Thought Experiment: How Would You Defend Against a US Invasion?
- Thread starter jparker77
- Start date
The problem with that is that although having (deliverable) nukes is a deterrent, atom bomb research programs might as well be a giant flag to your enemies saying, "Attack me now, before I get nukes." If a country already facing the serious threat of an American invasion, working to develop nuclear weapons could very well bring about said invasion.
The only way I see nukes working is if a country(say Pakistan) gives you nukes with a delivery-launching system
Doing that would be extremely stupid for them though as it would incur the wrath of the international community for helping a small country that likely as little to offer them in return
Doing that would be extremely stupid for them though as it would incur the wrath of the international community for helping a small country that likely as little to offer them in return
Yes which is why you do a Pakistan and build them before you get on their shitlist.
That won't do you a damn bit of good. Any submarines would be destroyed before any invasion started. Attacking targets in the U.S. would galvanize public support for destroying that regime and occupying the country. Support for the Iraq War wanned because the American public perceived the Iraqi threat wasn't real. Making yourself a real threat to the U.S. homeland would be insanely counterproductive.
Darzin
Banned
Copy millenium challenge the US is reading all electronic communications and trying to pinpoint HQs don't let them. Paper communication via motorbike only going out. Abandon the ministries and military commands disperse everything into civilian apartments ect. in the cities. Try to take down a carrier via speedboat swarms if we have terrorists in country use them for suicide attacks agianst the US Navy. Don't fight in the open portion some of the army in the cities as dug in infantry cash supplies and weapons try to have the more religous/terroristic elements on the front lines of this. Invite western reporters to embed with your units in the city as well as independent journalists to make sure the footage gets out.
At the same time order some of the military into the mountians to prepare for a guerilla struggle modeled on the PKK. The goal is to have the resistance based around nationalism rather than religion the more nationalist elements of the Army/security forces will be in charge of organzing this. We will recruit both male and female fighters amd attempt to have them wear some sort of uniform when engaging in operations when possible. The US public is going to have a lot harder time seeing soldiers kill a 20 year old woman in fatigues with uncovered hair then seeing a 20 year old man with a beard and a turban get shot. The precidence of the PKK shows that this kind of movement can exist in the rural mountianous Middle East as long as there is enough nationalism and since we are told Wensar is plenty nationalist this should be possible, I suspect that the US will tire much quicker of fighting a secular movment of national liberation rather than religous extremists.
At the same time order some of the military into the mountians to prepare for a guerilla struggle modeled on the PKK. The goal is to have the resistance based around nationalism rather than religion the more nationalist elements of the Army/security forces will be in charge of organzing this. We will recruit both male and female fighters amd attempt to have them wear some sort of uniform when engaging in operations when possible. The US public is going to have a lot harder time seeing soldiers kill a 20 year old woman in fatigues with uncovered hair then seeing a 20 year old man with a beard and a turban get shot. The precidence of the PKK shows that this kind of movement can exist in the rural mountianous Middle East as long as there is enough nationalism and since we are told Wensar is plenty nationalist this should be possible, I suspect that the US will tire much quicker of fighting a secular movment of national liberation rather than religous extremists.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
The avoidance of major unit direct battle is good, but it should be complimented by something else the US struggles with: missile barrages.
I would trade in as much of that other crap to get dozens of mobile TELs for hundreds of Scuds and cruise missiles, Not Saddam's piddly 88 Al Hussiens in 5 weeks from 15 TELs. Keep the constantly moving in a 'shell game' and launch 'time on target' salvos of a dozen missiles all arrivnig at the same time to overwhelm the Patriots. Aim these at fixed area targets like airbases or logistics hubs.
I would trade in as much of that other crap to get dozens of mobile TELs for hundreds of Scuds and cruise missiles, Not Saddam's piddly 88 Al Hussiens in 5 weeks from 15 TELs. Keep the constantly moving in a 'shell game' and launch 'time on target' salvos of a dozen missiles all arrivnig at the same time to overwhelm the Patriots. Aim these at fixed area targets like airbases or logistics hubs.
2002 US Military is going to easily win a conventional war against literally anyone not named Russia*.
Its not like today with proliferation of ISR, long range precision fires, and badly won out US equipment that you at least have a fighting chance to hold on for a ew months.
*Russia at least has the equipment to match, but 2002 was about the nadir of its military organization.
Its not like today with proliferation of ISR, long range precision fires, and badly won out US equipment that you at least have a fighting chance to hold on for a ew months.
*Russia at least has the equipment to match, but 2002 was about the nadir of its military organization.
That is not why NK still survives. There was no viable military option before they had nukes because of the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ. The North's ability to cause massive civilian casualties, and damage to the ROK economy restrained the U.S. from taking military action. The nuclear program nearly caused a preemptive attack in 1994. Holding a U.S. ally hostage is a surer defense then having a few nukes.
That still doesn't save your regime. The Taliban still survives in some form because they had Pakistan to keep them going. Still, it's not the same Taliban everyone knew, and loved back in the 90's. The Taliban may have to come hat in hand to the Americans for money. Running a failed State may have been good enough for the Old Taliban, but not the New Taliban. Today it espiers for something better than that.
I'm confused. Are you saying Russia is a match for the United States today? Do you think it was a match in 2002?
If you restrict it to the military, Yes and yes. In 2002 it was the only military force which had the equipment (on paper) to match the Americans. Who else had long range cruise missile, nuclear submarines, modern fighters, heavy bombers, ECCM and GLOSNOSS in 2002?
Of course maintainance was a big issue. To put it mildly;.
I mean, its not like that would help you against the US anyway
The Saudis and Iran would still oppose the invasion out of pragmatism as they could always be next, even if they hate you, but even if you did everything within your power to pander to them they wouldnt move a finger to stop the United States