Invaded States of America

Patrick Swayze as teenager kicking commie buts. Whats not to love?

The new movie is shit though.
 
see, people dont understand that Red Dawn movie.

a lot of people think it would be a joke. and for the most part it is.

but the part that is accurate and should make you sit up and take notice is the base concept that if the US is invaded, we have a ton of guns and ammunition laying around. as well as spread out armories of the various military branches and national guard and coast guard.

the people who chose to fight would be armed. and there would probably be a lot of people who would chose to fight.

liberals would welcome any overlord because they have vaginas even if they are pointy ones. and the country would end up in a better situation during rebuilding for it. a lot of them would be killed.

china and russia have both for a long time said a land invasion of the US would be impossible because of how many guns we have. thats one of the reasons why they support us getting rid of all of our guns. the chinese and russian ambasador all supported diane feinsteins latest gun control law because it was closer to the goal of banning all guns. and if you do not think that is her goal, you really dont know her.

straight up land invasion would not work. at least not yet.
 
TheWesDude said:
see, people dont understand that Red Dawn movie.

a lot of people think it would be a joke. and for the most part it is.

but the part that is accurate and should make you sit up and take notice is the base concept that if the US is invaded, we have a ton of guns and ammunition laying around. as well as spread out armories of the various military branches and national guard and coast guard.

the people who chose to fight would be armed. and there would probably be a lot of people who would chose to fight.

liberals would welcome any overlord because they have vaginas even if they are pointy ones. and the country would end up in a better situation during rebuilding for it. a lot of them would be killed.

china and russia have both for a long time said a land invasion of the US would be impossible because of how many guns we have. thats one of the reasons why they support us getting rid of all of our guns. the chinese and russian ambasador all supported diane feinsteins latest gun control law because it was closer to the goal of banning all guns. and if you do not think that is her goal, you really dont know her.

straight up land invasion would not work. at least not yet.
Click to expand...

The idea is pretty sound, I agree. Red Dawn specifically was just pretty hokey when I watch it now. But people would fight.
 
I see your plan is working tagaziel :D. Division, radicalization... civil war!

Ah, red dawn. I watched it as a kid. A silly movie but somehow it was cool too, memorable in its own strange way. Did not know there was a remake but looked it up now. Still silly but apparently less cool. The location makes more sense though (Australia).
 
TheWesDude said:
the people who chose to fight would be armed. and there would probably be a lot of people who would chose to fight.

liberals would welcome any overlord because they have vaginas even if they are pointy ones. and the country would end up in a better situation during rebuilding for it. a lot of them would be killed.
Click to expand...

In this sense, I think Mars Attacks is a more realistic invasion scenario than Red Dawn.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsXnK0ouTL8[/youtube]
 
I love alternate history stuff,it's one of the reasons I like Fallout's setting so much.

I'll try to find a map of an alternate history world in the aftermath of a devastating World War 3 coupled with global warming, and how that affected everything.

If I remember correctly the British Empire resurfaced and conquered Canada, Alaska a few African countries and Argentina.

The USA was split into Civil War factions and Russia conquers most of Asia.

It was really cool.
 
TheWesDude said:
see, people dont understand that Red Dawn movie.

a lot of people think it would be a joke. and for the most part it is.

but the part that is accurate and should make you sit up and take notice is the base concept that if the US is invaded, we have a ton of guns and ammunition laying around. as well as spread out armories of the various military branches and national guard and coast guard.

the people who chose to fight would be armed. and there would probably be a lot of people who would chose to fight.

liberals would welcome any overlord because they have vaginas even if they are pointy ones. and the country would end up in a better situation during rebuilding for it. a lot of them would be killed.

china and russia have both for a long time said a land invasion of the US would be impossible because of how many guns we have. thats one of the reasons why they support us getting rid of all of our guns. the chinese and russian ambasador all supported diane feinsteins latest gun control law because it was closer to the goal of banning all guns. and if you do not think that is her goal, you really dont know her.

straight up land invasion would not work. at least not yet.
Click to expand...
Yeah I am sure the fact that Russia had to suffer a lot of invasions, probably the worst of them in WW2, and that the US had a quite huge arsenal of nuclear weapons played a role here too.

