To what targets would you limit yourself in the event of a resistance?

[Irish Caesar]

Why? They probably killed a lot of yours. Any invasion makes thousands of civilian casualties.

Their civilians aren't killing my civilians. Their military forces are.

 

[AceChilla]

Their civilians aren't killing my civilians. Their military forces are.

So what, they are dead. Eye for an eye civilian for civilian. At least that how I would think if someone invaded my country.

If it's a democracy invading you, the representatives of the civilians are supossed to have agreed with killing of yours anyway, so in that way it makes targetting them even more legit.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I wouldn't be against shooting their Senators, but I'm looking to expel a government/occupying power. No need for excess blood.

 

[AceChilla]

I wouldn't be against shooting their Senators, but I'm looking to expel a government/occupying power. No need for excess blood.

Excess blood will put pressure on their governement to move troops out ASAP.

 

[Irish Caesar]

If killing politicians doesn't cut it, killing civilians probably won't either.

 

[AceChilla]

If killing politicians doesn't cut it, killing civilians probably won't either.

Yeah but politicians will be a much harder target, almost impossible to reach. Civilians wont be too hard especially if they are in your country already working for some company like they are now in Iraq.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I've already committed to blowing up a bunch of other crap: political offices, military personnel, supplies, etc. but if I see a politician, I'm taking him down.

But a civilian from the occupying country is just another Joe like me; killing him won't change a thing.

 

[Kal'thzar]

killing civilians usually does mean that occupying forces have to clamp down on the population to try and control this (as they need to protect their own) which usually means harsher treatment, or harsher conditiions, which won't appeal to the occupied population, this makes more people join your struggle, more resources, more fighters. etc

Continue, until you hopefully have the whole population hostile (even moderates, or collaberators) then start a conventional war.

 

[greekguy]

I voted millitary targets, millitary personnel wherever, infrastructure, and assassinate political officials. i think killing citizens is crossing the line, and nuking is just going to kill people who aren't even occupying my country. kill the millitary governor and millitary and they'll be gone soon enough.

 

[blackheart]

If you want to win in a war for survival, cut no corners.

 

[Elrohir]

Military personel and facilities only. If we had nukes I don't think any sane country would invade anyway. (I still think that the only time use of nuclear weapons is justified today is when the enemy uses WMD first, or your homeland is actually invaded) If I had control of ICBM's I would likely just tell them to withdraw their forces or they'd be losing their major cities; whether I would actually do it I'm not sure. Perhaps I would just scare them a little.

But I wouldn't use biological weapons; too indistcriminate. Chemical, maybe, as I don't see that they are quite as atrocious weapons as anthrax or nukes.

 

[CurtSibling]

Most is fair in a war of extermination.

A good Dalek-stlye way to look at it.

During any opccupation, the rules of war are to attack any target, if you have
the opportunity and capability to do it and escape the counter-attacks. But
with a ruthless enemy, they would strike back at the occupied civilians if they
understand the power of fear. Although as WW2 showed, this tactic can also
solidify the insurgency and occupation against the enemy.

I would concentrate on enemy troops, using tactics of sudden and random
attacks at the enemy's weakest points of dislocation and causing maximal
fear and dismay in the foe. This style of warfare was what broke the morale
of the Americans in Vietnam, and ultimately sapped their will to continue the
war. In this way, an seemingly inferior force can destroy a superior army.

And I would also target churches, as targets of opportunity.

.

 

[bhsup]

And I would also target churches, as targets of opportunity.

.

Are you insane? Those churches would most likely have been there before the invaders came, yes? That clearly means that they are for the local populace. If you start blowing up the house of worship of your local citizenry, you're support will evaporate faster than you can say "Holy lonely and abandoned freedom fighters, Batman!"

Now, if those churches, temples, etc were being used by the enemy as troop facilities, then that obviously changes the dynamic.

 

[Elrohir]

And I would also target churches, as targets of opportunity.

Why don't you spike small children's heads on your bayonets and march around singing "We're going to kill you all and drink you blood!" while your'e at it? Attacking places of worship is probably the best way to unite people against you, even your own people. You're not going to get much sympathy from your fellow countrymen if you blow them up while they go to pray; and if the enemy is intelligent at all he'll build on that disgust to destroy you.

You should leave the places of worship alone, or you'll be quickly killed.

 

[nonconformist]

A good Dalek-stlye way to look at it.

When the enemy is exterminating, there is no morality.

 

[CurtSibling]

Why don't you spike small children's heads on your bayonets and march around singing "We're going to kill you all and drink you blood!" while your'e at it?

You would make fine officer material in my army.

Attacking places of worship is probably the best way to unite people against you, even your own people. You're not going to get much sympathy from your fellow countrymen if you blow them up while they go to pray; and if the enemy is intelligent at all he'll build on that disgust to destroy you.

War is not all black and white morality - I would of course blame such actions on the enemy.

You should leave the places of worship alone, or you'll be quickly killed.

In that situation, you would never be able to stop me.

I would have the guns and the willpower to win.

 

[Warman17]

I'm taking this question as what resistance I would play if the US was attacked and subsequently occupied. ->

Military facilities

Yes, it's a purely military target. How can you lead a revolt without attacking the occupying powers military?

Military personnel/units regardless of location

No, for example attacking them in the middle of a crowded market would cause many other deaths, mostly innocent ones.

Political offices in occupied areas

Yes, they are a tool used by the occupying power to replace our former democratic system of government with a puppet state.

Infrastructure vital to the occupation in your nation

No, we need that infrastructure (power plants, water plants, transportation system, communication) in order for our own lives, especially for pwoer(no refridgeration -> no uncanned foods) and water (no clean water = boiling it, and if you don't have electricity from earlier dustruction of the power grid, you'll need fuel. But how can you get fuel if you blew up the only bridge going into town?)

Kidnapping of the occupying nation's citizens

Since it said kidnapping and not murdering them, sure go ahead. We can use them as bargaining chips and bluf that we're going to kill them.

Assassination of political officials

Yes, those officials were put in place by the occupying power to rule over us!

Civilians in the occupying power's cities

No, those civilians are innocent.

Weapons of mass destruction against the occupying power's cities

See above.

Incite total revolution

No, that would cause widespread chaos, death, and destruction. Not good.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Military personnel/units regardless of location

No, for example attacking them in the middle of a crowded market would cause many other deaths, mostly innocent ones.

I don't think too many of us here would suicide car-bomb a crowded market if an enemy military figure was doing his shopping there. Learn to use a good resistance-gun and minimize collateral damage!

 

[Vietcong]

all of the above

thay are the enamy, regardless of who thay are, say if mexico invades and takes over texas. it dosent matter if ur a mexican solider, or a mexican citizan, u are a enamy. becus u are a mexican. *aplies to all ppl, rather mexican or canadian*
if u are working in a coffie shop in mexico city, u are surporting the enamy econamy, thus u are an enamy, and deserve death.

 

[CurtSibling]

Are you insane? Those churches would most likely have been there before the invaders came, yes? That clearly means that they are for the local populace. If you start blowing up the house of worship of your local citizenry, you're support will evaporate faster than you can say "Holy lonely and abandoned freedom fighters, Batman!"

Now, if those churches, temples, etc were being used by the enemy as troop facilities, then that obviously changes the dynamic.

As Clausewitz stated: "War is the continuation of politics, intermixed with other means."

.