An Undercover ArmyWhy would super-advanced aliens go undercover as humans?Military Structure/Chain of Command...
3.5% Interest Student Loan or use all of my savings on Tuition?
Practical reasons to have both a large police force and bounty hunting network?
Being asked to review a paper in conference one has submitted to
Is being socially reclusive okay for a graduate student?
Quitting employee has privileged access to critical information
Number of folds to form a cube, using a square paper?
Where is this quote about overcoming the impossible said in "Interstellar"?
Has Wakanda ever accepted refugees?
How to roleplay my character's ethics according to the DM when I don't understand those ethics?
Is there a math equivalent to the conditional ternary operator?
What is a term for a function that when called repeatedly, has the same effect as calling once?
Rationale to prefer local variables over instance variables?
Are Wave equations equivalent to Maxwell equations in free space?
What kind of inflection is occuring in passive vb + かかった?
What is the meaning of option 'by' in TikZ Intersections
How do you write a macro that takes arguments containing paragraphs?
In the world of The Matrix, what is "popping"?
Is there a way to find out the age of climbing ropes?
Adding thousand separator to various number types
How can friction do no work in case of pure rolling?
Should I use HTTPS on a domain that will only be used for redirection?
PTIJ: Mordechai mourning
What's the best tool for cutting holes into duct work?
Can I solder 12/2 Romex to extend wire 5 ft?
An Undercover Army
Why would super-advanced aliens go undercover as humans?Military Structure/Chain of Command (Army)Private Contractors or Mercenaries an alternative to Army or Soldiers?How could a low-quality, light armored but motivated army defeat a better army, battling in the mud?In a war situation, would many small dropships be most effective, or a massive army-carrierHow to create a medieval army secretly?Army composition of feudal gunpowder societyArmy composition in a “Dies the Fire” scenarioHow can you use an army of dimunitive soldiers effectively?Would a National Army of mercenaries be a feasible idea?
$begingroup$
Suppose you want to invade Russia. But, beating it in a conventional or nuclear war isn't possible for your people for some reason.
What if, instead, you line up 500,000 soldiers to move to Russia with civilian cover stories, blend in, and at the right moment, emerge everywhere at once with the benefit of surprise, and take over, dropping their cover and becoming an invading/occupying Army (a bit like the lizard people TV mini-series V, but with humans, not lizard people). Put another way, something a bit like a supply it yourself Fifth Column.
Could it be done?
How quickly could it be put in place without being discovered?
What tactics or tools would be needed?
Are there any historical precedents for similar tactics being tried and either working or failing?
(Of course, Russia is just a concrete example. It could be India, or Brazil, or Nigeria, instead, for example.)
reality-check military history conspiracy
$endgroup$
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
Suppose you want to invade Russia. But, beating it in a conventional or nuclear war isn't possible for your people for some reason.
What if, instead, you line up 500,000 soldiers to move to Russia with civilian cover stories, blend in, and at the right moment, emerge everywhere at once with the benefit of surprise, and take over, dropping their cover and becoming an invading/occupying Army (a bit like the lizard people TV mini-series V, but with humans, not lizard people). Put another way, something a bit like a supply it yourself Fifth Column.
Could it be done?
How quickly could it be put in place without being discovered?
What tactics or tools would be needed?
Are there any historical precedents for similar tactics being tried and either working or failing?
(Of course, Russia is just a concrete example. It could be India, or Brazil, or Nigeria, instead, for example.)
reality-check military history conspiracy
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Do you mean sleeper cells and sleeper agents?
$endgroup$
– Nathan Hopp
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@NathanHopp sounds like it. But on a really massive scale - an army-sized network of these.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Historical precedents": the rape (=abduction) of the Sabine women comes to mind. Mythical, true. "Tactics": Pietro da Cortona, Nicolas Poussin, Jacques Stella...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Those are many different questions at once. And many of them are somehow depending on various parameters, like period, technological level, etc.
$endgroup$
– bilbo_pingouin
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
In one of the last Jack Ryan novels (I think), there was an successful Japanese invasion of Okinawa - lots of Japanese citizens bought properties on the island, shifting the demographic enough that they managed to vote for Okinawa reunification with Japan (the initial support was large, but not quite enough). So an invasion, but not of the military kind.
$endgroup$
– Calin Ceteras
7 hours ago
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
Suppose you want to invade Russia. But, beating it in a conventional or nuclear war isn't possible for your people for some reason.
What if, instead, you line up 500,000 soldiers to move to Russia with civilian cover stories, blend in, and at the right moment, emerge everywhere at once with the benefit of surprise, and take over, dropping their cover and becoming an invading/occupying Army (a bit like the lizard people TV mini-series V, but with humans, not lizard people). Put another way, something a bit like a supply it yourself Fifth Column.
Could it be done?
How quickly could it be put in place without being discovered?
What tactics or tools would be needed?
Are there any historical precedents for similar tactics being tried and either working or failing?
(Of course, Russia is just a concrete example. It could be India, or Brazil, or Nigeria, instead, for example.)
reality-check military history conspiracy
$endgroup$
Suppose you want to invade Russia. But, beating it in a conventional or nuclear war isn't possible for your people for some reason.
What if, instead, you line up 500,000 soldiers to move to Russia with civilian cover stories, blend in, and at the right moment, emerge everywhere at once with the benefit of surprise, and take over, dropping their cover and becoming an invading/occupying Army (a bit like the lizard people TV mini-series V, but with humans, not lizard people). Put another way, something a bit like a supply it yourself Fifth Column.
Could it be done?
How quickly could it be put in place without being discovered?
What tactics or tools would be needed?
Are there any historical precedents for similar tactics being tried and either working or failing?
(Of course, Russia is just a concrete example. It could be India, or Brazil, or Nigeria, instead, for example.)
reality-check military history conspiracy
reality-check military history conspiracy
asked 12 hours ago
ohwillekeohwilleke
7,6902453
7,6902453
2
$begingroup$
Do you mean sleeper cells and sleeper agents?
$endgroup$
– Nathan Hopp
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@NathanHopp sounds like it. But on a really massive scale - an army-sized network of these.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Historical precedents": the rape (=abduction) of the Sabine women comes to mind. Mythical, true. "Tactics": Pietro da Cortona, Nicolas Poussin, Jacques Stella...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Those are many different questions at once. And many of them are somehow depending on various parameters, like period, technological level, etc.
$endgroup$
– bilbo_pingouin
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
In one of the last Jack Ryan novels (I think), there was an successful Japanese invasion of Okinawa - lots of Japanese citizens bought properties on the island, shifting the demographic enough that they managed to vote for Okinawa reunification with Japan (the initial support was large, but not quite enough). So an invasion, but not of the military kind.
$endgroup$
– Calin Ceteras
7 hours ago
|
show 10 more comments
2
$begingroup$
Do you mean sleeper cells and sleeper agents?
$endgroup$
– Nathan Hopp
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@NathanHopp sounds like it. But on a really massive scale - an army-sized network of these.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Historical precedents": the rape (=abduction) of the Sabine women comes to mind. Mythical, true. "Tactics": Pietro da Cortona, Nicolas Poussin, Jacques Stella...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Those are many different questions at once. And many of them are somehow depending on various parameters, like period, technological level, etc.
$endgroup$
– bilbo_pingouin
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
In one of the last Jack Ryan novels (I think), there was an successful Japanese invasion of Okinawa - lots of Japanese citizens bought properties on the island, shifting the demographic enough that they managed to vote for Okinawa reunification with Japan (the initial support was large, but not quite enough). So an invasion, but not of the military kind.
$endgroup$
– Calin Ceteras
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Do you mean sleeper cells and sleeper agents?
$endgroup$
– Nathan Hopp
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Do you mean sleeper cells and sleeper agents?
