0
0
0
This is the intro to the 2011 Video Game Homefront I think it's interesting and wanted to share it with you & also see how many of you think this or something similar could really happen.
Posted in these groups: 
North Korea
North Korea
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
9
9
0
"North Korea's only chance of winning any war depends on how quickly it can end one."
Their planes are crap. Their pilots lack training. They do, however, have the advantage of manpower, especially since it's been decided that US dollars can best be spent on stuff besides financing a standing defense (cutbacks!)
1)$98,257 for a shuttle from a congressman's hometown to DC.
2)$200,000 for a tattoo removal program in California
3)$254,000 grant for the Montana Sheep Institute
4)$1.24 million for tree snake control in Guam
5)$15 million gift for Ireland
We can see where our priorities lay. EMP attack? Meh. Biological weapons? Meh. 180,000 North Korean Special Forces? Meh. *shrugs* But the DOJ needs those private jets!
Their planes are crap. Their pilots lack training. They do, however, have the advantage of manpower, especially since it's been decided that US dollars can best be spent on stuff besides financing a standing defense (cutbacks!)
1)$98,257 for a shuttle from a congressman's hometown to DC.
2)$200,000 for a tattoo removal program in California
3)$254,000 grant for the Montana Sheep Institute
4)$1.24 million for tree snake control in Guam
5)$15 million gift for Ireland
We can see where our priorities lay. EMP attack? Meh. Biological weapons? Meh. 180,000 North Korean Special Forces? Meh. *shrugs* But the DOJ needs those private jets!
(9)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Oh, I didn't forget the after-the-fact token VA placations. I just keep that issue in the back of my head to keep my anger in check.
(3)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
The snake thing in Guam is kind of a big deal defense wise. They like to hide in aircraft engines and FOD them out.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
I think most of us agree that we're tired of seeing "social spending" rise while defense spending falls, and then hearing that we need to "make sacrifices" while the gainfully unemployed do nothing.
Our safety net has become a hammock... with wifi.
Our safety net has become a hammock... with wifi.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
MSgt (Join to see)
I'm with ya on that SFC Mark Merino, but I do like Madden. Haven't did that in years. Must be getting to old.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Could this happen today? No. Could it happen within the next half century? Possibly. The short and sweet version of why is because there currently isn't any military on the planet that has the ability to project military force onto the continental United States. It's not enough to have a large fighting force, but the ability to project it and supply it for the duration of it's mission and there isn't a nation on the planet aside from us that has the capability. All this doesn't even consider the lunacy of facing a guaranteed American insurgency, or the impracticality of placating a nation as big as ours.
In short, we can be attacked, but short of WMDs entering the equation it will be a very long time before there are any nations with the capability to hold any stretch of the continental U.S. for any protracted period of time.
In short, we can be attacked, but short of WMDs entering the equation it will be a very long time before there are any nations with the capability to hold any stretch of the continental U.S. for any protracted period of time.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) So now we're back to talking about the entire nation and not just a specific targeted area? Then again I'll re-emphasize my previous statement. The United States is geographically enormous. To cripple the U.S. entirely would be a monumental task, requiring a ridiculous level of strategic planning, coordinated effort, manpower, and resources. The U.S. can be hurt, but it cannot be toppled in this fashion given the current geopolitical state of the world.
But for shits and giggles let's just theoretically say that it's possible. It happens, the entire United States is brought to its knees, unable to function or react to a foreign incursion of any type on any scale. This still requires conventional logistics on the occupiers part. Logistics that the vast majority of the world does not possess and will not possess for several decades. Even with the U.S. wide open for the taking, there's no one currently capable of exploiting that weakness.
But for shits and giggles let's just theoretically say that it's possible. It happens, the entire United States is brought to its knees, unable to function or react to a foreign incursion of any type on any scale. This still requires conventional logistics on the occupiers part. Logistics that the vast majority of the world does not possess and will not possess for several decades. Even with the U.S. wide open for the taking, there's no one currently capable of exploiting that weakness.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see), so you do admit that it is a possibility? Concerted, strategically placed strikes, though improbable, could possibly, whether at present, or sometime in the distant future, potentially result in a culmination of collateral damage in which the United States may find irreconcilable with the continued existence of this nation, as we know it now?
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) Yes, I admit it's possible. It's possible in the same way that it's possible I will have explicit and intimate carnal relations with Jessica Alba while in orbit around the moon. Technically and physically possible, but I'd have to have a shit ton of luck and a lot of asininely unreasonable things go right first. I would argue that's it's more likely my scenario will play out than yours.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Haha...while the mental images of your scenario are absolutely awesome (Jessica Alba?!), I will respectfully disagree.
My argument has a few holes in it, due to the nature of the site on which we are debating, and the fact that, as current member of the military, there are some points that I can't counter-argue.
Anyway, good points. I think on a few, we can amicably "agree to disagree". You were clear on your assertions and I can respect your perspective, Sarge.
My argument has a few holes in it, due to the nature of the site on which we are debating, and the fact that, as current member of the military, there are some points that I can't counter-argue.
Anyway, good points. I think on a few, we can amicably "agree to disagree". You were clear on your assertions and I can respect your perspective, Sarge.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google