Hmm, invading the USA. Definitely a tough one, but possible if the wheels are rolling the right direction.
Setting the stage,
Let's say Canada and Mexico for reasons unknown became the attackers in this scenario. Naturally they'd be backed by the EU, since the Euro is in danger of being dwarfed by the american Dollar due to the discovery of a new hard to recreate near-infinite energy source the US government happens to be keeping under wraps very well. We'll call it cold fusion. Suddenly the American economy is no longer plagued by importing oil for electrical needs, thus the economic boom.
Let's say our intelligence community has waned after the near elimination of middle-eastern terrorist groups....and the resulting election of several consecutive extreme liberal democratic presidents who cut funds where they normally do in the name of economic progress.
Military forces are under-funded and the majority of the non-reserve troops are on joint missions with the UN in some random far-flung country.
The tactics,
Now, a squad of infiltrators wearing no national colors takes out congress as they are meeting and generally attempts to cause as much havoc as possible. After the slaughter of congress, the infiltrators should attempt to take out any other high end officials in the area. No hostages, just shoot to kill. It's a suicide mission, but is needed. The US government will naturally blame it on a terrorist attack, and be thrown into chaos for a few crucial days if not weeks.
At this time forces from Canada and Mexico will converge on high value targets on the east and west coast. It should be important to note the forces that attack are not going to be massed before the attack. This will make the attack a bit disorganized but it is needed to keep US intelligence from realising what is going to occur. It will also have the side effect of making a "clean" nuclear strike on a massed army next to impossible. Specialists begin hunting down nuclear launch sites, while mobile SAMs and air cover attempt to remove any air based threat.
While the initial assault is ongoing, troops and supplies begin flying directly in an impromptu fashion from the european nations to support the assault. More troops begin massing in a more organized fashion for a more cohesive second wave.
When the second wave arrives to take control of the fighting, the initial assault force is regrouped. The fighting continues into and through the occupation.
It's based on some heavy conjecture and risky moves, but invading the US is simply impossible without risk.
<!--QuoteBegin--AU-Scorpion+Jan 5 2004, 08:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AU-Scorpion @ Jan 5 2004, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...a new hard to recreate near-infinite energy source... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not even too far fetched. There's this ITER project that is focused on producing a working fusion reactor by the 2050s. Endless supply of clean energy from water. Pretty cool indeed, but it's not only USAs project, as it's being produced by China, Japan, Russia, USA and EU all together.
You can call me Lord of Derail now <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
Viet Nam and Afghanistan really aren't good examples... in VN we kicked thier tails all over the place most of the time. It wasn't the man on the ground, or reloading the artillery piece, or flying that plane/helicopter who ordered the military out of the country, it was a politician obeying the populace. Afghanistan, same story. The spetsnaz for the most part hunted the afghans down like dogs until WE, a stable foriegn power, started giving them a helping hand.
*back to topic* Well, there really is not much you can do. You could get a few like minded individuals in your area to help construct some IEDs, find out who is who in terms of high ranking officers in the area, where their soldiers sleep and eat, where thier ammo and fuel is stored, how and where thier communications are, and TRY to get rid of them by the sniper in the grass and bombings. Overall impact is not likely to be great unless by some coincidence the entire country gets the same idea, or, the groups of resistance find ways of communicating and recruiting, in which case, the invaders are (eventually) screwed unless they lay waste to literally everyone and everything in sight.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Jan 5 2004, 02:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Jan 5 2004, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's not even too far fetched. There's this ITER project that is focused on producing a working fusion reactor by the 2050s. Endless supply of clean energy from water. Pretty cool indeed, but it's not only USAs project, as it's being produced by China, Japan, Russia, USA and EU all together.
You can call me Lord of Derail now <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The fun thing is that's not even a top secret project, and yet it has such high goals.
Whenever I am reminded of these types of projects, it always wakes me want to hear about the stuff our governments keep under wraps.
<!--QuoteBegin--Boy who lost his wings+Jan 4 2004, 02:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Boy who lost his wings @ Jan 4 2004, 02:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Jan 4 2004, 02:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Jan 4 2004, 02:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Boy who lost his wings+Jan 4 2004, 01:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Boy who lost his wings @ Jan 4 2004, 01:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Cronos+Jan 2 2004, 03:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos @ Jan 2 2004, 03:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The guerillas have little chance of winning, but even so, How Would A Guerilla Force Win Against A Clearly Superior Enemy? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *Points at Vietnam* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure if Vietnam is a good example. The US lost Vietnam because it refused to win Vietnam. The mantra of 'Remember Korea!' resulted in an ineffective, greatly neutered policy. Vietnam was 100% winnable, had the military been given the go-ahead to win. Thats OT though.
A good example is Soviets vs Mujahadeen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well then tell me how a fully mechanized westren army lost to a rag-tag group of peasants with little to no combat traning? Sure some of it had to do with morale, but it was largely lies within their tatics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok.
1. The US never lost a battle in Vietnam. By the numbers, the US killed 20 NVA for each US soldier. 2. The US military saw a significant drop in NVA activity during Operation Cedar Falls, during which the US heavily bombed it NVA strongholds and cities in the North. This operation was discontinued for political reasons (mainly fear of disapproval from China and Russia. the motto was 'Remeber Korea!' 3. US political leaders curtailed the military and and attempted to direct the war to 'peace' instead of compromise. The 'peace' ended up being a bloody stalemate.
The US lost vietnam not because of the NVA or Guerillas, but because the government did not fight to win. Had the military been given the go ahead to use all their assest, N. Vietnam would have been bomed as armor rolled over razed forests. The guerilla's wouldn't have stood a chance.
Ho Chi Minh used the same tactics that Zapp Brannigan used against the kill bots. He sacraficed scores of his men to kill enough Americans that they shut down (or lost support to fight). If you got the Futurama reference, you are cool. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
:-) That is why Vietnam is a bad example.
If you think about it, the revolutionary war happened much the same way.
Ok, if you're so convinced that a guerilla force can't defeat a modern army, let's look at China.
1945: the Japanese surrender and the war between the Chinese Communist Party and the Nationalist Chinese under Chiang Kai Shek fires up once more. Chiang has 2.3 million veteran soldiers, armed with US equipment including Sherman tanks, fighter and bomber aircraft, artillery and heavy machine guns. The Communists under Mao Tse Tung have 300,000 men, lightly armed with mostly rifles. No armour. No air force. Guess who wins?
1949: Chiang flees to Taiwan with the remnants of his supporters. His once massive army is decimated, destroyed by guerilla fighting or defected to the Communists. Mao enters Beijing and proclaims the establishment of the People's Republic of China.
The major fights in today's wars are not fought on the battlefield, but in the media. Therefore, either set up your own illegal media network in your occupied country, or, as do many irani refugees, emigrate and broadcast from abroad. Apart from that, try to alarm other states and organisations about your countries situation. About the military part: Well, I think just looking at Iraq will give you enough examples on how to fight a guerilla.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Jan 2 2004, 03:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Jan 2 2004, 03:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 2 2004, 09:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 2 2004, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not enough data, does not compute. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like I said: how the hell did they avoid getting nuked in the first place? No, with current technology it's nigh impossible. Damn yanks would probably rather blow the whole world than get occupied ;-/ Anways, some of USAs own military branches have to be with the occupying nation. Civil war with one side getting help from other nation? Yeah, we need more info on that.
I guess the more plausible scenario would be just USAs government starting to oppress people. Which basically means that most parts of the military(probably all higher level units like nukes, tactical bombers, satellites etc.) would be under governments control and some small parts of the military infantry/tank divisions would rebel. And get smashed soon. However, in this case it would be easier to use demonstrations because it's your own government. It's harder for them to get more labor if they just start popping peaceful people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems ominous that in the future there is very little the common citizen can do, as to the military overthrow of the government, or even posing a local power threat, such as banditry.
So it is probably definitely true that you have to have some real muscle i.e. a semi real military to win. And this will likely need foreign influence. For instance Mao reached Manchuria with its Soviet presence and cache of Japanese arms before the Nationalists, in part because the United States cut off supplies to the Nationalists and slowed their northern drive.
Then Mao of course received huge numbers of Japanese weapons and was allowed time to incorporate local Manchurian troops into his army and train them. Again this was because of the meddling of the Soviets and the Americans.
The United States citizenry is indeed very demilitarized, contrary to what some may suspect. The increasing demilitarization of the common populace together with the increasing capabilities of new weaponry technology does not bode well for future armed rebellion..
Comments
Setting the stage,
Let's say Canada and Mexico for reasons unknown became the attackers in this scenario. Naturally they'd be backed by the EU, since the Euro is in danger of being dwarfed by the american Dollar due to the discovery of a new hard to recreate near-infinite energy source the US government happens to be keeping under wraps very well. We'll call it cold fusion. Suddenly the American economy is no longer plagued by importing oil for electrical needs, thus the economic boom.
Let's say our intelligence community has waned after the near elimination of middle-eastern terrorist groups....and the resulting election of several consecutive extreme liberal democratic presidents who cut funds where they normally do in the name of economic progress.
Military forces are under-funded and the majority of the non-reserve troops are on joint missions with the UN in some random far-flung country.
The tactics,
Now, a squad of infiltrators wearing no national colors takes out congress as they are meeting and generally attempts to cause as much havoc as possible. After the slaughter of congress, the infiltrators should attempt to take out any other high end officials in the area. No hostages, just shoot to kill. It's a suicide mission, but is needed. The US government will naturally blame it on a terrorist attack, and be thrown into chaos for a few crucial days if not weeks.
At this time forces from Canada and Mexico will converge on high value targets on the east and west coast. It should be important to note the forces that attack are not going to be massed before the attack. This will make the attack a bit disorganized but it is needed to keep US intelligence from realising what is going to occur. It will also have the side effect of making a "clean" nuclear strike on a massed army next to impossible. Specialists begin hunting down nuclear launch sites, while mobile SAMs and air cover attempt to remove any air based threat.
While the initial assault is ongoing, troops and supplies begin flying directly in an impromptu fashion from the european nations to support the assault. More troops begin massing in a more organized fashion for a more cohesive second wave.
When the second wave arrives to take control of the fighting, the initial assault force is regrouped. The fighting continues into and through the occupation.
It's based on some heavy conjecture and risky moves, but invading the US is simply impossible without risk.
That's not even too far fetched. There's this ITER project that is focused on producing a working fusion reactor by the 2050s. Endless supply of clean energy from water. Pretty cool indeed, but it's not only USAs project, as it's being produced by China, Japan, Russia, USA and EU all together.
You can call me Lord of Derail now <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
*back to topic* Well, there really is not much you can do. You could get a few like minded individuals in your area to help construct some IEDs, find out who is who in terms of high ranking officers in the area, where their soldiers sleep and eat, where thier ammo and fuel is stored, how and where thier communications are, and TRY to get rid of them by the sniper in the grass and bombings. Overall impact is not likely to be great unless by some coincidence the entire country gets the same idea, or, the groups of resistance find ways of communicating and recruiting, in which case, the invaders are (eventually) screwed unless they lay waste to literally everyone and everything in sight.
You can call me Lord of Derail now <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fun thing is that's not even a top secret project, and yet it has such high goals.
Whenever I am reminded of these types of projects, it always wakes me want to hear about the stuff our governments keep under wraps.
Dread, the Dark Lord of Derailment. Heh.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Points at Vietnam* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if Vietnam is a good example. The US lost Vietnam because it refused to win Vietnam. The mantra of 'Remember Korea!' resulted in an ineffective, greatly neutered policy. Vietnam was 100% winnable, had the military been given the go-ahead to win. Thats OT though.
A good example is Soviets vs Mujahadeen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then tell me how a fully mechanized westren army lost to a rag-tag group of peasants with little to no combat traning? Sure some of it had to do with morale, but it was largely lies within their tatics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok.
1. The US never lost a battle in Vietnam. By the numbers, the US killed 20 NVA for each US soldier.
2. The US military saw a significant drop in NVA activity during Operation Cedar Falls, during which the US heavily bombed it NVA strongholds and cities in the North. This operation was discontinued for political reasons (mainly fear of disapproval from China and Russia. the motto was 'Remeber Korea!'
3. US political leaders curtailed the military and and attempted to direct the war to 'peace' instead of compromise. The 'peace' ended up being a bloody stalemate.
The US lost vietnam not because of the NVA or Guerillas, but because the government did not fight to win. Had the military been given the go ahead to use all their assest, N. Vietnam would have been bomed as armor rolled over razed forests. The guerilla's wouldn't have stood a chance.
Ho Chi Minh used the same tactics that Zapp Brannigan used against the kill bots. He sacraficed scores of his men to kill enough Americans that they shut down (or lost support to fight). If you got the Futurama reference, you are cool. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
:-) That is why Vietnam is a bad example.
If you think about it, the revolutionary war happened much the same way.
1945: the Japanese surrender and the war between the Chinese Communist Party and the Nationalist Chinese under Chiang Kai Shek fires up once more. Chiang has 2.3 million veteran soldiers, armed with US equipment including Sherman tanks, fighter and bomber aircraft, artillery and heavy machine guns. The Communists under Mao Tse Tung have 300,000 men, lightly armed with mostly rifles. No armour. No air force. Guess who wins?
1949: Chiang flees to Taiwan with the remnants of his supporters. His once massive army is decimated, destroyed by guerilla fighting or defected to the Communists. Mao enters Beijing and proclaims the establishment of the People's Republic of China.
About the military part: Well, I think just looking at Iraq will give you enough examples on how to fight a guerilla.
Like I said: how the hell did they avoid getting nuked in the first place? No, with current technology it's nigh impossible. Damn yanks would probably rather blow the whole world than get occupied ;-/ Anways, some of USAs own military branches have to be with the occupying nation. Civil war with one side getting help from other nation? Yeah, we need more info on that.
I guess the more plausible scenario would be just USAs government starting to oppress people. Which basically means that most parts of the military(probably all higher level units like nukes, tactical bombers, satellites etc.) would be under governments control and some small parts of the military infantry/tank divisions would rebel. And get smashed soon. However, in this case it would be easier to use demonstrations because it's your own government. It's harder for them to get more labor if they just start popping peaceful people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems ominous that in the future there is very little the common citizen can do, as to the military overthrow of the government, or even posing a local power threat, such as banditry.
So it is probably definitely true that you have to have some real muscle i.e. a semi real military to win. And this will likely need foreign influence. For instance Mao reached Manchuria with its Soviet presence and cache of Japanese arms before the Nationalists, in part because the United States cut off supplies to the Nationalists and slowed their northern drive.
Then Mao of course received huge numbers of Japanese weapons and was allowed time to incorporate local Manchurian troops into his army and train them. Again this was because of the meddling of the Soviets and the Americans.
The United States citizenry is indeed very demilitarized, contrary to what some may suspect. The increasing demilitarization of the common populace together with the increasing capabilities of new weaponry technology does not bode well for future armed rebellion..