An opponent without even airplanes and helicopters? and no central leadership?
How long would that take?
2007-07-30 08:45:10 · 16 answers · asked by anonacoup 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
maybe, maybe not.
The badly armed and disorganized ones a;ways seem to have a much higher fighting spirit.
Colonists vs. british
afghanistan vs.russia
2007-07-30 12:40:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Depends on if they quit or not. If someone is fighting with you and you clobber them, figure the war is over, turn your back on them and they get up and sucker punch you, guess you didn't win.
You only win when they quit or can't go on. With a disorganized opponent the opponent may not even have a way to quit since they don't even control their own fighters.
Kind of a tough question. It's easier to fight an organized opponent because they will know when they are defeated and can stop all of their fighters
I don't know of anyone who thinks we lost WW II but there were plenty of Japanese soldiers scattered throughout the islands who didn't know they had lost.
2007-07-30 15:53:46 · answer #2 · answered by Matt W 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends on how determined they are.
How determined would you be if the whole military were knocked out, a foreign government took over, and there were only citizens with shotguns and pistols to fight for America? Would you fight? How many people do you know who would? How many more would sign up if a close family member were killed by the occupiers? And when would you give up?
If winning a war were about having the best guns, the US wouldn't have lost a war this century or last century.
2007-07-30 15:51:57 · answer #3 · answered by wayfaroutthere 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure, we can. Kill them all, and let God sort them out.
Seriously, we have one of the most professional Armed Forces in the world. We don't lose fights. That's never the issue.
The issue is that war is never only fought on the battlefield. People need to start reading some Clauswitz or some Sun Tsu and understand what war means and what it is. You then realize that the military victory on the battlefield is only a small part of a war. Politics is the rest of it.
And the US cannot do war politics. Mostly because our politicians come from the ranks of the poorly historically educated American populace. And it shows.
2007-07-30 15:59:02 · answer #4 · answered by joshcrime 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You'd think we could. Instead, Bush likes to let our troops get duped into fighting the war their way.
Overwhelm them and take no prisoners. That's the best way to win a war, and if that's not worth doing, the war is not worth fighting.
2007-07-30 15:55:37 · answer #5 · answered by Incognito 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if that opponent fights out in the open like a regular army.
However, if that opponent blends in with the local population, and you never know who's who, then no, we can't.
The only way to beat an opponent like that is to imprison EVERYONE in that population, something our government will never do again.
2007-07-30 15:53:39 · answer #6 · answered by Big John Studd 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It should take how ever long it is from the time of armament release to detonation.
But with our leadership these days it may take them years to figure out which elected official has the keys to the bomber.
2007-07-30 15:51:39 · answer #7 · answered by Al a voter 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, we cannot. Lack of big equipment keeps their forces mobile and adaptable. Unless the troops were allowed to mindlessly slaughter everyone.
2007-07-30 15:54:02 · answer #8 · answered by theswedishfish710 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sorry to answer a question with a question.
But who is the opponent?
2007-07-30 15:52:28 · answer #9 · answered by Lewis T 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Afghanistan beat Russia once.
2007-07-30 15:57:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