$endgroup$
– Nathan Hopp
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@NathanHopp sounds like it. But on a really massive scale - an army-sized network of these.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NathanHopp sounds like it. But on a really massive scale - an army-sized network of these.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
"Historical precedents": the rape (=abduction) of the Sabine women comes to mind. Mythical, true. "Tactics": Pietro da Cortona, Nicolas Poussin, Jacques Stella...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Historical precedents": the rape (=abduction) of the Sabine women comes to mind. Mythical, true. "Tactics": Pietro da Cortona, Nicolas Poussin, Jacques Stella...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
11 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Those are many different questions at once. And many of them are somehow depending on various parameters, like period, technological level, etc.
$endgroup$
– bilbo_pingouin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Those are many different questions at once. And many of them are somehow depending on various parameters, like period, technological level, etc.
$endgroup$
– bilbo_pingouin
9 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
In one of the last Jack Ryan novels (I think), there was an successful Japanese invasion of Okinawa - lots of Japanese citizens bought properties on the island, shifting the demographic enough that they managed to vote for Okinawa reunification with Japan (the initial support was large, but not quite enough). So an invasion, but not of the military kind.
$endgroup$
– Calin Ceteras
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
In one of the last Jack Ryan novels (I think), there was an successful Japanese invasion of Okinawa - lots of Japanese citizens bought properties on the island, shifting the demographic enough that they managed to vote for Okinawa reunification with Japan (the initial support was large, but not quite enough). So an invasion, but not of the military kind.
$endgroup$
– Calin Ceteras
7 hours ago
|
show 10 more comments
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Russia has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world (a measure Putin's government implemented to counteract its plummeting population due to demographics), but a half-million people in a short period of time is a bit excessive. Still, somewhat theoretically possible.
There are two problems you're going to have to deal with. Russia has one of the strictest gun control regimes on the planet. Aside from shotguns and rifles that people in the rural area have limited permission (note: not right) to possess, there are no legal privately owned firearms. So where this army getting its weapons? And where are they keeping them?
The second issue is maintaining secrecy. There's actually math that can be used to calculate how long a secret can be kept before it can be expected to get out.
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs
Conspiratorial ideation is the tendency of individuals to believe that
events and power relations are secretly manipulated by certain
clandestine groups and organisations. Many of these ostensibly
explanatory conjectures are non-falsifiable, lacking in evidence or
demonstrably false, yet public acceptance remains high. Efforts to
convince the general public of the validity of medical and scientific
findings can be hampered by such narratives, which can create the
impression of doubt or disagreement in areas where the science is well
established. Conversely, historical examples of exposed conspiracies
do exist and it may be difficult for people to differentiate between
reasonable and dubious assertions. In this work, we establish a simple
mathematical model for conspiracies involving multiple actors with
time, which yields failure probability for any given conspiracy.
Parameters for the model are estimated from literature examples of
known scandals, and the factors influencing conspiracy success and
failure are explored. The model is also used to estimate the
likelihood of claims from some commonly-held conspiratorial beliefs;
these are namely that the moon-landings were faked, climate-change is
a hoax, vaccination is dangerous and that a cure for cancer is being
suppressed by vested interests. Simulations of these claims predict
that intrinsic failure would be imminent even with the most generous
estimates for the secret-keeping ability of active participants—the
results of this model suggest that large conspiracies (≥1000 agents)
quickly become untenable and prone to failure. The theory presented
here might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious
consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives, and examining the
hypothetical conditions under which sustainable conspiracy might be
possible.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
TLDR version: the more people involved, the faster someone will blow it. Using some of the examples in the article, counting just the 500,000 soldiers it will be a near certainty the operation will be blown in under 3 years. There's 50% odds it will be blown within one year. And that doesn't count the people staying at home who know about the operation.
So, realistically, no.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I like the article but it is a bit pessimistic. Thinking D-Day, Underground RR, large insurgencies.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Seems as if total #s and not relative ones matter. So might work if scaled down proportionately to a smaller state.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Plans of D-Day were known to a very limited number of people until the very last days, while the Underground Railroad and large insurgencies were/are not secret per se. Everybody knows about the existance of insurgencies in, e.g., Myanmar, but only a small number of local villagers loyal to the insurgents know where the insurgents hide.
$endgroup$
– ain92
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer is no, but the longer answer is far more interesting.
First of all, if you're looking at a simple, knock down, drag out fight with the military in question, let's assume you need equal numbers to the military in question.
There is a really cool graph out of the world bank that shows the percentages of population in the military across the world, and by country, over time. The current average is around 0.9%, but let's assume that you want to get 1% of Russia's population being made up of your fifth column.
Russia's population is currently around 145m, meaning you need 1.4m, maybe 1.5m sleepers in the country. Based on some statistics I pulled off the internet, in 2017 Russia admitted around 250k immigrants that year.
Based on this model, assuming you can take EVERY immigration place in the Russian admission program, it's still going to take you 6 years to embed your sleeper force.
BUT; if you want an army and not a network of terror cells, you also need equipment. You need guns (of course), possibly tanks, planes, missiles, and LOTS of computers. You need infrastructure like training bases, etc. Otherwise, all you're doing is engaging in a guerrilla war in the streets, and that's still going to need lots and lots of small arms.
BUT; you also need a plan. Just going street to street and taking the country is (in a word) dumb. You want to take critical infrastructure, especially communication infrastructure, and neutralise your enemy's capacity to fight back. That means taking their bases et al. For that, you really want to embed your army in their army.
That means infiltration, having kids that are born in Russia, and getting them ALL to join the military. That's on average a 30 year investment or so to get the outcome you're after.
I'd argue that there's more efficient ways to do it, but it does have one single benefit that ties in nicely with Sun Tzu; you'd have your army literally living off the enemy lands once you've started your covert invasion.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There's also the laughable idea that you're somehow going to have 1.5M children of immigrants in a foreign military force without any of them getting caughts and revealing the scope of your military.
$endgroup$
– Nzall
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
From the source you cited, in 2016 Russia had 1.9% of its population in the military. If you want to match it 1:1, this is 2.8m soldiers you'll need.
$endgroup$
– Legisey
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Legisey that's right, but as I said in my answer I applied the global average for the figures because I felt that it was a better fit for taking out naval forces and many air force personnel who would be involved in a ground war. But if you were matching person for person you'd be right, making it closer to 12 years to bring your numbers up via the model I described.
$endgroup$
– Tim B II
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
In this analysis a large state with a small military looks promising, e.g. Indonesia or Brazil.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The biggest problem that you're going to face is secrecy
I probably don't need to point out that 500,000 people is a large number. Each one of those soldiers is a detection risk. If any one of them acts suspiciously enough to be picked up by the Russian intelligence operations. Even worse, each one of your soldiers is a defection risk.
And once you've lost the element of surprise, every part of your plan works against you. Your soldiers are isolated, difficult to contact, and in a foreign country. They'll be easily picked up one by one, and by the time it comes for you to trigger the attack, you'll have no army.
Even if every member of your army has ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, you'll still get discovered
Wikipedia places the population of temporary migrant workers at about 7 million. That means that 500,000 additional people is about a 7% increase in that count, not exactly a drop in the bucket. Especially since the increase is coming entirely from a single country.
Even if some of your soldiers arrive through other channels, you simply can't conceal the movement of that many people, and the powers that be are going to notice. Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
"Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously." yeah, I was thinking about that in relation to something else. Even assuming your soldiers have ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, they still need to arrive in Russia which includes a background check. So you'd have to have a bunch of people forging documents for them and making up backgrounds. Are all of these people master level forgers and writers, too? Surely even a bad immigration officer in Russia would eventually go "hold on, this doesn't make sense" after seeing a thousand bacckgrounds.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
And somebody at some point would look just a little bit into this mass exodus from the country and see that, gee, the army is getting depleted.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VLAZ Right, the departing side secrecy Issue is big.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Infiltration might work for small targets, but a whole country is too big of a chop for it to work alone.
First of all, if you want to be secretive, you cannot board 500000 soldiers on the smallest number of flights, so you would have to dilute them among normal passengers. Let's say you use 50 soldiers per flight. It takes 10000 flights to carry the entire group, and assuming you fly to the major 3 cities, with a flight every day, it will take you a bit more than 9 years just to infiltrate them.
Then you need to provide them logistic support: they will have to be provided weapons, instructions, means of sustaining, a believable façade to ensure they can stay that long in a foreign country without looking too suspicious and without leaking any info outside or defecting. Oh, of course you need that façade also before they depart. Formally they never worked for the army (and I doubt your own government will be happy with having 500000 secret soldiers).
Then, when the day X comes, you cannot hope for them to take over the country without giving them some sort of support: air supremacy is a must in modern warfare, and you have infiltrated only soldiers.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What if most were guest workers for a single project with heavy equipment to hide weapons in - e.g., mostly covers as a huge Chinese labor crew supposedly building a high speed rail line for Russia at a discount price? This also explains the sudden deficit of skilled people in the source country and makes it easier for the Army to stay organized as a unit. Language gaps could also reduce the secrecy risk without looking suspicious. A Trojan horse writ large.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even the United States (a very large, immigrant nation) has a total of about a million immigrants per year and the biggest single sending country (Mexico) sends less than 200,000 per year. While you may be able to send a small group of elite soldiers this way, anything like a full-scale invasion army would be pretty obvious.
It would also be very hard to maintain discipline among troops that are not constantly living together. In a group of hundreds of thousands there is bound to be a few that would fall in love or find religion or go over to the the enemy or get drunk and blab about the invasion.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Complementing all fine answers above, all historical precedents I can think of are Coups in African countries by mercenary groups sponsored by foreign powers in the last half-century.
Seychelles 1981 - 50 "we're tourists" mercenary team attempts and fails to oust the Goverment.
Equatorial Guinea 2004 - more "we're tourists" guys blown out while waiting for weapons shipment.
Maldives 1988 - Another bunch of "we're tourists" infiltrators (it's a classic now) with backup from a simultaneous landing succeeding to take over the capital city before been kicked out by Indian Army help.
There are other might-be examples, but too little information available on them to decide if they fit your criteria. Overall they match responses so far, any attempt you make will fail because secrecy will be blown beforehand or invading team will be too weak to actually take control of the territory & prepare defenses for a counterattack.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hmmm. . . . There is a place where the tourist plan might work: KSA.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You could write a book with a different scenario. American tries to invade Russia, so that they try to send 500,000 brainwashed soldiers. Although they were told what to do when the time comes but before that they can't remember what's the actual mission is because of the device that is inside their head. When the time's up, the American send signal to Russia and all the undercover soldiers will be awake and they started to kill every Russian.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
So an army of mancuhria candidates... interesting...
$endgroup$
– Efialtes
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you're going to brainwash people, just do it with natives from the country. Since you have the tech to do that and on a mass scale, it should be simple in comparison to either kidnap or otherwise get natives to brainwash. Maybe open a secret brainwash centre in the country itself to save on the trips. Disguise it as something else that isn't too suspicious and you might even get people to willingly come to you.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f140893%2fan-undercover-army%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Russia has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world (a measure Putin's government implemented to counteract its plummeting population due to demographics), but a half-million people in a short period of time is a bit excessive. Still, somewhat theoretically possible.
There are two problems you're going to have to deal with. Russia has one of the strictest gun control regimes on the planet. Aside from shotguns and rifles that people in the rural area have limited permission (note: not right) to possess, there are no legal privately owned firearms. So where this army getting its weapons? And where are they keeping them?
The second issue is maintaining secrecy. There's actually math that can be used to calculate how long a secret can be kept before it can be expected to get out.
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs
Conspiratorial ideation is the tendency of individuals to believe that
events and power relations are secretly manipulated by certain
clandestine groups and organisations. Many of these ostensibly
explanatory conjectures are non-falsifiable, lacking in evidence or
demonstrably false, yet public acceptance remains high. Efforts to
convince the general public of the validity of medical and scientific
findings can be hampered by such narratives, which can create the
impression of doubt or disagreement in areas where the science is well
established. Conversely, historical examples of exposed conspiracies
do exist and it may be difficult for people to differentiate between
reasonable and dubious assertions. In this work, we establish a simple
mathematical model for conspiracies involving multiple actors with
time, which yields failure probability for any given conspiracy.
Parameters for the model are estimated from literature examples of
known scandals, and the factors influencing conspiracy success and
failure are explored. The model is also used to estimate the
likelihood of claims from some commonly-held conspiratorial beliefs;
these are namely that the moon-landings were faked, climate-change is
a hoax, vaccination is dangerous and that a cure for cancer is being
suppressed by vested interests. Simulations of these claims predict
that intrinsic failure would be imminent even with the most generous
estimates for the secret-keeping ability of active participants—the
results of this model suggest that large conspiracies (≥1000 agents)
quickly become untenable and prone to failure. The theory presented
here might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious
consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives, and examining the
hypothetical conditions under which sustainable conspiracy might be
possible.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
TLDR version: the more people involved, the faster someone will blow it. Using some of the examples in the article, counting just the 500,000 soldiers it will be a near certainty the operation will be blown in under 3 years. There's 50% odds it will be blown within one year. And that doesn't count the people staying at home who know about the operation.
So, realistically, no.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I like the article but it is a bit pessimistic. Thinking D-Day, Underground RR, large insurgencies.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Seems as if total #s and not relative ones matter. So might work if scaled down proportionately to a smaller state.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Plans of D-Day were known to a very limited number of people until the very last days, while the Underground Railroad and large insurgencies were/are not secret per se. Everybody knows about the existance of insurgencies in, e.g., Myanmar, but only a small number of local villagers loyal to the insurgents know where the insurgents hide.
$endgroup$
– ain92
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Russia has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world (a measure Putin's government implemented to counteract its plummeting population due to demographics), but a half-million people in a short period of time is a bit excessive. Still, somewhat theoretically possible.
There are two problems you're going to have to deal with. Russia has one of the strictest gun control regimes on the planet. Aside from shotguns and rifles that people in the rural area have limited permission (note: not right) to possess, there are no legal privately owned firearms. So where this army getting its weapons? And where are they keeping them?
The second issue is maintaining secrecy. There's actually math that can be used to calculate how long a secret can be kept before it can be expected to get out.
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs
Conspiratorial ideation is the tendency of individuals to believe that
events and power relations are secretly manipulated by certain
clandestine groups and organisations. Many of these ostensibly
explanatory conjectures are non-falsifiable, lacking in evidence or
demonstrably false, yet public acceptance remains high. Efforts to
convince the general public of the validity of medical and scientific
findings can be hampered by such narratives, which can create the
impression of doubt or disagreement in areas where the science is well
established. Conversely, historical examples of exposed conspiracies
do exist and it may be difficult for people to differentiate between
reasonable and dubious assertions. In this work, we establish a simple
mathematical model for conspiracies involving multiple actors with
time, which yields failure probability for any given conspiracy.
Parameters for the model are estimated from literature examples of
known scandals, and the factors influencing conspiracy success and
failure are explored. The model is also used to estimate the
likelihood of claims from some commonly-held conspiratorial beliefs;
these are namely that the moon-landings were faked, climate-change is
a hoax, vaccination is dangerous and that a cure for cancer is being
suppressed by vested interests. Simulations of these claims predict
that intrinsic failure would be imminent even with the most generous
estimates for the secret-keeping ability of active participants—the
results of this model suggest that large conspiracies (≥1000 agents)
quickly become untenable and prone to failure. The theory presented
here might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious
consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives, and examining the
hypothetical conditions under which sustainable conspiracy might be
possible.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
TLDR version: the more people involved, the faster someone will blow it. Using some of the examples in the article, counting just the 500,000 soldiers it will be a near certainty the operation will be blown in under 3 years. There's 50% odds it will be blown within one year. And that doesn't count the people staying at home who know about the operation.
So, realistically, no.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I like the article but it is a bit pessimistic. Thinking D-Day, Underground RR, large insurgencies.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Seems as if total #s and not relative ones matter. So might work if scaled down proportionately to a smaller state.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Plans of D-Day were known to a very limited number of people until the very last days, while the Underground Railroad and large insurgencies were/are not secret per se. Everybody knows about the existance of insurgencies in, e.g., Myanmar, but only a small number of local villagers loyal to the insurgents know where the insurgents hide.
