Day of Infamy Options

[impala454]

ok my bad i shouldn't have said it that way.

imho i'd bet we have the current location of just about any countries with a decent sized navy's ships.

[cupcake]

"Sir, they have orange ships! The war is lost!".

I laughed audibly at this.

impala, I read that link. I also read where they have plenty of destroyers and combined (china and russia) have plenty more aircraft. I say again...an aircraft carrier does not an invasion force make.

ACs are forward airbases. they dont invade anyone. they're support. mainly for use against isolated land(islands) where a land-based base is out of range. there is plenty of land around america to forge a base.

[impala454]

I laughed audibly at this.

impala, I read that link. I also read where they have plenty of destroyers and combined (china and russia) have plenty more aircraft. I say again...an aircraft carrier does not an invasion force make.

so destroyers do an invasion force make? you don't think we'd just sit and fire cruise missles & running stealth aircraft bombing runs, sinking their ships one by one until they turned the rest around?

[cupcake]

nevermind

[Hartmann]

Are you sure about that?

Fairly certain. The CIA and NSA do not concern themselves with ships leaving every port, they are too busy fighting the war on terror to know where everything is. This isn't the Cold War era with a well defined enemy, or a known threat. If we tracked everything that would mean we would mean we knew exactly where the Kursk went down instead of asking the Russians.

Don't get me wrong, ships leaving China, North Korea, and Iran are tracked heavily. But we do not monitor everything, everywhere around the world, no matter what "The Unit" tells you. U.S. intelligence still heavily relies on informants, just look at the careers section of the agencies, usually multilingual requirements and the desire to "live abroad".

Also, I am basing some of the above on what my friend who took a job with the CIA told me. Strangely enough, she writes satellite software and I hate her everyday for it.

Can you go back and address some of the things I brought up about gun control, our population etc.?

[Billy]

Gun ownership isn't going to help the population against a military. Like you said, a bunch of teenagers with guns aren't going to take out a tank convoy (which kind of agrees with technology wins here). So the question ultimately comes down to is could we fight an invading force using "terrorist" tactics until they left? I don't know. I think it would depend on who invaded really. If a european country tried to take over the USA I think there would be less support to defend the country than if a middle eastern or asian country tried to take over.

[cupcake]

I don't think anyone wants to take over america as it is.

I think it's more about bring us down. taking the wind out of our sails.

I don't think it's any more thought out than that. it's about knocking the king of the hill off the top...nothing more.

[Trespass]

The question to be answered: What determines the outcome of a war more: technology or the toughness of the military?

I'm still going to say that ultimately technology is the biggest factor. As you'll never see some african tribe armed with spears take out one armed with AKs. However, in situations where technology are equal, then I agree, that is when the people matter. Having well trained, toughened troops will win the day. So having both is really a big plus. But I think right now, in this current age, our technological superiority is what makes us powerful. But when this gap lessens, and our brillant minds go elsewhere, then I agree, America should worry. Because we are becoming a slothful, undisciplined nation, where national pride is a "bad" thing. And when push comes to shove, I doubt we could band together to defend what's ours.

Well since you are changing your answer to "factor" i will agree with you

yeah im like 2 pages late, whatever haha

[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.

[Trespass]

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.
totally agreed.

My point being that we are so sophisticated yet "less sophisticated" things breached our defenses. So its not hard to imagine that a country could breach our defenses in a manner of landing troops our launching a large attack. (whether to invade or just cause massive casualties)

You assume we are untouchable yet history has shown that not to be the case. Is it unlikely and improbable that ANY country could INVADE us, sure... for multiple reasons. But not for the reason that its impossible to be done.

[Divergent Realit...]

i mean, if a country were dedicated enough and had enough manpower they could just load up cargo containers with provisions and troops, schedule them to all get here at about the same time, then pop out the men inside and start stirring up shit.

[impala454]

My point being that we are so sophisticated yet "less sophisticated" things breached our defenses. So its not hard to imagine that a country could breach our defenses in a manner of landing troops our launching a large attack. (whether to invade or just cause massive casualties)

i'm afraid it is hard to image... the jump from one sub sneaking around to landing a huge invasion force is not a logical argument.

You assume we are untouchable yet history has shown that not to be the case. Is it unlikely and improbable that ANY country could INVADE us, sure... for multiple reasons. But not for the reason that its impossible to be done.

i never said we were untouchable. i said our country is essentially invulnerable to any conventional war that could be waged on us. do i mean some invisible shield will rise up out of the ocean and block the ships, no. do i mean some mystical laser beams shoot down from space and zap the invaders? no (although it wouldn't shock me to see it happen). what i'm saying is, as per the current strength of Navies out there, ours is second to none. It's barely even second in shear numbers to combinations of countries in the top 5. And with fairly equal numbers, plus the technology advantage, and the ability to sink ships at will with cruise missles from hundreds of miles away, no conventional invasion force would ever get within sight of any US coast (or even a neighboring country's coast).

i'm not saying another country wouldn't, i'm saying they couldn't if they wanted to.

[Trespass]

i'm not saying another country would'nt, i'm saying they couldn't if they wanted to.

And im saying the EXACT OPPOSITE lol