bonehead

There is a big difference between a war fought "over there" and one fought in your own back yard. The occupying force would have to be resupplied as many american supply's would be destroyed. befor the occupying force can get to them. resupply would be a daunting task in itself. When American soil is invaded, many so called peace lovers would jump ship and fight. The occupying army would have to eat, sleep , and go to the bathroom inside their armored vehicles, because if they so much as poked their heads out for a breath of fresh air they would die. Those who invade america would have no idea of the horrers they would be about to face. I agree there would be tremendous causualties, but there would be no surrender. Americans will not tolerate our loss of freedoms and rights and we would rather die than to live in servitude with out them.

Anon

"Depends. We've never seen how a brutal enemy with a fully mechanized army handles an occupation."

We most certainly have, and quite recently as a matter of fact. In that instance the gigantic and brutal mechanized army was soundly defeated by a bunch of muslims.

dalem

Fair point, that's why I mentioned both individual resistors and armed groups, but the real question is whether more people believe in a version of "Live Free Or Die" or not.

If it were as easy as killing ratios then the world would look a little different.

-dale

Anon

Actually Chris, it would be the very act of trying to utilize conventional heavy weapons systems(artillery, etc) that would likely get you killed in the first place. Anything bigger than an 81mm mortar or 14.5mm machine gun would be best avoided, heavy weapons simply draw too much attention.

Nope, you stay away from the heavy systems initially, and stick with a rifle, machine gun, rocket launcher, MANPADS, or ATGM(which you would pick up off of dead enemy soldiers- either US or occupier).

Head up into one of the many mountain chains, swamps or forests where mech troops can't follow, and use it as a base of operations. Live off the land.
In an urban setting, any of the smashed US cities along the invasion route would be perfect for insurgency operations. If you live in the border regions, use the borders to maximum advantadge(unless Mexico and Canada were also invaded, in which case the insurgency is even larger and more difficult to pin down because of the utterly vast land mass of N.America and the massive N.American population).

If each US insurgent(and i figure there would be about 30-40,000,000 initially- many of whom would be ex-military or active military/reserve/NG that were cut off from their units or overrun) kills just one enemy soldier, the cost to occupy the US is far, far higher than the price any country could realistically pay in blood or treasure.

All the ex Rangers, ex SEALs, ex Green Berets, ex blah, blah, blah would get more than one enemy a piece, i assure you. If you think Iraqis make good IEDs, you should see some of the gadgets that SpecOps type troops know how to make. Let alone EOD and Engineer types.

And quite frankly, there is so much information on bomb making on the net and in print, that really anyone with a stocked kitchen and a computer/book could make an effective IED.

If you think the 'beltway sniper' was effective, just wait and see what a US military trained sniper could do, let alone thousands of them.

The US/N.America is an utterly vast expanse. One that would take literally millions and millions of troops to garrison, especially in the face of an ongoing insurgency.

And the more you brutalized the population, the more vengeful the American insurgents would get, and the more their ranks would swell.

As far as the type of equipment available, just to use me for an example, i have better personally owned battle gear than most troops around the world are issued, and i'm far from alone in that category. If i didn't take out at least 50 enemy troops all by my lonesome during the course of my operations i'd feel like i let my country down.

When one looks at the vast supply lines that the enemy would need, and the vast amount of REMFs that would be needed to keep those lines open and the fwd troops supplied, i could easily see any ex US military sniper bagging hundreds of poorly trained rear echelon types all by himself over the course of a year.

A major key for an insurgent is to stay away from the first echelon combat troops, and focus on the LOGTRAINS. A dead enemy troop is a dead enemy troop, and REMFs are MUCH easier game than combat arms soldiers are.

The term "Clubbing baby seals" comes immediately to mind.

Killing American collaborators would be even easier, a lot more personally rewarding, and almost as effective as killing enemy troops.

Anon

"And if for every occupying soldier that was killed, 100 American civilians were killed in return?"

That would be entirely purpose defeating for the enemy.

Don't you pay attention to historical insurgencies? The LAST thing you'd want to do is incite the masses, and drain support from your efforts.

Really, for any force trying to invade the US, the US military is only half the problem. It's the vast and well armed population that poses the real problems in the long haul.

TopHatter

Well based on all that, if this scenario does come to pass, I'm heading for Philly to join up with Sniper...he can be Jed Eckert. I'll be Robert Morris

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

Anon

Hehehe, you can be the first recruit for "Snipers Heroes".

TopHatter

NOTHING! I know NOTHING!

