Under what conditions would US surrender?

[Mobbme]

Had a quick flick through and nope, your brain is going....

But why? I'm too young.... please tell me you're joking

[Knaur Amarsh]

But why? I'm too young.... please tell me you're joking

Can't you see the conspiracy behind this, you naive fellow?

Parihaka deleted your comments, now he claims there was nothing of the sort, you believe him in your innocence, think of why your brain's going potty, decide its the alcohol, try to cut back and immediately die of withdrawal induced delirium while the evil Kiwi sits back enjoying and pats himself on the back for getting the earth rid of yet another Canuck.

[Parihaka]

Can't you see the conspiracy behind this, you naive fellow?

Parihaka deleted your comments, now he claims there was nothing of the sort, you believe him in your innocence, think of why your brain's going potty, decide its the alcohol, try to cut back and immediately die of withdrawal induced delirium while the evil Kiwi sits back enjoying and pats himself on the back for getting the earth rid of yet another Canuck.

Am I that obvious? Oh wait, being Canuk he still won't get it even when you've spelled it out...

[The Black Ghost]

I dont think the US would last long in this situation. Were there a draft today, even if there were an invading force, I wouldnt be surprised if less than half of the draftees turned up. There isnt a lot of will for people to back up the country anymore, especially militarily.

We would probably surrender if any of the following occurred:

A) If any major cities of the US were captured or under heavy attack (New York, San Francisco, Chicago)
B) If Washington were captured.
C) If a large percentage of congress was captured.
D) If the president and vice president were captured.
E) If there were any incentives to surrender that would make it easier than fighting.
F) If we had to instate a draft and realized no one showed up to actually fight.
G) If our losses surpassed Vietnam levels.
H) If there was even the slightest sense that we provoked the attack.


Basically, if our main army and naval force was destroyed/captured, we would be out of the picture/give in. In an occupation, people would fight on, mostly rural conservatives with firearms and some local militia, but overall it wouldnt be much. If the enemy made if convenient enough--say, everything stays the same for the people, but you must pay us tribute or something, then we would give in to that...Sad, actually. Maybe thats just smart though, I dont know.

The United States hasnt been invaded by a major foreign force since 1814, and that was before we had established ourselves fully. I think the shock value would do it. We have very poor defenses, because we know there is no one to attack us, and logistically no way for an enemy to get to us. However, were the enemy able to land in Canada or mexico in large numbers and move towards the border, there would be nothing to stop them. Our National Guard simply do not have the numbers or training to really fight a war, they are mostly good at fixing bridges and stopping flooding... I think, surprisingly, we would have trouble fighting on our own turf, because we have no experience doing so.

[Blue]

I dont think the US would last long in this situation. Were there a draft today, even if there were an invading force, I wouldnt be surprised if less than half of the draftees turned up. There isnt a lot of will for people to back up the country anymore, especially militarily.

Respectfully, you obviously know only of the wussiest parts of the US. There are still real men and patriots alive and well, armed and trained. We could fail, but it would be one hell of a fight and we would be dead so it doesn't matter after that anyway. Point is that we defied to the death and stayed true to ourselves. A strange concept in todays society evidently.

Your outlook is depressing at best. You are already defeated. Lay down and roll over now and get it over with.

[diablo49]

I dont think the US would last long in this situation. Were there a draft today, even if there were an invading force, I wouldnt be surprised if less than half of the draftees turned up. There isnt a lot of will for people to back up the country anymore, especially militarily.

We would probably surrender if any of the following occurred:

A) If any major cities of the US were captured or under heavy attack (New York, San Francisco, Chicago)
B) If Washington were captured.
C) If a large percentage of congress was captured.
D) If the president and vice president were captured.
E) If there were any incentives to surrender that would make it easier than fighting.
F) If we had to instate a draft and realized no one showed up to actually fight.
G) If our losses surpassed Vietnam levels.
H) If there was even the slightest sense that we provoked the attack.


Basically, if our main army and naval force was destroyed/captured, we would be out of the picture/give in. In an occupation, people would fight on, mostly rural conservatives with firearms and some local militia, but overall it wouldnt be much. If the enemy made if convenient enough--say, everything stays the same for the people, but you must pay us tribute or something, then we would give in to that...Sad, actually. Maybe thats just smart though, I dont know.

The United States hasnt been invaded by a major foreign force since 1814, and that was before we had established ourselves fully. I think the shock value would do it. We have very poor defenses, because we know there is no one to attack us, and logistically no way for an enemy to get to us. However, were the enemy able to land in Canada or mexico in large numbers and move towards the border, there would be nothing to stop them. Our National Guard simply do not have the numbers or training to really fight a war, they are mostly good at fixing bridges and stopping flooding... I think, surprisingly, we would have trouble fighting on our own turf, because we have no experience doing so.

First off, I apologize if this sounds inflammatory.

With all due respect... this is a load of BS. I don't know where you got the idea that we would give up in a war on our own turf. Those who would not have a stomach for the fight would become refugees to Canada, and probably wouldn't have owned a gun anyways. Are you implying that Americans inherently are more likely to surrender than others? If so I am personally insulted. Even if you 'only' apply this to liberals, that is a broad generalization with little basis in fact. They care about the country as much as anyone else, but from different views.

Why do you have such a poor view? This looks to me to be the same mistake the Japanese had. That the US had no fighting spirit. Is this a Vietnam effect? an unpopular 'semi war' damaging faith in the gov't which translates to some to loss of faith in the country?

A) Why would attacking one major city cause us to surrender? This relates to the inherently more surrender prone thing.

B) The gov't surrendering does not equal the people surrendering.

C) B

D) B

E) This is much too vague. What would make it easier, how?

F) This is presuming no one would show up.

G) so an offensive unpopular war based on admittedly dubious reasoning has equal resolve as a defensive war to keep our homeland and sovereignity?

H) No amount of provoking would justify an invasion onto my soil. Anyone who beleives so would not be owning a gun, as they would feel a criminal was justified in robbing them due to them not securing their valuables well enough


I guess my one big question is why do you have such a poor opinion of us? I live in Los Angelas, have some liberal and conservative views, and would fight to the death to defend my country from invasion (though I would probably be a poor fighter because I have never fired a real gun... the thought is there though)

Have you been in the national guard and can you confirm that they are poorly trained? This is of course all assuming we wait for the enemy to amass troops on either side of the border ( unless they have some sort of teleporting device).

[zraver]

The US would surrender for the same reasons other nations would, and its people would choose peace and occupation for the same reasons as others. If peace and occupation cost the people significantly less than war. Enough carrot or enough stick and you can get most people to do what you want. Since there is not really a chance of an invasion there can't really be a carrot. We are talking total war and whole sale slaughter via E=MC2

Nuke enough targets and the survivors will have more pressing concerns than revenge for a now dead nation. Americans are not a super race we are simply mongrels who love our adopted homeland- no one outside the native Americans here is native- yet most of us are native born with a great sense of self. But that pride in our accomplishments and the accomplishments of our forefathers does not change basic human nature.

[Roosveltrepub]

Ever since I have been reading WWII exploits and stories and articles regarding Japanese, Germany, and France's surrender and other countries that surrendered, I looked at conditions that led to the surrender of those countries. It struck my mind that under what conditions would US surrender? Or would it go down fighting to the last man, woman, and child?

Suppose if USSR somehow beat US in the race for nuclear supremacy, i.e., creating impregnable shield where no nukes cannot reach and having nukes that breaches the enemy's defenses, would US surrender or just continue to fight, damn all torpedoes?

What if tomorrow, a country launches a surprise attack and somehow takes out all the nuclear weapon missiles and subs, communication infrastructure and the oil refineries, depots, and stations and the strategic oil reserves, and pretty much leave US defenseless, would US surrender?

Discuss please.

NUTS the one word says it all. We are a nation of radicals and a heavily armed one at that Occupation here would be worse than Afganistan. I couldnt see it happen

[Roosveltrepub]

Respectfully, you obviously know only of the wussiest parts of the US. There are still real men and patriots alive and well, armed and trained. We could fail, but it would be one hell of a fight and we would be dead so it doesn't matter after that anyway. Point is that we defied to the death and stayed true to ourselves. A strange concept in todays society evidently.

Your outlook is depressing at best. You are already defeated. Lay down and roll over now and get it over with.

Actually I think the wussy urban areas would be the hardest to subdue just because of the environment. There are trained people everywhere and densely populated areas have more trained people and no shortage of guns.Remember it ws the wussy areas that won the civil war You really need to travel to wussyland We really arent different and are just as patriotic.

[diablo49]

Roosvelt I believe you are quite right. The cities would be harder to subdue due to the sheer number of people with guns alone, along with being extremely easy to snipe around. Don't forget the organized and unorganized gangs which would probably fight for their turf and many factories which could easily be turned to weapon manufacture.:)

I did not mean in anyway that Americans were somehow less willing to give in by my post. But blackghost's response to this thread is stating the exact opposite, that Americans are somehow less willing to defend their land than others. As an American, I feel that is insulting.

[zraver]

Actually I think the wussy urban areas would be the hardest to subdue just because of the environment. There are trained people everywhere and densely populated areas have more trained people and no shortage of guns.Remember it ws the wussy areas that won the civil war You really need to travel to wussyland We really arent different and are just as patriotic.

Would it not depend on whether or not Wussyville ate a nuke or not? Also cities require no more force to take per population than the contry side it just condenses everything. Assuming for the sake of argument alien space bats invade and and all of a sudden those bangers in LA are now the 1st LA Militia division. Cut the water, power and food and how useful are those guns? The Polish Home Army learned that lesson. The higher the density of population the deadlier the siege. Cities also tend to have natural choke points where movement is more easily controlled.

The country side offers room. A well armed and well mounted group can range over a very large area magnifying their numbers. A band of hunters come partisans using deer rifles and 4 wheelers in their home area can snipe with incredible accuracy and out run any conventional land force.

[Mobbme]

Am I that obvious? Oh wait, being Canuk he still won't get it even when you've spelled it out...

Oh, jealousy strikes once again, eh? :))

[Mobbme]

Can't you see the conspiracy behind this, you naive fellow?

Parihaka deleted your comments, now he claims there was nothing of the sort, you believe him in your innocence, think of why your brain's going potty, decide its the alcohol, try to cut back and immediately die of withdrawal induced delirium while the evil Kiwi sits back enjoying and pats himself on the back for getting the earth rid of yet another Canuck.

I am too naive, you are correct. I am also too drained to follow your conspiracy theories my friend, I go to sleep, good night

[The Black Ghost]

First off, I apologize if this sounds inflammatory.

With all due respect... this is a load of BS. I don't know where you got the idea that we would give up in a war on our own turf. Those who would not have a stomach for the fight would become refugees to Canada, and probably wouldn't have owned a gun anyways. Are you implying that Americans inherently are more likely to surrender than others? If so I am personally insulted. Even if you 'only' apply this to liberals, that is a broad generalization with little basis in fact. They care about the country as much as anyone else, but from different views.

The country is mostly run by liberals, and there is a larger liberal population.

We are not more likely to surrender than anyone else, its just that in this scenario, we would be totally unprepared.


[quote]
Why do you have such a poor view? This looks to me to be the same mistake the Japanese had. That the US had no fighting spirit. Is this a Vietnam effect? an unpopular 'semi war' damaging faith in the gov't which translates to some to loss of faith in the country?[/.quote]

Look at what happened to public opinion of our military/government during Iraq and Afghanistan. We had the lowest approval ratings for any administration, and the majority of people beleived we would lose the wars because of casualties that were relatively small compared to what this would be.

