If the US was invaded

[carguy3j 0]

Sorry don't watch porn films.

 

Huh? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/?ref_=sr_2

 

Apples to hand grenades. I answer that with my previous assertation:

 

You can't compare any modern wars, especially any that the US has been involved in in any 3rd world sh!t holes where guerilla forces have held a modern army at bay (basically any conflict we have been involved in since the 1950s) as an example because we never had the intention of conquering or an administration ruthless enough to take the gloves off and allow the military do what they need to do to win. A modern army with air, armor, rockets, grenades, comms, satellites, relatively unlimited supplies of beans, bullets, and band aids against the arms most American's have in their homes, with limited supplies, no comms to coordinate attacks, .........

.........Regardless of numbers, an untrained, ill equipped militia armed with small arms is no match for a modern military with bombers, gunships, mortars, guided missiles, tanks, APCs, a comms net, etc... that has the will to do what it takes to conquer a land and take it for themselves. How long do you think you and 5 of your neighbors will hold out against artillery, tanks, and gunships with the 2 ARs, the 870, and grandpa's hunting rifle.

As has been discussed,the civilian population would likely end up getting armed with military hardware (either officially, unofficially, by individual units they meet, or through picking up what they find), and the resistance may even be integrated into, or at least coordinate with the regular army/military; perhaps even with embedded military "liaisons" acting as trainers/planners/maybe even unit commanders.

 

Also, I think our geography may be one of our greatest assets. All of these enemy forces would have to arrive to by sea or air, travelling VERY long distances.  There is no direct overland route, from the middle east, China, or Russia. We have the most powerful Navy left in the world. Even combined, Russia's rusting rotting remnants of the Soviet Navy, combined with China's bad copies of stolen designs, and even with all of the south american countries (some of whom are allies/friendly anyway) throwing in their pitiful fleet of obsolete hand-me downs, wouldn't stand a chance. We'd send most of the combat vessels, and virtually all merchant/transport ships to the bottom, while way out at sea.

 

As for air combat, the US is really the only country with extensive air refueling capabilities. Most nation's military aircraft, and certainly their fighters and ground attack aircraft have nowhere near the range to get here to support ground troops, and they lack the refueling ability to extend that range. Sure they could do some "hops", to ferry some over, and I'm sure Russia does have SOME airborne re-fueling abilities, but not enough to come close to gaining air superiority over the CONUS. Whatever they do get here won't last long. Yes, the Mig-29s will put up a good fight, but just about anything else a com-block nation could send at us is out classed by even the stuff we have in mothballs (F-4- yes they're pigs, but w/ modern missiles/fire control they'd put up a good fight, F-14, F-15, older F-16's,etc...) Hell, we have so much good stuff, we moth balled the F-117 stealth fighter; ( Yes, I know its not really a "fighter") something other nations would drool over even today. NOBODY has anything to counter the B-2, which can do intercontinental missions, and bomb the hell out of the bad guys before they even leave home. We still have plenty of B-52's to send on long range bombing missions, anywhere in the world. Yes, they are old, and in hostile skies, we'd lose a lot of them, but they deliver such a huge payload, that even a small percentage getting through would be devastating to the enemy. 

 

After all that, we also still have the ultimate deterrent. If all hope is lost, the US has been overrun and occupied, with no hope of fighting back; then the final act of the president/national command structure would be launch our nukes. We still have more the enough to wipe out every hostile nation in the world. Even if the land based silos are compromised, we still have "boomers" hiding out there somewhere, waiting to rain hell down on our enemies, and those enemies know that. That's why we should never completely give up our nuclear arsenal, why no little dictators should be allowed to have them, and why all of these scenarios will probably never happen. We have the ultimate "Game Over" button.

 

 

You may fight a delaying action, you may have pockets of resistance, but you will never unlodge a determined modern military force.

 

Maybe. Or you make it hurt enough that they leave voluntarily. It all depends on how/.what kind of resistance can be formed. That's the whole idea of guerrilla warfare. You don't need score big battle victories. Just inflict enough damage, enough times, to demoralize the enemy, and make them not want to be there.

Alternatively, we hold out long enough for our allies to come to the resuce. Sort of a reverse WW2, where we swap roles with Europe. 

In my scenario the invasion happens months after an EMP attack. After 1/3-1/2 of all Americans are dead and the rest are starved. We have already taught the war for them by fighting with each other simply to survive.

 

I just believe that we are too soft as a nation to be useful to anyone, especially our military.

Well, then we, the population, might be in trouble. Of course, we are assuming that a major motivation for the invasion, is our various resources. If they go and destroy too much of our infrastructure, it won't be nearly as valuable to "them". Frying our electrical grid would be a big problem for them, post occupation. It would take years decades  to re-build. But, I would think that most of the military assets are hardened against EMP, at least the "big stuff"; including the nukes, and the systems to order and carry out the launches.

[pjd832 146]

If you think the "armed populace", especially the soft and weak citizens that this current nation of ours breeds, could stand up against a co-ordinated attack by a modern military force with artillery, air power, armor, communications network, trained soldiers, real time intelligence and observation assets and the ruthlessness to destroy us, you are out of your mind.

 

We couldn't get through a hurricane and two weeks without power last fall without tearing each other up. What do you think an artillery bombardment followed my an armored assault supported by air strikes and infantry would do to 90% of the people in your neighborhood? You think a few hunting buddies will be able to repel a coordinated assault by a trained fire team with LMG/MMG, grenades, and comms?

wait so you mean we dont stand a chance....gun forums nationwide unite!!

[svt3183 14]

They did this to little girls too, like children. I don't understand why you rarely hear about the atrocities Russia committed to its own citizens and German citizens, at least compared to how much you hear about the Holocaust. I knew about the Holocaust from elementary school and literally only really heard discussion of Russia's psychotic deeds in college. Barring personal research.

There is an easy answer to this question

[Vini 0]

It would be a very complicated mission. 

Start from well coordinated a)identify and destroy satellites; b)series of EMP attacks; c)identify and destroy subs with nuclear arsenal; d)keep rest of the Navy busy to avoid direct destruction of vessels with troops. (necessary steps so they don't get nuked back right away)

Than what they get in return? 

Nothing really. 

300 million of pissed hostile well armed civilians - it makes about 40 mil able bodied man who have problems taking crap even from their own gov... 

Guerrilla warfare can go for years or decades without need of external military resupply - people have a lot of firearms and ammo even without getting into big brother's warehouses. 

 

Think: what kind of military, financial, technological and men power needed to accomplish the mission? 

Who can realistically pull something like that? 

Unless China and Russia put all their resources together and join forces to prove something just for kicks

 

 

There is no need for big action. Another way works just fine

Or just elect Obama and create the same turmoil slowly.

 

[GRIZ 3,369]

I've watched this fantasy invasion thread for a few days. There are many things people haven't considered.

 

Logistics

 

If you are the invader before you select where you will invade you need to figure out how to keep them supplied. This is crucial when you're trying to figure out where to launch your invasion. You will need thousands of tons of supplies a day to keep your army going. You need seaports and railroads to move that much stuff.

 

As far as American guerilla fighters go this is also a major consideration. Forget your 338 Lapua sniper rifle. You will have to depend on help from the outside, as partisian forces did in WWII, or rely on whatever your enemy is using.

 

Where to Invade

 

The Northeast US is way too congested for military operations. Alaska is out as there is no road network. The invader wants to gain ground, inflict the most hardships on the defender, and also leave a central command somewhere to call for a surrender. You need to consider weather, terrain, and other factors. IF (thats a big if) the US were to be invaded the best place would be from Mexico. Large population centers could be bypassed, you can deny the US food and oil resources, and towns aren't built up next to one another making them easy to bypass. You would have to deal with winters invading from Canada.

 

Defending the US

 

There could never be any surprise invasion even if we were limited to 50 yr old technology. There would be many political indicators way before any invader put boots on US soil. There would be time for a build up of some sorts.

 

The idea of mating up civilians with a few active duty guys has been tried before. The Russians literally drafted men off the streets when the Germans were close to Moscow. You signed your papers and were given a greatcoat hat, a rifle, and a small supply of ammo and put on a truck. Somewhere enroute to the front you got minimal instruction on shooting and then were sent off to the front to positions with the regular Soviet Army behind you. Your mission was to make the Germans use up their ammo. Yeah, cannon fodder and that's what handing an untrained civilian a rifle and expecting them to be a soldier amounts to.

 

The Resistance

 

We all like to talk about Red Dawn. There would be small groups but any real success will depend on outside supply and organization and coordination of missions. That's what made resistance movements successful in WWII. Even the most successful partisian fighters in WWII, the Yugoslavians, got outside logistics help and allowed the Soviets to cover their flank. BTW the Yugoslavians were the only occupied country to liberate themselves in WWII.

 

There are not that many people in the US who would be that willing to fight in a resistance movement. I see comments on this forum like,

 

"I support the military but think we should get out of all the places we are in the world"

 

That's like telling you wife you love her but hate everything she does.

 

Another comment I've seen on this forum was,

 

"I support the military but wouldn't enlist because I don't like mindlessly following orders."

 

That says a lot of what they really think of the military. The American fighter doesn't "mindlessly follow orders". There are times you need to follow an order but don't have the details but that's having faith in your superiors.

 

Shooting 3 gun matches and other gun games don't make you able take on a military force.

 

I don't doubt if we were invaded there would be a resistance movement if this country were invaded but it would be no where as big as many think.

 

Someone mentioned the effectiveness of a rebel army. Well it can be but I hope you aren't thinking of Libya, Syria, or Egypt as an example. Arab armies are quite ineffective. This is the only reason Israel still exists. If Israel had to fight the US, the UK, or some other well trained well equipped army they would do a lot of damage but lose a prolonged conflict.

 

The Taliban in Afghanistan is another story as they are religious zealots. There are substantially different rules of engagement even for the Taliban. If you read "Sole Survivor" you know the only reason Mark Lutrell survived is because the chief of the village nearby put him under protection of the village. The chief even confronted the Taliban and chased them off when they came to take Lutrell.

 

The fact is our geography still protects from conventional military invasion. There will be a lot of changes in world politics before one has to worry about it.

[mcbethr 42]

If you think the "armed populace", especially the soft and weak citizens that this current nation of ours breeds, could stand up against a co-ordinated attack by a modern military force with artillery, air power, armor, communications network, trained soldiers, real time intelligence and observation assets and the ruthlessness to destroy us, you are out of your mind.

 

We couldn't get through a hurricane and two weeks without power last fall without tearing each other up. What do you think an artillery bombardment followed my an armored assault supported by air strikes and infantry would do to 90% of the people in your neighborhood? You think a few hunting buddies will be able to repel a coordinated assault by a trained fire team with LMG/MMG, grenades, and comms?

 

You know, some American generals were saying the same things about Afghans 12 years ago... and some Soviet Generals before them... and some British Generals... and Alexander the Great...

[GRIZ 3,369]

You know, some American generals were saying the same things about Afghans 12 years ago... and some Soviet Generals before them... and some British Generals... and Alexander the Great...

If Afghans didn't have a foreigner to fight they would just fight one another.

[pjd832 146]

I've watched this fantasy invasion thread for a few days. There are many things people haven't considered.

 

Logistics

 

If you are the invader before you select where you will invade you need to figure out how to keep them supplied. This is crucial when you're trying to figure out where to launch your invasion. You will need thousands of tons of supplies a day to keep your army going. You need seaports and railroads to move that much stuff.

 

As far as American guerilla fighters go this is also a major consideration. Forget your 338 Lapua sniper rifle. You will have to depend on help from the outside, as partisian forces did in WWII, or rely on whatever your enemy is using.

 

Where to Invade

 

The Northeast US is way too congested for military operations. Alaska is out as there is no road network. The invader wants to gain ground, inflict the most hardships on the defender, and also leave a central command somewhere to call for a surrender. You need to consider weather, terrain, and other factors. IF (thats a big if) the US were to be invaded the best place would be from Mexico. Large population centers could be bypassed, you can deny the US food and oil resources, and towns aren't built up next to one another making them easy to bypass. You would have to deal with winters invading from Canada.

 

Defending the US

 

There could never be any surprise invasion even if we were limited to 50 yr old technology. There would be many political indicators way before any invader put boots on US soil. There would be time for a build up of some sorts.

 

The idea of mating up civilians with a few active duty guys has been tried before. The Russians literally drafted men off the streets when the Germans were close to Moscow. You signed your papers and were given a greatcoat hat, a rifle, and a small supply of ammo and put on a truck. Somewhere enroute to the front you got minimal instruction on shooting and then were sent off to the front to positions with the regular Soviet Army behind you. Your mission was to make the Germans use up their ammo. Yeah, cannon fodder and that's what handing an untrained civilian a rifle and expecting them to be a soldier amounts to.

 

The Resistance

 

We all like to talk about Red Dawn. There would be small groups but any real success will depend on outside supply and organization and coordination of missions. That's what made resistance movements successful in WWII. Even the most successful partisian fighters in WWII, the Yugoslavians, got outside logistics help and allowed the Soviets to cover their flank. BTW the Yugoslavians were the only occupied country to liberate themselves in WWII.

 

There are not that many people in the US who would be that willing to fight in a resistance movement. I see comments on this forum like,

 

"I support the military but think we should get out of all the places we are in the world"

 

That's like telling you wife you love her but hate everything she does.

 

Another comment I've seen on this forum was,

 

"I support the military but wouldn't enlist because I don't like mindlessly following orders."

 

That says a lot of what they really think of the military. The American fighter doesn't "mindlessly follow orders". There are times you need to follow an order but don't have the details but that's having faith in your superiors.

 

Shooting 3 gun matches and other gun games don't make you able take on a military force.

 

I don't doubt if we were invaded there would be a resistance movement if this country were invaded but it would be no where as big as many think.

 

Someone mentioned the effectiveness of a rebel army. Well it can be but I hope you aren't thinking of Libya, Syria, or Egypt as an example. Arab armies are quite ineffective. This is the only reason Israel still exists. If Israel had to fight the US, the UK, or some other well trained well equipped army they would do a lot of damage but lose a prolonged conflict.

 

The Taliban in Afghanistan is another story as they are religious zealots. There are substantially different rules of engagement even for the Taliban. If you read "Sole Survivor" you know the only reason Mark Lutrell survived is because the chief of the village nearby put him under protection of the village. The chief even confronted the Taliban and chased them off when they came to take Lutrell.

 

The fact is our geography still protects from conventional military invasion. There will be a lot of changes in world politics before one has to worry about it.

great post...my opinion as well just better worded than i would have..lol

[RUTGERS95 890]

took 3% to defeat the greatest force in the world at them time the Brits, took 4% to stall and defeat the Soviets, took less than 3% to create massive headaches for the US in Iraq and the Germans lost 14% of their reserves fighting resistance movements.  Hell if the Germans had continued to giving out chocolate and food to the Russians instead of letting the SS run the show, Russia would be blue today lest we forget our history.  If any of you think we wouldn't get that many to fight invaders you and your thinking is the problem and not the numbers.

 

As for zealots, what the hell do you think the Patriots were?  A persons' frame of mind changes when you are fighting to protect your land, homes, loved ones and country from rape, murder, tyranny, and being taken over.  Heavily populated areas with resistance creates incredible difficulties in manpower and resources for invading forces.  Fighting on one's own land gives a huge advantage and you don't need huge numbers of partisans to create massive issues for an invading force that is being trivialized here.

 

Also, the old adage that all politics are local which is ABSOLUTELY EVIDENT in this thread is why some here think the way they do.  Having lived in many different parts of this country, I can assure you that many many people would rather fight and die than assume we couldn't fight and win. 

 

Maybe more people as a percent in the NE or in Cali would roll over but you are not going to see that in Texas, vast majority of the South and midwest and those people in the Pacific Northwest can be included in that as well.  That doesn't even get into the areas of Michigan, Minnesota and the like where the militia mentality is more than alive and well.

 

We would fight and no invader would stand a chance.

[RUTGERS95 890]

agree an emp would be devastating

[ECShooter 0]

I can picture the majority of coward conspirators being 90% of our politicians. Take over Washington and that's all you need. They will legislate us into submission. Like the mayor in RD, just saving his own skin.

[Banka871 0]

I think the time you will see an invasion of mainland US is very far gone. No country (including Russia and China) has the logistics to move enough men and equipment here fast enough. We would also see them coming before they got out of their territorial waters. Short of an emp or nuke coming first, I dont see it happening. This is not to mention how many men you would need to combat the worlds worst insurgency.

[Fred2 367]

I think the time you will see an invasion of mainland US is very far gone. No country (including Russia and China) has the logistics to move enough men and equipment here fast enough. We would also see them coming before they got out of their territorial waters. Short of an emp or nuke coming first, I dont see it happening. This is not to mention how many men you would need to combat the worlds worst insurgency.

