Gethsemani said:
David Hebda said:
You sir are either a non-gun owner or a foreigner. More than 50% of Americans own firearms, and Most of them are good shots. America's primary defensive doctrine is based on these two simple truths. 1) Most Americans own gun 2) Veterans are everywhere. In the event of a invasion of the contiguous 48 the citizenry would respond en-force and would have local veterans to lead them
I've said it before and I've said it again: Small arms will not save you when a determined military force decides to curb stomp you into oblivion. Giving everyone a firearm might have been a decent way to get lots of guys for the militia in 1776, but modern warfare is much more specialized and much more advanced. Your semi-automatic "hunting rifle" won't stand a chance against an enemy that employs air support, armored vehicles, UAVs and potentially WMDs. For examples on how it goes down, just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the best organized and trained insurgents can't do much against Coalition/ISAF forces directly, but resorts to targeting civilians and the police. That's exactly what would happen if the USA was invaded (who would do it, however?), no matter how much gung ho you put in the idea that hundreds of thousands of civilians might make a difference. It hasn't in Iraq.
Tell that to the North Vietnamese militia. After all, they were just farmers, merchants, and locals who picked up weapons and defended their homes. Vietnam was a prime example of how ordinary people could pick up a weapon and be effective when guerilla tactics were used.
I would also like to point out that the Taliban with aging weapons, limited/aging equipment, broken leadership, and being comprised of both military veterans
and ordinary farmers and tribesman managed to stalemate coalition forces for
years on end and are actually beginning to negotiate with coalition forces and the Afghani government to end the war.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195525/We-need-American-troops-break-Afghanistan-stalemate-admits-British-military-chief.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5021248/Taliban-have-achieved-stalemate-in-Afghanistan-warns-David-Miliband.html
The biggest mistake any military force can make is to underestimate the local population of a country that is being invaded. The U.S. is no different. History has shown time and again, that an armed populace can thwart an invasion. Just look at Switzerland (never been invaded), The American Revolution, and Vietnam to reference this. Heck, the American Revolution was fought with militia forces doing a great deal of fighting, and it was against the most powerful army in the world at the time. Asymmetric warfare is called asymmetric for a reason.
So, I will say it again. It is foolish to assume that an armed population can't or won't be a threat to an invading army. History has show that this is simply not the case. Who defends the land if not the people who live there?