would you do it?
Destroying the US would be a more reasonable strategy for those normally considered to be likely adversaries.

(This could be done by re-electing The Shrub... he almost made it on the first try)

[8den]

C'mon any invasion can be repelled by Charlie Sheen, Patrick Swayze and the chick from Dirty Dancing.

[defaultdotxbe]

C'mon any invasion can be repelled by Charlie Sheen, Patrick Swayze and the chick from Dirty Dancing.
OMG theyve already taken out swayze! the invasion is imminent!

[8den]

OMG theyve already taken out swayze! the invasion is imminent!

And Charlie ain't playing with a full deck these days, help us Jennifer Grey you're our only hope!

[stilicho]

You are thinking of paramilitary militias. What I think most of us are talking about are pre-equipped and, in many cases, trained partisans, millions of them, who will already be behind the enemy lines as soon as those lines are established. These partisans may not be much of a match for tanks and IFVs, but they'll give the enemy's supply clerks, truck drivers, and off-duty soldiers all kinds of problems.

We're mixing and matching several scenarios here, to be certain. First and foremost, the US armed forces are more than a match for any combination of nations anywhere in the world as it stands.

The invasion would be dead in its tracks.

The second group of scenarios remove the US military from the scene. The most likely alternate scenario is one where the federal government conscripts units composed of reservists, National Guardsmen, and that type of trained personnel. Such a force may have some effect against an invader but, without air superiority or naval interdiction capacity, would experience considerable difficulty against any modern national armed force.

The concept of the partisan only works where it is felt that there remains an effective military command and that logistical support is forthcoming in the long run. This is why, as some have noted, the French resistance tended to be passive while the Soviet partisans were somewhat more effective.

Americans tend to overestimate the effectiveness of the "armed citizen". That concept misapprehends the effectiveness of a no-holds-barred invading force. Just consider the problem of evacuating wounded personnel for a start. A partisan force would be quickly decimated simply due to injury or even illness without strong medical support. Another serious problem is that of implementing anything close to an orderly tactical withdrawal. Unit cohesion is vital in any military action and that's something unchanged from ancient times.

When people argue that the Viet Cong and the mujahadeen were successful in spite of these qualities, they're overstating the ruthlessness of the invaders, and their dedication to military victory on the way to an established and negotiated peace. The are understating the logistical support provided to each of these insurgencies, too.

An invader of the US would likely desire a stable and effective central authority to deal with rather than a collective rabble armed with light weapons. The reward to the central authority would be the opportunity to settle with the invader on more amicable terms by dealing as effectively as possible against any disturbance of the peace.

[stilicho]

I think that best chances(not much anyway) would have Russia as they got closest to America.

Russia probably has the worst chance of all of mounting an invasion of the US. How would they get their amphibious force out of their home waters?

[JoeyDonuts]

Russia probably has the worst chance of all of mounting an invasion of the US. How would they get their amphibious force out of their home waters?

*snicker* What amphibious force? Where's their air cover going to be to stop the USN from bombarding them? That'd mean they'd have to get the Admiral Kuznutzov out of mothball - which is basically their only viable aircraft carrier at this point.

So...one barely usable rickety carrier for the Russians to provide cover for an invading amphibious force.

Match that against the US carrier force on the East Coast ALONE, and well...

[R.Mackey]

Don't forget the submarines.


Carriers are well and good for projecting strike power, but it is shipping that sustains the invasion.

[Toke]

Can you ship artillery rockets in a 40` container, with little guidance packets on the tips?
Then get DHL, UPS, or TNT to park then within range of an airfield and hope that the USAF does not use individual bunkers for their aircrafts, but line them up Pearl Habour style?

That might help with the aircover.
Now, where to find enough troops to cover most of a continent?:D

[Nosi]

*snicker* What amphibious force? Where's their air cover going to be to stop the USN from bombarding them? That'd mean they'd have to get the Admiral Kuznutzov out of mothball - which is basically their only viable aircraft carrier at this point.

So...one barely usable rickety carrier for the Russians to provide cover for an invading amphibious force.

Match that against the US carrier force on the East Coast ALONE, and well...

But I've read reports on the Daily Mail that aircraft from Russia have been seen from the UK!:scared::eek::scared:

[Klimax]

Thanks for info on Russians. (But than I have sort of touched on it in the latter part of post!)

Russia probably has the worst chance of all of mounting an invasion of the US. How would they get their amphibious force out of their home waters?

Looks like I had mangled gloube in my memory ,so I thought they had one and now after checking they don't. (Don't ask me what I thought)

[stilicho]

That might help with the aircover.
Now, where to find enough troops to cover most of a continent?:D

You wouldn't want or need them.

Let's assume Denmark (for example) wants to establish global supremacy of the kind presently exercised by the US. It builds the naval and air forces it needs. It pries the US away from all it defensive alliances. It challenges and defeats the US naval and air forces. For good measure, the Danes manage to knock out all the command and control structure on the mainland US and renders its air bases useless. (We are way off into Bizarro-World here but just bear with me).

