If the founding fathers could see their country now, what would they think? (Not just US)
- Thread starter lanostos
- Start date
What if the Puritans could see America now?
I think burning would be involved. Possibly smallpox.
I think burning would be involved. Possibly smallpox.
Dispite the fact that I agree with you, you would be surprised how much that comment bothers me.BallPtPenTheif said:
Also I think a tank won't do you much good. How to say this. . . . . Our country enjoys many freedoms (less so than in the past but more then in other contries) to take them away would equal to a revolt. Even if the "President" set himself up as a dictator, eliminated elections and managed to set up a military regime I don't think it would do much good. It's also why I don't think a force could occupy the USA easily, considering the size of the country and the fact that everybody and their brother has some sort of weapon/firearm with ammo is readily avaliable at your local Walmart.
As for what the founding fathers would say. I think they would take the President and "clarify" the Consititution for him.
John Galt post=18.68202.628768 said:
HAH! that irony never even occured to me. brilliant sir, simply brilliant.
How to deal with armoured vehicles when you are a civilian (Fondant Industries close-quarters battle handbook, 1941).Taxi Driver said:
1. Lure it into a confined area, such as a city or so on.
2. Get very close to it, place an explosive on the treads (immobilised) shoot into the firing ports (killing or maiming the crew), utilise a molotov cocktail on the engine (further harming the crew, and immoblising it even more) drop a hand grenade into the hatch/firing ports and, voila! that tank is now a useless hunk of metal. (please note: I will not be held responsible for anyone being killed should the tank's magazine explode and kill everyone nearby)
3. Rinse and repeat until enemy is armourless.
4. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ATTACK IT IN THE OPEN. YOU WILL BE SLAUGHTERED.
5. Remember to create roadblocks, mines and other obstacles so that you have plenty of time to eliminate the enemy infantry.
You know, it really surprises me that people are under the impression that tanks are some sort of invulnerable fighting machine. That assumption has NEVER been correct, in that in confined areas you deal with them by shooting up the supporting infantry and following the above steps, and in the open you simply have aircraft shoot their rear armour and supply chain into teeny pieces.
Double Irony from the name of the poster as well...the_tralfalmadorian post=9.68202.630560 said:
"You're... you're fighting *two* wars? In *Asia*? With a *standing* army?"
To those who reside outside the US, and are somewhat perplexed by their idolatry over their Founding Fathers, well, it's a typical reaction in a revolutionary state. Mexico, China, and the Soviet Union all have (or had) similar fixations on their own Founders' intents. It doesn't seem to be too powerful an impulse in countries not founded upon a successful revolution.
-- Steve
To those who reside outside the US, and are somewhat perplexed by their idolatry over their Founding Fathers, well, it's a typical reaction in a revolutionary state. Mexico, China, and the Soviet Union all have (or had) similar fixations on their own Founders' intents. It doesn't seem to be too powerful an impulse in countries not founded upon a successful revolution.
-- Steve
Indeed, the Poles stopped the Germans' armored blitzkrieg long enough for 3/4 of Warsaw to evacuate using mounted lancers. The lancers so terrified the German infantry that they refused to advance into the open; the tanks refused to advance into the open without the infantry because tanks have limited vision buttoned up, and if you stand in your hatch someone will shoot you (or in this case, put a long spear through your head.) The lancers stopped the armored advance for as long as it took to kill all the cavalry. People make fun of the Poles mounting a cavalry charge against tanks, but when WW2 began almost all the USA's cavalry was horse-mounted as well.Fondant post=18.68202.631084 said:
And as you point out, without good infantry tanks are very vulnerable within cities or any other terrain that allows the other side concealment in the approach. Our military has excellent infantry, but in favorable terrain you can always knock out tanks if you're willing to close and take the casualties. In the Battle of Stalingrad the Russians took out German tanks from overhead, underneath, beside, behind, any approach available by driving the German infantry to ground. They suffered heavy casualties, but destroyed a few hundred German tanks without much in the way of anti-tank guns or friendly tanks - mostly just massive guts and grenades, satchel charges, and Molotov cocktails.
I get this feeling that they would be very ashamed of how the voting process does not necessarily count as much as it did in their day.
Simple: the tank crew has to step outside the tank to eat, sleep, resupply and take a shit don't they? THATS when you shoot them. Also, tanks fare very poorly against infantry in cramped conditions, as Fondant said. All the second American Revolution would need are hunting rifles and popular support. Guerilla warfare works wonders against an organized military, as the Soviets learned in Afganistan and we are learning in Iraq.Decoy Doctorpus post=18.68202.628954 said:
Besides, HUGE numbers of military personel would desert when ordered to attack American civilians en masse. Most would join the revolution. Seriously, the military has less of a chance in the AR2 than they did in Vietnam: in 'nam at least they had the option of killing every last person in the country and thats the only way they could have won.
Smoke bombs, and Molotov's cocktails can stop a tank, Not destory it but simply destory the sensor/smoke them out. In the open your fucked though.ReepNeep post=18.68202.633225 said:
Also the founding fathers would be hard, very hard.
