Does America need a standing army?

[jmdrake]

I'm pretty sure I didn't advocate putting massive amounts of troops in our cities. I advocate putting our troops along both of our borders and coastlines.

You want to bring them home and keep them active. Obama is the commander in chief. Once he gets all of these troops back on U.S. soil do you think he's just going to restrict himself to how you want to use them? And even if he did, what about the next president? If all the troops that are positioned overseas are repositioned here, even if 75% of them were put on the border Obama would have more than enough for his domestic unrest agenda. (And we would save any significant amount of money).

 

[jmdrake]

So to you the 2nd amendment is our entire national defense. That's quite a strategy.

2nd amendment + constitutionally maintained navy + air defenses that are either part of the navy or that acknowledge the fact that airforce, just like the Internet, couldn't be envisioned by the founders so is not constitutionally barred + maintaining a constitutional ability to raise an army when necessary which includes a West Point style officer and trainer corps and militia who train like today's national guard and reservists.

 

[Krugerrand]

You want to bring them home and keep them active. Obama is the commander in chief. Once he gets all of these troops back on U.S. soil do you think he's just going to restrict himself to how you want to use them? And even if he did, what about the next president? If all the troops that are positioned overseas are repositioned here, even if 75% of them were put on the border Obama would have more than enough for his domestic unrest agenda. (And we would save any significant amount of money).

I'm not worried about the next president. I trust Ron Paul's judgment. It's those before and after him that would be cause for alarm.

 

[Pericles]

Yes , there is no way a militia could call , control fire ...

Which is why today, it is hard to build a good militia unit at anything above company level. The skills needed at battalion and higher require more sophisticated training, which means drawing those people with the appropriate active duty experience, or a good deal of training time that requires much more than you can get in one weekend a month and two weeks a year.

 

[CasualApathy]

Not so much.
Not nearly the fantasy of fears of some.
What country has the ability to attack the continental US? (that would be NONE)

What would be the purpose of nuking cities? Other that pissing of the surviving population.

How would a marching army survive and secure their supply lines in the US?

It ain't gonna happen.

I am relying on history for my argument, not unfounded fears. You have to understand the nature of war... If the US didn't have a standing army, several countries would have the ability to attack the continental US, hell even Denmark could probably secure a beachhead without too much trouble, but realistically China and Russia at least would be able to launch an attack.

What is the purpose of nuking cities? The same as when the allies firebombed major German cities towards the end of WW2, to break the will of the people.

How would a marching army secure supply lines? Well, total control of the airspace would certainly help a lot, but even without that you simply crush the resistance as you go. An organized army (millions of soldiers if say China was the enemy) wouldn't have too much trouble securing supply lines, and again, they would not have to extend themselves too far since they wouldn't have to fear a major offensive from scattered militias.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I never got an answer to my question, so I'll pose it again-
For all of you who favor a standing army-who are you afraid of that justifies a "need" for such a force?

 

[CasualApathy]

I never got an answer to my question, so I'll pose it again-
For all of you who favor a standing army-who are you afraid of that justifies a "need" for such a force?

Any state with a standing army, since history has shown that an organized army is simply superior.

 

[pcosmar]

I am relying on history for my argument, not unfounded fears. You have to understand the nature of war... If the US didn't have a standing army, several countries would have the ability to attack the continental US, hell even Denmark could probably secure a beachhead without too much trouble, but realistically China and Russia at least would be able to launch an attack.

What is the purpose of nuking cities? The same as when the allies firebombed major German cities towards the end of WW2, to break the will of the people.

How would a marching army secure supply lines? Well, total control of the airspace would certainly help a lot, but even without that you simply crush the resistance as you go. An organized army (millions of soldiers if say China was the enemy) wouldn't have too much trouble securing supply lines, and again, they would not have to extend themselves too far since they wouldn't have to fear a major offensive from scattered militias.

You really have no concept do you?

You are comparing Germany to the US. Bombing cities? You do realize that Germany is smaller than many US states.

China and India combined could not successfully invade the US with any hope of success if they threw everything they had at it.
And the have neither ships nor aircraft capable of moving men and equipment into place.

Even with present and repressive gun control, they are still out gunned by the civilians alone, without opening the armories to the population.

 

[CasualApathy]

You really have no concept do you?

You are comparing Germany to the US. Bombing cities? You do realize that Germany is smaller than many US states.

China and India combined could not successfully invade the US with any hope of success if they threw everything they had at it.
And the have neither ships nor aircraft capable of moving men and equipment into place.

Even with present and repressive gun control, they are still out gunned by the civilians alone, without opening the armories to the population.

You're hilarious xD

I never compared Germany geographically to the US, I was using WW2 as an example of the tactics and ruthless logic of all out war.

China has been building it's navy up for the past decade, they have aircraft carriers, troop transports, destroyers, battleships, the works. And they wouldn't have to occupy the entire US, they could take Florida and sit on it for a couple of years, then move on, destroying any resistance as they go. Unless the US banded the scattered local militias together into an organized army, there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.

 

[Arion45]

Yes. Do I have the right to support having troops here in the U.S without being called a "big government conservative?"

No

 

[jmdrake]

I never got an answer to my question, so I'll pose it again-
For all of you who favor a standing army-who are you afraid of that justifies a "need" for such a force?

 

[jmdrake]

You're hilarious xD

I never compared Germany geographically to the US, I was using WW2 as an example of the tactics and ruthless logic of all out war.

