It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Urban Warfare

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Guerilla warfare has played a huge factor on the war in Iraq and Afganistan, stumbling us with problems in our assault and holding territory.


If we were ever invaded, by a overwhelming force of conventional warfare, how powerful, and changeful would Americas guerilla fighters be?

I know their are many stereotypical groups out their, but I think they would be a stronger force then the ones in Iraq. Heres my breakdown of why we would be stronger then most other countries...


Farmers - Very loyal

Ghettos - Just like killing and are crazy, foreign troops in harlem or englewood are good as dead

Organized Crime - Couple hits here and there




[edit on 8-5-2007 by Laxpla]



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   
This topic probably belongs in another forum, but oh well.

The main reason America would more than likely never be invaded is the nuclear response the opposing force would receive, but if it was to happen the real reason guns are so readily available in America would be obvious.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Guns

And there is the main reason that no one will have to invade America, if we all leave you alone, sooner or later there will be another civil war in the US of A and you will all kill each other.

Viva Mexico.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Well it all comes down on if the people are willing to resist.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
You forgot one Lexpla:

Rednecks: Born with a gun in their hands.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Way too many guns in the USA.
That's assuming that the invadning force doesn't get wiped out by the American arsenal.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
"An invasion of the US is impossible because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."-Admiral Yamamoto

Or he said something like that. As for as an American civil war, someone's holding their breath
.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   
People own guns in the US....so what. If I was the commander of a force that was invading a country in which I was told civilians own guns - I would order to kill on sight or something along those lines. If civilians have guns they're a threat. That's enough reason to bomb cities and houses if you ask me, as cruel as it sounds but hey, cruel is definately one of the things war is.

Now ammount of gunshops in the states and gun owners means huge guerilla movements could be organized. But as I said, this just makes every civilian a target, as opposed to a country where people don't own guns.

Regards,
Maestro



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Civilians will always be a target. In war when attacking a nation, one of the things that is done is to attack a countries' infrastructure. That includes civilians. It destroys morale and a nation's ability to fight.

I'd rather die knowing I fought.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I think what maestro was implying was that it would make civillians a legitimate target, as opposed to a country with limited firearms ownership where it would be harder to justify the murder of civilians. It may also persuade individual soldiers to take less chances - i.e. a shoot first, ask questions later policy.

Just a thought



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
All Real Americans would make themselves a target by default as we would fight, we would resist, This great country is home to some of the greatest marksmen there are, not all are military either, 300,000,000+ Firearms in our homes, In short, We would give new meaning to insurgency.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Even then,there are only so many feasible places to invade. The different types of terrain will play a major role. LOL,i hate to bring it up,but the movie "Red Dawn" as cheesy as it is seems like a plan that you could see happening. In regards to the invasion. They never got past the rockies,and were stopped while trying to come in from canada. The mexico border is the easiest.

Also,the interstates would become a vital means of travel for the invading army. But they would also be a problem,as there are only so many ways into an area. You can bet the locals know every road,path and trail.

It would be a site to see though. Local pawnshops and gun stores literally handing out weapons. National guard depots doing the same. Short of nuking the entire east and west coasts,there would be a very long and drawn out conflict. I guess we can only look to ww2 era japan for a comparison. If we invaded japan,we would have had to kill many,many civilians in house-house combat.

By the way,for as many jokes that go back and forth between the U.S and Canada,the invading country would almost certainly have to do the same to Canada.



posted on May, 22 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Ok let me try to make my comment earlier a little more clear.

Lets say you're a commander and are facing with a task of storming a city which you surrounded:

a. the city you have to take is heavily populated, and has elements of the enemy's military dug in.

- since the civilians are unarmed, when the soldiers are sent in they're told to shoot only those who are armed. They're given a whole lecture on how to distinguish a hostile target from a civilian. My point is when they are in combat they have to think befor they open fire, this slows them down, they have to be careful. Also the Airforce or artillery has to watch where they fire or whatthey fire on. Then you have to go and justify civilian casualties to the UN and other medias and all that crap.

b. the city you have to take is heavily populated, and has elements of the enemy's military dug in. You are also told that the city is packed with tons of guns and ammo storages and shops, and that just about every civilian in that city owns atleast one gun.

- We're not just talking about handguns - sniper rifles, assault rifles, even if not automatic these pose a threat even in the hands of a civilian. You also know the country has many shooting ranges, so these civilians don't just own some heavy firearms - they also know how to use them. What is stopping you now from giving the order for a couple of hours of bombardment and then to roll in and open fire on anything that moves? Owning guns and having easy acess to them does provide much easier means for guerilla warfare BUT it also singles out and labels civilians as targets.

The US guerilla fighters would have a massive movment with all the toys at their disposal. All these guns that you can hide and dig up later would definately drive the invaders crazy. I think it would play a big part. All I'm saying is if I was commanding the invading force this would lead me to making the choice treating the civilians rather harshly, strictly, and llabel them as targets in combat. Say if any shooting broke out the troops would simply start firing on everyone around them.


Now the different parts of terain are definately a factor. I wouldn't worry too much about the interstates though. I don't see this as limiting acess or mobility for the invading force. First of all I think the US would rig them with traps and explosives so I would be careful about using them. Second if the invaders were using Russian tech they could easily go off road. I'm giving Ruskie tech as an example because it's the one I'm most familiar with and from I know about it it's some of the best offroad stuff for any weather. Whatever the invading country would be using - if they have what it takes to launch an invasion into the US they would have some good stuff at their disposal I imagine so while the interstate would be extremely comfortable to travel by I don't think off road would be a problem.

Regards,
Maestro







 
0

log in

join