View Single Post
      08-28-2012, 08:52 AM   #137
Lieutenant Colonel
Templar's Avatar

Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: One of the coasts...

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2011 BMW M3  [5.00]
Originally Posted by kmarei View Post
I thought bombing other countries was a US specialty
That's basically how wars are fought now
You go in with bombers, Take out anti aircraft, runways, key bridges etc
Then once you have air superiority
Then your troops move in
And the troops won't just be armed with guns, they will have satellite reconnaissance, radar, night vision googles, AWACS planes, bazookas etc

There's no way you can convince me that because x percentage of Americans have guns
That this makes the US a safer place from an enemy invasion
If we'rre talking army vs civilians
Army will win 90% of the time
You obviously know nothing of war, but I will indulge.

If the point is to invade and annex/colonize, you don't want to destroy everything. Sure, you'll take out "key strategic targets," but you're not going to level everything.

In order to stop the 200 million plus armed Americans, an invading Army would have to level everything, or be faced with at least a century of guerilla warfare, that even our great American military has struggled with for decades. Tell me what country would spend a hundred years of time and money trying to kill every last armed American citizen? Oh, I didn't think so.

This is like way OT though, so I'll just leave it at that. I'm not debating the fact that a well trained Army/Air Force can take out people with just guns, that's pretty obvious. I'm debating that they can't sucessfully colonize the USA because of the millions of armed people that would likely form groups and fight back once the smoke from the bombs settled. People would hide in the mountains (which we have plenty of), just like the Taliban is hiding in the Afghan mountains now.
'11 BMW E92 ///M3 - ZCP and DCT
'15 Ford F-250 - Lariat, 6.7 Powerstroke Turbo-diesel

Last edited by Templar; 08-28-2012 at 09:18 AM.