To be fair, my idea of a suicide bomber in an invasion of America is a bit different than a dude strapping TNT to his chest, and blowing himself up in a market place.
When I say suicide bomber, I mean someone that risks life and limb to defeat the invasion force. We have plentiful guns in America, but they wouldn't do anything against a nice T-90 or Leopard MBT. That is why I mentioned suicide bombings. I'd imagine that taking a C or D-class truck filled with explosives and driving it into an enemy strongpoint would be a worthy cause. Again, I'm not endorsing the cowardice of terrorists like what we liken to suicide bombers - to attack innocent bystandards - but take radical risks against a standing army.
Of course, I'd try not to risk life, and figure out how to accomplish such tasks by proxy, but still...I'd rather die knowing that I tried to fend off an invasion than die slowly under massive opression and human rights abuses, knowing that my family and friends met a horrible fate.
I was serious that you had me laughing. Not in a sarcastic way. I agree with what you said. That's the one thing I hate about the forums. You can't tell if people are serious, sarcastic, or otherwise because so much of human communication is non-verbal. Sorry if it came across that way.
As far as your point about the tanks, your right. However, with urban combat the only way to completely control an area (if that's even possible) is with boots on the ground. Door to door, building by building. That's when they would be most vulnerable. Stalingrad was a great reference. If you've seen Enemy at the Gates you know how dangerous a few good snipers and organized resistance can be. It's all very hypothetical and lets be honest, will never happen in the US, but I guess it's interesting to "Wargame" it. I too, like yourself, would prefer to die fighting than to be subjugated by opposing forces.
"Some of you are thinking that you won't fight. Others, that you can't fight. They all say that, until they're out there."
PIKMIN FAN CLUB MEMBER