Uh-huh. That's why the proper defense of this country requires a modern navy and/or airforce. For those who can't deal with the fact that the founders couldn't read the future and write the words "air force" into the constitution, the air force could be folded into the navy which arguably has better pilots. I'm not sure why your side insists on ignoring this important detail. You know what stopped Hitler at the Battle of Britain? It wasn't the army. They were too busy being rescued across the English channel by the navy and the "militia navy". (Basically fishermen using whatever would float to bring troops back across). Still despite Germany having the best army in Europe, they couldn't land. Why? Because of the R.A.F.! You can't land an army unless you have first established air and/or sea superiority. And if you some how manage to sneak a few troops in they'll be cut off and killed without support.
I have clearly stated on two occasions that the Chinese or Russians (I'll just use "enemy" from now on) or whatever had no ability to move an army here if our navy was there to stop them.
I also stated that it would be possible for the Enemy to move soldiers to an area where a seaborn invasion would not be necessary. Soldiers could be moved to, for example, Mexico, THEN war could be declared. At that point, the navy would be nearly useless, and the Air Force little better, at stopping a ground invasion.
I'm also a little unclear as to why some of you seem to think having a huge Navy and Air Force is acceptable, yet having ANY Army is "wrong." Sounds a bit deranged to me. Why is it okay to have a huge professional AF and Navy, but not have so much as a single professional soldier? At least the "we don't need any professional military" types are consistent.
Hmmmm....how many years did it take Hezbollah to beat back one of the best armies in the world? Oh, that's right. It didn't take years. It only lasted 34 days. And their best weapons were RPGs, AK-47s and unguided rockets. They had no Stinger missiles that could take out helicopters and slow flying troop transport planes, let alone sophisticated SAMs or fighter jets.
Hezbollah didn't "beat back" anything. Their conventional military efforts were woefully ineffective. They lost ground continually to a very small Israeli invasion force (about 2% of the IDF was involved in the invasion) until the Israelis halted their advance, then settled into guerrilla warfare until POLITICAL PRESSURE forced the Israelies to pull back. If you think that's an example of a militia preventing an invasion, you are sadly mistaken.
I'm not worried about the "indignity" of a standing army. I'm worried about the standing army contributing to our bankruptcy and then enforcing martial law as we are taken into receivership. Your side of the argument conveniently forgets that point.
Yet you advocate a large Navy and Air Force, which are vastly more expensive to operate than a small Army. Now I'm really confused.
Now maybe an army of the size klamath is advocating would neither bankrupt the nation nor be strong enough to enslave the rest of us when things go south.
Have you actually read my posts? I've clearly stated a number of times that our entire military (Navy and Air Force, as well as Army) should be vastly reduced in size.
Did they have the same militia structure then that they have now? Maybe they learned their lessons from the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
The only "militias" around today are far worse than what they had back then. Back then, militias, while hardly proficient, were fairly numerous and at least made some attempt to be prepared. Today, the "militias" you see are mostly a bunch of yahoos running around in the woods a few times a year.
Ummm...in 1776 it was the British that were lining up in lines, not the Americans (generally speaking).
Actually, in most of the major battles of the Revolution, the American forces (militia and Continentals) fought the same way the British did- line 'em up and mow 'em down. The British were just better at it. Much better. A source of endless frustration to General Washington.
People read about Concord and think all of the battles were fought that way, but they weren't.
If we went to a militia model and the 2nd amendment was followed as written then any citizen would have access to any infantry weapon and/or an opportunity to train on it. If you're worried about someone going rogue and using a Stinger to take out his ex-wife then keep weapons like that in armories and just provide training on its use.
Not worried at all. I support the second amendment. I just don't think "guys with guns" are going to be very effective at stopping an invasion of a modern army.
As for electronic communications, your average middle schooler shouldn't have any problem with that. I know...I know...the military version of the cell phone is soooo much more complex than the civilian one right? But it doesn't have to be.
I'm not referring to just having a bunch of guys with cell phone, but an organized command structure and organized intelligence gathering capabilities. I think a lot of you have no idea how high tech even the Army has become.
And again quit ignoring the fact that the other side isn't saying don't have a navy or fighter jets or missile defense or SAMs or a professional officer corps or regular training of the militia with modern weapons
How the Hell do you have a "professional officer corps" and good militia training WHEN YOU HAVE NO PROFESSIONAL ARMY?
Do you really think Naval officers are going to be able to train soldiers? That's like grabbing a bunch of soldiers and telling them to operate an aircraft carrier- it ain't going to work.
Yeah, general Sherman was peaceful. 
