RVDondaPC said:
jonnhytesta said:
Mendicate Bias said:
jonnhytesta said:
Mendicate Bias said:
jonnhytesta said:
is not shocking the idea is stupid and makes no sense. the story probably will suck now. |
It makes no sense that one of the most hated countries in the world would get attacked? I'm glad you have played the game and know the stories stupid 
I hate when people judge something and talk in absolutes when they haven't even experienced what their talking about
|
you cant defeat the usa or a superpower like that. suggestions? cut their oil suply for example. you dont need to invade washingthon dc after doing that. the nazis didnt occupy a single yard of british soil and the british empire fell anyway.sorry if you are american and this sounds too cold.
|
1-On the contrary the crux of our military power lies in our ability to mobilize our army and engage in wars outside of US soil. If an enemy force was able to get past our defenses and fight us on our own soil we would have a hard time against them since we don't have the necessary infrastructure set up to fight a war at home. 2- Also considering from the trailer that it looks like maybe Russia is involved (I really have no idea seeing as I haven't played the campaign for the first one) then it is very feasible that, given the right strategy, Russia could infiltrate American soil and start a series of intense and localized guerrilla strikes against high priority targets.
China is probably the only other country that could win a war against America but in their situation it would be the overwhelming size of their army and their differing social views. For example 3-every American that gets killed in the war brings very bad publicity for the United States as it is shown in the media and dissent towards the war grows. China does not have this problem due to complete media control and a few other social factors and so they could trade 10 of their soldiers for every one of ours and still win a war against us. Exactly how the North beat the South in the American Civil War.
So I dunno it sounds feasible to me.
|
1- nope. thats the reason why the need to defeat you outside of us oil first.
2-russia cant do that. they have too many problems:demographics, economics, etc.
3-if you are fighting for your homeland, you dont have that problem anymore. cnn, fox, etc. need their buldings hand people need their houses and jobs and their democracys.
|
Cutting off the oil supply to the US wouldn't work. The United states has enough oil reserves on it's own to last atleast 10 years. So that would only lead to two outcomes. Either the US wins the war before the oil reserves run out or they use the 10+ years to transition to a different energy source. Also attacking the US on US soil may be a strategy that will work for a while but the problem with that is that the US is across giant oceans from any enemy and we have the greatest navy in the world, not to mention countries like China are not exactly set up for mobility across oceans. And thirdly if another militery did invade the US atleast half of the soldiers would abandon their army and try to become citizens here.
|
Yeah, there's not a country on earth that could cut off the US oil supply and then survive the 10 years it would take us to use ours up. The US has only had trouble in areas like Iraq because of so much concern for colateral damage and loss of American soldier's lives. When the US is being actively sieged (which cutting off oil supplies basically is), public support will rapidly shift towards war, and when the military doesn't need to worry about keeping loss of life ot a minimum to maintain public support, there's not a nation on earth that could withstand the assualt and few that could hinder the occupation.
