Depends on the situation. The only likely invasion of Denmark would be the Russians, and if that show were to happend, I'd probably get mischievous until Nato responded.
Well...MAD has been quite successful at preventing WW3 for quite a while. Some useful (if disturbing) reading I came across, written by Stuart Slade (a military science fiction writer who spent many years as one of the people that determine exactly what nuclear device should by used on which part of whose cities):Mr.Numbers said:WW3: Invasion is the ONLY option for WW3, as a MAD scenario blocks all other possibilities if said war occurs.
That's true, but then again most of the resources are spread out all over the country.Mr.Numbers said:Holding us down: We occupy mostly the East coast, and anything else...Besides Tasmania, I guess, would be so small that Guerrilla warfare for a few years is inevitable but, I guess, inevitable to fail as well. We're not talking about every person at once, we're talking about a crippling majority in the urban sprawls.
The "hot-rocks" project has been much talked about recently, though its feasibility is currently unknown. It shows potential, though. On the other hand, there's a number of esoteric but possibly feasible renewable eneryg sources that we might see popping up in the not-too-distant future.Mr.Numbers said:Hydrogen: I totally agree, it would take a vast shidt in infrastructure, but then again, doesn't an invasion also require that as well? Hydrogen from geothermal works (EXTREMELY SIMPLIFIED) that: Big bottomless pit drilled, water goes in, steam comes out and collected, steam produces power, power used on steam to turn into Hydrogen and Oxygen, hydrogen used in fuel cell or just burnt with Oxygen. Since this is non-fossil-fuel dependant and available in the centre of a large land mass I see the occurance of this probable, if not likely.
Well...you are talking about quite some time in the future there. No way of saying what things would be like then. If China developed the logistical capabilities to go a conquering and if it'd chewed its way through most of South East Asia, then yes, Australia might well be next...two big ifs though. And any number of powerful groups are going to see that happenign well in advance.Mr.Numbers said:Logistics: China would probably invade other countries first, yes, but Germany conquered countries on it's way to Poland did it not? I see a very likely scenario revisiting the "Island hopping" strategy of WW2 Japanese soldiers and the supposed domino theory prediction line making Australia still a very logical target. And again, with MAD and the amount of Industry, America would have to bow down before China in this matter.
thaluikhain said:Private gun ownership isn't that important, if the UK was threatened with invasion they'd be mass producing Stens again and issuing them to volunteer groups.Treblaine said:As I live in the UK where the civilian ownership of guns is treated in much the same way as the rest of the world treats civilian ownership of weapons-grade plutonium
wow your in america and youve read the books? I am surprisedMcupobob said:I love those books!! To bad to hear that the movie is bad, it hasn't been released to the US yet. If it does I might skip it.Vault101 said:Theres a book series (and a bad movie) about Australia getting invaded by ummm asians I think. "Tomorrow when the war began"
Basically if they hit the capital cities then we could be taken over, though I dont think the country would be very easy to overrun with the harsh climiate and its sheer size, it would be easy to hide out in the bush, mabye even do a little gurella warfare like they do in the books
OT: I would fight back. For my home and ideas.
Very. Also, your "If the pros can't do it, I couldn't either" comment doesn't make sense. In the event of invasion, you resist the invaders, not engage them in open battle (that's a one way street to dead). The resistance fighter's job is to break enemy moral. The enemy thinks the army is the only threat, but when the civilians start sabotaging their stuff and picking off their scouting patrols with stolen high powered sniper rifles, they'll have to set up some kind of police state, which will only make everyone angrier. That's when you start bombing their buildings and ammo depots. Then they have to bring in more troops to keep you from blowing everything up, which means less troops on the front line. It's exactly the same thing the POWs did in Germany in WWII (watch The Great Escape, great movie). They tourmented the guards and were always trying to escape, making the Nazis use more troops to guard them. Then they had about 80 people escape at once, and hitler pulled a million troops from the front lines to find them. A resistance fighter's job is to make the actual army's job easier, not fight the war.demoman_chaos said:After seeing all these ________ invades America games like Homefront and MW2, I started wondering about this. If your country was invaded a foreign army and were losing, would you resist the invaders?
If it was extremly close or if the invaders were being very cruel (like Japan when it invaded China), I would. But otherwise no. If I wasn't being treated horribly and my countries army was getting clearly beaten, I wouldn't. If the pros can't do it, I couldn't either.
How zealous would you be in defending your country against a foreign army?
This, especially as if I had my way, I'd invade it too.iseko said:Couldn't care less.
You do know that against modern armor, the Sten's pistol calibur bullets would be as useful as firing used tampons right?thaluikhain said:Private gun ownership isn't that important, if the UK was threatened with invasion they'd be mass producing Stens again and issuing them to volunteer groups.Treblaine said:As I live in the UK where the civilian ownership of guns is treated in much the same way as the rest of the world treats civilian ownership of weapons-grade plutonium