Politics

[JOHN GRENZ]

 

[Red Leg]

My good General,

I am usually in complete agreement with you.

Yes, a fleet of BMP-3s with their 30mm r 57mm autocannons and 7.62 PKTs, and a few ATGMs is a scary foe. Closing with, and destroying one's enemy would be the easy step. Occupying those not destroyed is the hard part.

A rifle behind every blade of grass. In Alaska, there are a lot of big, accurate rifles wielded by no-nonsense people who have grown up shooting game in adverse conditions.

Of course all the Alaskans would need to do is pull back until the Ruskies run out of fuel! Then the fun would begin.

And they would cut to pieces by well trained, well led, properly supported military formations. The average rube with his deer rifle or AR who has never served in combat arms has no conception of the firepower a single mechanized infantry company can bring to bear.

Don't get me wrong, I have my DDM4 handy by the bedside. But it is for the idiot trying to break in. I have zero delusions about my or any other armed outdoorsman's ability to stand up to modern firepower wielded by unconstrained military units.

And don't point at Ukraine. These are two peer forces trading body blows with some of the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet.

 

[LivingTheDream]

And they would cut to pieces by well trained, well led, properly supported military formations. The average rube with his deer rifle or AR who has never served in combat arms has no conception of the firepower of single mechanized infantry company can bring to bear.

Don't get me wrong, I have my DDM4 handy by the bedside. But it is for the idiot trying to break in. I have zero delusions about my or any other armed outdoorsman's ability to stand up to modern firepower wielded by unconstrained military units.

And don't point at Ukraine. These are two peer forces trading body blows with some of the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet.

Kind of being ass on this one but...

But how did that work out in mountains in Afghanistan.

 

[Tbitty]

And they would cut to pieces by well trained, well led, properly supported military formations. The average rube with his deer rifle or AR who has never served in combat arms has no conception of the firepower a single mechanized infantry company can bring to bear.

Don't get me wrong, I have my DDM4 handy by the bedside. But it is for the idiot trying to break in. I have zero delusions about my or any other armed outdoorsman's ability to stand up to modern firepower wielded by unconstrained military units.

And don't point at Ukraine. These are two peer forces trading body blows with some of the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet.

 

[Red Leg]

Kind of being ass on this one but...

But how did that work out in mountains in Afghanistan.

Fair enough. I simply would argue, much like Vietnam, it was a political defeat, rather than a military one. The US military at any point could have introduced two divisions and again put a lid on the place - until we grew tired of keeping them there.

I love this country, but I question the willingness of any significant part of the population to actually engage in a multi-decade long guerilla conflict with casualty totals anything like the Viet Cong or Mujahidin suffered. I am pretty sure it wouldn't look a lot like Red Dawn 1 or 2.

All of which is academic. The US is, as long as it remains a stable integrated society, impossible to "invade" in the classic sense. Pop an EMP warhead over Kansas or have the nation dissolve into hostile regions or warring social factions, then of course all bets are off.

 

[NE 7x57]

Fair enough. I simply would argue, much like Vietnam, it was a political defeat, rather than a military one. The US military at any point could have introduced two divisions and again put a lid on the place - until we grew tired of keeping them there.

I love this country, but I question the willingness of any significant part of the population to actually engage in a multi-decade long guerilla conflict with casualty totals anything like the Viet Cong or Mujahidin suffered. I am pretty sure it wouldn't look a lot like Red Dawn 1 or 2.

All of which is academic. The US is, as long as it remains a stable integrated society, impossible to "invade" in the classic sense. Pop an EMP warhead over Kansas or have the nation dissolve into hostile regions or warring social factions, then of course all bets are off.

On the other hand Russia had issues with resupply on their own border. I don't really think a Russian invasion is a serious threat to Alaska.

Besides when they got to Canada his highness would require them to register their weapons and give up semi autos and pistols.....

 

[LivingTheDream]

I simply would argue, much like Vietnam, it was a political defeat, rather than a military one. The US military at any point could have introduced two divisions and again put a lid on the place - until we grew tired of keeping them there.

I agree 100% with you. Changing the ROE to actually let our military do what it does best would have been helpful as well.

 

[Red Leg]

On the other hand Russia had issues with resupply on their own border. I don't really think a Russian invasion is a serious threat to Alaska.

Besides when they got to Canada his highness would require them to register their weapons and give up semi autos and pistols.....

Of course they couldn't. You are absolutely correct. They can barely sustain combat operations just over their border.

 

[Sabattiboy]

I recall in the early '80s the national debt reached $1Trillion and several commentators were predicting the end of the world as we knew it- of course the prime interest rate was close to 20% so just paying debt maintenance amounted to $200Billion per year and in those days that was some real money. And now, look at it, Gasp.