I think there are not as many patriots as you think, and they are definately not distributed evenly.

A) Why would attacking one major city cause us to surrender? This relates to the inherently more surrender prone thing.

B) The gov't surrendering does not equal the people surrendering.

C) B

D) B

The original post posed the question of "in what case would the US surrender". That implies the government. The Taliban and Al-Queda will never surrender either, doesnt mean they havent been defeated, when they are.

These are the situations in which the government, for the better sake of the people, would probably step down, at least with things the way they are.

This does not imply an occupation either. So for all the heroes out there--they may never get their chance to play Red Dawn.

E) This is much too vague. What would make it easier, how?

Such as, conditional surrender.

US pays money to other nation, or makes concessions, whatever. Everyone goes on with their lives, we are weakened, but we would have a better chance of not getting obliterated.

Given this alternative, most will choose it.

F) This is presuming no one would show up.

I wouldnt expect a turnout anything like WWII. I would expect the population of Canada to double in a few months, or people just defying the draft order.

G) so an offensive unpopular war based on admittedly dubious reasoning has equal resolve as a defensive war to keep our homeland and sovereignity?

It could easily become that. Perhaps the reasons we are fighting a defensive war are skeptical.

H) No amount of provoking would justify an invasion onto my soil. Anyone who beleives so would not be owning a gun, as they would feel a criminal was justified in robbing them due to them not securing their valuables well enough

This is the same mentality as many in other countries that have been invaded. Yet, surprisingly in the face of certain defeat, few actually follow through with thier convictions.

I guess my one big question is why do you have such a poor opinion of us? I live in Los Angelas, have some liberal and conservative views, and would fight to the death to defend my country from invasion (though I would probably be a poor fighter because I have never fired a real gun... the thought is there though)

Many people would, many people wouldnt. Many people would fight just for the sake of fighting. Were it more convenient to just go on with your life, such would be

Have you been in the national guard and can you confirm that they are poorly trained? This is of course all assuming we wait for the enemy to amass troops on either side of the border ( unless they have some sort of teleporting device).

That was essentially the scenario set up by the first post, in my opinion--our mainland is under attack.

Our national guard is a reserve unit--they are not trained for real warfare, they have basic weapons knowledge and such, some are more trained than others such as those on the Mexican border--but they really arent a fighting force. Sure, they would put a major dent in the enemy, but they arent the regulars.



I think you are putting too much faith in the fact that people would really fight on such a massive level of rebellion. Certainly your good old paramilitary groups will pop up from gun clubs and such--but once a government falls...the will for the people to fight drops. Im sure you are right in the fact that you might fight, I would, but there are other factors. The governement is out of the picture and an invading force is changing the colors--you have a wife and kids to look after--they arent getting paid while you're off fighting, and the economy is in shambles. Most are not going to run off and abandon their families to go fight and get killed, possibly endangering the lives of their family. There are others who would realize quickly their illusions about warfare are nothing as they expected...would desert or surrender, or die. In most insurgencies, there is an intial rush to grab arms and they run jubilantly to attack the enemy--get slaughtered, and realize they might not be any match for the enemy.


Now I would expect fierce resistance in many areas if there was a total occupation--many southern states especially...they have the biggest arsenals and the most people who are trained to use weapons and the biggest patriots.


Also, you are assuming this enemy is all out evil-going to rape our women, enslave us, or whatever. Perhaps it is a similar government who happens to hate us at the time?

[diablo49]

[QUOTE=The Black Ghost;650410]The country is mostly run by liberals, and there is a larger liberal population.

We are not more likely to surrender than anyone else, its just that in this scenario, we would be totally unprepared.

Why do you have such a poor view? This looks to me to be the same mistake the Japanese had. That the US had no fighting spirit. Is this a Vietnam effect? an unpopular 'semi war' damaging faith in the gov't which translates to some to loss of faith in the country?[/.quote]

Look at what happened to public opinion of our military/government during Iraq and Afghanistan. We had the lowest approval ratings for any administration, and the majority of people beleived we would lose the wars because of casualties that were relatively small compared to what this would be.

The people believed we would pull out in disgrace from an offensive war. Casualties were considered too many because it was an unpopular fight.

I think there are not as many patriots as you think, and they are definately not distributed evenly.

we'll have to agree to disagree then. though I have no opinion on unequal distribution


The original post posed the question of "in what case would the US surrender". That implies the government. The Taliban and Al-Queda will never surrender either, doesnt mean they havent been defeated, when they are.

Fair enough

These are the situations in which the government, for the better sake of the people, would probably step down, at least with things the way they are.

This does not imply an occupation either. So for all the heroes out there--they may never get their chance to play Red Dawn.

A possibility, but I don't see how they could get the gov't to obey them if they weren't continuously holding a sword to their necks (occupying them so they don't have to get all the logistics together for another invasion).

Such as, conditional surrender.

US pays money to other nation, or makes concessions, whatever. Everyone goes on with their lives, we are weakened, but we would have a better chance of not getting obliterated.


Given this alternative, most will choose it.

given US population size compared to most countries, Even if only a few took up arms, That would still be an overwhelming amount to those who would rely on a long logistics chain across an ocean.


I wouldnt expect a turnout anything like WWII. I would expect the population of Canada to double in a few months, or people just defying the draft order.

guess we'll have to agree to disagree here as well


It could easily become that. Perhaps the reasons we are fighting a defensive war are skeptical.


This is the same mentality as many in other countries that have been invaded. Yet, surprisingly in the face of certain defeat, few actually follow through with thier convictions.
But that is certain defeat. that implies complete information awareness.



Many people would, many people wouldnt. Many people would fight just for the sake of fighting. Were it more convenient to just go on with your life, such would be



That was essentially the scenario set up by the first post, in my opinion--our mainland is under attack.

Our national guard is a reserve unit--they are not trained for real warfare, they have basic weapons knowledge and such, some are more trained than others such as those on the Mexican border--but they really arent a fighting force. Sure, they would put a major dent in the enemy, but they arent the regulars. true they aren't professional, but they aren't just southerners in a jeep with a rifle either. (though they could be)



I think you are putting too much faith in the fact that people would really fight on such a massive level of rebellion. Certainly your good old paramilitary groups will pop up from gun clubs and such--but once a government falls...the will for the people to fight drops. Im sure you are right in the fact that you might fight, I would, but there are other factors. The governement is out of the picture and an invading force is changing the colors--you have a wife and kids to look after--they arent getting paid while you're off fighting, and the economy is in shambles. Most are not going to run off and abandon their families to go fight and get killed, possibly endangering the lives of their family. There are others who would realize quickly their illusions about warfare are nothing as they expected...would desert or surrender, or die. In most insurgencies, there is an intial rush to grab arms and they run jubilantly to attack the enemy--get slaughtered, and realize they might not be any match for the enemy.


Now I would expect fierce resistance in many areas if there was a total occupation--many southern states especially...they have the biggest arsenals and the most people who are trained to use weapons and the biggest patriots.


Also, you are assuming this enemy is all out evil-going to rape our women, enslave us, or whatever. Perhaps it is a similar government who happens to hate us at the time?

Depends on how similar. I'd have to say I subscribe in part to people being less resistance if the invading "culture" is similar. China would face more resistance than India. India more than France, France more than Canada, and Canada probably one of the least.
Then again it can go both ways. The more different the culture, the more likely you will get aggressiveness from the occupiers.Those of similar beliefs and values will tend to be more friendly or understanding of each other than the opposite.