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

Ladewig · 30th September 2009, 07:10 AM

In this thread 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 · 30th September 2009, 07:29 AM

African or European?

drkitten · 30th September 2009, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

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 · 30th September 2009, 07:37 AM

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 · 30th September 2009, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

In this thread 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 · 30th September 2009, 07:59 AM

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

Fishstick · 30th September 2009, 08:08 AM

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 · 30th September 2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

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 · 30th September 2009, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

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 · 30th September 2009, 08:31 AM

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 · 30th September 2009, 08:49 AM

According to this book and movie, a handful wearing chainmail and armed with longbows can be successful.

NoZed Avenger · 30th September 2009, 09:02 AM

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 · 30th September 2009, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 30th September 2009, 09:34 AM

Around 4,250.

dudalb · 30th September 2009, 10:08 AM

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

JihadJane · 30th September 2009, 10:10 AM

Nineteen + US "incompetence".

fuelair · 30th September 2009, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

According to this book and movie, 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 · 30th September 2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

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 · 30th September 2009, 11:09 AM

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 · 30th September 2009, 12:35 PM

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

Ladewig · 30th September 2009, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 30th September 2009, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Nineteen + US "incompetence".

Fail

ElMondoHummus · 30th September 2009, 01:20 PM

C'mon guys. Jason Voorhees took Manhattan all by himself. A few more of his type and the US - hell, the world - is toast!

Sabrina · 30th September 2009, 01:36 PM

Short answer: Lots.

Long answer: HELLA lots.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Papermache · 30th September 2009, 01:55 PM

One to hold the ladder and -

sorry, wrong thread.

aviolet4u · 30th September 2009, 02:02 PM

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 · 30th September 2009, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

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 · 30th September 2009, 02:58 PM

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 · 30th September 2009, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 30th September 2009, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

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 · 30th September 2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 30th September 2009, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by geni

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 · 30th September 2009, 04:42 PM

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

geni · 30th September 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

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 · 30th September 2009, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Not relivant to the issue of an armed population.

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

geni · 30th September 2009, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

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 · 30th September 2009, 06:48 PM

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 · 30th September 2009, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by geni

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 · 30th September 2009, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

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 · 30th September 2009, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

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.

30th September 2009, 07:10 AM	#1
Ladewig Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: USA Posts: 10,571	How many troops would be needed to invade the U.S. ? In this thread 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.
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?"

30th September 2009, 07:29 AM	#2
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 19,959	African or European?
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 19,959

30th September 2009, 07:37 AM	#4
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 6,160	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.
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

30th September 2009, 07:59 AM	#6
aggle-rithm Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 8,368	Technically, it would only take a few. To do so successfully would take a lot more.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

30th September 2009, 08:08 AM	#7
Fishstick Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 536	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.
Fishstick Muse Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 536

30th September 2009, 07:32 AM	#3
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 19,568	Originally Posted by Ladewig 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]

30th September 2009, 07:50 AM	#5
LONGTABBER PE Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,865	Originally Posted by Ladewig In this thread 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).

30th September 2009, 08:09 AM	#8
LONGTABBER PE Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,865	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm 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.

30th September 2009, 08:10 AM	#9
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 14,208	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm 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.
	__________________ Damn you, Horatius!!! Making me vote against myself!!! - maddog/Zarek Col. Tigh - Officially Scarier Than The Airlock

30th September 2009, 08:31 AM	#10
dtugg Pseudoskeptic Government Loyalist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NWO headquarters Posts: 4,651	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.

30th September 2009, 08:49 AM	#11
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rachel, KS Posts: 9,720	According to this book and movie, a handful wearing chainmail and armed with longbows can be successful.

30th September 2009, 09:02 AM	#12
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 9,503	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
	__________________ "Because shut up. That's why." - Solomon Stone

30th September 2009, 09:29 AM	#13
Ladewig Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: USA Posts: 10,571	Originally Posted by 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. 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?
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?" Last edited by Ladewig; 30th September 2009 at 09:31 AM.

30th September 2009, 09:34 AM	#14
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 11,775	Around 4,250.
	__________________ Don't worry, be happy.

30th September 2009, 10:08 AM	#15
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 17,471	Does'nt matter how many, the Wolverines will get them.

30th September 2009, 10:10 AM	#16
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 19,597	Nineteen + US "incompetence".
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

30th September 2009, 10:24 AM	#17
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,483	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo According to this book and movie, 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!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,483	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space!

30th September 2009, 10:32 AM	#18
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rachel, KS Posts: 9,720	Originally Posted by fuelair 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.

30th September 2009, 11:09 AM	#19
grandthefttoaster Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 184	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.
grandthefttoaster Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 184

30th September 2009, 12:35 PM	#20
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,089	This whole scenario is a bit ridiculous even to speculate on.
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,089	__________________ Just say NO to twoofers

30th September 2009, 12:40 PM	#21
Ladewig Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: USA Posts: 10,571	Originally Posted by 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. 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?
	__________________ When I see all the kooky things posted on the JREF forums, I can't help but think of Max Bialystock's lament: "They come here, they all come here, how do they find us?"

30th September 2009, 12:59 PM	#22
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 8,082	Originally Posted by JihadJane Nineteen + US "incompetence". Fail
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

30th September 2009, 01:20 PM	#23
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 8,976	C'mon guys. Jason Voorhees took Manhattan all by himself. A few more of his type and the US - hell, the world - is toast!
	__________________ How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible. -Roger Ebert, Transformers review Woo-HOO! I got a "You rock" from Hokulele!

30th September 2009, 01:36 PM	#24
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spinning through space Posts: 3,850	Short answer: Lots. Long answer: HELLA lots. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
	__________________ "Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985 *Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.* *I'd kill you, but you might bleed on my shoes.*

30th September 2009, 01:55 PM	#25
Papermache Scholar Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 98	One to hold the ladder and - sorry, wrong thread.
Papermache Scholar Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 98

30th September 2009, 02:02 PM	#26
aviolet4u Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 267	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.

30th September 2009, 02:38 PM	#27
Caustic Logic Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,100	Originally Posted by Ladewig 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!

30th September 2009, 02:58 PM	#28
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 21,429	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.

30th September 2009, 03:02 PM	#29
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 21,429	Originally Posted by Ladewig 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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.

30th September 2009, 03:07 PM	#30
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 21,429	Originally Posted by Ladewig 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.

30th September 2009, 03:10 PM	#31
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 21,429	Originally Posted by 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. 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.

30th September 2009, 03:38 PM	#32
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 6,160	Originally Posted by geni 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.
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

30th September 2009, 04:42 PM	#33
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 6,592	I think the answer is "more than anyone has".
	__________________ [Due to high ambient stupidity, I guess I need to spell it out: THIS IS A JOKE.] - JamesBlodgett You have a bucket of squirrel crap here. - Leftysergeant

30th September 2009, 04:44 PM	#34
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 21,429	Originally Posted by rwguinn 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.

30th September 2009, 05:22 PM	#35
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by geni Not relivant to the issue of an armed population. But it IS relevant to the issue being discussed in the OP.
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,089	__________________ Just say NO to twoofers