We should not underestimate what size means in the context of conquering and occupying territory. Particularly as the US has a lot of areas with little or no infrastructure, hard to reach places, either in very woody areas or simply mountain sides where people could hide for some time and no doubt the local population has quite some knowledge about those areas, about good hiding spots like abandoned mines, caves, shacks and the like. Hell, if you move out there, unprepared you can get easily lost and die even today. The US has a lot of areas with very low density in population. We have not to look further then Afghanistan and the experience the Soviets made there in the past. They controlled the larger cities and main routes, yet the nation had in many places no infrastructure. And those areas have been a no mans land for the Soviet forces. The US would be probably very similar here, and there is no doubt that the resistance would be pretty strong. So yeah, any land based invasion would probably fail because of those issues.

Though, I don't think that just because a lot of civilians are armed, that this means a lot. Most of the weapons the population has are small arms of rather low caliber, for hunting and many people have either no military training or only experience from the shooting range. Yet when you look at resistance fighters, at least in the recent history, like Afghanistan, they managed to hit the Soviets hard when they got their hands on more sophisticated weapons like artillery, rockets, and most important anti tank and anti air weapons which gave them the chance to deal effectively with the Soviet army.

I don't know why people belive that just because you have the "will" to resist it would mean that those have a chance to actually resists and just that this is some kind of argument to keep weapons.

Particularly when I think that there are A LOT OF GOOD ARGUMENTS to allow the citizens to keep weapons. Like shooting for fun and competitions in rifle clubs.
 
People always forget about American ingenuity. Hell a nice group of the population makes explosives just for fun.

You give any Hillbilly a Oil Drum, Copper Plate, and some fertilizer, and he will make you one big ass anti-tank weapon that can defeat the armor of any Modern Tank.

Don't see how Americans would have a problem killing invaders, they kill each other all the damn time, what makes some conscripted duntz from the Urals so damn special? If anything that guy is going to have less training with a weapon then the Average Redneck.
 
TheGM said:
People always forget about American ingenuity. Hell a nice group of the population makes explosives just for fun.

You give any Hillbilly a Oil Drum, Copper Plate, and some fertilizer, and he will make you one big ass anti-tank weapon that can defeat the armor of any Modern Tank.
Click to expand...
yeeeaaaahh ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59MqbTY_PnA[/youtube]

I have read about those stories where Afghan farmers made their enfield rifles out of garbage in the Afghan mountains.

All those stories sure are impressive. But they are just that. Stories. We are talking here not about the ingenuity of some people. Americans actually are not really that much different to the Afghan warriors or a German couch potato. We are all humans after all.

Lets ignore the size of the USA for a moment. And lets talk about the Japanese and Germans in WW2. Both have been rather fanatical, the Japanese soldier probably even more compared to the German ones. But there is no doubt that all in all both nations could be very fierce in combat. Yet. Both nations didn't started a huge resistance to fight the occupants. Of course its not exactly the same situation today like 60 years ago. But what I am talking about is that after 6 years of constant fighting the nations the Germans have become very war-weary for example. Not to mention that the Americans have been rather lenient with the population of Japan and Germany.

All I want to say is even if the example doesn't fit perfectly, that a lot of things play a role if some resistance is successful or not or if there is even a resistance in the first place. Just to posses weapons alone, or the will to fight isn't a guarantee for success in my eyes. And if we ignore the size of the USA which would be the biggest obstacle for the enemy, then I have the feeling that the few weapons the population has, would not be enough to beat an enemy that had enough power and potential to rival the US military, which is without a doubt one of the most sophisticated military powers today. Again, you would be fighting, jet fighters, tanks, specialized units etc. all equal to the quality AND quantity of the US military.
 
Crni Vuk said:
All I want to say is even if the example doesn't fit perfectly, that a lot of things play a role if some resistance is successful or not or if there is even a resistance in the first place. Just to posses weapons alone, or the will to fight isn't a guarantee for success in my eyes. And if we ignore the size of the USA which would be the biggest obstacle for the enemy, then I have the feeling that the few weapons the population has, would not be enough to beat an enemy that had enough power and potential to rival the US military
Click to expand...