$endgroup$
– ain92
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Russia has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world (a measure Putin's government implemented to counteract its plummeting population due to demographics), but a half-million people in a short period of time is a bit excessive. Still, somewhat theoretically possible.
There are two problems you're going to have to deal with. Russia has one of the strictest gun control regimes on the planet. Aside from shotguns and rifles that people in the rural area have limited permission (note: not right) to possess, there are no legal privately owned firearms. So where this army getting its weapons? And where are they keeping them?
The second issue is maintaining secrecy. There's actually math that can be used to calculate how long a secret can be kept before it can be expected to get out.
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs
Conspiratorial ideation is the tendency of individuals to believe that
events and power relations are secretly manipulated by certain
clandestine groups and organisations. Many of these ostensibly
explanatory conjectures are non-falsifiable, lacking in evidence or
demonstrably false, yet public acceptance remains high. Efforts to
convince the general public of the validity of medical and scientific
findings can be hampered by such narratives, which can create the
impression of doubt or disagreement in areas where the science is well
established. Conversely, historical examples of exposed conspiracies
do exist and it may be difficult for people to differentiate between
reasonable and dubious assertions. In this work, we establish a simple
mathematical model for conspiracies involving multiple actors with
time, which yields failure probability for any given conspiracy.
Parameters for the model are estimated from literature examples of
known scandals, and the factors influencing conspiracy success and
failure are explored. The model is also used to estimate the
likelihood of claims from some commonly-held conspiratorial beliefs;
these are namely that the moon-landings were faked, climate-change is
a hoax, vaccination is dangerous and that a cure for cancer is being
suppressed by vested interests. Simulations of these claims predict
that intrinsic failure would be imminent even with the most generous
estimates for the secret-keeping ability of active participants—the
results of this model suggest that large conspiracies (≥1000 agents)
quickly become untenable and prone to failure. The theory presented
here might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious
consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives, and examining the
hypothetical conditions under which sustainable conspiracy might be
possible.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
TLDR version: the more people involved, the faster someone will blow it. Using some of the examples in the article, counting just the 500,000 soldiers it will be a near certainty the operation will be blown in under 3 years. There's 50% odds it will be blown within one year. And that doesn't count the people staying at home who know about the operation.
So, realistically, no.
$endgroup$
Russia has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world (a measure Putin's government implemented to counteract its plummeting population due to demographics), but a half-million people in a short period of time is a bit excessive. Still, somewhat theoretically possible.
There are two problems you're going to have to deal with. Russia has one of the strictest gun control regimes on the planet. Aside from shotguns and rifles that people in the rural area have limited permission (note: not right) to possess, there are no legal privately owned firearms. So where this army getting its weapons? And where are they keeping them?
The second issue is maintaining secrecy. There's actually math that can be used to calculate how long a secret can be kept before it can be expected to get out.
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs
Conspiratorial ideation is the tendency of individuals to believe that
events and power relations are secretly manipulated by certain
clandestine groups and organisations. Many of these ostensibly
explanatory conjectures are non-falsifiable, lacking in evidence or
demonstrably false, yet public acceptance remains high. Efforts to
convince the general public of the validity of medical and scientific
findings can be hampered by such narratives, which can create the
impression of doubt or disagreement in areas where the science is well
established. Conversely, historical examples of exposed conspiracies
do exist and it may be difficult for people to differentiate between
reasonable and dubious assertions. In this work, we establish a simple
mathematical model for conspiracies involving multiple actors with
time, which yields failure probability for any given conspiracy.
Parameters for the model are estimated from literature examples of
known scandals, and the factors influencing conspiracy success and
failure are explored. The model is also used to estimate the
likelihood of claims from some commonly-held conspiratorial beliefs;
these are namely that the moon-landings were faked, climate-change is
a hoax, vaccination is dangerous and that a cure for cancer is being
suppressed by vested interests. Simulations of these claims predict
that intrinsic failure would be imminent even with the most generous
estimates for the secret-keeping ability of active participants—the
results of this model suggest that large conspiracies (≥1000 agents)
quickly become untenable and prone to failure. The theory presented
here might be useful in counteracting the potentially deleterious
consequences of bogus and anti-science narratives, and examining the
hypothetical conditions under which sustainable conspiracy might be
possible.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
TLDR version: the more people involved, the faster someone will blow it. Using some of the examples in the article, counting just the 500,000 soldiers it will be a near certainty the operation will be blown in under 3 years. There's 50% odds it will be blown within one year. And that doesn't count the people staying at home who know about the operation.
So, realistically, no.
answered 11 hours ago
Keith MorrisonKeith Morrison
6,4701926
6,4701926
$begingroup$
I like the article but it is a bit pessimistic. Thinking D-Day, Underground RR, large insurgencies.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Seems as if total #s and not relative ones matter. So might work if scaled down proportionately to a smaller state.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Plans of D-Day were known to a very limited number of people until the very last days, while the Underground Railroad and large insurgencies were/are not secret per se. Everybody knows about the existance of insurgencies in, e.g., Myanmar, but only a small number of local villagers loyal to the insurgents know where the insurgents hide.
$endgroup$
– ain92
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I like the article but it is a bit pessimistic. Thinking D-Day, Underground RR, large insurgencies.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Seems as if total #s and not relative ones matter. So might work if scaled down proportionately to a smaller state.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Plans of D-Day were known to a very limited number of people until the very last days, while the Underground Railroad and large insurgencies were/are not secret per se. Everybody knows about the existance of insurgencies in, e.g., Myanmar, but only a small number of local villagers loyal to the insurgents know where the insurgents hide.
$endgroup$
– ain92
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I like the article but it is a bit pessimistic. Thinking D-Day, Underground RR, large insurgencies.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I like the article but it is a bit pessimistic. Thinking D-Day, Underground RR, large insurgencies.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Seems as if total #s and not relative ones matter. So might work if scaled down proportionately to a smaller state.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Seems as if total #s and not relative ones matter. So might work if scaled down proportionately to a smaller state.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Plans of D-Day were known to a very limited number of people until the very last days, while the Underground Railroad and large insurgencies were/are not secret per se. Everybody knows about the existance of insurgencies in, e.g., Myanmar, but only a small number of local villagers loyal to the insurgents know where the insurgents hide.
$endgroup$
– ain92
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Plans of D-Day were known to a very limited number of people until the very last days, while the Underground Railroad and large insurgencies were/are not secret per se. Everybody knows about the existance of insurgencies in, e.g., Myanmar, but only a small number of local villagers loyal to the insurgents know where the insurgents hide.
$endgroup$
– ain92
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer is no, but the longer answer is far more interesting.
First of all, if you're looking at a simple, knock down, drag out fight with the military in question, let's assume you need equal numbers to the military in question.
There is a really cool graph out of the world bank that shows the percentages of population in the military across the world, and by country, over time. The current average is around 0.9%, but let's assume that you want to get 1% of Russia's population being made up of your fifth column.
Russia's population is currently around 145m, meaning you need 1.4m, maybe 1.5m sleepers in the country. Based on some statistics I pulled off the internet, in 2017 Russia admitted around 250k immigrants that year.
Based on this model, assuming you can take EVERY immigration place in the Russian admission program, it's still going to take you 6 years to embed your sleeper force.
BUT; if you want an army and not a network of terror cells, you also need equipment. You need guns (of course), possibly tanks, planes, missiles, and LOTS of computers. You need infrastructure like training bases, etc. Otherwise, all you're doing is engaging in a guerrilla war in the streets, and that's still going to need lots and lots of small arms.
BUT; you also need a plan. Just going street to street and taking the country is (in a word) dumb. You want to take critical infrastructure, especially communication infrastructure, and neutralise your enemy's capacity to fight back. That means taking their bases et al. For that, you really want to embed your army in their army.
That means infiltration, having kids that are born in Russia, and getting them ALL to join the military. That's on average a 30 year investment or so to get the outcome you're after.
