Before I go any further. I want to point out that you are confusing the argument we are having now.
Especially in this instance. Would you like to tell me the process of taking out a convoy of 3 armed and armored humvees when you've got 10 guys?
And you have to remember what the US is equipped with. It's a mix of low caliber rifles, shotguns, handguns, and large caliber hunting rifles for the most part. Any nation capable of destroying our military is more than capable of dealing with that. We'd be a harassment, but not much more. Most weapons wouldn't penetrate personal protective gear, let alone vehicles. You could have 100 ARs vs one Cold War era BMP, and you'd scratch the paint. Now add many more vehicles from modern times. Quality beats quantity here. I'd give up 100 AKs for an anti-materiel rifle in this case.
are meaningless because that isn't the argument. NO ONE said that a resistance would beat the invading force. I only argued that a resistance would indeed happen. I'll even quote were this argument started:
I'm glad you have such faith in your fellow Americans, but I don't. Citizens have rolled over for invaders before, and I don't think America would be too different in many places.
So the argument was clearly regarding whether there would be a resistance or not, period. Not whether we would win or not. So those points you brought up are invalid. Well, invalid for this argument.
There is a big difference between knowing how to use a weapon for hunting and target shooting, and how to use if for war. People are smarter and can fight back much harder.
Exactly, and American's will pick up warfare MUCH faster than their Iraqi/Afghani counterparts who may or may not have even completed first grade. I also want to point out that Iraq and Afghanistan combined have 4x less population than the U.S.
Anyone under 18 is a child, but kids start thinking more freely at about 15 or 16. I didn't change anything. I just assumed you would be thinking about children who wouldn't be completely useless, like 6 year olds.
lol Fox News still brainwashes middle-aged Americans and they turn into creatures called "Republicans". You think 15-16 year olds will be immune to any brainwashing? haha; I would have took maybe college age young adults as an acceptable answer (at times).
They did not take everyone by surprise. Did you ever learn about the "Time of Appeasement"? It's when Hitler was basically taking what he wanted and other nations didn't interfere, hoping he would be satisfied. But war wasn't much of a surprise when it happened.
They didn't take anyone by surprise? Really? The term Blitzkrieg was coined in WW2. The Germans also took the Russians by surprise by reneging on their previous cooperation treaty and invading Russia out of the blue.
But my question is why do you believe that? What makes us different from other regions that were happy enough to just simply live through invasion and occupation? I guess I'm erring on the side of caution here. I'd rather have my belief and be pleasantly surprised than have yours and be crushed.
Human history disagrees with you there. Any nation that wants to take America wants the resources, I'd imagine. Wants to basically own it. And you can't do that by killing everyone. Now, take a look at the Middle East right now. People cower in fear of a force that's known for killing people for the most minor things. Living there is basically being damned to hell. But most don't fight. Why? Because it's easier and safer to be submissive. It's easy to say you'd fight. Tons of people throughout history have thought they would. But we call people heroes for doing it because it's uncommon.
Human history disagrees with me? Maybe ancient human history.
What happened in Iraq and Afghanistan for them to mount a resistance? What happened in Kosovo/Serbia? What happened in Libya? What happened in Israel? What happened in Korea? What happened in Vietnam?
20th and 21st century history very much dictates that nearly any invading force will be responded to by militia, rebels, or guerrilla resistance made of, previously, civilians.
Your theory about the U.S. not fighting back would have only been the case prior to the 1800s.