Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Y'know originally the baddies were going to be China. They changed it to NK out of fear of Chinese displeadure aimed at the studio.

So you have folks trying to make a movie about heroically fighting for freedom...

When it was made by cowards who backed down at the first sign of trouble.

 tyrant of loserville wrote:
I think it is an action movie for action's sake. Im not sure if that's Thor or his brother, but Im not all excited either.

 Shredsmore wrote:
I saw the trailer. It looked like utter crap. The old one was good, and there was no "super weapon" or whatever, but I guess hollywood needed an excuse as to how North Korea (New bad guys) could possibly manage an invasion of the US.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Y'know originally the baddies were going to be China. They changed it to NK out of fear of Chinese displeadure aimed at the studio.

So you have folks trying to make a movie about heroically fighting for freedom...

When it was made by cowards who backed down at the first sign of trouble.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Y'know originally the baddies were going to be China. They changed it to NK out of fear of Chinese displeadure aimed at the studio.

So you have folks trying to make a movie about heroically fighting for freedom...

When it was made by cowards who backed down at the first sign of trouble.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Y'know originally the baddies were going to be China. They changed it to NK out of fear of Chinese displeadure aimed at the studio.

So you have folks trying to make a movie about heroically fighting for freedom...

When it was made by cowards who backed down at the first sign of trouble.

 Ratbarf wrote:
So does anyone else think that any war prosecuted against the United States of America would have to be a genocidal one against their civilians for the exact reasons that this movie uses for its plot? The populace would simply be too well armed and belligerent to leave alone. They would have to be classified as combatants.

 CuddlySquig wrote:
Red Dawn was a red scare movie, it was far a scarier and better idea when it was made. I just hope some North Korean politics is brought up, make them more human, rather than enemy invaders with nonsense goals and incomprehensible motives.

Invasion of the US is basically impossible from the get go. But it isn't because you've got guns.

I mean, the first thing we have to do is play make believe and pretend that some other country somehow developed the blues seas capability to defeat the US navy and put vast numbers of transport ships over either the Pacific or the Atlantic.

Then we have to pretend that the US armed forces could somehow be overwhelmed by some other country or coalition of countries. And when you've got a basic monopoly on top end weapon platforms, you do not lose a conventional war.

So once all that's done, then this invader is still left with occupying a country of 300 million people, spread across a vast area, with dozens of key cities and ports. The manpower to lock down the US, even if the population wasn't doing anything to meaningfully oppose the invaders, is just mindboggling.

And then when you look at that population, it'd be an absolute nightmare to lock it down. Not because there are guns (when war breaks out getting your hands on some guns is the easy part) but because that population is well educated, has transport and surplus food stocks, is very patriotic and (despite the silly political rhetoric) is quite loyal to its present government.

I mean, I'm just thinking in comparison to Soviet Russia, invaded by the Germans in WWII. The soviet citizens had guns, but they weren't that much of an issue for the Germans in the early stages. There was little loyalty to the Soviet government, and where loyalty existed there was little means to fight back - the individual had limited transport and so couldn't move far from the farm/village to undertake operations, and winter was coming and much of the food stock was just taken by the Wehrmacht - survival meant laying low.

 Ratbarf wrote:
even the greatest disparity in weapons platforms can be overcome with numbers, something the Chinese teaming up with the Russians would likely be capable of.

 Huffy wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
even the greatest disparity in weapons platforms can be overcome with numbers, something the Chinese teaming up with the Russians would likely be capable of.

Mr. Maxim and his marvelous invention would like to have a word with you

codemonkey wrote:

 Huffy wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
even the greatest disparity in weapons platforms can be overcome with numbers, something the Chinese teaming up with the Russians would likely be capable of.

Mr. Maxim and his marvelous invention would like to have a word with you

This. Because somebody took Mr. Maxim's marvelous invention (god that sounds like the title of a children's movie) and scaled it up a little bit.

Mr. Maxim and his marvelous invention would like to have a word with you

 Ratbarf wrote:

Mr. Maxim and his marvelous invention would like to have a word with you

And the Japanese would like to form that rebuttal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowra_breakout

And the Chinese during the Korean War could also lend a hand.

Still, with the Russians providing Tech and tactics and the Chinese providing manufacturing and man power I think the States would be hard pressed to beat them without the use of nuclear weapons. I mean even if the States put up a final kill count of 5 to one the Chinese still win, and the Chinese manufacturing base outstrips the Americans by so much they would essentially be doing to America what it and Russia did to Germany during WW2.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Invasion of the US is basically impossible from the get go. But it isn't because you've got guns.

I mean, the first thing we have to do is play make believe and pretend that some other country somehow developed the blues seas capability to defeat the US navy and put vast numbers of transport ships over either the Pacific or the Atlantic.

Then we have to pretend that the US armed forces could somehow be overwhelmed by some other country or coalition of countries. And when you've got a basic monopoly on top end weapon platforms, you do not lose a conventional war.

So once all that's done, then this invader is still left with occupying a country of 300 million people, spread across a vast area, with dozens of key cities and ports. The manpower to lock down the US, even if the population wasn't doing anything to meaningfully oppose the invaders, is just mindboggling.

And then when you look at that population, it'd be an absolute nightmare to lock it down. Not because there are guns (when war breaks out getting your hands on some guns is the easy part) but because that population is well educated, has transport and surplus food stocks, is very patriotic and (despite the silly political rhetoric) is quite loyal to its present government.

I mean, I'm just thinking in comparison to Soviet Russia, invaded by the Germans in WWII. The soviet citizens had guns, but they weren't that much of an issue for the Germans in the early stages. There was little loyalty to the Soviet government, and where loyalty existed there was little means to fight back - the individual had limited transport and so couldn't move far from the farm/village to undertake operations, and winter was coming and much of the food stock was just taken by the Wehrmacht - survival meant laying low.

Well the thought of taking on the States through Alaska and then Canada is probably the most realistic scenario, seeing as it's the only land bridge close enough to America to use boats and still have Air Superiority over their carriers, as well as far enough away from their main air force bases to provide logistics problems for them. As for losing a conventional war, even the greatest disparity in weapons platforms can be overcome with numbers, something the Chinese teaming up with the Russians would likely be capable of.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Mr. Maxim and his marvelous invention would like to have a word with you

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Y'know originally the baddies were going to be China. They changed it to NK out of fear of Chinese displeadure aimed at the studio.

So you have folks trying to make a movie about heroically fighting for freedom...

When it was made by cowards who backed down at the first sign of trouble.

I think the original Red Dawn introduced the entirely superfluous PG13 category. For many years it was the bloodiest movie ever made too, in terms of people killed on screen. I heard the same thing about the Chinese creditors balking at the original script.

Wouldn't a more edgy, interesting plot be NK or Cuba or whoever merging up with an insurgency already in the united states? I mean look at the electoral map. There were five states were the election was close, and in the other 45, it was a blowout, one way or the other. I think a red-dawn meets civil war reloaded plot would have been much more interesting and topical. There is more pathos in fighting your own countrymen than zapping random communist goons anyway.

5 to1?

Dude...you have have no idea. How many of these Chino/Russians would even make it to our shores before getting blown out of the sky. The chinese nor the Russians have anything that could give them air superiority.

It would be more like 100 to 1 kill ratio I think(More like Desert Storm). and probably more than that. Traditional warfare(I.E. army groups vs army groups) is what the USA is good at, it's the guerrilla wars that give us trouble.


GG

Wait, Alaska being occupied by the Chinese as part of an invasion of the US?
Have you been playing Fallout again?