[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Are not our military personnel also occupants of this country. Why do you portray them as being somebody other than that… your words?
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, but why should someone from NJ be deployed to NY to defend someone else’s backyard? That is all I am saying. Your backyard is your responsibility and not some 18 year old kid’s.[/quote]
Look man, state militia’s, at least by themselves, are both a thing of the past and wholly unsuited to the political and technological realities of the modern world. The principle of NATIONAL defense is unavoidably implicit in the thought of the founders of this country.
There doesn’t have to be a conflict between the right to bare individual arms and a national defense. The plain fact of the matter is that the ideals propounded by the founding fathers as a whole could not be maintained AT ALL with 50 autonomous state militias in a military world of nuclear naval super vessels, multiple mach attack aircraft,
electronic/digital/satellite communications and surveillance, half a dozen layers of guided missile systems and artillery pieces capable of pinpoint accuracy from tens of miles away.
That’s not even mentioning unconventional systems.
A competent enemy could effectively attack a dozen or more, maybe many more, states simultaneously making a coordinated federal response an absolute necessity for survival.
George Washington and Benjamin Franklin could not have fathomed in their wildest feverish imaginations this level of logistic efficiency and raw firepower so we are forced to apply the principles they gave us to the military realities of the 21st century.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Territory is taken in today’s world by air strikes and armor subduing an opponent preemptively before ground troops are deployed to accomplish the actual occupation.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Territory cannot be taken except by having someone on the ground to defend it. To occupy land is to defend it from someone else occupying it. There can be no occupation with warplanes or cruise-missiles.
If everything on the ground is bombed to smithereens then there is no need to occupy it because there would be nothing productive worth defending.[/quote]
A few things here.
Yes, occupation by definition is an invading ground force wielding coercive controlling influence in a given geographical area, but you skipped over my point.
An occupation in today’s world invariably occurs after a successful air campaign and armored sweep. I’m not prior service so somebody can correct me on the terminology, but some version of that is how it’s done.
State militia’s equipped with sporting small arms is worse than immediate surrender in the face of that kind of assault unless you want to die on principle which while honorable still spells defeat.
An invading force attacking this continent has 2 major choices both of which are victories for them if successful.
They don’t have to “bomb everything on the ground to smithereens”. All they have to do is convince the citizens there that resisting them with a 30-06 is futile and most sane individuals would reach that conclusion in fairly short order.
The other would be to actually bomb everything on the ground to smithereens in which case we are still no longer a credible threat regardless of the fact that they may have deprived themselves of many of our domestic resources in the process. If they could accomplish that they don’t really need our resources in the first place do they?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
When you figure a way to take down enemy aircraft and repel armored ground units deployed by a navy off one of our coasts with bolt action rifles and slide action shotguns we’ll talk.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>
Who is to say the necessary means would not come into existence when they are needed? Weapons have a way of showing up at the most opportune times.[/quote]
Listen friend. You are not a dummy and at times you impress me significantly with your powers of reason and communication skills which leaves me mystified at other times like this one when you make incomprehensibly idiotic statements like the last one above.
Could I prevail upon you to please describe for me the process by which the ultra modern space age weapons, communications, intelligence, surveillance and transport systems required to repel such an attack, along with the personnel capable of operating them would [quote]SHOW UP[/quote]?
This I gotta hear. Do we put them on Santa’s list? Do we order them on Ebay and hope the UPS truck doesn’t get hit during delivery and arrives in time.
Do we see if John Scherer has video professor for F-22’s and laser guided missile systems so we can bone up real quick. Hold on we wouldn’t have those because we didn’t develop them. Oops sorry, they’re going to just “show up” without the decades of development that led to their deployment.
Are you willing to bet the survival of the greatest nation in the history of this planet on such a half baked, actually unbaked screwball scheme like that?
Think for a minute man, I know you have it in ya.