Yes, but Scranton is commanded by Lord Michael the Scott of the House of Dunder-Mifflin-Sabre and that erases all strategic advantages.
Yes, the Americans failed to successfully defend it. I remember the grueling island-hopping campaign to retake Hawaii.
Superhal’s right. The book Shattered Sword, a new look at the Battle of Midway, reiterates the point the Japanese Army made to the Imperial Navy before Pearl – there’s no way Japan could have seriously seized the Hawaiian Islands. Pearl was intended to be a hit-and-run only, and frankly, many Japanese strategists thought seizing and trying to hold Midway was foolish as well (due to its proximity to Hawaii and remoteness from Japanese bases).
It’s pretty well known that the Pearl Harbor attack should have been extended to include another attack wave, mainly to get the giant naval fuel oil reserves. What’s less obvious is why the Japanese didn’t stick around for another wave – not knowing where the American carriers were and what land-based air strength might remain available to the Americans, the Kido Butai (carrier strike force) was fearfully vulnerable once it lost the element of surprise.
As was demonstrated at the battle of Midway.
Regarding Bismark, North Dakota; back in the 70s when the Safeguard ABM system was operating, would Bismark have been considered especially safe?
Or, as a more enlightened Kissengeresque analysis might indicate, Bismark was especially UNSAFE because any foe would realize that ‘saturating’ the area with missiles would be the way to defeat the ABM system, and as a consequence, Bismark would have been reduced to a glowing fog of atoms very early on?
(if this is a “whole 'nother thread”, my apologies)
So there are several great spots for the enemy to park their big guns and rain fire upon us until we give up? No, Thanks.
I’d pick Silverton, Co. It’s in a valley surrounded by 13-14K peaks and has close access to water. Since they can only attack from a single direction it will be easy to defend and with the mines it would be possible to stockpile a large amount of food and supplies as well as give yourself a great place to retreat to if necessary.
Y’all need to go re-read SunTsu. You never choose to be at a low point surrounded by higher ground.
Well, there’s no rule in city defense that forces you to be inside the city per se, although with only 500 defenders that would appear pretty difficult.
If you’re not limited to 500, Estes Park, Colorado would seem quite defensible, since it is surrounded by defensible mountain passes on all sides, but itself contains quite good transportation you can use to move troops around to wherever is needed.
Sure they can shoot at you from 2000 feet above but unless they are making one way raids on snowboards there is no way down from those mountains. higher ground is only useful if there is a way to get your army down from it. The only access to Silverton in large numbers is through the river valleys in which case I have the higher ground, by a lot.
The OP didn’t ask about seizing anything, or following up on an attack, or supporting invading forces, just
So the answer of “Hawaiian Islands” was shown to be a poor choice at least once, by the highly successful and ineffectually defended Pearl Harbor event, and that’s all I said. I don’t see any need to retract that statement.
And since the OP specified non-use of defensive air support, pretty much like it happened in 1941, I’d say the Pearl attack suggests that HI is not a good candidate for the OP’s defensive strategy (not that anything else is any better).
Well, ok, but remember Pearl Harbor was defensible; it was just that no effort was made to defend it. They’d been given a “war warning” and everyone since prehistoric times knows that means you need to post lookouts and patrol the approaches. The fact that it wasn’t defended in that case doesn’t make it a poor choice to defend, any more than the fact that the British once burned Washington, DC means they can do it again any time they feel like it.
Was Bismarck even under the cover of the Safeguard system? It was built to protect Minot and Grand Forks, after all. In any case, it was only in operation for a few months.
Very good point, Sir. IIRC, lookouts were not posted because it was thought that an attack was impossible, given the distance to any enemy, so why bother? Let that be a lesson to all of us; assumptions can be deadly.
So they sit up there and shell with impunity until there’s noone left to stop their approach.
Folks don’t take over a city for the workforce. . .
My 1st instinct was,“Topeka”.
The Book of Lost Tales suggests that The Fall of Gondolin was the result of such a geographic arrangement and overconfidence.
Sure but how do they get up there to shell us? Especially with artillery it would need to be hauled through 50 miles of 10k+ mountains with minimal to no trails. It doesn’t take much to post lookout on the few passable routes. Sure if we’re talking the appachalations or the Sierra nevadas you may not want a valley since there might be room on those rounded mountain top or easy access there but getting through the rockies isn’t easy in the best of times let alone doing it against a hostile force.
Chattanooga was pretty tough to take during the Civil War.
Mountains, rivers, rednecks, VD, etc.