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.

[Trespass]

Impala you talk about how sophisticated and all knowing the american military machine is, but how would you explain how a russian sub got to our west coast and stalked ships in hawaii, cali, and washington. Or how about the chinese (verv inferior sub) popping up in torpedo range of one of those 12 aircraft carriers we have?

This is all theoritical of course. But i think that if ATTACKED (not neccessarily invaded) by a major force that could deal out major deaths, we'd back down (unlike in past) and seek "peace" instead of going to war.

If invaded i think we'd be able to fight back (since the enemy would be interupting our tv time and mcdonalds) and the lard asses would pick up their shotgun to fight back. How effective a hostile COUNTRY would stop a mobilized military force i can't really answer, but i think in the end, you can't control a country from half the world away... thus why we had a revolution in the first place. So we'd eventually win a battle of attrition.

[impala454]

Impala you talk about how sophisticated and all knowing the american military machine is, but how would you explain how a russian sub got to our west coast and stalked ships in hawaii, cali, and washington. Or how about the chinese (verv inferior sub) popping up in torpedo range of one of those 12 aircraft carriers we have?

why would i need to explain? that has nothing to do with my point. the point is that our land can not be invaded. now, unless one submarine can invade our homeland, your question has nothing to do with the point you're trying to counter.

If invaded i think we'd be able to fight back (since the enemy would be interupting our tv time and mcdonalds) and the lard asses would pick up their shotgun to fight back. How effective a hostile COUNTRY would stop a mobilized military force i can't really answer, but i think in the end, you can't control a country from half the world away... thus why we had a revolution in the first place. So we'd eventually win a battle of attrition.

totally agreed.

the united states is basically surrounded by an enormous moat that is the two biggest oceans on this earth.

guys lets see if we can all agree on this:

There is no country or combo of currently possible hostile countries that could successfully land significant troops in the US (except hawaii & possibly alaska) and attack with conventional warfare.