A few? Hunh? No. 95 for every 100 citizens. not to mention the ability to stroll down to the local wal-mart and buy nice 50.cal Rifle.

which is without a doubt one of the most sophisticated military powers today. Again, you would be fighting, jet fighters, tanks, specialized units etc. all equal to the quality AND quantity of the US military.
Click to expand...
Because that worked so well in Afghanistan......wait.
 
and ignoring the fact that Afghanistan had a hell lot of support, weapons, money and people (mercenaries) from the midle east. There is this joke going around that the US was educating their own terrorists. And this is in some cases maybe even true ... part of the problems Afghanistan has is because the nation was so full of islamic mercenaries after the war. A win win situation for the middle east, they had a chance to get rid of the lunatics and also kill Soviets without wasting soldiers.

Its just my opinion of course. But I dont believe that a restiance without any real support, like from the outside, has a realistic chance against a well equiped military machine like the US or Soviets had. People always forget that there is a lot more behind this then just "the will to fight". The Germans and Japs had those will as well. But it was not enough in the end.

If people run out of amunition or have no way to actually fight the treat in front of them, then there is not much you can do really. What do you think how far you can get with your 50. call if suddenly a Hind shows up in front of you? Even restiance fighters are just human beeings that can be demoralized and beaten.
 
Crni Vuk, the point is, that a resistance movement (or terrorist group :wink: ) does not engage the same way as an army. They can't beat an Airattack or an onrushing tankbattalion, so they don't even try. The goal is to make an occupation too costly for the invader, not beat him outright.

In an Invasion setting in America I think resistance would be an important factor. As soon the army would realize that it can't beat the invader, they would start to hide weapons away for guerrilla wars. Man portable antiair and -tank weapons for a preference. In afgahnistan the US stingers really gave the Russians food for thought. Not that you can beat an army with such weapons, but it makes it costly. Commanders will think twice before deploying an expensive gunship into a small skirmish if they run the risk of loosing it. So in small engagements, traps and ambushes the groudhogs would be left to fend for themselves. This is terrible for morale. So is having to worry about poisoned food or a slit throat while sleeping. Guerilla is about constant pressure, the perceived threat is larger by far than the actual manpower or weapons might suggest.

As was said, the size of the country, the amount of wilderness to hide in and the amount of small arms supports guerrilla warfare. Sure, a lot would be caught, pressed into surrender or starved of supplies, but I guess there would remain enough to make life hard on any occupation force. And as history has told on numerous examples, the longer that kind of war goes on, the better the resistance gets while the invader gets tired and demoralized.

Only works if the invader has to justify the cost (monetary and blood) at home. If it is a migration and they have no place to retreat to, things could be different.

Edith: no, the germans and japs were tired of war. The germans more than the japs, but the Japanese are pretty obedient, so when the emperor said to stop, they stopped. The germans welcomed the allied occupation because it was better than the war, and the japs were resigned.

But look at what the French and the jugoslavian (well, not jugoslavia at that time, but you know what I mean) resistances did during WW2. Those are examples of what happens when the people want to keep on fighting. Germany and Japan of what happens, if they don’t. Fun thing is that both ways worked out pretty good in hindsight.
 
Arden said:
Crni Vuk, the point is, that a resistance movement (or terrorist group :wink: ) does not engage the same way as an army. They can't beat an Airattack or an onrushing tankbattalion, so they don't even try. The goal is to make an occupation too costly for the invader, not beat him outright.
Click to expand...
dude I am serb :p I understand that part pretty well. I am not saying that a resistance movement isn't a huge problem.

But even a resistance movement is made of humans. Humans that need food, ammunition and the proper weapons to fight the enemy.

What happens to a resistance movement if they don't have proper support can be seen in many east european states that have been ruled by the Soviets.
 
Dammn, I am too slow in answering or you too fast:) edited my post.

Yeah, war of attrition. If the invaders get demoralized they retreat. If the population gets demoralized they surrender. But I thought the scenario was a sudden Invasion of america. So there would not be any warwearyness at that point. After 30 Years of genocide and repression things might look different.

As for outside help, I am sure america would get that too. Whoever invaded the US might have other enemies or countries afraid of invasion. So tieing up the invaders through resistance would be a cheap and easy way to gain time.
 
TheWesDude said:
liberals would welcome any overlord because they have vaginas even if they are pointy ones. and the country would end up in a better situation during rebuilding for it. a lot of them would be killed.
Click to expand...

Nope. This point right here. You have lost. Your country like Iraq(and all other countries) is full of people who hate some of their own countrymen more than any possible invader. Take out the infrastructure, occupy coastal cities and let the middle fuck it self in the arse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top