Or were you referring to the Clint Eastwood movie? In that case, I'll be Oddball....cuz it's a mother beautiful bridge....have a little faith baby, have a little faith

Anon

I was referring to the latter actually, lol.

TopHatter

*Cue the Mike Curb Congregation song "Burning Bridges"*

lwarmonger

A tribal, decentralized society. The United States used to be almost as decentralized as Afghanistan (which was a main reason it was impossible for the British to reassert control), but are we anymore? Absolutely not. Far more cities and towns now, that would make it much easier for an occupier to retaliate against the civilian population than was true in Afghanistan (also gives large population centers to occupy, assuming they haven't been nuked). The Soviets were also partly constrained by two factors that an enemy occupying the US wouldn't be. First, the bulk of their military could not be used in the occupation, as they had to look after their American and Chinese competitors (who were supplying a great deal of arms to the insurgency). Second, they could not embark on a war of annihilation (hence the belated attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani population to the communist puppet government), because they were still competing against the United States in the third world. Since world opinion mattered, their hands were tied a bit more than would have otherwise been the case (meaning they weren't out to wipe out the Afghani population, which they could probably have achieved).

lwarmonger

Just start gassing towns. A roadside bomb goes off outside of Chicago, nerve gas destroys the nearest small town. One of your men gets killed by a sniper, a city block is razed to the ground, with it's inhabitants. If the mechanized army has enough men (and will) to occupy the United States, then it has enough to make these kind of exchanges longer than we do.

Anon

"A tribal, decentralized society. The United States used to be almost as decentralized as Afghanistan (which was a main reason it was impossible for the British to reassert control), but are we anymore?"

Launch an invasion that shatters the US infrastructure, and we'd be pretty friggin' decentralized ourselves.

"Absolutely not. Far more cities and towns now, that would make it much easier for an occupier to retaliate against the civilian population than was true in Afghanistan (also gives large population centers to occupy, assuming they haven't been nuked)."

Shattered cities are perfect breeding grounds for insurgent activities. Plenty of rubble to hide in.

"The Soviets were also partly constrained by two factors that an enemy occupying the US wouldn't be. First, the bulk of their military could not be used in the occupation, as they had to look after their American and Chinese competitors (who were supplying a great deal of arms to the insurgency)."

This would not occur in a vacuum. Whatever country attacked us would still have to protect it's homeland from it's regional enemies. Assuming it's china, they still have to defend their homeland from the Indians and Russians. Assuming it's Russia, they still have to defend themselves from the Chinese and W.Europe. Assuming it's W.Europe, they still have to defend themselves from the Russians.

So your point on that issue is invalid.

"Second, they could not embark on a war of annihilation (hence the belated attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani population to the communist puppet government), because they were still competing against the United States in the third world. "

They did a pretty damned good job of trying to implement a war of destruction, up to and including the use of chemical weapons and mass executions, and the destruction and murder of entire villages.

"Since world opinion mattered, their hands were tied a bit more than would have otherwise been the case (meaning they weren't out to wipe out the Afghani population, which they could probably have achieved)."

First, there is no way they could've conventionally wiped out the Afghan population. Second, again, this is not a vacuum, and world opinion would be everybit as relevant as it has been for every other war ever fought.

Anon

"Just start gassing towns. A roadside bomb goes off outside of Chicago, nerve gas destroys the nearest small town. One of your men gets killed by a sniper, a city block is razed to the ground, with it's inhabitants."

Purpose defeating. Who will harvest the crops, who will maintain the roadways and power grids your army needs, who will prepare the meals and slaughter the livestock, who will sew their uniforms, who will provide their soldiers 'comfort', who will provide any of the myriad services your army needs?

Conquest without slaves is a waste of effort.

Not to mention the fact that such acts will just further swell the ranks of the insurgency and garner it additional international support.

"If the mechanized army has enough men (and will) to occupy the United States, then it has enough to make these kind of exchanges longer than we do."

Not at all true. Vietnam, Afghanistan, indeed every insurgency ever fought teaches us the exact opposite lesson.

A popular insurgency will always outlast the invader. The ONLY way to defeat a popular insurgency is to either A) Win the hearts and minds of the conquered, or B) initiate a total war of anhillation, aka Carthage.

If that is the case, there would be no point in invasion, that goal would be accomplished far easier and for far lest cost in treasure and blood with nuclear weapons.

Of if we are forced into the scenario of a conventional invasion, it can only be for the purpose of subjugating the American people and colonizing N.America for themselves.

Confed999

You like to talk about propaganda alot. You should try getting out more.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry