I would stay and fight along with the

55% who would stay and fight, not the
38% of Americans who would flee

While 45 percent of men between the ages of 18 and 34 said they would stay and fight, that number increased to 57 percent for those in the 35-49 age range and to 66 percent in the 50-64 age range.

Also, 40 percent of women said they would fight, compared to 70 percent of men.

Looking at political affiliation,
Republicans were more likely to say they would stay and fight, with 68 percent saying they would do so, as opposed to 40 percent of Democrats.

Apparently I have more in common with ‘Republican men’ in regards to defending my country, even though I’ve never voted Republican in my life.

https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-would-stay-fight-if-russia-invaded-us-poll-1686050



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2022 03:16PM by schrodingerscat.

I would give them the missionary discussions. They would surrender just to make it stop.

Would complusary missionary lessons 'shame' ChurchCo?

This topic is surreal. Who comes up with these polls? If Russia invades the US, they won't do it with kid gloves as in Ukraine. It will be a nightmare that few can imagine.

What's with the assumption that we should fight an invading force? All of the problems the Ukraine has is because they are fighting an invading force. Russia could have done them a huge favor by mopping up the criminal element.

The human race is my side. If Russians come to my house, I will feed them not torture them with bad religion.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Russia invades the US, they won't do it
> with kid gloves as in Ukraine. It will be a
> nightmare that few can imagine.

Estimate of casualties (difficult to verify and there's lots of different estimates, depending on source) and these are days old, likely higher now:

2000-4000 Ukrainian soldiers
15,000 Russian Soldiers
3393 civilians/312 foreign

Targets include children's hospitals/cancer centres, shelters, civilian aid lines, maternity hospital, schools, transportation hubs for fleeing civilians and other non-military areas.

I doubt any Ukrainian has seen kid gloves to date.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2022 10:28PM by Nightingale.

The term would be a comparative one. If Russia were to invade the U.S., it would start and end with nuclear weapons. And anything those weapons will do, both short- and long-term, will make the Ukrainian situation look like kid gloves.

One of the "best" (I'm being ironic here) things the previous administration did was end nearly all of the nuclear limitation treaties with Russia. According to NPR and other sources, both countries are now seeking weapons that can reach a targeted location within 10 minutes of being launched instead of the previous 2-hour notice we had. What this means in practice is that when the Russians strike a U.S. location with a nuclear weapon, there will be only a 10-minute window for people to flea that location. In this scenario, the question raised by SC becomes entirely moot.

Existence becomes moot 10 minutes after Vlad the Invader hits the big red button from the ISS, which is no longer ‘International’ since our guy hitched a ride home from the Russians, since we have no funding to actually bring our astronauts back home.

You are right, blindguy.

I don't think two hours is correct. It's more lie 30 minutes.

But that 30 minutes is critically important. It gives decision makers time to consider and reconsider what they think the enemy is doing. Historically, there have been a couple of times when the USSR's poor warning systems flashed false positives and the only thing that stopped launch was human intervention.

Anything that reduces that buffer time is dangerous, and that's what these hypersonic missiles do. It's tragic that the former guy verbally rejected arms treaties and did not object when Putin and Xi went ahead with their new weapons systems.

All these "nuances"--things like the value of allies, the importance of arms control, the need not to praise our enemies and disparage our friends, etc., have been lost in the orgy of nationalist isolationism that overtook the US over the last decade.

“Quinnipiac University, surveyed 1,374 U.S. adults across the country. Out of those 1,374 participants, 55 percent said they would stay and fight, while 38 percent said they would flee the country, like the over 1.5 million people who have fled Ukraine as Russia continues its attack on Ukrainian cities and villages.“

Every blasted time the wrong candidate gets elected. I wish they'd just pack up and go!

I would fight them on the beaches.

I would fight them in the forests.

I would fight them in the mountains.

I would fight them in the cities.

I would fight them in the farmlands.

Any anywhere else they may be.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Any anywhere else they may be.

I'm with you--old codger that I am.

Ukraine is handing out rifles to everybody and providing training. We now know why a 2nd Amendment is a good thing to have--you never know when a government might become dangerous!

Really?

The Ukrainian government "became dangerous" and needed to be checked? That would probably come as news to Zelensky, who seems to be laboring under the delusion that the threat is a foreign invasion.

And who is handing out the weapons? Isn't it the Ukrainian government itself, the very entity that you think citizens need weapons to oppose?

Do you really think, furthermore, that it is shotguns and deer rifles that are holding off the Russians? My impression was that javelins, stingers, MLAWs and armed drones were the keys to the Ukrainian successes.

No, the government's distribution of weaponry to the Ukrainian people to fight against a foreign invasion hardly supports your notion that citizens need arms to protect against that government. Quite the opposite.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really?
>
> The Ukrainian government "became dangerous" and
> needed to be checked? That would probably come as
> news to Zelensky, who seems to be laboring under
> the delusion that the threat is a foreign
> invasion.

Which government did I specify?
>
> And who is handing out the weapons? Isn't it the
> Ukrainian government itself, the very entity that
> you think citizens need weapons to oppose?

Yep, it's the Ukrainian government. Better late than never--like the defensive weapons we should have been giving Ukraine all through 2021 as Putin amassed divisions on the Ukrainian borders, even as our intelligence (groan) services were telling us that Putin was serious about invading. Or am I confusing that with a "minor incursion?"
>
> Do you really think, furthermore, that it is
> shotguns and deer rifles that are holding off the
> Russians? My impression was that javelins,
> stingers, MLAWs and armed drones were the keys to
> the Ukrainian successes.

"...ARE the keys to Ukrainian successes."

The serious weaponry is coming in from various sources. The small arms for the populace is is in anticipation of possible insurgency warfare against a possible Russian occupation, which looks, thankfully, increasingly unlikely. Think in terms of deterrence: an well-armed citizenry deters (reduces) the prospects of an occupation force, just as a well-supplied military would have deterred (reduced) the prospects of an invasion.
>
> No, the government's distribution of weaponry to
> the Ukrainian people to fight against a foreign
> invasion hardly supports your notion that citizens
> need arms to protect against that government.
> Quite the opposite.

To summarize, a 2nd Amendment culture meant that many Ukrainians would have already been armed. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are misunderstanding my position, and not misrepresenting it.

PS: I wonder, and seriously worry, if the state of Russian strategic (nuclear) weaponry is screwed up as their ground-force tactical forces.

On the above, your point is both contradictory and absurd.

It is contradictory because second amendment enthusiasts tout that provision as a check on domestic government power. The Trumpians, yourself included, have said that numerous times. Your suggestion now that the second amendment was intended to protect the American citizenry from foreign invasion is bait-and-switch fatuity.

It is absurd because small arms are making next to zero impact on the war in Ukraine. Modern warfare undertaken by modern armies is generally long-distance: Mariupol and other cities are being destroyed by artillery, aircraft, and missiles. Pistols and hunting rifles are of no use at all against such systems. And where the Russians have been so foolish as to invade with artillery and infantry, small arms are only slightly more relevant. What is turning the tide is the javelins, MLAWs, and other high-tech weaponry that the second amendment does not protect.

And courage. The presence of small arms is far less important that the heroism of Ukrainians who are willing to risk their lives using Western weapons systems to destroy Russian armor.

On your consecutive and more substantial point, the state of Russian nuclear weaponry, I suspect the equipment is in a state of ill repair. Moscow invests in flashy new things like hypersonic missiles but not in the upkeep of older systems. Any such problems, however, could be resolved by sending more missiles to compensate for the duds. Even more worrisome, I think, is the possibility of low-grade nuclear war: blowing up Chernobyl or using a tactical weapon in western Ukraine so radioactive waste floats into Poland and maybe Germany.

"I suspect the equipment is in a state of ill repair."

I think you mean "I hope". The fall of the USSR did declaw the bear for a time, but that time has passed. Russia has often violated the nuclear test ban treaty while developing new weapons. The US has upheld the treaty, using computer simulations to maintain its 30 year old stockpile of nukes. As a result, their deterent value is eroded because nobody knows for sure how many are duds.

I worry that Russia is "throwing the fight" as part of stage managing the "war". They don't call it a war, but why should they? It's not being fought like a war. Hell Lite is not Hell. If such is the case, NATO is being lured into a trap.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would fight them on the beaches.
>
> I would fight them in the forests.
>
> I would fight them in the mountains.
>
> I would fight them in the cities.
>
> I would fight them in the farmlands.
>
> Any anywhere else they may be.

Russian gave me a bad coupon:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xrziHnudx3g

I need ammo.
Not a ride.

Slava Ukraini
Heroiam Slava

Glory to Ukraine
Glory to the heroes

I'd have to stay. This is my home and I don't have anyplace to flee to. I'm not sure I have the capacity to fight, unless it would be in some sneaky, paperworky sort of way.

I can't see Russia bothering to invade us when they could wipe us out long-distance with nukes. Very grim prospect.

I wouldn't leave my husband.

S.cat, we live near Joint Base Lewis McChord, an Army/ Air Force base for those not familiar, then we have Bangor Trident submarine about 50 miles away, as well as Boeing plants.

We are in a prime target zone for Russia, China and North Korea. There is no place to run.

I'm a fatalist, I just as soon go quickly in a nuclear war than wait around a week or two for radiation poisoning to die.

I'm not sure if the earth will be suitable for life after such a war.

my Grandfather ran Madigan Hospital during WW2, my Dad served on that base during the Korean WAr. And my FIL served there during vietNam.
We are living in a time when every day is the Cuban Missle crisis. Putin is Hitler with nukes and the ISS.
He has the ultimate checkmate and get out of jail free card.
I think Biden is handling it as well as could be expected.
Not a huge fan of the old man, but he’s the best we got, I suppose.
I voted for him but the alternative sucks!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2022 02:26AM by schrodingerscat.

What a ridiculous polling question.

Russia can’t invade the US. Hell, they can’t even invade Ukraine and it’s on flat land right next door.

They can attack the US, including with nukes, but invade? Get serious.

If a nuclear bomb hits this country, I hope it comes right through my kitchen window.

If a million illegals can sneak in basically unimpeded, why not troops with real support? They don't need large numbers, just elite forces that need 1% the manpower of regular troops. It's a matter of air support. Super EMP followed by attack of sitting-duck air bases would give them that.

But if they did invade, would it work? I could see them taking LA, but Compton? Detroit? Appalachia? Miami?

Then what would they do with it?

Okay, I joke. But Russia and China both see the US as a decadent cesspool. That is what alarms me because they could see nukes as a kind of "bug bomb" to rid the world of pests.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2022 03:48AM by bradley.

“Gay Mexican Muslims are invading the country!”

That is so 2004. The 2021 update is not much better.

It appears that Putin actually did believe his own propaganda about the west being a decadent cesspool and all that. What he expected to be a two day cakewalk into Kyiv has dragged on for almost a month, and the Russian military appears to be stalled or even losing some ground.

And no, this is not a double-secret probation backtrack to fool NATO. Putin is tossing Russian generals in prison. He expected to win easily and he is pissed and frustrated.

That’s the problem with conspiracy theories. There actually is an objective reality out there, and sometimes it is impossible to evade or ignore.

ETA: damn, it’s 2022. How time flies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2022 09:44AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Jerry,
You beat me to a response. The whole question is ridiculous. I like Anybody's answer, a third would collaborate. Just promise to get rid of abortion and gay marriage.

To make up for Uncle Bradley's scary bedtime stories and try to ease the fatalism, I will relate a good experience. It was maybe a week ago. I woke up from a dream in which the 4th verse of "My Country Tis of Thee" playing perfectly in my head.

This tells me that America will survive whatever is coming. Freedom will go on.

Which reminds me of a very relevant speech: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9t1IK_9apWs

Right now, it looks like at least a quarter to a third of the population just might collaborate.

That’s why he ironic thing. There is no more Republican Party left. They’re now Trumpists who believe Putin is a genius and they’re the most likely to stay and fight?

I'd stay and fight, make America great again damitt! most of my neighbors are peppers oops I mean preppers, it's the local militias and church groups and retired police that provide the backbone of our culture, when things get crazy then it's up to us to keep the peace.

Maca Laca,
I'm so impressed, you even used the word "Damitt". Big words there.

Ah, still having fantasies of playing cops and robbers I see. You must have really enjoyed being 4 years old.

The question is still ridiculous. Russia doesn't have enough people to invade the US, and if it did, it wouldn't have a way to get them here.

Attack the US. Sure, they can do that, and as LW pointed out, Maca and all his preppers with their pea shooters would be worth diddly-squat in stopping such an attack.

But invade? I repeat - get serious.

Anyone who has served in a war zone knows what is covered by the media is far from the situation for real. Geopolitics and military strategy is far more complicated than most people understand.

Russia is a nuclear power and so are we. if we get in a kinetic war with them it's nuclear. I'm amazed at how many people have forgotten this simple fact.

+1

Thank you for being a voice of reason on this, Rubicon.

Stone did this documentary did this documentary in 2016. After reviewing Ukraine's longer history, from medieval times to World War II, he covers the Nazi issue and the 2014 Maidan Orange Revolution in depth.

One hour forty minutes, a real eye-opener.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzNxLzFfR5w

more thanlikely that is exactly what I would do!
One or the Other

We'd see a very bright light even with our eyes closed, and that would be it. It's a light I've seen when I was small, just kilotons--not gigatons. Still, it made me horrifically sick.

in b 4 ~ OPie promotes some staged media narrative ~

ziller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in b 4 ~ OPie promotes some staged media narrative
> ~


What would be the ‘staged media narrative’ in this story?

Give me an example and source and I’ll tell you if I agree with it. Generally if it’s Fox News/Russian State Media I disagree.
If it’s a news outlet with reporters in the field, reporting what they see, I’m more likely to buy their narrative.

note to media:


if you have a narrative to sell ~


OPie is buying it ~

IF Russia invaded the US it would be a logistical nightmare. There are more armed citizens in US than the conscripts of all the global militaries combined. There are as many citizens that own AR 15s as they own TV's...

Ratdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are more armed citizens in US
> than the conscripts of all the global militaries
> combined. There are as many citizens that own AR
> 15s as they own TV's...

You should write tourist brochures.

I admit it is an absurd question.
Russians wouldn’t ’invade’ America.
They’d drop a nuke on us and 1/2hr later the war would be over.
Just kiss your ass goodbye.
Your pea shooters and prayers will do you no good.
Your dumb ass is gonna die!
The best place to be right about now is probably Australia, Tasmania preferably.

Just like they are doing in Ukraine - Kill a Russian for Jesus.