A company owner I once worked for said when you owe the bank money they own you but when you owe them a lot you own them.
How many countries nationalized american holdings then showed our people to the border?
How many countries owe us money they will never repay?
Turn about is fair play and about time. However, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Russian politicians are touting "Alaska is Ours". They might want to rethink that.
How many firearms does the average Alaskan own? A good many Alaskans know how to hunt and shoot proficiently. The thought of the inept Russian army trying to occupy heavily armed Alaska reminds me of what the fictional Richard Blaine told German Major Strasser;

"Major Strasser: Are you one of those people who cannot imagine the Germans in their beloved Paris?
Rick Blaine: It's not particularly my beloved Paris.
Heinz: Can you imagine us in London?
Rick Blaine: When you get there, ask me!
Captain Renault: Hmmh! Diplomatist!
Major Strasser: How about New York?
Rick Blaine: Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade."

Speaking as one Alaska, though I've no knowledge if I am average or not... it's more than 35 but less than 50. And I handload for all but the shotguns, which are few.

 

[steve white]

Fair enough. I simply would argue, much like Vietnam, it was a political defeat, rather than a military one. The US military at any point could have introduced two divisions and again put a lid on the place - until we grew tired of keeping them there.

I love this country, but I question the willingness of any significant part of the population to actually engage in a multi-decade long guerilla conflict with casualty totals anything like the Viet Cong or Mujahidin suffered. I am pretty sure it wouldn't look a lot like Red Dawn 1 or 2.

All of which is academic. The US is, as long as it remains a stable integrated society, impossible to "invade" in the classic sense. Pop an EMP warhead over Kansas or have the nation dissolve into hostile regions or warring social factions, then of course all bets are off.

Which might be a good argument for hardening our electronics--not just for EMPs but for solar flares producing the Carrington effect. In the land of the blind, we would be king.

 

[Sabattiboy]

I am sure a few guys with rifles would terrify a properly equipped, led, and supported landing force. However, fortunately, and just in case, we do have nine military bases in Alaska with Elmendorf able to flex in a significant amount of additional airpower. Wainwright and Richardson host two separate brigade combat teams.

Those AR15's and 30-06's are awesome, but fairly ridiculous when confronting with a BMP 3.

Russia won't need to invade. If they complain and threaten to push the Red button it is more likely it will be given back to them with apologies. We may even offer to pay back rent since 1958.
After all, remember this is 2022.

 

[JOHN GRENZ]

 

[Wheels]

 

[Ray B]

I simply would argue, much like Vietnam, it was a political defeat, rather than a military one.

I thought you were smarter than that. Vietnam was not a defeat other than the myth perpetrated by the media and ignorant professors.

 

[Ray B]

As for Alaska, there are two aspects to a conventional military take-over. there is the initial attack and take possession and then there is the occupation. Given the materiel advantage, the Russians could win the initial portion but the occupation would likely be a different story and that is where the Russian leaders would be endangered by the devoted WhiteFeather disciple.
But in reality the exchange of Alaska would be much more peaceful. What will happen is the US will become so financially indebted to China that China will force a default on the debt and among other things will demand Alaska as payment. the US govt will Quit-Claim Alaska over to China and China will give it as a present to Russia (in exchange for other items).
There would still be the problems with occupation, but Russia & China would have a massive immigration program to shift public opinion and make possible a secret police system of neighbors ratting on neighbors.

 

[Doug3006]

I thought you were smarter than that. Vietnam was not a defeat other than the myth perpetrated by the media and ignorant professors.

Perhaps I’m missing your point. If so I apologize. The North Vietnamese won in every sense of the word. Without ever winning a battle. They outlasted our nation’s political will to make war. Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

 

[Ray B]

The point is: Vietnam wasn't a war in the usual sense. for the US it was a defensive action. The NVA would go into South VietNam and the US would annihilate them. There would be about a 2 year rebuild and refit by the NVA and they would attack again. The US would annihilate them again. To say the NVA "won in every sense of the word" shows a lack of knowledge.
Finally in 1973 NV agreed to stop attacking their neighbor and the US withdrew. Given the US' goal, that being to have Communist aggression against SVn cease. and NVn promise to cease, this would be a victory for the US & SVn.
And so it was from 1973 until NVn had rebuilt and once again attacked SVn in 1975. When they attacked they had correctly presumed the US response would be no response, so they were able to overwhelm the south and revise history to their desired view.
Unfortunately a lot of US media and academia buy their version.

 

[Doug3006]

We withdrew because the American people no longer supported the “defensive action.” Continuing was politically impossible. When we withdrew, the North got everything it wanted. We got nothing we wanted. History has few examples of the losing side getting to rename the other side’s capital. Could we have won if the political will supported a WWII sized effort? Likely so, but that didn’t happen.

 

[Doug3006]

I should add that our government never believed the North’s promise to stop attacking the South. Getting them to make the promise was all the pretext our politicians needed to withdraw. When they predictably violated the truce and invaded, we shrugged, loaded the helicopters and got out of Dodge. They won. We lost. There are lessons to be learned that we won’t unless we face the facts.