Do you find Homefront's story plausible?

[Eclectic Dreck]

Not even remotely. As soon as North Korea even tried something, South Korea would retaliate, along with its allies (barring the U.S., because China basically owns us and China is allied with North Korea).

By winning a Nobel Peace prize, it seems fairly clear that unification was desired by both parties rather than being forced by war.

Also, the whole gas price thing would never happen. Ever. Ther would be riots in the streets once gas hit even five dollars.

Gas has already hit five bucks a gallon in the past and there was surprisingly little rioting. But even if there were rioting, what precisely is that going to accmoplish?

Not to mention that by 2020 would should that whole fusion power thing down.

Which solves effectively nothing in the near term.

And the 50 years worth of oil in Alaska.

Which is insufficient to meet current needs.

Maybe if the U.S. wasn't retarded and would try to be somewhat self-sufficient (in terms of oil), gas wouldn't even bee at the prices its at now.

It isn't a matter of retardation; the us simply needs a LOT of oil.

Also, Alaska would still have power.

And that solves what problem?

So would Canada. Canada would wreck the North Korean army's s**t so hard they would crap themselves back to North Korea.

An army of 20 million well equipped troops is nothing to sneeze at. Especially given that the entire population of canada is only marginally larger than that.

 

[Zhukov]

I don't have problem with the whole US-in-decline thing. They did a reasonable job of explaining that.

I do however get iffy about North Korea taking over most of Asia. They're not that powerful. They can barely feed their own population.

 

[McNinja]

lol snip

That's true.

I was not aware. Addendum: Ten dollars. And it would cause the government to look elsewhere for oil. Like... anywhere else. I make huge leaps in my head that I tend to not type out.

No it would not. But it would in the long term.

We do need a LOT of oil. If we were to supplement our current intake from the Middle East (and those other places we get oil that no one talks about) with oil from Alaska (which does have a lot of untapped oil), we could stave off the huge price jump, going by the games timeline of the war in the Middle east not coming to a close.

The problem of the military not having power. ALSO: I forgot about U.S. bases all over the world. The U.S. would have gotten involved rather quickly, not sat on their bums until gas rose to $20 a gallon.

Of course. It was more or less a joke about how Canada would come out of nowhere and pull a Red Dawn and single handedly save the U.S.

The U.S. also has a pretty nice Navy. And several ballin SpecOps battalions (SEALs, Rangers, Recon, etc).

Oh one more... guns don't need electricity. That wasn't in response to the quote that was for the thread.

 

[Trolldor]

The whole North/South reunification thing.

I'm sorr, but it's not unification, it's submission. The south isn't just joining with the North, it's adopting it's system of Government and its ideology. And this is given no reasonable justification as to why.
That can't just be brushed away.

 

[Wintermoot]

atleasts its more realistic then the MW titles, as far as I know nobody is 100% sure about whats going on in North Korea (although the plot only confirms the fears of the terrorist fearing people in the USA)

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Strangely, according to the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homefront_%28video_game%29#Synopsis>wikipedia China was supposed to be the invading nation rather than Korea. The change was made because their economic interdependence with the US made them "Not scary".

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

No, not at all. The United States is far too advanced in terms of its military. It will take far too much for us to be lowered to North Korea's level. Look for my post in the first announcement of Homefront, if you're willing to look. I think it was page three or something. I'll try and find it for you people, but I outlined in detail why it is implausible.

Spoiler

Unlike some posts I saw as I scanned this thread, I mean no disrespect to anyone here when I say that a successful invasion of the United States by anyone, especially North Korea, is damn near impossible. Now, I'm not just an over-patriotic fool. Being into military science and military history, though still not (yet) a professional, I have been able to look around and understand how such an invasion would work. I can honestly say that I don't see a successful invasion of the US being possible by any nation for the next 50 years, and at the least, if we are generous and give the enemies of the US the benefit of the doubt to say they get very powerful very quickly, 20 years.

