The Shadow
Member
SpectreFire said:
.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How Effective Would America's Hunters Be As A Militia?
- Thread starter DarthWoo
- Start date
- Status
.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Any real invasion would have to come from either a launching point in Canada, Mexico, or Cuba. If its the first two countries, then we'll know in advance. If Cuba, then good luck taking the South which has a higher percentage of gun ownership and probably more rabid patriots willing to take as many down with them as possible. I know Louisiana would be pretty safe because we just bomb all of our bridges and go hide in the bayous.
A militia, even one as well armed and trained as the one you can have in this country will stand no chance against a regular modern military unit.
They will get decimated.
Even if not a single armored unit is dropped in, a militia just can't win an all out tactical victory.
You can engage in a successful asymmetrical guerrilla warfare campaign, but as history had showed us, you don't need any sort of training to be successful at that, so the whole hunter angle is irrelevant.
It's not a military question, it's a political question.
They will get decimated.
Even if not a single armored unit is dropped in, a militia just can't win an all out tactical victory.
You can engage in a successful asymmetrical guerrilla warfare campaign, but as history had showed us, you don't need any sort of training to be successful at that, so the whole hunter angle is irrelevant.
It's not a military question, it's a political question.
Gallbaro said:
Agreed. A few of the guys from around here have been recruited specifically by the US military/Other Agencies. Mostly for intelligence, ingenuity, resourcefulness, lack of fear, fucking broke
And yes I know killing a deer is different than shooting at someone that is shooting back, but put in that situation we already have the advantage over the average civy.BattleMonkey
Member
People are thinking of just a bunch of hicks with guns, but really it's no different from any guerrilla army that develops anywhere in the world. A bunch of yahoos with guns are not going to do anything, but once they organize and have leadership, they can become a force to be reckoned with.
Many of histories potent guerrilla forces were nothing but civilians, hunters, etc who rally behind a cause.
You would not have a stand up and fight army vs army situation, but an insurgency and resistance force. It's worked throughout history and can be extremely difficult to get rid of.
And like with Modern Warfare 2, the whole idea is ridiculous. Invading the US is basically impossible, the amount of resources needed would be insane. It basically is not possible to set up an invasion of the size required without most of the world knowing it was coming weeks in advanced. Such an invasion would have to made D-Day look like a border skirmish. The largest navy in human history would be required to have the logistics set up for such an invasion, and one can not simply build such a monster fleet of planes and ships without anyone noticing.
Many of histories potent guerrilla forces were nothing but civilians, hunters, etc who rally behind a cause.
You would not have a stand up and fight army vs army situation, but an insurgency and resistance force. It's worked throughout history and can be extremely difficult to get rid of.
And like with Modern Warfare 2, the whole idea is ridiculous. Invading the US is basically impossible, the amount of resources needed would be insane. It basically is not possible to set up an invasion of the size required without most of the world knowing it was coming weeks in advanced. Such an invasion would have to made D-Day look like a border skirmish. The largest navy in human history would be required to have the logistics set up for such an invasion, and one can not simply build such a monster fleet of planes and ships without anyone noticing.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Dr. Pangloss said:
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
KHarvey16 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mariana_Islands#Demographics
Don't be so rash.
sullyj said:Agreed. A few of the guys from around here have been recruited specifically by the US military/Other Agencies. Mostly for intelligence, ingenuity, resourcefulness, lack of fear, fucking broke
AH but how many of them have ACTUALLY shot a person themselves? I wager most of them have shots targets just like any hunter, skeet shooter, or avid shooters.
Dude Abides
Banned
Not at all.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
The most obvious problem is that if America's standing army was decimated to the point where you have to get drafted into a militia, then there's no hope. You can't walk into a Wal-Mart and get something that can take out any planes or tanks or even a tug boat.
Zeke said:
I don't care if you are a 400 lb. Black Bear attacking me or someone breaking into my house at 4 a.m. for my Ipod. I do not need to be trained by the military etc. to protect my family, property and life. Who cares if they have done something in the past, given a situation such as the "Red Dawn" invasion. I would trust a someone with the same values/skills as I have more than I would anyone else.
GoldenEye 007
Member
So then how do you explain Afghanistan and Russia?Al-ibn Kermit said:
yea Iraq and Afghanistan have been total push overs compared to the might of the American military just like the Vietnamese during that war. Afghanistan was a push over for the Russians to I hear. I also heard there was a colony a few hundred years ago that rose up and fought a military giant to gain their independence.JGS said:
BattleMonkey
Member
Al-ibn Kermit said:
History says otherwise with badly equipped guerrilla armies have taken on military juggernauts.
Last posts nailed it. Any invading military would get so tired of it after years and years. Granted they may be able to destroy cities etc. but the vastness and remoteness combined with all the weapons and ammo in the US already add in a little bit of redneck crazy makes this scenario so unlikely.
edit: Basically hunters/gun owners in rural areas would be the US's Taliban. I suppose nukes would throw a wrench in that theory though.h
Goes back to digging his bunker.
edit: Basically hunters/gun owners in rural areas would be the US's Taliban. I suppose nukes would throw a wrench in that theory though.h
Goes back to digging his bunker.
BattleMonkey said:
And as Chichikov pointed out, it's really a political question. Classic Sun Tzu Art of War stuff. If the occupying force's country doesn't feel the war is that justified, and the occupied country sees it as unjust, the will of the people will erode the superior army over time.
This is why we have the 2nd Amendment. Tons of quotes from the founders about it being for this purpose.
Does that mean we have to choose between waving assault rifles in front of people at protests, or banning guns completely as the political theater suggests? Absolutely not. Assault weapons should be controlled because they are for killing people. Maybe a compromise would be to have storage stashes distributed throughout the states with higher end weaponry and have the military guard it. If the government becomes so corrupt that there is a revolution, then some of the guards will defect, and the stashes will inevitably get in the hands of the people, and not be used by crazy virgins to gun down random people. Or now that I think about it, inevitably the military's equipment would suffice. :lol
Al-ibn Kermit said:
Clearly this statement is in support of the second amendment and the fact that we should be able to buy stinger missiles at walmart.
Draft said:
And you know what? We would win.
The real question should be, how would inner city hoodlums with illegal firearms handle an invasion?
Not even close to the same. Further, Afghan and Iraq are the perfect examples of going soft.Zeke said:
Vietnam was a numbers thing and I can't recall any histry teacher stating that more Americans died than Vietnamese and that was by a large multiple, plus America was fighting in a country they didn't know and a culture that didn't play by their rules. The military will know their own back yard instead of someone else's.
Britian was an ocean apart plus had other matters to deal with. Again not the same thing.
100's of years ago when the ammendment was made, the military and the common man were pretty evenly matched. Not the same now.
They would lose miserably as there would be less overall people involved in a militia (Gotta work and eat for the man) and they would be spread out over the entire country with the most populous areas being the ones to be least concerned about it.
Banning guns wouldn't necessarily stop gun ownership, but most people would simply hide them and hope to never use them (Rather than being trigger happy).
Yep, it would definitely be a massacre. Best case scenario for militia is to run into the woods of Backwater USA and hope the military loses interest. The biggest danger are soldiers who leave the military to side with the militia.
BattleMonkey
Member
A militia would also not be made up of just a bunch of hunters, but it would be police, left over military, and other civilians from various sources. Also a leg up is the quality and quantity of equipment available in the US is pretty crazy. A small town US gun show alone can pretty much outfit a small army. Lot of military hardware would also likely find it's way into the guerrilla forces hands. Most national guard armories have far more weaponry in them than what is needed by the current guard forces in that area.
The US military would not somehow get decimated either, in most likely situation militia forces would be working along side the military in a worst case scenario as a supplemental force or they would basically become one in forming a resistance.
The US military would not somehow get decimated either, in most likely situation militia forces would be working along side the military in a worst case scenario as a supplemental force or they would basically become one in forming a resistance.
TacticalFox88
Banned
JGS said:
All of that doesn't matter, seeing as the invaders literally can't GET here let alone fight an army or militia.
They'd be better off invading Western Europe.
LocoMrPollock
Banned
Not effective at all. At least up against a professional army.
Regarding guerrilla tactics - this is a joke as well. We Americans are soft and spoiled and couldn't maintain any type of offensive, and without someone with brains to coordinate and lead, it would just be a giant clusterfuck. Rednecks would probably end up killing more friendlies than actual enemies.
With no power, water, communication system, the whole concept is just a giant joke. We may indeed be technology superior to most of the world, but they are certainly more advanced in roughing it and surviving with limited means and supplies.
In short it takes more than guns and bullets to win.
Regarding guerrilla tactics - this is a joke as well. We Americans are soft and spoiled and couldn't maintain any type of offensive, and without someone with brains to coordinate and lead, it would just be a giant clusterfuck. Rednecks would probably end up killing more friendlies than actual enemies.
With no power, water, communication system, the whole concept is just a giant joke. We may indeed be technology superior to most of the world, but they are certainly more advanced in roughing it and surviving with limited means and supplies.
In short it takes more than guns and bullets to win.
GoldenEye 007
Member
So do you think an army of 1.5 million active members and 1.5 million reserve members (which the reserves would be living in the exact same locations with friends and family they would be asked to attack) will be able to maintain that against tens of millions of their own citizens to repel a full revolt and refrain from "going soft?"JGS said:
I would think the US reserve force would turn against the government pretty quickly on their own.
LocoMrPollock said:
Is there any historical precedence of an unjust occupation lasting? Say China invaded...there would be 50 million people scattered all over the country picking off their military over how many years they stayed.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Is there ANY fiction where the invasion of the US actually made fucking sense?
Homefront-Failure
Modern Warfare 2-It's the new threshold of fail. Invading the East Coast? THE EAST COAST!?
Homefront-Failure
Modern Warfare 2-It's the new threshold of fail. Invading the East Coast? THE EAST COAST!?
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Poorly I assume.
I think that most backwoods militia types would do more harm than good if another country invaded because there are many aspects of military strategy that could be easily compromised with a drunk militia from BFE. At the very best, they would make for great human shields.
I think that most backwoods militia types would do more harm than good if another country invaded because there are many aspects of military strategy that could be easily compromised with a drunk militia from BFE. At the very best, they would make for great human shields.
LocoMrPollock said:
I think you need to think defensively. After some invading force attacks the coasts and major population centers the invaders would have suffered tremendous losses. If the military is in shambles, do you think Joe redneck is going to listen to his draft orders? Hell no. All that leaves you with is the working class stiffs that have nothing to loose. Money is worth nothing. No jobs. Invading armies. At that point there is no point to being offensive. Neighbors, Counties, Regions would ban together. Leadership or not they would try and I think they would be very effective and deadly.
sullyj said:
Yeah, not to mention seeing your friends and family get killed would kind of piss you off. I don't understand how these guys can't imagine this scenario. It's happened so many times in history already, including the birth of the very country we're talking about. The 13 colonies weren't actually that anti-british as a whole. It was when colonists were killed by the British army that sparked stuff.
It's also amazing how occupying forces don't learn this. The United States, even after Vietnam keeps occupying countries without the will of the people and performing missions that kill civilians (pakistan drones). Egypt right now is shooting protesters I think (not really following it) - that's the sort of stuff that converts protests into revolutions..
BattleMonkey
Member
LocoMrPollock said:
Doesn't matter what the couch potatoes do, guerrilla armies are only a small fraction of the population in the first place. Majority of such forces would be made up of the willing and strong more than anything, along the ways they would pick up others. Despite what you may think of the dough boy couch potatoes image of Americans, that is only a fraction of the people.
An invasion of the US would also be nothing like invading a third world country. To contain and control something the size of the US is just not even feasible and any invasion force would suffer massive losses just getting through the military, that an occupation would be incredibly difficult to achieve. This is not like other situations in history where the occupier just waltz in and claims control.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
World in Conflict wasn't too bad, or at least never came off as John Milinus is drunk as shit again.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Now, if the goal wasn't occupation, but just totally fucking the country up, THEN the argument against militia holds up.
But really, if you have the sheer balls to try and invade the most powerful country on the planet, then why the fuck would you NOT want to occupy.
But really, if you have the sheer balls to try and invade the most powerful country on the planet, then why the fuck would you NOT want to occupy.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Look at it this way. We needed 100,000+ to secure 31 million Iraqi with their help. Texas is 25 million alone and twice as big geographically. And someone mention that our whole economy would be gone. People without jobs would take on the invaders.
LocoMrPollock
Banned
Are we talking about an invasion by a foreign power or are we talking about the viability of the militia to overthrow the government?
Either way, I think it's lose, lose.
Either way, I think it's lose, lose.
I don't think it will be tens of millions.GoldenEye 007 said:
I guess it would depend on what the US was asking. If they were asking you to give up your firstborn, then there would be tens of millions. If they're saying to give up your guns, I don't think it will number into the tens of millions. My scenario was basing it on a gun ban.
I admitted that some in the military will switch sides, but I don't think it'll be anywhere near the majority of them.
This brings up an interesting slant though because I may be looking at tis from a patriotism/citizenry angle, but clearly if a large portion of Americans decide to fight their own country, then America sole reason for being "awesome" is the allowance for total selfishness (Unless it's something drastic again).
At first, I thought it was the latter. Rereading the post seems to indicate it's the former.LocoMrPollock said:
- Status