How Effective is an Armed Populous as a Deterrent to Invasion?

[OzzyKP]

Eh... I don't think we'd need (or stoop) to killing teachers and the like. That may be how things work in Iraq, but I think it would take a lot to push Americans to that point. But maybe I'm just foolin' myself (ironically, I"m listening to that song right now).

But, someone earlier said that a necessary component for a successful insurgency/guerrilla campaign was the will. If any foreign power tried to take the US (not that it would ever come to that point cause of our obscenely large military) the people here would absolutely have the tenacity to throw them out.

[Patroklos]

I could decimate quite a few foot patrols with my M14 from range.

In any case, when discussing America resisting an armed populous you are using the best case scenario as far as who the is doing occupying. Has anyone ever tried to occupy a country of 300,000,000 people?

[Felch]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Eh... I don't think we'd need (or stoop) to killing teachers and the like. That may be how things work in Iraq, but I think it would take a lot to push Americans to that point. But maybe I'm just foolin' myself (ironically, I"m listening to that song right now).

If teachers were going along with the occupation's propaganda, teaching kids to spy on their parents, or that sort of thing, I'd absolutely make an example of them. Of course, these things have to make sense in context. You wouldn't kill someone who was sympathetic to your cause. The point is that the occupation forces can't provide security to all these civil servants.

Sloww, the important thing is that you've got something serious.

Patty, think about how difficult it is for the most powerful military in the world to occupy a country with only one-tenth of our population. I'm with you in doubting the feasibility of occupying the US. However, there's no reason to make it any easier.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I could decimate quite a few foot patrols with my M14 from range.

In any case, when discussing America resisting an armed populous you are using the best case scenario as far as who the is doing occupying. Has anyone ever tried to occupy a country of 300,000,000 people?

Japan, WW2.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Japan, WW2.

No.

[Felch]

I think he's referring to Japan occupying China, not the US occupying Japan.

In any event, it was an massive drag on their warfighting potential. They could not compete with the Allies, even though priority was given the the European theater and the Soviets stayed out until the summer of 45.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Traianvs 7
No.

Yes. If you were at all intelligent you would have seen what Felch did.

[SlowwHand]

Here's a good trajectory reference site.

http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj/traj.html

[GePap]

The question asked was whether an armed populace deters invasions. Fighting a war against an occupying power implies that an invasion occurred, and was successful to boot; they are clearly not examples of invasions deterred.

And no, I do not think that an armed populace is a deterent to invasion in the modern world. The power differential between civilian militias and armies in open and direct warfare is too great.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Yes. If you were at all intelligent you would have seen what Felch did.

Okay, I didn't see your point right away. Then again I'm a bit drunk so I won't blame that on my lack of intelligence.

Of course, the Japanese were brutal and succesful at first, but they couldn't keep it up. Too much of a strain on their forces to keep the occupation going as well as the war against the Americans.

Also, the Chinese didn't have much weaponry. Chinese pop was a lame duck really, so your comparison is way off.

[Pekka]

Ozzy, no no, you proved the point. It DIDN'T deter any armies coming in.

Are they going to pay the penalty, yes. But it doesn't deter them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Also, the Chinese didn't have much weaponry. Chinese pop was a lame duck really, so your comparison is way off.

What comparison? A question was asked and I answered it. I don't actually care about the argument here.

[BeBMan]

As a deterrent to invasion? No.

To fight invaders they may not be useless however.

Free cookies

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Felch

I've mentioned in a previous thread (and was widely criticized for being honest) that the easiest way to overthrow a government was to attack it's civil service. Teachers, judges, traffic cops, local politicians - those are the people successful guerrillas kill. The professional army would kick their asses, and they know it. So they try to diminish the government's legitimacy, show the population how unstable things are, stuff like that.

Privately owned firearms are an essential element in maintaining individual liberty.

Why are you supporting terrorism?

[Patroklos]

The question asked was whether an armed populace deters invasions. Fighting a war against an occupying power implies that an invasion occurred, and was successful to boot; they are clearly not examples of invasions deterred.

There have no doubt been thousands of invasions contemplated that didn't happen. Are you seriously contending that the difficulty of occupation never came up at the planning sessions for these non existant invasions?