Take China for example, being currently the nation most likely to get in a fight with the US. China's total military size, including reserves, active personnel, and paramilitaries, is about 3.45 million personnel. The US has a total of about 2.45 million. So, yes, they outnumber us by damn near 1 million exactly. That's about 1.4 Chinese soldiers per American. Then, take into account the total populations of each country. The US has near 310 million people to China's 1.3 billion. So, China certainly has the numerical advantage, since they could quickly build their numbers and industry with untrained manpower (training takes time, of course, so if they need to really sap their numbers to use human-wave, that is not ideal for time's sake).

The United States would, initially, have a vastly superior conventional force against the Chinese with better trained soldiers and higher quality equipment. In the ideal, rapidly moving modern war that is very likely in this day and age, the real thing to consider is the order of battle of a nation to start. Only in a total war scenario in which populations and industries are mobilized does one really consider the rate at which material and personnel strength is replenished. In addition, China's troops are not fully mechanized or equipped for proper transportation. US troops are, of course, very well equipped and mechanized.

The real issue is the fact that the US and Chinese are separated by 5,000mi of Pacific Ocean. Currently, the United States Navy currently has a total of 11 aircraft carriers, ten Nimitz Class and one Enterprise Class. Now, not all carriers would be in the Pacific Theater to fight at first, but the Navy has fleets in the Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, and Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf, or rather those regions in general. All such fleets would be able to challenge Chinese naval power. Additionally, American air forces would likely have access to bases, as it already does, in Japan, which would also be able to contribute the JASDF (Japanese Air Self-Defense Force) to the fight. The US also has footholds in South Korea, which is also a US ally and would be able to put its forces (however inferior to China's) into action.

North Korea would likely support China, but its forces would be negligible compared to either superpower. Now, given the US presence nearby, the Chinese would surely have something to offer. Unfortunately, the Chinese Navy is as yet insufficient to fight ours (I have heard that they are just now building their first carrier. I'm not sure how true this is and frankly it is surprising, so I don't yet believe it), though I don't have the specifics on the Chinese Navy quite yet. In any case, the addition to American carriers would come in the form of the second naval vessel which still serves a large purpose in modern strategy: submarines. US nuclear submarines have only gotten stealthier, and as a result, deadlier since the Cold War. Aircraft carriers are used to project firepower over long distances, and submarines are used to deny an enemy access to a region. Submarines are to naval warfare what parrying is to fencing. They prevent the enemy from using his projection of power.

This isn't even taking into account NATO. China, for purposes of remaining unrestrained by permanent alliances, is in none that I am aware of. However, America has NATO, and Britain, the nation ranked second in the world for power projection, would likely come to the aide of its ally.

So, without control of the Pacific, China would be unable to transport troops overseas, thereby stopping the invasion before it even begins.

But, Homefront has North Korea, not China. I think you see my point, though. North Korea is much, much weaker than China, and the if the US is not likely to be beaten by China, then North Korea will need to do a lot of improving, and the US a lot of falling into the crapper, before something like this is even remotely plausible.

You miss one point however: This is after 20 years of successive degradation of both the american economy and military. Where those 11 aircraft carriers no longer go around the globe in standby world police mode along with MEU's constantly ready to dedploy to dispense some american justice.

This is in a situation similar to the 1930's for the USA, where a majority of the army has simply been forced to stand down and lots of equipment has been sold off to stave of economical crisis. Where most of the powerful US Navy finds itself mothballed because you can't afford to keep all those expensive ships active and manned. Simply put: This is not the military of the USA of 2011. This is the military of the USA after being bled dry for over 30 years in Afghanistan and Iraq while facing a successive dismantling due to budget constraints.

I find Homefront's story to be at least a little plausible within its' own constraints. Not likely or even probably, but plausible by longshot. What people just need to realize is that the US military ain'tsome untouchable juggernaut that will never dismantle. All it takes is for the american economy to really go down the drain for the US Military to follow suite. Especially if something as important as fuel becomes a rare commodity. That entire US Navy is still mostly driven by oil-based fuels as is the USAF and all the vehicles of the US Army.

 

[Vuljatar]

It was much more plausible when it was China, before all the suits got scared that it would alienate them and changed everything...

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

No, not at all. The United States is far too advanced in terms of its military. It will take far too much for us to be lowered to North Korea's level. Look for my post in the first announcement of Homefront, if you're willing to look. I think it was page three or something. I'll try and find it for you people, but I outlined in detail why it is implausible.

Spoiler

Unlike some posts I saw as I scanned this thread, I mean no disrespect to anyone here when I say that a successful invasion of the United States by anyone, especially North Korea, is damn near impossible. Now, I'm not just an over-patriotic fool. Being into military science and military history, though still not (yet) a professional, I have been able to look around and understand how such an invasion would work. I can honestly say that I don't see a successful invasion of the US being possible by any nation for the next 50 years, and at the least, if we are generous and give the enemies of the US the benefit of the doubt to say they get very powerful very quickly, 20 years.

Take China for example, being currently the nation most likely to get in a fight with the US. China's total military size, including reserves, active personnel, and paramilitaries, is about 3.45 million personnel. The US has a total of about 2.45 million. So, yes, they outnumber us by damn near 1 million exactly. That's about 1.4 Chinese soldiers per American. Then, take into account the total populations of each country. The US has near 310 million people to China's 1.3 billion. So, China certainly has the numerical advantage, since they could quickly build their numbers and industry with untrained manpower (training takes time, of course, so if they need to really sap their numbers to use human-wave, that is not ideal for time's sake).

The United States would, initially, have a vastly superior conventional force against the Chinese with better trained soldiers and higher quality equipment. In the ideal, rapidly moving modern war that is very likely in this day and age, the real thing to consider is the order of battle of a nation to start. Only in a total war scenario in which populations and industries are mobilized does one really consider the rate at which material and personnel strength is replenished. In addition, China's troops are not fully mechanized or equipped for proper transportation. US troops are, of course, very well equipped and mechanized.

The real issue is the fact that the US and Chinese are separated by 5,000mi of Pacific Ocean. Currently, the United States Navy currently has a total of 11 aircraft carriers, ten Nimitz Class and one Enterprise Class. Now, not all carriers would be in the Pacific Theater to fight at first, but the Navy has fleets in the Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, and Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf, or rather those regions in general. All such fleets would be able to challenge Chinese naval power. Additionally, American air forces would likely have access to bases, as it already does, in Japan, which would also be able to contribute the JASDF (Japanese Air Self-Defense Force) to the fight. The US also has footholds in South Korea, which is also a US ally and would be able to put its forces (however inferior to China's) into action.

North Korea would likely support China, but its forces would be negligible compared to either superpower. Now, given the US presence nearby, the Chinese would surely have something to offer. Unfortunately, the Chinese Navy is as yet insufficient to fight ours (I have heard that they are just now building their first carrier. I'm not sure how true this is and frankly it is surprising, so I don't yet believe it), though I don't have the specifics on the Chinese Navy quite yet. In any case, the addition to American carriers would come in the form of the second naval vessel which still serves a large purpose in modern strategy: submarines. US nuclear submarines have only gotten stealthier, and as a result, deadlier since the Cold War. Aircraft carriers are used to project firepower over long distances, and submarines are used to deny an enemy access to a region. Submarines are to naval warfare what parrying is to fencing. They prevent the enemy from using his projection of power.

This isn't even taking into account NATO. China, for purposes of remaining unrestrained by permanent alliances, is in none that I am aware of. However, America has NATO, and Britain, the nation ranked second in the world for power projection, would likely come to the aide of its ally.

So, without control of the Pacific, China would be unable to transport troops overseas, thereby stopping the invasion before it even begins.

But, Homefront has North Korea, not China. I think you see my point, though. North Korea is much, much weaker than China, and the if the US is not likely to be beaten by China, then North Korea will need to do a lot of improving, and the US a lot of falling into the crapper, before something like this is even remotely plausible.

You miss one point however: This is after 20 years of successive degradation of both the american economy and military. Where those 11 aircraft carriers no longer go around the globe in standby world police mode along with MEU's constantly ready to dedploy to dispense some american justice.

This is in a situation similar to the 1930's for the USA, where a majority of the army has simply been forced to stand down and lots of equipment has been sold off to stave of economical crisis. Where most of the powerful US Navy finds itself mothballed because you can't afford to keep all those expensive ships active and manned. Simply put: This is not the military of the USA of 2011. This is the military of the USA after being bled dry for over 30 years in Afghanistan and Iraq while facing a successive dismantling due to budget constraints.

I find Homefront's story to be at least a little plausible within its' own constraints. Not likely or even probably, but plausible by longshot. What people just need to realize is that the US military ain'tsome untouchable juggernaut that will never dismantle. All it takes is for the american economy to really go down the drain for the US Military to follow suite. Especially if something as important as fuel becomes a rare commodity. That entire US Navy is still mostly driven by oil-based fuels as is the USAF and all the vehicles of the US Army.

My point is that it would take rapid decline of the massive American superiority in those twenty years, and parallel increase in North Korea as a whole, meaning economy and military, to bridge the gap. Also, the thing about modern war is that if you start with enough fuel reserves to power that military, you will have enough. Wars don't last for years anymore. When you fight, mobilizing the economy for a total war is no longer relevant because things move too quickly for it ever to be worth while. The US government has more than enough oil stored up for a need in the near future should it have to dip into those resources.

So, I would accept Homefront in 2070, given constant decline, not 20.. what year is it? 2030?

 

[Carlston]

Nope since the USA would just drill its own untapped oil, Texas alone can run the country for like 300 years with out skrimping.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Unlikely. From what I seen of North Korea from documtaries, it would take ages for them to be up to date with the rest of the worlds.

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

Hello to all, I've been wandering around these forums for a while, but something has finally bugged me enough to post a topic.

I've been mildly curious about the game "Homefront" for a bit, mostly because the writer from "Red Dawn" was assigned to the story, and as the topic suggests, it bugs me.

A quick rundown courtesy of Wikipedia:
* 2011: North Korea faces another UN sanction over its latest nuclear test.
* 2012: Kim Jong-Il dies and is succeeded by his son Kim Jong-un.
* 2013: Kim Jong-un is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and featured on the cover of Time Magazine for his accomplishment of Korean reunification.
* 2014: American military withdraws from the Korean Peninsula. General Motors declares bankruptcy for the second time.
* 2015: The effects of peak oil are felt as gas prices reach up to 20 dollars a gallon due to a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia cuts off all oil trade with Europe. Survivalist literature become bestsellers in America. China's influences diminish.
* 2016: America withdraws its military from Japan and other countries overseas, focusing on its instability back home.
* 2017: Martial law is declared in the United States as its infrastructure crumbles due to financial deficiencies.
* 2018: After the destruction of one of its nuclear facilities by Korean special forces, Japan surrenders to the Greater Korean Republic and is capitalized into a vassal state.
* 2019: The UN goes out of commission.
* 2020: Canada closes its borders to Americans. The US military takes over the functions of many emergency services, as well as the distribution of basic goods. This causes many Americans to abandon the suburbs in exchange of the military-managed urban centers.
* 2021: Korean forces succeed in annexing many countries in Southeast Asia. A new pandemic known as the Knoxville Cough, a type of bird flu, begins to spread in the United States.
* 2022: To prevent the contagion of the Knoxville Cough, Mexico closes its borders to Americans. Hyperinflation pushes the US dollar to the edge of collapse.
* 2023: The Knoxville Cough ravages the American public. The Korean People's Army reaches 20 million total personnel.
* 2024: Using the captured M-V rockets at the Uchinoura Space Center, Kim Jong-un announces a new space satellite program, under the pretense of replacing the decaying GPS system, which America could no longer afford to maintain.
* 2025: A thermonuclear device is detonated by one of the Korean satellites 300 miles above Kansas, blanketing America with an EMP that wipes out its power grid and most of the electronics above ground. The US infrastructure is virtually in ruins. This is followed by the Korean seizure of Hawaii and landings in San Francisco. Korean paratroopers are dropped into central United States. The economic downfall in Europe prevents its nations from intervening.
* 2026: The United States is split into two as the KPA irradiate the entire Mississippi River, as a fortification for their control of the western side.
* 2027: The United States Armed Forces are completely scattered.



I wouldn't care so much, but it's worth remembering that South Korea alone boasts an army that is better equipped, trained, and has more experience than the DPRK's, so I fail to see how this scenario is even remotely possible. I wouldn't care so much, but it seems the game developers are treating it that way.

After hearing a couple reviews call the setting "plausible" (Gametrailers) or "engrossing/well constructed" (Gamespot) I've got to ask. Does anyone actually think this is a plausible twenty year scenario?

Perhaps they should've included all those events in a timeline throughout the game. Then I would've felt like I played a modern video game, not spent 10 minutes playing a shooter in an arcade.

OT: Plausible, but not possible.

 

[Sarah Kerrigan]

Sure, but UK and Canada would never give us help lol xDD Just totally saying~

 

[Virgilthepagan]

Search bar at all? This has been done at least four times over.

my bad. I was just curious, I don't usually spend a lot of time in the forums so I missed the previous posts, I'll check next time.

I think my issue remains with the scenario just getting started. It requires the DPRK to reunify with the south, and even then do it in a "peaceful" way that somehow leaves the north in control.That just wouldn't happen.

 

[razelas]

Nope since the USA would just drill its own untapped oil, Texas alone can run the country for like 300 years with out skrimping.[sup][Citation needed][/sup]

Fixed.

If such a thing is true, then why is foreign oil dependence as big an issue as it is?

 

[Gladiateher]

This plot is ridiculous roflmao. I'll go through it step by step poking holes in it, than you poke holes in my explanations, it will be ever so fun!

-2011 no problems there
-2012 again fine

-2013 ok stop, South Korea would NEVER agree to that so soon after Kim Jong Il's death it would take years and years for the wounds both of those countries have to heal. The only way they would be reunified is through force, which the U.S. at this point, will have more of.
-2014 G.M. going bust again is easily possible but we won't withdraw from Korea for a long time. Hell, look at Japan and Germany we're still in both of those countries all these years after WWII.

-2015 this next part is totally impossible. There's this shit called shale-oil that the U.S. is basically swimming in. The only reason they don't use it this very instant is the cost to produce. I haven't seen a recent figure in a long time but I remember from school that the prices wouldn't go past $7 and some change. This would suck ass, but life would still go on, who knows what improvements hybrid technology will see in the next four years, and it's pretty formidable nowadays. The last part really chafes my balls "china's influence diminishes" ORLY? and why the fuck does that happen? China has been on the upswing for a longass time. It's a massive landmass with an enormous population and plenty of natural resources. If anyone is going to have the strength to invade the United States it would be China, China would never do this however because it forms a symbiont circle with the U.S. and wouldn't want to lose it's cash cow. Russia wouldn't cut off oil trade with Europe for all the tea in China, that country has fallen on hard times since the end of the USSR they need every scrap of currency they can get their hands on.

-2016 this could happen someday but I doubt it will. The U.S. is more resilient than it may seem, as a country they pull together more often than they fall apart.

-2017 same as above, doubtful, especially the martial law part. The government might crack down but I don't think that they would declare martial law.
-2018 this is where my above statements start making these events impossible. Even if Korean special forces pulled this off Japan wouldn't just bend over and surrender. America might intervene and blow up a few cities in Korea but this is hugely far-fetched imo.

-2019 Orly? why the fuck would that happen. Even if the U.S. was out of commission there's more than one country in the U.N., I guaranfuckingtee that Europe would keep the U.N. around I mean fuckin A Britain still has a royal family. They'd stay in the U.N. if only for old times sake.

-2020 Canada is the best friend America has ever had, well... maybe France but that's kind of a love hate relationship. Canada has stuck with America through thick and thin and would never close it's borders off to America. Plus it can't close it's borders because it has HUGE borders and too few personnel.

-2021 Korean forces, while well armed today have one huge factor going against them: they are china's *****. It's kind of funny but Korea while seemingly intimidating is a shithole of a country with few resources of it's own. Without constant Chinese aid they would quickly falter. The U.S. would ask China to tell Korea to fuck off of these other countries China would agree because it would be paying for all of Korea's wars, and once again they love their cash cow. Not to mention the fact that it takes a long ass time to take control of a country.

-2022 While it's true that a massive epidemic could be a major problem for any country, Mexico can't close it's borders because it's poor as shit and can't even control it's own criminals, and that's with massive present day U.S. aid.

-2023 An epidemic is always possible, I have no problems with that. I explained above why I don't think that Korea could ever grow like this. and really, this is 12 years after Kim Jong-IL died Korean unification would be a damn miracle even at this point.

-2024 Korea is too poor to have this kind of space program.

-2025 First off, this technology doesn't exist. No one device could wipe out all the power in the United States. Also i guarantee you that the U.S. has some Nukes squirreled away somewhere in Alaska or some distant territory and would retaliate with those. Europe would come to the U.S.'s aid, they wouldn't be so blind or feeble to a threat like these hypothetical Koreans and would be ready to save the world from the Bi-polar asshat that peacefully united Korea than immediately invaded a bunch of countries in Asia, that not to mention the billions of pissed of chinese who would go get revenge for the death of their cash cow on the tiny country that's relied on their protection for so many years.

-2026 this is actually a really interesting idea, using an irradiated river as a barrier, but why the hell would they irradiate so much of a country they just took over? If they truly didn't care at all about America being habitable they could just nuke it into oblivion, no need for an invasion and the massive loss of life they would no doubt suffer.

-2027 Destryoed by the Koreans? really? thats absurd. North Korea is a scary country not because they might ever be a real threat to America, but because they might be able to kill millions of Americans. A country like North Korea being nuclear armed is terrifying but not because they might take over America, it's because they might nuke a city a a series of cities. Even though if they did America their whole country would be destroyed by the United states, that wouldn't change the fact that the U.S. lost so many lives, they might never recover from an attack like that. America could be taken over by another country at this point but whoever nuked the U.S. initially would be destroyed as well.

This post is so moronically long that I should slap myself.
I'll be shocked it they let me post this in one piece.

 

[Carlston]

Nope since the USA would just drill its own untapped oil, Texas alone can run the country for like 300 years with out skrimping.[sup]]]

Fixed.

If such a thing is true, then why is foreign oil dependence as big an issue as it is?

Simple, you never tap your own supply until everyone else won't give it up cause they ran out...

Then guess who has all the cards? Best I could figure when they call it a "Strategic oil supply" or Emergency war reserves.

But makes sense when you think about it.
Oh and not yer mommy or encyclopedia. Find it yourself on good ol google.

 

[Gladiateher]

The only part that really bothers me is

* 2013: Kim Jong-un is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and featured on the cover of Time Magazine for his accomplishment of Korean reunification.

There is no way the two Koreas would unify under the leadership of the North without a protracted war. The developers and their consultants have tried to explain all other parts of the story to make it plausible, but they completely skirt this issue.

The Saudi-Iran war is plausible, especially due to the Shiite-Sunni thing. Also, we WILL see the end of cheap oil in our lifetimes, it just probably won't be as soon as Homefront predicts.

The government of North Korea is, effectively, whomever is the current dictator. Given that the current government is replaced according to the game's fiction, there is no particular reason to believe the new government of North Korea would not attempt to improve public perception of the nation in order to unify the two nations. Keep in mind that unification is a goal of both nations and has been since the end of the second world war when the nation was artificially split in two by American and Soviet troops.

While you have some good point the fact remains that there are many wounds between these two countries and them all healing in a year is nothing short of absurd.

 

[razelas]

Nope since the USA would just drill its own untapped oil, Texas alone can run the country for like 300 years with out skrimping.[sup]]]

Fixed.

If such a thing is true, then why is foreign oil dependence as big an issue as it is?

Simple, you never tap your own supply until everyone else won't give it up cause they ran out...

Then guess who has all the cards? Best I could figure when they call it a "Strategic oil supply" or Emergency war reserves.

But makes sense when you think about it.
Oh and not yer mommy or encyclopedia. Find it yourself on good ol google.

You're the one making the claim. I could claim that North Korea is just relying on foreign aid so it can preserve its own rich natural resources, but it wouldn't make sense to make someone else prove my claim.

So put your money where your mouth is, or your claim is bullshit.