 

I think that if a troop ship was disguised as a container ships, they would be able to get in and secure the ports

 

[rightisright 3]

The impending financial disaster is of much, much more concern to me than any Red Dawn fantasies. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

took 3% to defeat the greatest force in the world at them time the Brits, took 4% to stall and defeat the Soviets, took less than 3% to create massive headaches for the US in Iraq and the Germans lost 14% of their reserves fighting resistance movements.  Hell if the Germans had continued to giving out chocolate and food to the Russians instead of letting the SS run the show, Russia would be blue today lest we forget our history.  If any of you think we wouldn't get that many to fight invaders you and your thinking is the problem and not the numbers.

 

As for zealots, what the hell do you think the Patriots were?  A persons' frame of mind changes when you are fighting to protect your land, homes, loved ones and country from rape, murder, tyranny, and being taken over.  Heavily populated areas with resistance creates incredible difficulties in manpower and resources for invading forces.  Fighting on one's own land gives a huge advantage and you don't need huge numbers of partisans to create massive issues for an invading force that is being trivialized here.

 

Also, the old adage that all politics are local which is ABSOLUTELY EVIDENT in this thread is why some here think the way they do.  Having lived in many different parts of this country, I can assure you that many many people would rather fight and die than assume we couldn't fight and win. 

 

Maybe more people as a percent in the NE or in Cali would roll over but you are not going to see that in Texas, vast majority of the South and midwest and those people in the Pacific Northwest can be included in that as well.  That doesn't even get into the areas of Michigan, Minnesota and the like where the militia mentality is more than alive and well.

 

We would fight and no invader would stand a chance.

I think your percentages may be off a bit but I won't argue that point. You have to face the fact success of resistance units rely heavily on outside help. Yes, they can result in major headaches for the invader but you have to look at what constitutes resistance.

 

I'll use the French Resistance in WWII as an example. It not only consisted of people shooting at the enemy. That was only one aspect. It had people printing underground newspapers, getting Allied Airmen out of France, espionage, and sabotage. The sabotage was not always blowing up trains. It might be an engineer pouring some grinding compound into some critical part of a locomotive resulting in stopping or at least delaying some critical troop movement or delivery of some material. They were not very effective until they were supplied by the OSS and SOE in 1943. Later on the Jedburgh teams (British, US, and Americans sent from Britain) formed the Resistance into combat units attached to Allied forces.

 

At the end of WWII, France decorated all the people who worked in the resistance in any capacity (as I discussed above). Keep in mind being recognized as working in the Resistance was a high honor. I don't know what criteria the French used but 200,000 people were officially recognized by France. That's .5% of the wartime population.

 

You speak of zealots during the American Revolution. Yes there were many but far from the 4% you claim. At the start of the Revolution the colonists were pretty much equally divided between for, against, and I don't care. Depending on which stats you want to believe Washington had 20-30% of his army desert at Valley Forge. The Continental Army hit its peak in 1776 with about 45,000 troops and steadily declined to about 13,000 in 1783. Colonists did their hitch, got out and the Revolution was not as popular as it was at the start. There were over 1500 recorded engagements with the British and the fact is the rebels lost most of them. The only thing that saved the American Revolution were:

 

1. We won the important battles.

2. The British never maintained enough troops to occupy areas they won.

3. The British saw continuation of the war as a money losing proposition and decided to quit.

 

If the British committed more forces and fought a few years more the Colonists may have given up. You claim the British were the finest fighting force in the world at that time. Maybe, but not the force sent to America. Most of the senior British commanders had purchased their rank (a system that still exists). They were more capable of throwing a party than commanding troops. Most of the troops had come in the army with the option of prison or the army. They had no training to fight on american terrain.

 

The colonists were better off in many respects. The senior commanders (and many of the troops) were for the large part veterans of the French and Indian War which gave them experience fighting here. Still they were a pretty ineffective force until von Steuben developed European organization and training adapted to American terrain and mentality starting in 1778.

 

You speak of the effectiveness of militia units during the Revolution. Washington thought differently. Militia units were known to retreat early in a battle if they didn't have overwhelming success. This trait was so well known it was incorporated into the Continental Army's plan at the Battle of Cowpens. Watch the end of "The Patriot".

 

Another problem with militia you point out yourself. They would fight on their own land and only their own land. During the Revolution, I don't know of any militia unit that fought in any state other than their own. There were only a handful of militia units that existed throughout the entire war. Most were formed for a year or two.