China has been building it's navy up for the past decade, they have aircraft carriers, troop transports, destroyers, battleships, the works. And they wouldn't have to occupy the entire US, they could take Florida and sit on it for a couple of years, then move on, destroying any resistance as they go. Unless the US banded the scattered local militias together into an organized army, there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.

Germany to Britain is like China to the U.S. Britain repelled a German invasion with air power alone. Enough said.

 

[CasualApathy]

Germany to Britain is like China to the U.S. Britain repelled a German invasion with air power alone. Enough said.

Which you wouldn't have - an organized air-force that is capable of doing that.

Edit: Britan was barely able to somewhat defend it's airspace only because the state organized a huge effort to bolster the British air-force.

 

[pcosmar]

You're hilarious xD

I never compared Germany geographically to the US, I was using WW2 as an example of the tactics and ruthless logic of all out war.

China has been building it's navy up for the past decade, they have aircraft carriers, troop transports, destroyers, battleships, the works. And they wouldn't have to occupy the entire US, they could take Florida and sit on it for a couple of years, then move on, destroying any resistance as they go. Unless the US banded the scattered local militias together into an organized army, there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.

That is exactly what would happen. People would come together in defense. They do whenever there is a natural disaster, and would do so to repel an invasion.

The movie "Red Dawn" took a look at such an attempt. It was tactically interesting, but would fail for exactly the reason portrayed in the movie.
The US is friggin' huge. I have hitched crossed it several times. RPH has taken a bike across it. And still not seen all.
And outside of cities especially it is fiercely independent.

There is no way to hold it but by consent of the people, and no way to survive if you piss off the people.

 

[jmdrake]

Which you wouldn't have - an organized air-force that is capable of doing that.

You haven't really been reading this thread have you? For the last time an air-force is not barred by the constitution anymore than the Internet is outside the first amendment. But even if it is, navy pilots are better anyway and can serve the same function.

Edit: Britan was barely able to somewhat defend it's airspace only because the state organized a huge effort to bolster the British air-force.

Doesn't matter. They did defend it. And since there is constitutional authority to maintain an navy, air superiority via a navy can be constitutionally maintained. I wish your side would quit with this ridiculous "You can't have airplanes under your theory" argument.

 

[Pericles]

I never got an answer to my question, so I'll pose it again-
For all of you who favor a standing army-who are you afraid of that justifies a "need" for such a force?

The best chance of getting a serious answer is to pose something other than a rhetorical question.

At a basic level no threat is relevant - you need to have the military skills period.

How many units need to be on active duty are a function of maintaining proficiency with additional units based on threat assessment.

Threat assessment is the intersection of capability and intent. Capability is more easy to measure and intent more difficult to discern. It terms of US security, the picture looks good for the next 5 years, in that missile or terrorist attacks are the threat.

Longer term, the actions of Russia and China to modernize and make their armed forces more capable is a concern.

Actions we consider not rational are not viewed the same universally. In 2002, if I was asked whether the US would invade Iraq, I would consider the very idea out of the question, as I doubted the Congress would declare war, and the resulting occupation would be a mess. The fact that the guys on the E-Ring thought a US invasion would be greeted by the population as a liberation and no large numbers of troops required, shows me an organization out of touch with reality.

Someone out there might look at US economic collapse and anger at government as a sight that they might be greeted by the US population as saviors that most of the population would greet warmly. That does not make any sense to us, but who thought Japan would have a reason to attack Pearl Harbor?

 

[CasualApathy]

That is exactly what would happen. People would come together in defense. They do whenever there is a natural disaster, and would do so to repel an invasion.

The movie "Red Dawn" took a look at such an attempt. It was tactically interesting, but would fail for exactly the reason portrayed in the movie.
The US is friggin' huge. I have hitched crossed it several times. RPH has taken a bike across it. And still not seen all.
And outside of cities especially it is fiercely independent.

There is no way to hold it but by consent of the people, and no way to survive if you piss off the people.

So you just admitted defeat in a sense. If that is exactly what would happen, surely it would be more beneficial to have some sort of standing army ready and on stand-by so you wouldn't have to organize such an effort after the fact.

You'd need to maintain a navy, since you can't just build one when you need it, the same with an airforce, something that requires organization, training, and huge rescurces. (No, your local militia can't afford an aircraft carrier, i'm sorry - the bank says no.)

 

[CasualApathy]

You haven't really been reading this thread have you? For the last time an air-force is not barred by the constitution anymore than the Internet is outside the first amendment. But even if it is, navy pilots are better anyway and can serve the same function.



Doesn't matter. They did defend it. And since there is constitutional authority to maintain an navy, air superiority via a navy can be constitutionally maintained. I wish your side would quit with this ridiculous "You can't have airplanes under your theory" argument.

So you agree that the state has a role in the defence of the nation? Maintaining a navy/air-force/army?

 

[CasualApathy]

Doesn't matter. They did defend it.

Also, this is a hilarious argument worthy of a 5 year old xD

 

[pcosmar]

I never compared Germany geographically to the US, I was using WW2 as an example of the tactics and ruthless logic of all out war.

Then compare . Look at what happened to Germany at Stalingrad.
Attacking Russia was a huge blunder. and massive failure.

every peasant became a combatant. Munitions were produced in every small shop.
The Molotov Cocktail was invented.

Look at History. look what happened to the Russian Military in Afghanistan. Watch it being played out yet again by the US Military.
Attacking the US would be pure foolishness.