Day of Infamy Options

[cupcake]

65 years ago, on this day, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

When the Dec. 7, 1941, onslaught was over, there were 2,403 dead and thousands others wounded.

Besides the mass causalities in the two waves of attacks that lasted less than two hours, the Japanese also had sunk or damaged 18 ships and destroyed more than 180 aircraft.

It was, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt would declare, "a day of infamy."

The next day, America was at war.

Although it was a day of great tragedy, it was also a day that revived our national pride and strengthened our determination as a nation.

This spirit of unity and reborn patriotism had "awakened the sleeping giant" and ultimately led us to victory and the end of World War II.

I have a really hard time believing that if that happened today, America would have the mettle to carry out an all-out offensive on two geographic fronts, be able to accept the mass casualties (ours and collateral), indiscriminate carpet bombing, and eventual use of atomic bombs. The media would have none of that. The politicians would be talking out both sides of their mouths. The "call to arms" would fall on deaf ears.

We would have lost WWII had it been fought in the 21st century. No doubt in my mind.

[cupcake]

I guess I'm still waiting on the technomachine that can clear a building with extreme prejudice.

or swim in, clear any beach patrols, conduct hydrographic surveys, and signal the main force.

or call for fire.

or do a ship takedown.

or...

[impala454]

I guess I'm still waiting on the technomachine that can clear a building with extreme prejudice.

or swim in, clear any beach patrols, conduct hydrographic surveys, and signal the main force.

or call for fire.

or do a ship takedown.

or...

again, like i keep saying, i'm talking about defense of our country against conventional warfare. due to our overwhelming technology and firepower, i don't see any conventional invasion force ever even setting foot on our mainland. do you?

[Hartmann]

again, like i keep saying, i'm talking about defense of our country against conventional warfare. due to our overwhelming technology and firepower, i don't see any conventional invasion force ever even setting foot on our mainland. do you?

I dunno, we set foot in Iraq (twice) and they had one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world.

Their Air Force was equipped with Mig-29s and Mirage F-1s. They also had one of the best anti-aircraft missile systems in the world.

You know why they lost? Preemptive strikes and battlefield tactics.

[impala454]

I dunno, we set foot in Iraq (twice) and they had one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world.

Their Air Force was equipped with Mig-29s and Mirage F-1s. They also had one of the best anti-aircraft missile systems in the world.

You know why they lost? Preemptive strikes and battlefield tactics.

dude, i don't know why i'm still responding. let me space out the sentence separately then on its own line.


I am not, repeat not talking about the difficulty in invading another country.

I am talking about our country's mainland being for all intents & purposes invincible to conventional attack. I.e. similar to the topic... the last time conventional attack touched our soil was 65 years ago (albeit a tiny island way off in the middle of the pacific).


to that end, with your example, can you say you think those iraqi mig-29s & mirage F-1s pose any threat to our mainland? or that some other country would even have the ability to reach our soil with so much as a rock? terrorism is about the only way our country will be attacked. and while terrorism sucks, it doesn't win a war. especially not in a country with as much shear land area and population as we have. the way the world is right now, you will never see in our lifetime see huge divisions of troops making landfall on our shores, or fleets of ships get anywhere near our waters, or enemy planes dropping bombs on our cities.

the last enemy of the united states to wage conventional war on our mainland was the confederates in 1865.


and on a sidenote, if iraq's army was so technologically advanced, why did they call our choppers & guns stuff like "steel bird of fire" and shit? and why were they surrendering in droves instead of using their "advanced" weaponry on us?

[Hartmann]

the last enemy of the united states to wage conventional war on our mainland was the confederates in 1865.
and on a sidenote, if iraq's army was so technologically advanced, why did they call our choppers & guns stuff like "steel bird of fire" and shit? and why were they surrendering in droves instead of using their "advanced" weaponry on us?

When you're promised reinforcements and they never show up, you'd surrender too.

The Apache is a fierce weapon and it'd scare the hell out of me too.

A simple proof that technology does not win a war or the invasion of your home turf, the Germans in WWII. Arguably the most advanced armed forces at the time, they were out fought on their home turf by better trained troops.

By logic of technology, Germany should have won the war and controlled all of Europe and North America, they had better planes, better tanks, better artillery, programmeable missiles, etc.

[impala454]

By logic of technology, Germany should have won the war and controlled all of Europe and North America, they had better planes, better tanks, better artillery, programmeable missiles, etc.

ok... gimme a break... obviously you need technology and decent numbers. germany was vastly outnumbered in WW2. and their "superior" army never set foot on american soil did they?

i wasn't saying technology is the only reason our mainland is untouchable. it is the major determining factor though.

[Hartmann]

ok... gimme a break... obviously you need technology and decent numbers. germany was vastly outnumbered in WW2. and their "superior" army never set foot on american soil did they?

i wasn't saying technology is the only reason our mainland is untouchable. it is the major determining factor though.

You aren't the one that stated technology is the only thing, that was Renegadepeon. Again, I was simply stating that the German Army had superior technology at the time and they could not defend their homeland, I wasn't trying to say we defended against them.

You said America could defend its homeland, I was just giving an example of a time when a country was technologically superior could not defend itself properly. The reason they lost you hit on the head, troop numbers, which is exactly what cupcake and I are trying to point out, Americans would not fight, especially in the way the Germans did, giving up their 15 year-old sons to fight for the Fatherland when defeat is obvious.

[impala454]

You aren't the one that stated technology is the only thing, that was Renegadepeon. Again, I was simply stating that the German Army had superior technology at the time and they could not defend their homeland, I wasn't trying to say we defended against them.

You said America could defend its homeland, I was just giving an example of a time when a country was technologically superior could not defend itself properly. The reason they lost you hit on the head, troop numbers, which is exactly what cupcake and I are trying to point out, Americans would not fight, especially in the way the Germans did, giving up their 15 year-old sons to fight for the Fatherland when defeat is obvious.

you're losing me here man. obviously germany lost ww2 due to their lack of numbers. how would this be the case in the US?