Gun owners VS Military invasion

[Dr.3D]

Would the common joe American be able to stand up to such an event? Would the ones that are unabel to fine a country on a map be able to tell the differnce between the invaders from America's own Army or the militias?

Would America's own army under the command of a rogue government be the ones doing the invading or would the rogue government call in troops from other countries to do the dirty work? (think U.N.)

 

[RideTheDirt]

Americans are armed to the teeth, and if someone invaded us I'm sure we would acquire arms from anywhere we could. Any "ban" would be laughed at this far down the road. Depends on who invaded but at this point I am pretty sure we could kick some major ass.

I hope this never happens.

 

[tremendoustie]

Sounds great on paper. The essay reminds me very much of the pundits that said the Americans were going to get waxed in the first gulf war. The Americans and allies were out numbered by 5 to 1. The allies were going against a million man army intrenched, well armed and pretty pretty much on their own soil. The allies had a 12,000 mile supply line. Believe me the Iraqis were better equiped then AK 47s and RPG 7s. The Iraqis were anililated.

That was another central army. You're simply describing one central army beating another one.

Furthermore, my calculation was based on a fraction of the money given to charity in one year, in a society which already pays huge amounts of money to government, including funding for a central army.

And there's 50-100 million members, not 1 million.

If you think the US military, with it's ridiculous amount of waste, bureaucracy, overpaid staffers, etc, could beat an equally funded army with free use of 50-100 million volunteers (read: almost all money goes to equipment/training), organized into independent, closely knit teams of 10-100 people, with use of native resources, defending home turf, you're smoking something funny.

And yes every iraqi would have been dead if that was our rules of engagement. If our intent was to nation build using american citizens after illiminating the Iraqis the insurgency would have been pretty small.

I think you're dead wrong. Once word gets out that you're indiscriminately slaughtering Iraqi civilians, the entire region would rise up against you.

Even the Russians were restrained in afganistan because they had the western world to consider.

Are you kidding? They carpet bombed major cities, spread land mines indiscriminately, destroyed civilian infrastructure, which lead to mass civilian starvation, looted and burned commercial districts, etc.

The "western world" opposed it from the beginning.

Any country that felt up to taking on the US would not be concerned about what the rest of the world was likely do because in all likelyhood they would have already been under that countries control.

By all means, if you can gather support to defend innocent foreign peoples from invasion, do so. I'd likely donate money, or even go, if the abuse was offensive enough. The, "we're the next domino to fall" argument might be a convincing one.

I am not against militias, as they have their place. I spent twenty years in the National Guard for that reason but I also found out what the limitations of a part time army are .... The training it takes to keep a large scale command and control system of an effective fighting force at its peak takes a lot more than a weekend shooting with your buddies.

I'd have no problem with the idea of a few full time individuals, especially commanders, trainers, etc. Perhaps larger towns and cities could employ elite full time units, if the populations thereof considered it worthwhile.

Central armies are the modern equivalent of redcoats, lining up in nice little rows. The only reason they enjoy any level of success against militias is because they vastly outspend them, 1000 to 1 or more.

Tight knit independent groups of people using their own creativity and resources is always more effective than central bureaucratic control. It's true economically, and militarily, and it's been proven time and time again.



What's more, you've missed the point that central armies often cause more harm than good to their native populations -- as ours has -- and become a tool of tyranny. I don't agree with the founders on everything, but their opposition to central armies was spot on.

 

[klamath]

=tremendoustie;2774213]That was another central army. You're simply describing one central army beating another one.

Furthermore, my calculation was based on a fraction of the money given to charity in one year, in a society which already pays huge amounts of money to government, including funding for a central army.

And there's 50-100 million members, not 1 million.

Yes, and there is 1.3 billion Chinese. Wouldn't be much of a problem to field a 100 or 200 million man well trained army.

If you think the US military, with it's ridiculous amount of waste, bureaucracy, overpaid staffers, etc, could beat an equally funded army with free use of 50-100 million volunteers (read: almost all money goes to equipment/training), organized into independent, closely knit teams of 10-100 people, with use of native resources, defending home turf, you're smoking something funny.

Yes the US army is very wastful and bureaucratic however there are a number of highly cohesive well trained units. I have been in a number of volunteer organizations and sometimes they are well trained and other times the worse bunch of losers I have ever seen. The Montana militia of the '90 was a prime example of the losers, as I had family members involved with them. The militias of the southern states fighting on their own turf failed sadly against the northern army

I think you're dead wrong. Once word gets out that you're indiscriminately slaughtering Iraqi civilians, the entire region would rise up against you.

True only because the rest of the western world and asia would turn on us. If the western world and Asia sat on their hands we could wipe ever last musim off the face of the earth. That is why I point out that if the US is invaded that invading power has no doubt subdued the rest of the world and a mass extermination of Americans would be something no one else could stop.

Are you kidding? They carpet bombed major cities, spread land mines indiscriminately, destroyed civilian infrastructure, which lead to mass civilian starvation, looted and burned commercial districts, etc

The "western world" opposed it from the beginning.

The Afgani's were getting their asses kicked until the Americans started training and suppying them from an industrial base the Russian dared not touch. And yes the Russians still held back.

By all means, if you can gather support to defend innocent foreign peoples from invasion, do so. I'd likely donate money, or even go, if the abuse was offensive enough. The, "we're the next domino to fall" argument might be a convincing one.

I agree but that is why I pointed out the in the case of the US being invaded there most likely woundn't be any friends left to turn to.

I'd have no problem with the idea of a few full time individuals, especially commanders, trainers, etc. Perhaps larger towns and cities could employ elite full time units, if the populations thereof considered it worthwhile.

We are not that far off here. I would like the active army reduced to a small number of highly trained divisions to hold an invading army off long enough for reserves to train and come up to speed.

Central armies are the modern equivalent of redcoats, lining up in nice little rows. The only reason they enjoy any level of success against militias is because they vastly outspend them, 1000 to 1 or more.

Yes but those redcoats were pretty much kicking our asses until the french helped train Washington's central army. If the English wouldn't of had other fish to fry around the world they would have kicked our asses. They pretty much kicked our asses in the war of 1812 but again didn't follow through because they had other interests.

Tight knit independent groups of people using their own creativity and resources is always more effective than central bureaucratic control. It's true economically, and militarily, and it's been proven time and time again.

Very true ecconomically and in other areas but when you have a problem bigger than one small group can handle (100,000,000 man chinese Army) they must come together. Your cannot have 500 thousand different groups doing what they think is the best to fight the invading army. This has been proven through history to be a sure fire way to defeat.

What's more, you've missed the point that central armies often cause more harm than good to their native populations -- as ours has -- and become a tool of tyranny. I don't agree with the founders on everything, but their opposition to central armies was spot on.

Yes they can be used for evil but I think you miss the point that many fractured nations have sucumbed to a foreign central army. The founding Fathers also were not counting on another nation being able to deliever a 1 million man army on this country in a matter of hours.

 

[tremendoustie]

If you choose to finance a centrally commanded full time army, that's fine with me. All I ask is that you don't extort money from me to do so. Personally, I'll be contributing my money to finance local militias, because I believe them to be more effective per dollar .

In time of general invasion, we'll all work together, and we'll see who's forces get more bank for the buck . I'd love to be pleasantly surprised. Heck, I'm sure just the fact that you'd have actual customers holding your army accountable would make it far more effective and efficient.

 

[klamath]

If you choose to finance a centrally commanded full time army, that's fine with me. All I ask is that you don't extort money from me to do so. Personally, I'll be contributing my money to finance local militias, because I believe them to be more effective per dollar .

In time of general invasion, we'll all work together, and we'll see who's forces get more bank for the buck . I'd love to be pleasantly surprised. Heck, I'm sure just the fact that you'd have actual customers holding your army accountable would make it far more effective and efficient.

Little story. My son joined the marine infantry and believed all other branches sucked and were useless. I told him it is great to have unit and branch pride but someday he might just love those AF pukes. He laughed. 3 years later he was in Iraq fighting door to door and had to cheer an AF AC 130 gunship that took the snipers out that were pinning him down.
The moral of the story if you are in combat anyone that comes up and fights next to you is a damned good friend.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Read the old testament. The Hebrews conquered most of the Levant by wiping out entire populations men women and children.

A modern army equipped with modern weapons could even more easily do the same thing. However, wiping out the population of an area doesn't really serve much good to the elite who pushed for the war in the first place. They want command of the areas resources, and the ability to fleece it's population out of whatever wealth they have.

Eliminating that population will actually make the area very poor for a long time, and will only benefit the new settlers who are usually the common people.

In that light, the US Army's extermination of the Native americans was a really good thing for American settler commoners. As Joshua's extermination of the Canaanites was good for hebrew commoners.

Scary, huh?

 

[rancher89]

Come to an Appleseed Shoot and then tell me what you think will happen.

www.appleseedinfo.org

 

[catdd]

They could take the cities and establish bases the same way we did in Iraq, but taking them and KEEPING them is a different story. And don't even think of coming into the mountains.

 

[tremendoustie]

Little story. My son joined the marine infantry and believed all other branches sucked and were useless. I told him it is great to have unit and branch pride but someday he might just love those AF pukes. He laughed. 3 years later he was in Iraq fighting door to door and had to cheer an AF AC 130 gunship that took the snipers out that were pinning him down.
The moral of the story if you are in combat anyone that comes up and fights next to you is a damned good friend.

I can't say I'd be complaining when your regulars show up, that's for sure .