 

Having been there done that, combat is not paintball, IPSC, or other games people play. Most of those who sound off the loudest will be ready to give up at the first sight of blood or sooner.

 

I lived in many parts of the country and agree some areas are more prone to offering an invader resistance than others. You seem to think pointing out there is not going to be 10,20,or 30 million resisting invaders is somehow unpatriotic.

 

I really take exception to your comment,

 

"If any of you think we wouldn't get that many to fight invaders you and your thinking is the problem and not the numbers."

 

I'm basing my assessment on over 40 years of experience with the military retiring from the Army Reserve as a lieutenant colonel (having started in 1967 as a private). I've been through a lot of assignments and education many of them dealing with insurgency/counter-insurgency and low intensity conflict. I base my opinions on my experience, education, and history not on chest thumping patriotism. If you want troops to follow you you have to be honest with them. Remember what Patton said, "the idea is to make the other SOB die for his country".

 

You fail to see there are many points you make I agree with. Yes, you don't need massive numbers to interfere with an invader's operations. But you can't plan on getting 10% or even 5% to fight. You can't expect them to maintain success against the enemy without outside help in organization and supply.

 

I would hope we would fight and the enemy won't stand a chance but I'm basing my opinions of fact not emotion.

[High Exposure 5,664]

Griz, I think another very salient point about the difference between the Revolution and a modern invasion is that there was little to no discrepancy in the arms used by the "Professional Soldiers" of the British army and those used by the militia men and soldiers of the "Continental Army". The Colonists were on relatively equal footing with the Soldiers. There wasn't one side with tanks, artillery, bombers, and attack helicopters fighting a "native" force armed with only small arms.

 

On an unrelated note. I thought this was an exercise on the effectiveness of a civilian led guerrilla campaign to stop an invasion. I am not saying our military wouldn't still prevail, I am saying that the "Gun behind every blade of grass" concept is flawed and not the deterrent everyone thinks it is.

[GRIZ 3,369]

HE, you are correct.

[RUTGERS95 890]

Griz, I think another very salient point about the difference between the Revolution and a modern invasion is that there was little to no discrepancy in the arms used by the "Professional Soldiers" of the British army and those used by the militia men and soldiers of the "Continental Army". The Colonists were on relatively equal footing with the There wasn't one side with tanks, artillery, bombers, and attack helicopters fighting a "native" force armed with only small arms.

On an unrelated note. I thought this was an exercise on the effectiveness of a civilian led guerrilla campaign to stop an invasion. I am not saying our military wouldn't still prevail, I am saying that the "Gun behind every blade of grass" concept is flawed and not the deterrent everyone thinks it is.

disagree, there are quotes by our own govt that support it. Also, yo7 underestimate what even a small fraction of those guerilla numbers could do. There is not a force multiplier around short of wmds that would be effective

[RUTGERS95 890]

I think your percentages may be off a bit but I won't argue that point. You have to face the fact success of resistance units rely heavily on outside help. Yes, they can result in major headaches for the invader but you have to look at what constitutes resistance.I'll use the French Resistance in WWII as an example. It not only consisted of people shooting at the enemy. That was only one aspect. It had people printing underground newspapers, getting Allied Airmen out of France, espionage, and sabotage. The sabotage was not always blowing up trains. It might be an engineer pouring some grinding compound into some critical part of a locomotive resulting in stopping or at least delaying some critical troop movement or delivery of some material. They were not very effective until they were supplied by the OSS and SOE in 1943. Later on the Jedburgh teams (British, US, and Americans sent from Britain) formed the Resistance into combat units attached to Allied forces.At the end of WWII, France decorated all the people who worked in the resistance in any capacity (as I discussed above). Keep in mind being recognized as working in the Resistance was a high honor. I don't know what criteria the French used but 200,000 people were officially recognized by France. That's .5% of the wartime population.You speak of zealots during the American Revolution. Yes there were many but far from the 4% you claim. At the start of the Revolution the colonists were pretty much equally divided between for, against, and I don't care. Depending on which stats you want to believe Washington had 20-30% of his army desert at Valley Forge. The Continental Army hit its peak in 1776 with about 45,000 troops and steadily declined to about 13,000 in 1783. Colonists did their hitch, got out and the Revolution was not as popular as it was at the start. There were over 1500 recorded engagements with the British and the fact is the rebels lost most of them. The only thing that saved the American Revolution were:1. We won the important battles.2. The British never maintained enough troops to occupy areas they won.3. The British saw continuation of the war as a money losing proposition and decided to quit.If the British committed more forces and fought a few years more the Colonists may have given up. You claim the British were the finest fighting force in the world at that time. Maybe, but not the force sent to America. Most of the senior British commanders had purchased their rank (a system that still exists). They were more capable of throwing a party than commanding troops. Most of the troops had come in the army with the option of prison or the army. They had no training to fight on american terrain.The colonists were better off in many respects. The senior commanders (and many of the troops) were for the large part veterans of the French and Indian War which gave them experience fighting here. Still they were a pretty ineffective force until von Steuben developed European organization and training adapted to American terrain and mentality starting in 1778.You speak of the effectiveness of militia units during the Revolution. Washington thought differently. Militia units were known to retreat early in a battle if they didn't have overwhelming success. This trait was so well known it was incorporated into the Continental Army's plan at the Battle of Cowpens. Watch the end of "The Patriot".Another problem with militia you point out yourself. They would fight on their own land and only their own land. During the Revolution, I don't know of any militia unit that fought in any state other than their own. There were only a handful of militia units that existed throughout the entire war. Most were formed for a year or two.Having been there done that, combat is not paintball, IPSC, or other games people play. Most of those who sound off the loudest will be ready to give up at the first sight of blood or sooner.I lived in many parts of the country and agree some areas are more prone to offering an invader resistance than others. You seem to think pointing out there is not going to be 10,20,or 30 million resisting invaders is somehow unpatriotic.I really take exception to your comment,"If any of you think we wouldn't get that many to fight invaders you and your thinking is the problem and not the numbers."I'm basing my assessment on over 40 years of experience with the military retiring from the Army Reserve as a lieutenant colonel (having started in 1967 as a private). I've been through a lot of assignments and education many of them dealing with insurgency/counter-insurgency and low intensity conflict. I base my opinions on my experience, education, and history not on chest thumping patriotism. If you want troops to follow you you have to be honest with them. Remember what Patton said, "the idea is to make the other SOB die for his country".You fail to see there are many points you make I agree with. Yes, you don't need massive numbers to interfere with an invader's operations. But you can't plan on getting 10% or even 5% to fight. You can't expect them to maintain success against the enemy without outside help in organization and supply.I would hope we would fight and the enemy won't stand a chance but I'm basing my opinions of fact not emotion.

they rely, not aided but rely, on outside help because tgey were disarmed societies. That is a huge difference. Americans have enogh6arms and resources to fight a long and protracted insurgency. To think otherwise is foolish imo. Some of u should spend time discussing insurgencies with spec ops personnel. America is an insurgents dream

[Jon 264]

they rely, not aided but rely, on outside help because tgey were disarmed societies. That is a huge difference. Americans have enogh6arms and resources to fight a long and protracted insurgency. To think otherwise is foolish imo. Some of u should spend time discussing insurgencies with spec ops personnel. America is an insurgents dream

 

Were you here for Hurricane Sandy?

[High Exposure 5,664]

Were you here for Hurricane Sandy?

Exactly. Local American's didn't have drinking water and fuel to last two weeks. It was like Mad Max at the gas pumps. Where are they going to find "resources to fight a long and protracted insurgency". Food stores have 3 days worth of food and people don't know how to live off the land or repair their own stuff anymore.

[Jon 264]

Exactly. Local American's didn't have drinking water and fuel to last two weeks. It was like Mad Max at the gas pumps. Where are they going to find "resources to fight a long and protracted insurgency". Food stores have 3 days worth of food and people don't know how to live off the land or repair their own stuff anymore.

 

If I had a dime for every person who was going to get me fired during Hurricane Sandy for being unable to turn their power back on(hint: I have nothing to do with your electric service) I would have a very very large bag of dimes.

[RUTGERS95 890]

Were you here for Hurricane Sandy?

absolutely fine as were most people in my area.  Many people by me banded together, shared what we had, volunteered for civic duty etc..  We had no problems save the outliers that occur in any situation like that.  You guys making it seem like Mad Max is comedic...respectfully.  My area by the way was one of the most affected and we saw no looting and some of the 'hysterics' you guys are claiming.  Y

 

ou guys using the storm and  being invaded are really not thinking this through.  There is a tremendous difference in mentality to storm survival and your homes, family, country being invaded.

