Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

On American Soil ?

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013

Originally posted by concernedcitizen519
Look no further than the Call Of Duty Modern Warfare franchise.


Exactly, think about how the US is currently stretched pretty thin. We do have battle ready troops on US soil, that might be able to make a stand, but it would be chaos.
1) There could be small, elite trained groups living among us hiding in plain sight, waiting for a signal.


I used to load trucks in a town on I-5 in the Pac.NW This was 8yrs ago. A large number of truck drivers out of Canada are Pakistani some are Hindu some are Muslim....I only point this out to support your comment and not to Profile a race or religion




posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krono
Love it how noone mentioned the small island just above France. Do people under estimate the british army? I may be a little biased but increase our armed forces to 500k and we'd give anyone a run for their money, our navy could cause major problems for the States, the RAF could atleast keep the USAF busy. The famous SAS/SBS go in and mark key targets for the RAF plus take out key political/military figures.

And lastly the rest of the army to give the sucker punch. But don't worry USA, we'll continue to lick you ass for now. Plus our inept PM won't increase the forces.


I might be biased here... But from my studies the British army would get owned by the US army. We have alot more practice.
The RAF would keep our USAF F-22 pilots busy for as long as the RAF had aircraft to send up to just get whiped out... Probably a day or 2. Your SAS/SBG would be met by the Navy seals and all communication would be lost there. I will give you guys the navy part. But only till the hunter killer subs find em...

My question for you is. Why all the anger? Aren't we allies?



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Krono
 

I never mentioned you guys because, to be honest, I would trust the British over America any day. You guys may have a few laws that I disagree with but you are one of the few nations left that I respect.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
A few atomic bombs would do.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Azekual
 

again the subs have there own launch codes and keys in and on the subs if you cant kill the subs nuclear fire will scorch the earth hell alot of americans might be happy with washington gone with aproval ratings how they are............

True, but depending on where the subs are they would have no clue who to fire on or even that Washington was gone. Though once comms were back up it would change but that depends on how fast America realizes who their enemy is.
Also, the subs don't have very many missiles, and they are most effective at short-range. The only problem is the subs and the missiles can be intercepted if comms aren't disrupted in the nation of inquiry. This would require ground troops, and a good plan, which America would be in no position to muster.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllUrChips
reply to post by elevatedone
 


Ok then I will say again IMO it is an impossibility. Heres a quote from a japanese admiral as to why:

Quote:"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto



President Obama sold China the LRAD weapon. If China did an Amphibious Landing on America your rifle would be worthless. China would use their USA Made LRAD sound weapons to push back and seize land, you're bullet would never get near them since you couldn't get close enough. You better believe they are making hundreds of thousands of copies of that weapon right now.

This war will be Directed Energy weapons. Firearms were last Century tools. China has 200 million men who'll never get a wife.....they were created to use for WAR. On many fronts.

edit on 12-12-2011 by Pervius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by StratosFear
reply to post by Azekual
 


No way. The United States military could and would continue to function if Washington was wiped off the map. They figured out that way back in the cold war days. The Cheyanne mountains are full off bunkers developed for just a scenario as well as Air Force One is full loaded with all the command and control gear needed to mount a defense. Not to mention the Boomers and Carrier groups around the world which are nuclear equipped as well.
In fact it would probably be more effective without all the politicians if DC was to take a hit

Cheyenne mountain, maybe.But it's location is public knowledge and it could be taken out if the enemy knew what they were doing.
But AF1 would still be within striking distance of a nuke if it hit Washington. Depending on where the sub that's targeting Washington is, the Secret Service would't be able to get Obama in the air fast enough to avoid the flashpoint, let alone the wholesale delivery of death that would immediately follow.

All of the defenses were designed to counter ICBM's which take 30 minutes to reach the desired target. That time-frame is not present in sub-launched missiles, which take less than 5 minutes depending on how far off shore they are.
The carrier groups and subs would be useless for the opening battle since, ideally, it would take place in less than an hour. The carrier groups would lose contact with washington because of the EMP. They would have no clue who to fire on. If Cheyenne is taken care of in an expedient fashion there are no other places that would have any one above the rank of colonel. Except maybe the carriers, they may have an Admiral or two. But they would still be useless if they don't know America is under attack.
Note: The carrier groups wouldn't be too hard to distract if you wanted to ensure there would be no interference, but it would be easier to pick them off in the confusion that follows.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
For clarity, for the most part, Cheyenne Mountain has been decommissioned. They found that having America's defense in a single location wasn't a bright idea, considering there are plenty of bombs that could knock NORAD out of the game fairly quickly. They chose to have command centers all over the country and some not even in the country. You'd have to destroy the entire world to knock out the US ability to launch an effective counter strike... And well, I guess that would then be considered a draw... with no one to enjoy it.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

It makes no sense to nuke an enemy unless it is a last resort to stop the enemy's aggression toward you. It isn't a pre-invasion strategy.


I disagree. In a nation as large as the U.S., nuking major population centers to cause disorganization and cripple defenses is a great strategy if properly employed. If you destroyed every major metropolitan city (the ones every person has heard of), you wouldn't damage enough of the land to make it impossible to plunder resources. Kentucky has one, maybe two cities that could be called metropolitan. It has vast coal fields, many of which lay untapped because people live on them. Also, the Midwest would be quite safe as well, since there are only a handful of large cities there. Because of that, farming may still be viable there.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Wrong, subs have missiles that can reach anywhere on the planet and while they might not be great in number, many of the missiles contain MREVs so 20 missiles with 4 warheads is really 80 and that is on 1 sub.

Subs are in constant communication with NORAD and other military installations (allied as well). Trust me, if the US is hit, it is job #1 that the subs are aware of this. AND as as been stated beofre, if the US is hit with EMP i doubt they spend too much time debating on who did. WWIII will effectively have been broken out at that point.


Originally posted by Azekual

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by Azekual
 

again the subs have there own launch codes and keys in and on the subs if you cant kill the subs nuclear fire will scorch the earth hell alot of americans might be happy with washington gone with aproval ratings how they are............

True, but depending on where the subs are they would have no clue who to fire on or even that Washington was gone. Though once comms were back up it would change but that depends on how fast America realizes who their enemy is.
Also, the subs don't have very many missiles, and they are most effective at short-range. The only problem is the subs and the missiles can be intercepted if comms aren't disrupted in the nation of inquiry. This would require ground troops, and a good plan, which America would be in no position to muster.




posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack
For clarity, for the most part, Cheyenne Mountain has been decommissioned. They found that having America's defense in a single location wasn't a bright idea, considering there are plenty of bombs that could knock NORAD out of the game fairly quickly. They chose to have command centers all over the country and some not even in the country. You'd have to destroy the entire world to knock out the US ability to launch an effective counter strike... And well, I guess that would then be considered a draw... with no one to enjoy it.


Once again, if the bases cannot communicate with each other or the ones abroad, they wouldn't be able to organize a proper defense. They wouldn't be out of contact for long, but the EMP would knock America on its a$$ long enough for some major damage to be done.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
It depends on who you are fiighting. If it was with Russia or Israel then they have enough nukes to put 10 nukes in each of the 50 states. So it doesnt really matter if you target cities or not, 10 nukes in each state would decimate the US-population centers and large areas of wildenrness alike.


Originally posted by Azekual

Originally posted by getreadyalready

It makes no sense to nuke an enemy unless it is a last resort to stop the enemy's aggression toward you. It isn't a pre-invasion strategy.


I disagree. In a nation as large as the U.S., nuking major population centers to cause disorganization and cripple defenses is a great strategy if properly employed. If you destroyed every major metropolitan city (the ones every person has heard of), you wouldn't damage enough of the land to make it impossible to plunder resources. Kentucky has one, maybe two cities that could be called metropolitan. It has vast coal fields, many of which lay untapped because people live on them. Also, the Midwest would be quite safe as well, since there are only a handful of large cities there. Because of that, farming may still be viable there.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Norad Location ::: why anybody would argue this is beyond me and that Mtn is very safe



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Azekual
 


I agree with you there. IF there was ever a large scale invasion planned, it would be beneficial to first take out the large population centers, and nukes might be the most cost-effective and morale-crushing way to do so.

Still, the majority of the resistance isn't going to come from those population centers, so I don't think they have solved their invasion problems by doing that. The majority of gun-owners are not in the cities.

I've never discussed specifics of invasion plans, but I'm sure this would have been a part of their discussions, and they decided to scrap the idea, so it must not have played out very well.
edit on 12-12-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
why are you talking about america defending its own soil?? when the military will be used any time now to kill off all its citizens??

people need to snap out of their fantasy land already. really tho, no one has even made a connection with the u.s military that confirms they will even defend their own citizens against their government



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JAY1980

Originally posted by Krono
Love it how noone mentioned the small island just above France. Do people under estimate the british army? I may be a little biased but increase our armed forces to 500k and we'd give anyone a run for their money, our navy could cause major problems for the States, the RAF could atleast keep the USAF busy. The famous SAS/SBS go in and mark key targets for the RAF plus take out key political/military figures.

And lastly the rest of the army to give the sucker punch. But don't worry USA, we'll continue to lick you ass for now. Plus our inept PM won't increase the forces.


I might be biased here... But from my studies the British army would get owned by the US army. We have alot more practice.
The RAF would keep our USAF F-22 pilots busy for as long as the RAF had aircraft to send up to just get whiped out... Probably a day or 2. Your SAS/SBG would be met by the Navy seals and all communication would be lost there. I will give you guys the navy part. But only till the hunter killer subs find em...

My question for you is. Why all the anger? Aren't we allies?


No anger at all. Just wondering why people don't see us Brits as threats. Your pilots don't have more practice they are just put on Speed for their performance. Erm our sas/SBS are the best unit in the world so could beat the SEALs and we have just built the best submarines in the world.

And yes, i would fight to help you guys if needed, I'm joining the royal welsh and can't wait. But I'm sure you know us Brits will always have your back.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Wrong, subs have missiles that can reach anywhere on the planet and while they might not be great in number, many of the missiles contain MREVs so 20 missiles with 4 warheads is really 80 and that is on 1 sub.

Subs are in constant communication with NORAD and other military installations (allied as well). Trust me, if the US is hit, it is job #1 that the subs are aware of this. AND as as been stated beofre, if the US is hit with EMP i doubt they spend too much time debating on who did. WWIII will effectively have been broken out at that point.



I said they are most effective at short-range, not that they were limited to it. It's more effective to sneak up on a nation and fire a missile from just off shore than to fire it half a world away. But they are built to do that just in case.

Taking care of the subs wouldn't be too hard, the carrier groups would be slightly tougher but still doable. Just destroy them while they are at port.You can go about it a variety of ways, and while this wouldn't work for all of them, it would cripple enough to cause problems. You would need to do it carefully, but it could be done. Also you would need to do this a couple months before your attack because there's not a very good chance you could doit at the same time as you attack America.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 

You know I have also noticed the prolific growth in "Chinese" Buffets going up all over the place. Even here in a remote area we have a new one very close to my office. I have noticed that they only recieve deliveries from refer trucks that are unmarked and always driven by oriental drivers. The workers are all minivanned in at the begining of the day, and transported out the same way at the end.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
the reality is any invading force is going to face a horde of homicidal maniacs freed from the shackles of society and hell bent on arson and death.

that's right china we have like 25 million rednecks and they have an ocean of 200 proof homicide just waiting for you down south.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The funny thing is everyone on here appears to think that somehow the US is the only country vulnerable to this. Dont you know that any nuke launched from a US sub or nukes staioned at a NATO base could be sued as an EMP counterattack over any other country? No one is immune this this or its response.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join