Oh, yeah, I understand that, I was just wondering if it was anyone's official policy to try and deliberately reduce the damage when shooting someone, which seems unlikely.ROTMASTER said:there is no real source for that its just a fact, cuz a dead soldier you fly the body home, a wounded one you have medical costs and it takes on battlefield resources to attemt to treat him
Hey? Why is that?AtheistConservative said:With modern firearms, a woman is still at a disadvantage when it comes to pure deadliness
Er...firstly, an invasion of the US is going to lead to a nuclear response, whether the attackers use nuclear weapons or not. TApollo45 said:Whether the story is true or not (I can't remember where I found it, either a book or a website somewhere), it illustrates a point; before the invention of the Atomic Bomb, it would be crazy to invade America because you would not only be facing a well armed and organized military, but also a well armed and near-fanatical civilian base. It would be an army of a couple hundred thousand at the very most versus an army of similar sized plus a militia numbering in the millions. Suicide. And, in truth, the invention of atomic weapons hasn't changed that fact much, simply due to M.A.D.; any use of nuclear weaponry will likely result in a nuclear response, which would devastate the world. The only logical course of action would be a ground invasion, and if that were to happen, again, it would be a force of a few hundred thousand at the very most versus a similar force plus an extremely large militia. Again, suicide.
Anyway, I'm not sure of the benefit of private gun ownership in the case of an invasion, as opposed to a state mobilisation and arming of the populace. We've seen that sort of thing, in WW2, formation of Home Guard and Home Guard reserves and so on, but under state control, and with state owned weapons, which has obvious benefits with regards to standardisation and so on.