I'd argue that there's more efficient ways to do it, but it does have one single benefit that ties in nicely with Sun Tzu; you'd have your army literally living off the enemy lands once you've started your covert invasion.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There's also the laughable idea that you're somehow going to have 1.5M children of immigrants in a foreign military force without any of them getting caughts and revealing the scope of your military.
$endgroup$
– Nzall
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
From the source you cited, in 2016 Russia had 1.9% of its population in the military. If you want to match it 1:1, this is 2.8m soldiers you'll need.
$endgroup$
– Legisey
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Legisey that's right, but as I said in my answer I applied the global average for the figures because I felt that it was a better fit for taking out naval forces and many air force personnel who would be involved in a ground war. But if you were matching person for person you'd be right, making it closer to 12 years to bring your numbers up via the model I described.
$endgroup$
– Tim B II
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
In this analysis a large state with a small military looks promising, e.g. Indonesia or Brazil.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer is no, but the longer answer is far more interesting.
First of all, if you're looking at a simple, knock down, drag out fight with the military in question, let's assume you need equal numbers to the military in question.
There is a really cool graph out of the world bank that shows the percentages of population in the military across the world, and by country, over time. The current average is around 0.9%, but let's assume that you want to get 1% of Russia's population being made up of your fifth column.
Russia's population is currently around 145m, meaning you need 1.4m, maybe 1.5m sleepers in the country. Based on some statistics I pulled off the internet, in 2017 Russia admitted around 250k immigrants that year.
Based on this model, assuming you can take EVERY immigration place in the Russian admission program, it's still going to take you 6 years to embed your sleeper force.
BUT; if you want an army and not a network of terror cells, you also need equipment. You need guns (of course), possibly tanks, planes, missiles, and LOTS of computers. You need infrastructure like training bases, etc. Otherwise, all you're doing is engaging in a guerrilla war in the streets, and that's still going to need lots and lots of small arms.
BUT; you also need a plan. Just going street to street and taking the country is (in a word) dumb. You want to take critical infrastructure, especially communication infrastructure, and neutralise your enemy's capacity to fight back. That means taking their bases et al. For that, you really want to embed your army in their army.
That means infiltration, having kids that are born in Russia, and getting them ALL to join the military. That's on average a 30 year investment or so to get the outcome you're after.
I'd argue that there's more efficient ways to do it, but it does have one single benefit that ties in nicely with Sun Tzu; you'd have your army literally living off the enemy lands once you've started your covert invasion.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There's also the laughable idea that you're somehow going to have 1.5M children of immigrants in a foreign military force without any of them getting caughts and revealing the scope of your military.
$endgroup$
– Nzall
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
From the source you cited, in 2016 Russia had 1.9% of its population in the military. If you want to match it 1:1, this is 2.8m soldiers you'll need.
$endgroup$
– Legisey
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Legisey that's right, but as I said in my answer I applied the global average for the figures because I felt that it was a better fit for taking out naval forces and many air force personnel who would be involved in a ground war. But if you were matching person for person you'd be right, making it closer to 12 years to bring your numbers up via the model I described.
$endgroup$
– Tim B II
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
In this analysis a large state with a small military looks promising, e.g. Indonesia or Brazil.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer is no, but the longer answer is far more interesting.
First of all, if you're looking at a simple, knock down, drag out fight with the military in question, let's assume you need equal numbers to the military in question.
There is a really cool graph out of the world bank that shows the percentages of population in the military across the world, and by country, over time. The current average is around 0.9%, but let's assume that you want to get 1% of Russia's population being made up of your fifth column.
Russia's population is currently around 145m, meaning you need 1.4m, maybe 1.5m sleepers in the country. Based on some statistics I pulled off the internet, in 2017 Russia admitted around 250k immigrants that year.
Based on this model, assuming you can take EVERY immigration place in the Russian admission program, it's still going to take you 6 years to embed your sleeper force.
BUT; if you want an army and not a network of terror cells, you also need equipment. You need guns (of course), possibly tanks, planes, missiles, and LOTS of computers. You need infrastructure like training bases, etc. Otherwise, all you're doing is engaging in a guerrilla war in the streets, and that's still going to need lots and lots of small arms.
BUT; you also need a plan. Just going street to street and taking the country is (in a word) dumb. You want to take critical infrastructure, especially communication infrastructure, and neutralise your enemy's capacity to fight back. That means taking their bases et al. For that, you really want to embed your army in their army.
That means infiltration, having kids that are born in Russia, and getting them ALL to join the military. That's on average a 30 year investment or so to get the outcome you're after.
I'd argue that there's more efficient ways to do it, but it does have one single benefit that ties in nicely with Sun Tzu; you'd have your army literally living off the enemy lands once you've started your covert invasion.
$endgroup$
Short answer is no, but the longer answer is far more interesting.
First of all, if you're looking at a simple, knock down, drag out fight with the military in question, let's assume you need equal numbers to the military in question.
There is a really cool graph out of the world bank that shows the percentages of population in the military across the world, and by country, over time. The current average is around 0.9%, but let's assume that you want to get 1% of Russia's population being made up of your fifth column.
Russia's population is currently around 145m, meaning you need 1.4m, maybe 1.5m sleepers in the country. Based on some statistics I pulled off the internet, in 2017 Russia admitted around 250k immigrants that year.
Based on this model, assuming you can take EVERY immigration place in the Russian admission program, it's still going to take you 6 years to embed your sleeper force.
BUT; if you want an army and not a network of terror cells, you also need equipment. You need guns (of course), possibly tanks, planes, missiles, and LOTS of computers. You need infrastructure like training bases, etc. Otherwise, all you're doing is engaging in a guerrilla war in the streets, and that's still going to need lots and lots of small arms.
BUT; you also need a plan. Just going street to street and taking the country is (in a word) dumb. You want to take critical infrastructure, especially communication infrastructure, and neutralise your enemy's capacity to fight back. That means taking their bases et al. For that, you really want to embed your army in their army.
That means infiltration, having kids that are born in Russia, and getting them ALL to join the military. That's on average a 30 year investment or so to get the outcome you're after.
I'd argue that there's more efficient ways to do it, but it does have one single benefit that ties in nicely with Sun Tzu; you'd have your army literally living off the enemy lands once you've started your covert invasion.
answered 11 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
30.4k665121
30.4k665121
$begingroup$
There's also the laughable idea that you're somehow going to have 1.5M children of immigrants in a foreign military force without any of them getting caughts and revealing the scope of your military.
$endgroup$
– Nzall
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
From the source you cited, in 2016 Russia had 1.9% of its population in the military. If you want to match it 1:1, this is 2.8m soldiers you'll need.
$endgroup$
– Legisey
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Legisey that's right, but as I said in my answer I applied the global average for the figures because I felt that it was a better fit for taking out naval forces and many air force personnel who would be involved in a ground war. But if you were matching person for person you'd be right, making it closer to 12 years to bring your numbers up via the model I described.
$endgroup$
– Tim B II
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
In this analysis a large state with a small military looks promising, e.g. Indonesia or Brazil.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There's also the laughable idea that you're somehow going to have 1.5M children of immigrants in a foreign military force without any of them getting caughts and revealing the scope of your military.
$endgroup$
– Nzall
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
From the source you cited, in 2016 Russia had 1.9% of its population in the military. If you want to match it 1:1, this is 2.8m soldiers you'll need.
$endgroup$
– Legisey
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Legisey that's right, but as I said in my answer I applied the global average for the figures because I felt that it was a better fit for taking out naval forces and many air force personnel who would be involved in a ground war. But if you were matching person for person you'd be right, making it closer to 12 years to bring your numbers up via the model I described.
$endgroup$
– Tim B II
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
In this analysis a large state with a small military looks promising, e.g. Indonesia or Brazil.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
There's also the laughable idea that you're somehow going to have 1.5M children of immigrants in a foreign military force without any of them getting caughts and revealing the scope of your military.
