How does a populace with small arms defend against a cruise missile? A bomber? A submarine?
Certainly there would be irregular war akin to any of the irregular warfare the US military has faced and control might never be completely established, but it wouldn't have to be for it to be the end of the US as we know it.
You don't. You pull a North Vietnam and never surrender to the occupation forces. Eventually the enemy cannot afford to sustain an occupation and withdraws. America has so many more guns than any other country on earth and people intelligent enough to use them well that an invasion force has NO CHANCE of success in the medium to long term. Never underestimate the amount of power and influence a small group of people with rifles and irregular warfare tactics can wield. Especially locals that know every square inch of their backyards by heart. Look no further than Ukraine for a recent example, which is somehow hanging on for over two years mostly with light arms, almost no training, while completely outgunned. America has geography strongly in its favor except Alaska. A successful adversary would need to fragment and manufacture American allegiances with divide and conquer tactics to succeed.
Ukraine seemed to do it with MANPADs and anti-tank equipment over small arms. Unless you're counting those, but that doesn't seem like the kind of weapons ordinary Americans have at home.
Unfortunately, at the moment, Ukraine lost more than 10% of territory under occupation, and other suffer from constant attacks on infrastructure, and sea export extremely limited, so we now very depend on grants from US and EU.
In foreseen future, if West will not give aviation and long range rockets, Ukraine will need revolutionary restructure of economy to survive.
For example, before war, Ukraine was one of the top food exporters, but now, with limited access to sea, have to use land routes, which are just add too much to cost of raw grain.
Yes I don't disagree with any of that, I was just commenting that Ukraine probably couldn't have resisted nearly so well with just small arms. I sincerely hope western govts continue to support them and wish they/we had done more and faster.
Sure. I’m not advocating for the US invading Vietnam.
But holding up Vietnam and Ukraine as examples of successful outcomes is also missing the horror and destruction wrought on those countries and their people in the process.
The commenter I replied to is using the fantasy of armed citizens valiantly repelling invaders in their backyards in guerilla warfare to support the idea that “Literally nothing.” would happen without the US military.
Comments
How does a populace with small arms defend against a cruise missile? A bomber? A submarine?
Certainly there would be irregular war akin to any of the irregular warfare the US military has faced and control might never be completely established, but it wouldn't have to be for it to be the end of the US as we know it.
You don't. You pull a North Vietnam and never surrender to the occupation forces. Eventually the enemy cannot afford to sustain an occupation and withdraws. America has so many more guns than any other country on earth and people intelligent enough to use them well that an invasion force has NO CHANCE of success in the medium to long term. Never underestimate the amount of power and influence a small group of people with rifles and irregular warfare tactics can wield. Especially locals that know every square inch of their backyards by heart. Look no further than Ukraine for a recent example, which is somehow hanging on for over two years mostly with light arms, almost no training, while completely outgunned. America has geography strongly in its favor except Alaska. A successful adversary would need to fragment and manufacture American allegiances with divide and conquer tactics to succeed.
Ukraine seemed to do it with MANPADs and anti-tank equipment over small arms. Unless you're counting those, but that doesn't seem like the kind of weapons ordinary Americans have at home.
Unfortunately, at the moment, Ukraine lost more than 10% of territory under occupation, and other suffer from constant attacks on infrastructure, and sea export extremely limited, so we now very depend on grants from US and EU.
In foreseen future, if West will not give aviation and long range rockets, Ukraine will need revolutionary restructure of economy to survive.
For example, before war, Ukraine was one of the top food exporters, but now, with limited access to sea, have to use land routes, which are just add too much to cost of raw grain.
Yes I don't disagree with any of that, I was just commenting that Ukraine probably couldn't have resisted nearly so well with just small arms. I sincerely hope western govts continue to support them and wish they/we had done more and faster.
I’m not sure being Vietnam in this scenario is particularly desirable.
Not being completely defeated during a bloody invasion isn’t the same as never being invaded.
Being Vietnam would suck, sure, but being in Vietnam also sucked and is avoidable.
(And who do you think has the resources to pull a Vietnam on the US?)
Sure. I’m not advocating for the US invading Vietnam.
But holding up Vietnam and Ukraine as examples of successful outcomes is also missing the horror and destruction wrought on those countries and their people in the process.
The commenter I replied to is using the fantasy of armed citizens valiantly repelling invaders in their backyards in guerilla warfare to support the idea that “Literally nothing.” would happen without the US military.