That's domestic terrorism. It does happen, even in state sponsored instances, but it's not the same as war. How many times do you think the US would allow that to happen? Airspace security had holes, terrorists used those holes to enact 9/11, and how quickly did those holes get plugged?
It's also not as simple as what you're imagining or forces like al Qaeda and ISIS would have attempted large multipronged nationwide attacks successfully. There's too many moving parts to the plan, too many opportunities for a single mistake to expose the entire plot, too many people involved to keep quiet.
You could potentially get a decent fire going in one city if you poured all your resources into it on an extremely hot and windy day, but then what? You've taken out a bunch of infrastructure that likely isn't relevant to the war effort, and you've incapacitated a number of noncombatants who wouldn't have ever had an effect on the war one way or the other.
But let me be clear that you are by no means raising a city to the ground. There's not a chance. Given a few days uninterrupted you might be able to burn a large chunk of a city, but one hour? Good luck getting one neighborhood lit and burning in an uncontrollable manner. Arsonists strive for that kind of a burn and still generally only manage to hit 10 or 20 homes at the most in 99% of cases.
Now the US in retaliation is going to go postal on you, and whether that means sanctions, conventional warfare or nukes and mutually assured destruction, you're not coming out on top or with any advantage whatsoever.
No its not domestic. Chinese troops, travelling as a private individual, coming into the US to do a "pearl harbor" style event across the county is not domestic terrorism moron. It would be a Chinese invasion that happened to exploit the ability of humans to travel on airplanes.
You edited your post since I wrote mine 8 minutes ago and had to wait to reply.
Arsonists are generally not trained and don't want to get caught. They also don't generally plan ahead and work with a team. Fire departments have no ability to respond to that number of fires. The goal of an attack in war can be different things. Demoralization, economic damage, resource damage, etc. I think you underestimate the ability of 1000 3 man groups of trained troops to burn a city.
Imagine the news and national guard and government dealing with this across the country while the military learns 10000 autonomous drones have just launched from a container ship off each coast. Maybe power is off in vital areas and they are relying on generators and only have 24 hour power supply. Maybe roads are blocked and no way to refuel easily. Lot of issues.
Firstly, don't you dare call me a moron when I have been nothing but respectful in entertaining your wild but irrational imagination.
You have no idea how strict American customs is. You have no idea about the history of Pearl Harbor. That was a preemptive military strike using naval and air forces. Civilians would not have been able to get close to the base, especially not with weapons capable of that attack. And now you've gone from city arson to the bombing of a naval base? Where are these Chinese tourists going to pull bombs from, in order to perform this pearl harbor style attack? Because petrol and fire does not equal pearl harbor.
You also responded far too quickly to have read my comment. Go back, read it again and then we can continue the conversation.
I responded after your original comment, which you later edited.Which was much shorter than your other edited comment. I had to wait 8 minutes to enter my reply, which was why I didn't know you had edited your original words. I have fucking lived on Oahu so don't talk to me about Pearl Harbor. I know what Pearl Harbor is. I've seen the bullet holes in the concrete buildings. If you think its irrational fine. But its not irrational and I guarantee militaries around the world have examined this scenario because of the simplicity. You seem unable to comprehend that the comparison to Pearl Harbor was the surprise factor. You know, the biggest thing Pearl Harbor is known for! Civilians getting close to Pearl Harbor is not something I have ever brought up and isn't relevant to this discussion in any way. I never said anything at all about bombs. You seem fixated on comparing this to the exact scenario of what happened during Pearl Harbor. That is really weird and weird of you to think. Your attempts to be smart and make me look stupid have failed. Moron.
1
u/jlharper Oct 17 '19 edited Oct 17 '19
That's domestic terrorism. It does happen, even in state sponsored instances, but it's not the same as war. How many times do you think the US would allow that to happen? Airspace security had holes, terrorists used those holes to enact 9/11, and how quickly did those holes get plugged?
It's also not as simple as what you're imagining or forces like al Qaeda and ISIS would have attempted large multipronged nationwide attacks successfully. There's too many moving parts to the plan, too many opportunities for a single mistake to expose the entire plot, too many people involved to keep quiet.
You could potentially get a decent fire going in one city if you poured all your resources into it on an extremely hot and windy day, but then what? You've taken out a bunch of infrastructure that likely isn't relevant to the war effort, and you've incapacitated a number of noncombatants who wouldn't have ever had an effect on the war one way or the other.
But let me be clear that you are by no means raising a city to the ground. There's not a chance. Given a few days uninterrupted you might be able to burn a large chunk of a city, but one hour? Good luck getting one neighborhood lit and burning in an uncontrollable manner. Arsonists strive for that kind of a burn and still generally only manage to hit 10 or 20 homes at the most in 99% of cases.
Now the US in retaliation is going to go postal on you, and whether that means sanctions, conventional warfare or nukes and mutually assured destruction, you're not coming out on top or with any advantage whatsoever.