$endgroup$
– Nzall
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
There's also the laughable idea that you're somehow going to have 1.5M children of immigrants in a foreign military force without any of them getting caughts and revealing the scope of your military.
$endgroup$
– Nzall
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
From the source you cited, in 2016 Russia had 1.9% of its population in the military. If you want to match it 1:1, this is 2.8m soldiers you'll need.
$endgroup$
– Legisey
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
From the source you cited, in 2016 Russia had 1.9% of its population in the military. If you want to match it 1:1, this is 2.8m soldiers you'll need.
$endgroup$
– Legisey
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Legisey that's right, but as I said in my answer I applied the global average for the figures because I felt that it was a better fit for taking out naval forces and many air force personnel who would be involved in a ground war. But if you were matching person for person you'd be right, making it closer to 12 years to bring your numbers up via the model I described.
$endgroup$
– Tim B II
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Legisey that's right, but as I said in my answer I applied the global average for the figures because I felt that it was a better fit for taking out naval forces and many air force personnel who would be involved in a ground war. But if you were matching person for person you'd be right, making it closer to 12 years to bring your numbers up via the model I described.
$endgroup$
– Tim B II
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
In this analysis a large state with a small military looks promising, e.g. Indonesia or Brazil.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
In this analysis a large state with a small military looks promising, e.g. Indonesia or Brazil.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The biggest problem that you're going to face is secrecy
I probably don't need to point out that 500,000 people is a large number. Each one of those soldiers is a detection risk. If any one of them acts suspiciously enough to be picked up by the Russian intelligence operations. Even worse, each one of your soldiers is a defection risk.
And once you've lost the element of surprise, every part of your plan works against you. Your soldiers are isolated, difficult to contact, and in a foreign country. They'll be easily picked up one by one, and by the time it comes for you to trigger the attack, you'll have no army.
Even if every member of your army has ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, you'll still get discovered
Wikipedia places the population of temporary migrant workers at about 7 million. That means that 500,000 additional people is about a 7% increase in that count, not exactly a drop in the bucket. Especially since the increase is coming entirely from a single country.
Even if some of your soldiers arrive through other channels, you simply can't conceal the movement of that many people, and the powers that be are going to notice. Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
"Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously." yeah, I was thinking about that in relation to something else. Even assuming your soldiers have ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, they still need to arrive in Russia which includes a background check. So you'd have to have a bunch of people forging documents for them and making up backgrounds. Are all of these people master level forgers and writers, too? Surely even a bad immigration officer in Russia would eventually go "hold on, this doesn't make sense" after seeing a thousand bacckgrounds.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
And somebody at some point would look just a little bit into this mass exodus from the country and see that, gee, the army is getting depleted.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VLAZ Right, the departing side secrecy Issue is big.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The biggest problem that you're going to face is secrecy
I probably don't need to point out that 500,000 people is a large number. Each one of those soldiers is a detection risk. If any one of them acts suspiciously enough to be picked up by the Russian intelligence operations. Even worse, each one of your soldiers is a defection risk.
And once you've lost the element of surprise, every part of your plan works against you. Your soldiers are isolated, difficult to contact, and in a foreign country. They'll be easily picked up one by one, and by the time it comes for you to trigger the attack, you'll have no army.
Even if every member of your army has ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, you'll still get discovered
Wikipedia places the population of temporary migrant workers at about 7 million. That means that 500,000 additional people is about a 7% increase in that count, not exactly a drop in the bucket. Especially since the increase is coming entirely from a single country.
Even if some of your soldiers arrive through other channels, you simply can't conceal the movement of that many people, and the powers that be are going to notice. Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously.
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
"Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously." yeah, I was thinking about that in relation to something else. Even assuming your soldiers have ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, they still need to arrive in Russia which includes a background check. So you'd have to have a bunch of people forging documents for them and making up backgrounds. Are all of these people master level forgers and writers, too? Surely even a bad immigration officer in Russia would eventually go "hold on, this doesn't make sense" after seeing a thousand bacckgrounds.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
And somebody at some point would look just a little bit into this mass exodus from the country and see that, gee, the army is getting depleted.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VLAZ Right, the departing side secrecy Issue is big.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The biggest problem that you're going to face is secrecy
I probably don't need to point out that 500,000 people is a large number. Each one of those soldiers is a detection risk. If any one of them acts suspiciously enough to be picked up by the Russian intelligence operations. Even worse, each one of your soldiers is a defection risk.
And once you've lost the element of surprise, every part of your plan works against you. Your soldiers are isolated, difficult to contact, and in a foreign country. They'll be easily picked up one by one, and by the time it comes for you to trigger the attack, you'll have no army.
Even if every member of your army has ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, you'll still get discovered
Wikipedia places the population of temporary migrant workers at about 7 million. That means that 500,000 additional people is about a 7% increase in that count, not exactly a drop in the bucket. Especially since the increase is coming entirely from a single country.
Even if some of your soldiers arrive through other channels, you simply can't conceal the movement of that many people, and the powers that be are going to notice. Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously.
$endgroup$
The biggest problem that you're going to face is secrecy
I probably don't need to point out that 500,000 people is a large number. Each one of those soldiers is a detection risk. If any one of them acts suspiciously enough to be picked up by the Russian intelligence operations. Even worse, each one of your soldiers is a defection risk.
And once you've lost the element of surprise, every part of your plan works against you. Your soldiers are isolated, difficult to contact, and in a foreign country. They'll be easily picked up one by one, and by the time it comes for you to trigger the attack, you'll have no army.
Even if every member of your army has ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, you'll still get discovered
Wikipedia places the population of temporary migrant workers at about 7 million. That means that 500,000 additional people is about a 7% increase in that count, not exactly a drop in the bucket. Especially since the increase is coming entirely from a single country.
Even if some of your soldiers arrive through other channels, you simply can't conceal the movement of that many people, and the powers that be are going to notice. Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously.
answered 11 hours ago
Arcanist LupusArcanist Lupus
4,8771623
4,8771623
6
$begingroup$
"Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously." yeah, I was thinking about that in relation to something else. Even assuming your soldiers have ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, they still need to arrive in Russia which includes a background check. So you'd have to have a bunch of people forging documents for them and making up backgrounds. Are all of these people master level forgers and writers, too? Surely even a bad immigration officer in Russia would eventually go "hold on, this doesn't make sense" after seeing a thousand bacckgrounds.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
And somebody at some point would look just a little bit into this mass exodus from the country and see that, gee, the army is getting depleted.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VLAZ Right, the departing side secrecy Issue is big.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
"Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously." yeah, I was thinking about that in relation to something else. Even assuming your soldiers have ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, they still need to arrive in Russia which includes a background check. So you'd have to have a bunch of people forging documents for them and making up backgrounds. Are all of these people master level forgers and writers, too? Surely even a bad immigration officer in Russia would eventually go "hold on, this doesn't make sense" after seeing a thousand bacckgrounds.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
And somebody at some point would look just a little bit into this mass exodus from the country and see that, gee, the army is getting depleted.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VLAZ Right, the departing side secrecy Issue is big.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
6
6
$begingroup$
"Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously." yeah, I was thinking about that in relation to something else. Even assuming your soldiers have ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, they still need to arrive in Russia which includes a background check. So you'd have to have a bunch of people forging documents for them and making up backgrounds. Are all of these people master level forgers and writers, too? Surely even a bad immigration officer in Russia would eventually go "hold on, this doesn't make sense" after seeing a thousand bacckgrounds.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Especially when they notice that your armed forces are vanishing mysteriously." yeah, I was thinking about that in relation to something else. Even assuming your soldiers have ironclad loyalty and master level acting skills, they still need to arrive in Russia which includes a background check. So you'd have to have a bunch of people forging documents for them and making up backgrounds. Are all of these people master level forgers and writers, too? Surely even a bad immigration officer in Russia would eventually go "hold on, this doesn't make sense" after seeing a thousand bacckgrounds.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
And somebody at some point would look just a little bit into this mass exodus from the country and see that, gee, the army is getting depleted.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
And somebody at some point would look just a little bit into this mass exodus from the country and see that, gee, the army is getting depleted.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VLAZ Right, the departing side secrecy Issue is big.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@VLAZ Right, the departing side secrecy Issue is big.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Infiltration might work for small targets, but a whole country is too big of a chop for it to work alone.