[RUTGERS95 890]

Exactly. Local American's didn't have drinking water and fuel to last two weeks. It was like Mad Max at the gas pumps. Where are they going to find "resources to fight a long and protracted insurgency". Food stores have 3 days worth of food and people don't know how to live off the land or repair their own stuff anymore.

actually, within a 30 mile radius of 99% of the points on the East Coast, normal supplies are expected to expire after 13 days which isn't too far from what we saw in our area.  We were out of power etc for 12 days.

 

Now I get the part on repairing your own stuff, and people not having adequate supplies but in any national emergency you get varying stages that areas go through.  You need to remember, we are not talking about the first month of this, we're talking about a continued occupancy and invasion and unless that force plans on eradicating millions upon millions of people, you will have those fighting back.  I'll say this again, all politics are local and that view is absolutely influencing much of viewpoints here.

 

as I said, America would be an insurgents wet dream.  Just think about the people on this site alone and what they may have that could be used to fight back. 

[djg0770 481]

absolutely fine as were most people in my area.  Many people by me banded together, shared what we had, volunteered for civic duty etc..  We had no problems save the outliers that occur in any situation like that.  You guys making it seem like Mad Max is comedic...respectfully.  My area by the way was one of the most affected and we saw no looting and some of the 'hysterics' you guys are claiming.  Y

 

ou guys using the storm and  being invaded are really not thinking this through.  There is a tremendous difference in mentality to storm survival and your homes, family, country being invaded.

 

Sometimes the areas that are hardest hit react the best whereas Soccermom in her SUV is pissy that she can't get her Half Caf double pump Pumpkin Spice Latte and her gas in 10 minutes any longer and all civility goes out the window...

 

That's the way it was here...

[mipafox 438]

If the US is invaded I will probably join them. It isn't like there is anything left worth defending, so maybe at least I get a little payback out of the deal.

[RUTGERS95 890]

Sometimes the areas that are hardest hit react the best whereas Soccermom in her SUV is pissy that she can't get her Half Caf double pump Pumpkin Spice Latte and her gas in 10 minutes any longer and all civility goes out the window...

 

That's the way it was here...

agree and won't argue with that

 

I $hit you not, I once saw a fistfight in the ACME over a gallon of milk as a snowstorm was approaching.   These 'ladies' were absolutely soccer moms...lol

[Vini 0]

Most of the people you know are not willing to fight, kill someone and risk their lives. 

They have families, properties, jobs and bunch of stuff to loose. 

It's safe to assume they will not join resistance right away. 

 

Same was in any occupied country. 

But than come bombings, invasion, casualties, abuse, murder, rape and other "benefits" of military action. 

A lot of people in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't join fight just out of the blue, until they got a reason. 

Few years back one old smart man made a comment about radio report of shootings at our troops in Iraq: "Why they are acting surprised? We invaded their country, bombed the crap out of them... If I was there I would shoot too, just on the way from work before picking up milk and beer." 

 

Once people have casualties within their family, friends, neighbors and co-workers, they will start looking at things differently. Especially those under 30 without kids and those over 50 (I've had a good life, what the hell I have to loose now?) with kids all grown up. 

Once simple things like keeping food on the table and roof over the head become a big deal, when quality medical care is out of reach and long happy retirement is not an option anymore  - people re-evaluate value of life and freedom very quickly. Not everyone, but enough for effective resistance. 

 

Western Ukraine was added to the Soviet Union in 1939. It was bad: a lot of people were murdered, arrested and moved to Siberia. In 1941, when Germans took over, local population greeted them with flowers. Germans weren't nice for long, big resistance movement formed (about 400K people from 1942 to 1956) fighting both sides: Germans and Russians. Last resistance units were officially destroyed in 1956 (11 years after WW2 ended). In fact local fights lasted till mid 60s. 

Party officials never felt safe to be in Western Ukraine, quite a few of them disappeared never to be found.  

A lot of people died, were tortured and imprisoned. Some villages were just wiped out some moved to Siberia. 

But at the end Western Ukraine never truly became part of Soviet Union, traditions and language were preserved. 

[NYMetsFan86 9]

if we get invaded i'll throw the soft and level 3 plates in my PC and proceed to lock and load....you let me know the rally point and what time to meet.....0600 works for me haha

[Shawnmoore81 623]

My first step if getting my family to a safe location. Then the fight begins. But yes getting them to safety is my #1 goal

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD