- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 1
No military in the world, including the United States military, could occupy the United States of America.
I get really tired of seeing the argument repeated over and over, on news talk shows, political comedy shows, in here in the warroom, that drones, war ships, and military technology would easily defeat a populace armed with rifles.
If the debate is whether 3 million people armed with rifles could defeat a professional fighting force on a open battlefield, I fully concede that any professional fighting force would destroy an armed populace.
Anyone who thinks this is the debate, is very misinformed.
The United States of America is 3,000 miles coast to coast of every fighting terrain known to man. Deserts, mountains, rain forrests, ect.
We have a population of over 320,000,000 people.
To occupy the US, you would need an army of atleast 3,000,000 troops, due to the size of the population and geographical area. That would be less than 1% the size of the US population.
China has the largest standing army at 2,100,000.
You then need to supply 3,000,000 troops in a geographical area of over 3,100,000 square miles.
That is a logistical nightmare. This creates literally 100's of thousands of soft targets, where no air support exists, where their is not enough heavy armored vehicles in the world to station at each soft target. Fuel depots, ammo depots, equipment storage. Every occupying soldier is a soft target. A resisting force could literally create an ambush for a single soldier.
Every destruction of a soft target, is a battle won, in a war of attrition.
An armed populace does not need to defeat a occupying army, it only needs to resist it. It needs to bleed that occupying force with a death of a thousand cuts.
I think a 3,000,000 man army would be far too few. You would really need 10,000,000-30,000,000 to have enough to effectively provide security.
Not even the deepest pockets in the world combined, which is the European, and American central banks, could sustain that effort for long.
As I stated in the thread title. No military in the world could occupy the United States of America, and having an armed populace is key to ensuring that statement remains true.
I get really tired of seeing the argument repeated over and over, on news talk shows, political comedy shows, in here in the warroom, that drones, war ships, and military technology would easily defeat a populace armed with rifles.
If the debate is whether 3 million people armed with rifles could defeat a professional fighting force on a open battlefield, I fully concede that any professional fighting force would destroy an armed populace.
Anyone who thinks this is the debate, is very misinformed.
The United States of America is 3,000 miles coast to coast of every fighting terrain known to man. Deserts, mountains, rain forrests, ect.
We have a population of over 320,000,000 people.
To occupy the US, you would need an army of atleast 3,000,000 troops, due to the size of the population and geographical area. That would be less than 1% the size of the US population.
China has the largest standing army at 2,100,000.
You then need to supply 3,000,000 troops in a geographical area of over 3,100,000 square miles.
That is a logistical nightmare. This creates literally 100's of thousands of soft targets, where no air support exists, where their is not enough heavy armored vehicles in the world to station at each soft target. Fuel depots, ammo depots, equipment storage. Every occupying soldier is a soft target. A resisting force could literally create an ambush for a single soldier.
Every destruction of a soft target, is a battle won, in a war of attrition.
An armed populace does not need to defeat a occupying army, it only needs to resist it. It needs to bleed that occupying force with a death of a thousand cuts.
I think a 3,000,000 man army would be far too few. You would really need 10,000,000-30,000,000 to have enough to effectively provide security.
Not even the deepest pockets in the world combined, which is the European, and American central banks, could sustain that effort for long.
As I stated in the thread title. No military in the world could occupy the United States of America, and having an armed populace is key to ensuring that statement remains true.