First of all, if you want to be secretive, you cannot board 500000 soldiers on the smallest number of flights, so you would have to dilute them among normal passengers. Let's say you use 50 soldiers per flight. It takes 10000 flights to carry the entire group, and assuming you fly to the major 3 cities, with a flight every day, it will take you a bit more than 9 years just to infiltrate them.
Then you need to provide them logistic support: they will have to be provided weapons, instructions, means of sustaining, a believable façade to ensure they can stay that long in a foreign country without looking too suspicious and without leaking any info outside or defecting. Oh, of course you need that façade also before they depart. Formally they never worked for the army (and I doubt your own government will be happy with having 500000 secret soldiers).
Then, when the day X comes, you cannot hope for them to take over the country without giving them some sort of support: air supremacy is a must in modern warfare, and you have infiltrated only soldiers.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What if most were guest workers for a single project with heavy equipment to hide weapons in - e.g., mostly covers as a huge Chinese labor crew supposedly building a high speed rail line for Russia at a discount price? This also explains the sudden deficit of skilled people in the source country and makes it easier for the Army to stay organized as a unit. Language gaps could also reduce the secrecy risk without looking suspicious. A Trojan horse writ large.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Infiltration might work for small targets, but a whole country is too big of a chop for it to work alone.
First of all, if you want to be secretive, you cannot board 500000 soldiers on the smallest number of flights, so you would have to dilute them among normal passengers. Let's say you use 50 soldiers per flight. It takes 10000 flights to carry the entire group, and assuming you fly to the major 3 cities, with a flight every day, it will take you a bit more than 9 years just to infiltrate them.
Then you need to provide them logistic support: they will have to be provided weapons, instructions, means of sustaining, a believable façade to ensure they can stay that long in a foreign country without looking too suspicious and without leaking any info outside or defecting. Oh, of course you need that façade also before they depart. Formally they never worked for the army (and I doubt your own government will be happy with having 500000 secret soldiers).
Then, when the day X comes, you cannot hope for them to take over the country without giving them some sort of support: air supremacy is a must in modern warfare, and you have infiltrated only soldiers.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What if most were guest workers for a single project with heavy equipment to hide weapons in - e.g., mostly covers as a huge Chinese labor crew supposedly building a high speed rail line for Russia at a discount price? This also explains the sudden deficit of skilled people in the source country and makes it easier for the Army to stay organized as a unit. Language gaps could also reduce the secrecy risk without looking suspicious. A Trojan horse writ large.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Infiltration might work for small targets, but a whole country is too big of a chop for it to work alone.
First of all, if you want to be secretive, you cannot board 500000 soldiers on the smallest number of flights, so you would have to dilute them among normal passengers. Let's say you use 50 soldiers per flight. It takes 10000 flights to carry the entire group, and assuming you fly to the major 3 cities, with a flight every day, it will take you a bit more than 9 years just to infiltrate them.
Then you need to provide them logistic support: they will have to be provided weapons, instructions, means of sustaining, a believable façade to ensure they can stay that long in a foreign country without looking too suspicious and without leaking any info outside or defecting. Oh, of course you need that façade also before they depart. Formally they never worked for the army (and I doubt your own government will be happy with having 500000 secret soldiers).
Then, when the day X comes, you cannot hope for them to take over the country without giving them some sort of support: air supremacy is a must in modern warfare, and you have infiltrated only soldiers.
$endgroup$
Infiltration might work for small targets, but a whole country is too big of a chop for it to work alone.
First of all, if you want to be secretive, you cannot board 500000 soldiers on the smallest number of flights, so you would have to dilute them among normal passengers. Let's say you use 50 soldiers per flight. It takes 10000 flights to carry the entire group, and assuming you fly to the major 3 cities, with a flight every day, it will take you a bit more than 9 years just to infiltrate them.
Then you need to provide them logistic support: they will have to be provided weapons, instructions, means of sustaining, a believable façade to ensure they can stay that long in a foreign country without looking too suspicious and without leaking any info outside or defecting. Oh, of course you need that façade also before they depart. Formally they never worked for the army (and I doubt your own government will be happy with having 500000 secret soldiers).
Then, when the day X comes, you cannot hope for them to take over the country without giving them some sort of support: air supremacy is a must in modern warfare, and you have infiltrated only soldiers.
answered 10 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
86.3k29201421
86.3k29201421
$begingroup$
What if most were guest workers for a single project with heavy equipment to hide weapons in - e.g., mostly covers as a huge Chinese labor crew supposedly building a high speed rail line for Russia at a discount price? This also explains the sudden deficit of skilled people in the source country and makes it easier for the Army to stay organized as a unit. Language gaps could also reduce the secrecy risk without looking suspicious. A Trojan horse writ large.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What if most were guest workers for a single project with heavy equipment to hide weapons in - e.g., mostly covers as a huge Chinese labor crew supposedly building a high speed rail line for Russia at a discount price? This also explains the sudden deficit of skilled people in the source country and makes it easier for the Army to stay organized as a unit. Language gaps could also reduce the secrecy risk without looking suspicious. A Trojan horse writ large.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What if most were guest workers for a single project with heavy equipment to hide weapons in - e.g., mostly covers as a huge Chinese labor crew supposedly building a high speed rail line for Russia at a discount price? This also explains the sudden deficit of skilled people in the source country and makes it easier for the Army to stay organized as a unit. Language gaps could also reduce the secrecy risk without looking suspicious. A Trojan horse writ large.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What if most were guest workers for a single project with heavy equipment to hide weapons in - e.g., mostly covers as a huge Chinese labor crew supposedly building a high speed rail line for Russia at a discount price? This also explains the sudden deficit of skilled people in the source country and makes it easier for the Army to stay organized as a unit. Language gaps could also reduce the secrecy risk without looking suspicious. A Trojan horse writ large.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even the United States (a very large, immigrant nation) has a total of about a million immigrants per year and the biggest single sending country (Mexico) sends less than 200,000 per year. While you may be able to send a small group of elite soldiers this way, anything like a full-scale invasion army would be pretty obvious.
It would also be very hard to maintain discipline among troops that are not constantly living together. In a group of hundreds of thousands there is bound to be a few that would fall in love or find religion or go over to the the enemy or get drunk and blab about the invasion.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even the United States (a very large, immigrant nation) has a total of about a million immigrants per year and the biggest single sending country (Mexico) sends less than 200,000 per year. While you may be able to send a small group of elite soldiers this way, anything like a full-scale invasion army would be pretty obvious.
It would also be very hard to maintain discipline among troops that are not constantly living together. In a group of hundreds of thousands there is bound to be a few that would fall in love or find religion or go over to the the enemy or get drunk and blab about the invasion.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Even the United States (a very large, immigrant nation) has a total of about a million immigrants per year and the biggest single sending country (Mexico) sends less than 200,000 per year. While you may be able to send a small group of elite soldiers this way, anything like a full-scale invasion army would be pretty obvious.
It would also be very hard to maintain discipline among troops that are not constantly living together. In a group of hundreds of thousands there is bound to be a few that would fall in love or find religion or go over to the the enemy or get drunk and blab about the invasion.
$endgroup$
Even the United States (a very large, immigrant nation) has a total of about a million immigrants per year and the biggest single sending country (Mexico) sends less than 200,000 per year. While you may be able to send a small group of elite soldiers this way, anything like a full-scale invasion army would be pretty obvious.
It would also be very hard to maintain discipline among troops that are not constantly living together. In a group of hundreds of thousands there is bound to be a few that would fall in love or find religion or go over to the the enemy or get drunk and blab about the invasion.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
smatterersmatterer
1,829210
1,829210
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Complementing all fine answers above, all historical precedents I can think of are Coups in African countries by mercenary groups sponsored by foreign powers in the last half-century.
Seychelles 1981 - 50 "we're tourists" mercenary team attempts and fails to oust the Goverment.
Equatorial Guinea 2004 - more "we're tourists" guys blown out while waiting for weapons shipment.
Maldives 1988 - Another bunch of "we're tourists" infiltrators (it's a classic now) with backup from a simultaneous landing succeeding to take over the capital city before been kicked out by Indian Army help.
There are other might-be examples, but too little information available on them to decide if they fit your criteria. Overall they match responses so far, any attempt you make will fail because secrecy will be blown beforehand or invading team will be too weak to actually take control of the territory & prepare defenses for a counterattack.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hmmm. . . . There is a place where the tourist plan might work: KSA.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Complementing all fine answers above, all historical precedents I can think of are Coups in African countries by mercenary groups sponsored by foreign powers in the last half-century.
Seychelles 1981 - 50 "we're tourists" mercenary team attempts and fails to oust the Goverment.
Equatorial Guinea 2004 - more "we're tourists" guys blown out while waiting for weapons shipment.
Maldives 1988 - Another bunch of "we're tourists" infiltrators (it's a classic now) with backup from a simultaneous landing succeeding to take over the capital city before been kicked out by Indian Army help.
There are other might-be examples, but too little information available on them to decide if they fit your criteria. Overall they match responses so far, any attempt you make will fail because secrecy will be blown beforehand or invading team will be too weak to actually take control of the territory & prepare defenses for a counterattack.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Hmmm. . . . There is a place where the tourist plan might work: KSA.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Complementing all fine answers above, all historical precedents I can think of are Coups in African countries by mercenary groups sponsored by foreign powers in the last half-century.
Seychelles 1981 - 50 "we're tourists" mercenary team attempts and fails to oust the Goverment.
Equatorial Guinea 2004 - more "we're tourists" guys blown out while waiting for weapons shipment.
Maldives 1988 - Another bunch of "we're tourists" infiltrators (it's a classic now) with backup from a simultaneous landing succeeding to take over the capital city before been kicked out by Indian Army help.
There are other might-be examples, but too little information available on them to decide if they fit your criteria. Overall they match responses so far, any attempt you make will fail because secrecy will be blown beforehand or invading team will be too weak to actually take control of the territory & prepare defenses for a counterattack.
$endgroup$
Complementing all fine answers above, all historical precedents I can think of are Coups in African countries by mercenary groups sponsored by foreign powers in the last half-century.
Seychelles 1981 - 50 "we're tourists" mercenary team attempts and fails to oust the Goverment.
Equatorial Guinea 2004 - more "we're tourists" guys blown out while waiting for weapons shipment.
Maldives 1988 - Another bunch of "we're tourists" infiltrators (it's a classic now) with backup from a simultaneous landing succeeding to take over the capital city before been kicked out by Indian Army help.
There are other might-be examples, but too little information available on them to decide if they fit your criteria. Overall they match responses so far, any attempt you make will fail because secrecy will be blown beforehand or invading team will be too weak to actually take control of the territory & prepare defenses for a counterattack.
answered 5 hours ago
SeretbaSeretba
512
512
$begingroup$
Hmmm. . . . There is a place where the tourist plan might work: KSA.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hmmm. . . . There is a place where the tourist plan might work: KSA.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Hmmm. . . . There is a place where the tourist plan might work: KSA.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Hmmm. . . . There is a place where the tourist plan might work: KSA.
$endgroup$
– ohwilleke
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You could write a book with a different scenario. American tries to invade Russia, so that they try to send 500,000 brainwashed soldiers. Although they were told what to do when the time comes but before that they can't remember what's the actual mission is because of the device that is inside their head. When the time's up, the American send signal to Russia and all the undercover soldiers will be awake and they started to kill every Russian.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
So an army of mancuhria candidates... interesting...
$endgroup$
– Efialtes
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you're going to brainwash people, just do it with natives from the country. Since you have the tech to do that and on a mass scale, it should be simple in comparison to either kidnap or otherwise get natives to brainwash. Maybe open a secret brainwash centre in the country itself to save on the trips. Disguise it as something else that isn't too suspicious and you might even get people to willingly come to you.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You could write a book with a different scenario. American tries to invade Russia, so that they try to send 500,000 brainwashed soldiers. Although they were told what to do when the time comes but before that they can't remember what's the actual mission is because of the device that is inside their head. When the time's up, the American send signal to Russia and all the undercover soldiers will be awake and they started to kill every Russian.
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
So an army of mancuhria candidates... interesting...
$endgroup$
– Efialtes
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you're going to brainwash people, just do it with natives from the country. Since you have the tech to do that and on a mass scale, it should be simple in comparison to either kidnap or otherwise get natives to brainwash. Maybe open a secret brainwash centre in the country itself to save on the trips. Disguise it as something else that isn't too suspicious and you might even get people to willingly come to you.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You could write a book with a different scenario. American tries to invade Russia, so that they try to send 500,000 brainwashed soldiers. Although they were told what to do when the time comes but before that they can't remember what's the actual mission is because of the device that is inside their head. When the time's up, the American send signal to Russia and all the undercover soldiers will be awake and they started to kill every Russian.
New contributor
$endgroup$
You could write a book with a different scenario. American tries to invade Russia, so that they try to send 500,000 brainwashed soldiers. Although they were told what to do when the time comes but before that they can't remember what's the actual mission is because of the device that is inside their head. When the time's up, the American send signal to Russia and all the undercover soldiers will be awake and they started to kill every Russian.
New contributor
edited 5 hours ago
a4android
32.5k342127
32.5k342127
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
John of foolJohn of fool
91
91
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
So an army of mancuhria candidates... interesting...
$endgroup$
– Efialtes
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you're going to brainwash people, just do it with natives from the country. Since you have the tech to do that and on a mass scale, it should be simple in comparison to either kidnap or otherwise get natives to brainwash. Maybe open a secret brainwash centre in the country itself to save on the trips. Disguise it as something else that isn't too suspicious and you might even get people to willingly come to you.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
So an army of mancuhria candidates... interesting...
$endgroup$
– Efialtes
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you're going to brainwash people, just do it with natives from the country. Since you have the tech to do that and on a mass scale, it should be simple in comparison to either kidnap or otherwise get natives to brainwash. Maybe open a secret brainwash centre in the country itself to save on the trips. Disguise it as something else that isn't too suspicious and you might even get people to willingly come to you.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
So an army of mancuhria candidates... interesting...
$endgroup$
– Efialtes
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
So an army of mancuhria candidates... interesting...
$endgroup$
– Efialtes
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you're going to brainwash people, just do it with natives from the country. Since you have the tech to do that and on a mass scale, it should be simple in comparison to either kidnap or otherwise get natives to brainwash. Maybe open a secret brainwash centre in the country itself to save on the trips. Disguise it as something else that isn't too suspicious and you might even get people to willingly come to you.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
If you're going to brainwash people, just do it with natives from the country. Since you have the tech to do that and on a mass scale, it should be simple in comparison to either kidnap or otherwise get natives to brainwash. Maybe open a secret brainwash centre in the country itself to save on the trips. Disguise it as something else that isn't too suspicious and you might even get people to willingly come to you.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f140893%2fan-undercover-army%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Do you mean sleeper cells and sleeper agents?
$endgroup$
– Nathan Hopp
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@NathanHopp sounds like it. But on a really massive scale - an army-sized network of these.
$endgroup$
– VLAZ
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Historical precedents": the rape (=abduction) of the Sabine women comes to mind. Mythical, true. "Tactics": Pietro da Cortona, Nicolas Poussin, Jacques Stella...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Those are many different questions at once. And many of them are somehow depending on various parameters, like period, technological level, etc.
$endgroup$
– bilbo_pingouin
9 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
In one of the last Jack Ryan novels (I think), there was an successful Japanese invasion of Okinawa - lots of Japanese citizens bought properties on the island, shifting the demographic enough that they managed to vote for Okinawa reunification with Japan (the initial support was large, but not quite enough). So an invasion, but not of the military kind.
$endgroup$
– Calin Ceteras
7 hours ago