What do you do after you accomplish all those things?

All you'd really want to do is to negotiate peace with whatever political authority remained in the US. Mine the harbours until the US agrees to hefty reparations and sort of a 21st Century Versailles settlement.

No boots needed on the ground. You get your reparations from excise taxes applied to US trade. The US is a trading nation and that's where its wealth derives.

The grand strategy would be to render the US unable to rebuild its military. The policy might even be popular in the USA since the defence budget would be slashed to merely support a standing defensive infantry force.

[Phrost]

Haha, the Walter Mitty couch warrior up and disappeared.

Figures. Yay us.

[CptColumbo]

One person could invade the country, but if you want it to be a successful invasion you may need more.

[Rogue1stclass]

All you'd really want to do is to negotiate peace with whatever political authority remained in the US. Mine the harbours until the US agrees to hefty reparations and sort of a 21st Century Versailles settlement.

Wouldn't work. Two many harbors to mine, plus doing so would just move trade through Mexico and Canada anyway, and besides, the US needs foriegn trade to grow, not to survive.

That's not even getting to the countries who require the US to maintain their own standard of living and might have something to say about this.

No boots needed on the ground. You get your reparations from excise taxes applied to US trade. The US is a trading nation and that's where its wealth derives.

Wouldn't work. There is no way you could enforce such an excise, especially on American goods sold in America. What's more, this ignores the realities of the current global economy. Would goods made in China by US owned companies be subject to the excise? If not, you really haven't done anything, if so, you have just destroyed the economy of an authoritarian nuclear power.

The grand strategy would be to render the US unable to rebuild its military. The policy might even be popular in the USA since the defence budget would be slashed to merely support a standing defensive infantry force.

Wouldn't work. Even if, especially if, all of your other strategies worked, this one wouldn't. All you would have succeeded in doing is taking the US's money, making local production viable again, and pissing off 300 million people.

In other words, you will have done exactly what happened when all of this stuff was tried on Germany 90 years ago. Set up the next war.

The only way to actually defeat any country is to dismantle the extant government, put down resistance, and rebuild and integrate what's left. Worked for the Romans and the WWII Allies.

Now, you could potentially win a more limited skirmish with the US and get a favorable peace settlement, but nothing like what you are talking here.

[stilicho]

Wouldn't work. Two many harbors to mine, plus doing so would just move trade through Mexico and Canada anyway, and besides, the US needs foriegn trade to grow, not to survive.

That's not even getting to the countries who require the US to maintain their own standard of living and might have something to say about this.

I'm not proposing that Denmark ought to take this aggressive action against the USA, naturally. But if they did, my proposals would be acceptable elements of a grand strategy. I didn't include a scenario involving a friendly Canada and Mexico for simplicity's sake. For the same reason, I didn't include nuclear scenarios or ones where Denmark almost, but not quite, disabled the Americans' naval and air forces.

All of these are Cloud-Cuckoo-Land scenarios, anyhow.

But I dispute that the US doesn't need foreign trade to survive. I suppose it depends on our definition of "survive" or "grow". The essence of much of its foreign policy--and arguably its own rationale for existence--has been the security of international trade.

[dudalb]

My biggest worry is Mexico. The country is our Ally I know, but the government is weaker than America would like, it's relatively easy for a baddy to slip in through that vulnerable American 'belly'.

Actually that was a major plot point in "Red Dawn".
Yeah, I know the film is incredibly silly and stupid, but I still think it's a lot of fun. I just don't take it seriously.

[stilicho]

In other words, you will have done exactly what happened when all of this stuff was tried on Germany 90 years ago. Set up the next war.

The only way to actually defeat any country is to dismantle the extant government, put down resistance, and rebuild and integrate what's left. Worked for the Romans and the WWII Allies.

Don't be so hasty to spurn the advances that Versailles offered.

When you read it closely, the essentials of Versailles are what created the modern world. The Germans and Japanese wanted a do-over, which they got, but they wouldn't have done so if all its provisions had been enforced and adhered to in the first place.

America would be defeated if it were stripped of its naval and aerial superiority and its defensive and trade alliances. The excises are merely external applications of protective tariffs and would not be objectionable to US industrialists or workers.

[Nosi]

One person could invade the country, but if you want it to be a successful invasion you may need more.

We are "successfully invaded" regularly by illegal immigrants looking to make a buck to send back to their families in Mexico. Those people are unarmed, but they are successful invaders if you look at it from a strictly unauthorized walking into the country point of view. Those illegal immigrants are also successful in getting several watchers of Fox News' panties in a right painful twist.

:dl:

A military invasion is another matter, so back to the thread.:D

[Whiplash]

Nineteen + US "incompetence".

Fail


Indeed. Quite epic too. It's not even in the same zip code, let alone ballpark.

It has nothing to do with invasion. It's practically a non-sequitur.

Poor truthers, they just can't help themselves but to inject it into everything that comes up.