Thats not exactly what I meant. But I'm confident that there isn't another demographic of civilians in the entire world that would put up the same resistance as Texans.
red dawn is impossible
- Thread starter triple
- Start date
Thats not exactly what I meant. But I'm confident that there isn't another demographic of civilians in the entire world that would put up the same resistance as Texans.
where was wolverines supposed to be taking place? wasnt it like colorado or something?
I'd wager the entire south east would be hard to take. florida would probably be close to the easiest, but georgia..yeah, try to take atlanta, between the ghetto rats and crackers, i doubt that will go far, dont even think about alabama, they shoot each other for sport there already. Kentucky/tn? yeah that'll happen. Carolinas are about the same, there arent a whole lot of s.e. states that don't have more than their fair share of heavily armed civillians that would relish the idea of using live ammo on human targets especially for the good ol' u.s. of a
Dangerdoggie
Veteran XV
two words: Chemical Warfare
kind of hard to pull the trigger when your finger just dissolved before you’re eyes.
Really? I dont know. I would think the only thing that would be on the u.s.'s side is the population. We have a weird population here. Stupid but at the same time somewhat intelligent, especially when it comes to death and destruction.
Look at people like timothy mcveigh. Not particularly smart, probably like the average redneck. But look how much damage the average redneck did with everyday stuff. We have people here that love death, more than other cultures it seems. And sometimes to our detriment, we're oozing a can-do, never give up, the underdog always wins attitude. Sometimes attitude can make the difference in a conflict.
They wouldn't have to win in North America if they won in Europe.
In Europe, maybe(probably). In the US, doubtful. The logistics of fighting a war across an ocean are insane. Both sides would have been fucked.
A think tank in the 80s basically looked at the Russian OOB and devised a (rather clever and complicated) strategy and bounced it off NATO in a simulation.
The NATO lines crumbled.
I wish I could remember more details, because there is a large write up about the whole thing somewhere on the internets.
If you wanted to go into completely pointless or implausible scenarios, the Soviets could have potentially staged a landing in North America after taking Europe, but it would require an ungodly number of conscripts and the landing would have to be via the Aleutians and Bering Straight since they didn't have the logistics capacity or surface fleet required to stage an amphibious assault on, say, California. It would be a massive war of attrition that would rage for years.
Which is why nobody would have ever bothered.
Especially if the US was bottled up in the western hemisphere.
I'd doubt something like this could even be planned, let alone executed without us knowing about it way in advance.
finding 1 guy in a mountain range of a country we're not allowed to enter isn't quite the same thing as catching information about a multi national attack force being assembled
SirBatesAlot
Veteran X
I would think Fort Hood more then us drunken red necks, it is the largest army base in the US
SkittleBrew
Veteran XV
considering the cause of the war was famine (because of the failed crops in Russia), I don't think it's unrealistic for an occupying force to want to control the food supply, i.e. the small towns that produce the grain that the war is being fought for.
Last edited: