Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The sunset on the Assault Weapons Ban had absolutely nothing to do with automatic weapons, as the Assault Weapons Ban had absolutely nothing to do with automatic weapons.
But yes, no country, including the US, can ever be successfully invaded and held so long as the citizenry is armed, ready, and willing to fight. The gun control morons are essentially traitors, this is fact.
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
Just like in all the other past invasions in history where the rebels finally wore down the invaders and forced them out. Isn't that is what's happening in Iraq, and yet, the rebels are wearing us down?
Exactly... Which makes it even harder for the invading military... It would take a long, long time. The Canadian winters, as already mentioned, would be hellish to them.
There would be no point to conquer a useless piece of territory with almost no people.
Canada would effectively be conquered without the invading army sending troops to make 4 Canadians in the middle of nowhere submit to them, just as the US could be conquered even if there are 100 people in the middle of nowhere in Alaska.
Except thats just not possible. At BEST, an enemy is looking at mutally assured destruction. Annhiliate all of the government, you're still dead. Think of all the nuclear subs out there whose purpose is to make sure nothing is left of an enemy if we are hit with the force you describe. We will get that order out before our chain of command goes down....ICBMs aren't invisible.
Er, you're missing the point.
The population centers are spread far apart. To have "taken over" Canada, they need to control all[or at least most] population centers.
Nomatter where they start, it would take a long time to reach the other end..
I suppose you could always stretch resources thinner and try and take it all over at the same time, but yeah..
Actually if a country made it to Canada then I don't think that it would really take too long to make the trip across Canada itself. The military resources could be spread thin as well since there would be little significant military resistance, IMO.
Considering that there are more guns than people in the US it would be a tall order. On top of that, you need to figure that per capita the US is probably the world leader in people that regularly use them and have a certain level of skill with them. Even without a military, it would be a very tough job. I would not want to be on the recieving end of a pack of ex big game hunters popping heads off at a mile and a half.
How the heck does a country invade Canada?
Through the US, heh? Do they come by ocean? Through the Yukon and Northwest Territorities? I don't think so...the US would see them coming from thousands of miles away.
Through the US, heh? Do they come by ocean? Through the Yukon and Northwest Territorities? I don't think so...the US would see them coming from thousands of miles away.
Who said anything about ICBM's? A brief case nuke would do the trick. Idea isn't to destroy the goverment in said cities just incapaciate them while the invasion gets under way.
lol, Canada probably wouldn't even know for a week or two. The prime minister would get a phone call one day from the enemy leader.
Here's a reenactment- (Phone rings)
Prime Minister: Hello?
Enemy leader: Do you surrender?
Prime Minister: Surrender what?
Enemy leader: Our forces have conquered all the northern territories, we have control of 75% of your land mass. We've taken some losses but emerged victorious.
Prime Minister: We weren't even aware that you invaded us. Those territories consist of mostly rocks, ice, and bears, and it's January. Where did your losses come from?
Enemy leader: Mostly from falling rocks, ice, and bears.
with the soviets gone, each ONE of our SSBN's has more nuclear capability that the rest of the world combined
we have about 10 Trident submarines deployed at all times, not that the ones in port couldn't launch within some time frame as well
only the soviets had any significant numbers of ICBM's that could threaten us, they are gone now
A suitcase nuke is not enough to completely take out a large city. It takes a nuke in the multiple megatons to truly turn an entire large metropolis into rubble. It's not possible to incapacitate the entire USA before we can notify our subs to make sure they return the favor.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,648
- 46,344
- 136
Any nuclear strike would result in immediate retaliation once the source became apparent. This is clear US defense policy.
There is a reason our nuclear deterrent is set up with land based bombers, ICBMs, and sub based SLBMs. The idea is to make it impossible to completely neutralize our nuclear option.
Enough of the government and military should survive in any case to launch a massive retaliatory strike.
GagHalfrunt
Lifer
- Apr 19, 2001
- 25,284
- 1,998
- 126
Who exactly has the airlift and navy capabilities to even hit the shores here let alone establish a beachhead? Iraq had the 5th largest army on earth and twice we went through them like a hot knife through butter.
China has 2.8 million or so soldiers, but no way to get them here. They lack a deep water navy and they've got limited long-range air potential. China could invade their neighbors pretty easily, but can't even begin to project power around the globe.
Russia has a bigger army than we do, but since the collapse of the USSR their navy and air forces are in shambles. Again, lotsa guys and no way to move them anywhere that isn't a very nearby.
Who else is there? Canada and Mexico *could* invade and get a large chunk of men across the undefended borders, but so what? A good NRA meeting could outgun both of them put together.
China has 2.8 million or so soldiers, but no way to get them here. They lack a deep water navy and they've got limited long-range air potential. China could invade their neighbors pretty easily, but can't even begin to project power around the globe.
Russia has a bigger army than we do, but since the collapse of the USSR their navy and air forces are in shambles. Again, lotsa guys and no way to move them anywhere that isn't a very nearby.
Who else is there? Canada and Mexico *could* invade and get a large chunk of men across the undefended borders, but so what? A good NRA meeting could outgun both of them put together.
Jesus H Christ...why does EVERYONE think that Canada would be so much easier to invade than the US? We're BIGGER than the US! Our major population centers are in the middle of the country! If we needed to, we could fight a delaying action for MONTHS. Let them advance as far as they want. Get troops from either the US, or ones in NWT to cut off the supply lines (Which would be spread MUCH farther than Hitler and Napoleon's combined, over 4 provinces) then surround and bombard whatever is left.
If they're in Sudbury...meh, perhaps a shelling will improve the looks of the place.
I think were playing by the rules of conventional war, not terrorism.
In converntional warfare there is very little chance of the US effectively being invaded.
As FOBOT mentioned there is enough firepower in the seas at all times to effectively wipe out life on this planet.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter