Right, because only "rednecks" own guns in this country.
That is a well-reasoned response, which surprised me, but you are quick to call things "implausible" that are actually entirely plausible.
1- Responding to invasion with mutual destruction makes no sense. Repelling the invaders is a MUCH better option. One of the reasons to invade in the first place is to seize much of the US nuclear arsenal before it can be launched. In the original movie, the Soviets invaded the Rockies and Great Plains where much of the US arsenal is alleged to be.
2. Russia is mere miles from Alaska. Alaska is connected to Canada, which is mostly empty woods and tundra until you reach the US border. No naval battle necessary. Again, use the original movie as a model. Perhaps they knew what they were doing. A well-executed, precise air strike to disable the Alaska defenses and the US could be blinded for a window of time long enough for a sizable air attack into the relatively soft US middle. You don't need to bring tanks or armored vehicles. They are already here. Sitting on National Guard bases in Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming and the like. You hit them first. The US military is spread all over the globe. With no civilian resistance to worry about, according to you, it would take some time for the US to offer a sizable military response. Of course, as your air attack flew through, dropping off soldiers, they'd also hit the air bases in their path, which is the only response that could come quickly.
3. Helicopters are taken down with small arms fire all the time. Tanks, no. But again, most the tanks you'd have would be those seized on American soil. Timing would be absolutely key, relying on the quick seizure of National Guard bases and air strips. If the civilians took up arms and even slowed you down, you'd be screwed. It wouldn't work.
You are way under valuing the damage that normal men and women with guns could do. Old marine slogan- the most dangerous weapon in the world is a marine with his rifle. Trained soldiers aren't bullet proof, and they wouldn't all be protected by tanks. Again, all the civilians would need to do would be to slow you down. Cause a bottleneck until the military could hit you from both sides. Then, the battle would be lost.
If 1/30th of the US civilian population resists, that is 10 million people with guns. You don't think that is a concern? Hahaha... OK. Now THAT'S an implausible notion.
reply
share
GuyOnTheLeft
10 years ago
This is such a pipe dream.
When it's the U.S. military they're up against, these putative Russian forces are almost unimaginably effective. Sweeping through to the "soft middle" after a "surgical air strike" against Alaska air defenses (never mind our air forces and our extremely sophisticated monitoring systems that would see them coming), seizing divisions of tanks from bases. Riiight. (Again, if this were to actually happen so quickly, Moscow would get nuked; but whatever, moving on.)
So they're the ultimate badasses when the actual U.S. military is against them. But then when all the "non-rednecks" with no military training but who have handguns and hunting rifles in their homes get involved, they are going to take down the Red Army.
You are simultaneously being incredibly insulting to the U.S. military, while imagining Joe Sixpack to be some incredibly effective dormant fighting force (never mind that the vast, vast majority of even rednecks with guns aren't going to be keen to go and start fighting against military troops). You are too generous to the Soviet military capacity on the one hand (when they are facing our military), and too ungenerous when they are facing Joe Sixpack.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
reply
share
Quanfa
10 years ago
The OP is absolutely correct. The original was right wing propaganda and probably an awful movie. Those of us that love it (like me) only do so out of 1980's nostalgia. It's not the premise you should be comparing or even putting up to a realistic test, it's the movie itself. The original Red Dawn was an interesting idea with a few really cool scenes and a basic plot. The new one, like most action movies these days is totally overwritten (trying to seem realistic or trying to be like The Walking Dead, I don't know which).
The new one should have stuck with a focus of a dozen odd kids trying to fight back, insurgents with an obvious parallel to Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. You could say the old one was that way if you didn't have the "it's the Commies" message mixed in, but it's open for interpretation. Face it, the new one is only bad compared to the original but CGI and too much plot killed any chance of quaint charm.
reply
share
fgeorgio
10 years ago
Owning a pistol, a shotgun,or an assault rifle for recreational shooting,hunting or self defence is completely different to knowing light infantry tactics and being calm enough to engage trained troops.Sure,you could ambush a few individual soldiers and probably kill or wound some but it would be completely ineffective.Any military would quickly adapt to the possible civilian resistance,just like the Serbs,Russians and Israelis did in their recent wars.They would just destroy all buildings with artillery and tank fire before sending the infantry in.
English is not my first language!
reply
share
Anrkey
9 years ago
Any military would quickly adapt to the possible civilian resistance
You seem to have a general lack of knowledge when it comes to civilian resistance in the historical sense. Even this film quotes the successful resistance of civilian populations.
Would the civilian population win on its own? Probably not. You do need some form of leadership.
The Afghan population successfully stood against the mighty USSR during the 80s. They weren't much of a military power, just bands of people brought together to fight for a cause - "freedom", I guess. I'm not a fan of theocracies, but not all of them (Afghans) are bad.
How about the French resistance groups during WWII? Or the Vietnamese? Plenty of the Vietnamese were part of the military force but they relied heavily on their own civilian population for counter insurgency.
You should brush up on some history.
reply
share