The world's largest army...

[Mr. Leary]

I would agree that armed US citizens would be a great force to use as auxiliaries against an invading force when used in conjunction with military support and organizational functions.

I doubt that US militias would be as successful as those we have faced in the recent wars because of our general cultural disdain for hiding behind civilians against an armed opponent. Its just not really the "American" way to fight an insurgent war in the same tradition as what we have faced.

What I was referring to when I said "not a chance" is the civilians' ability to stand up to the military in the form of pitched battles... in the tradition in which the Constitution was written. If there was a revolt with thousands of hunters trying to overthrow the local government, the military would come in and squash the rebellion in a matter of hours.

 

[dwh]

Hrmm...

According to the OP numbers...

600,000
750,000
700,000
250,000
--------
= 2.3 million

That would be the world's largest if you don't count the other guy's reserves.

And that's just 4 states. And just people with hunting licenses. By the time you add in all the people who have guns but not hunting licenses, and add in all the states...who knows...you might just come close to equaling the standing armies of the entire rest of the world.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Hrmm...

According to the OP numbers...

600,000
750,000
700,000
250,000
--------
= 2.3 million

That would be the world's largest if you don't count the other guy's reserves.

And that's just 4 states. And just people with hunting licenses. By the time you add in all the people who have guns but not hunting licenses, and add in all the states...who knows...you might just come close to equaling the standing armies of the entire rest of the world.

Reserves are army's, 14 year old rabbit hunters are not

While its fun to play with numbers and create a force to be reckoned with, hunting is not war. To further illustrate the lack of fact check... hunters can, do and are killed by accidental shootings each season. I think many states and residents would and could defend their freedom under some circumstances. But as many have eluded to, tactical organization plays a far greater roll in the success of an army than the sheer number of troops, particularly 100% untrained troops with a 30% success rate hunting unarmed deer and geese

 

[That One Guy]

This is sounding a lot like the zombie apocalypse. America will be fine if people were dumb enough to put an army on our soil, but I highly doubt anyone would just sacrifice their entire army like that. We would be bombed, and if that was to happen, guns don't count for ********. But I like the idea, I never thought of it that way.

 

[That One Guy]

Fact check, far from the worlds largest army:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_total_troops

Largest one on there is Russia with 21.5 million. Americas population is over 300 million. If one in 15 U.S. citizens had a gun, we would equal them, and there are more than 1 in 15.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Hrmm...

According to the OP numbers...

600,000
750,000
700,000
250,000
--------
= 2.3 million

That would be the world's largest if you don't count the other guy's reserves.

And that's just 4 states. And just people with hunting licenses. By the time you add in all the people who have guns but not hunting licenses, and add in all the states...who knows...you might just come close to equaling the standing armies of the entire rest of the world.

If the revolt was nation wide the military would not be fighting them... our military is from as many states as our union.

Don't care how big the numbers get... first off, you will never get all the hunters in the US marching to the same tune, and second, you will never mobilize a significant number of them against a domestic threat.

Back to the original point about a foreign invasion, the hunter militias would be a great tool at the disposal of an organized resistance.

If we were invaded by China from the west coast, for example, ground movements of troops would be hindered in every way possible. Resistance would be disorganized at best shortly after landfall. Scattered and without a strategic grasp of the scope of the operation, the militias would be relatively ineffective other then in trying to block roads and destry means of quick transportation of forces. As the forces move inland, they will face forces that are more and more knowledgeable about what is going on. Military forces will be recalled, assembled, and deployed to counter the threat. The battle will likely end there as the full might of the American military is eventually brought to bear against the invader. If the attack continued, however, the US would be in serious trouble. Without the means to counter air support and armored vehicles, the militias would be forced to engage in harassment tactics to slow the advancement until an organized front could be constructed to counter the threat. If that failed, the hunters would be nothing more then a resistance movement with good intentions but limited ability to wage war. They could make the invading force extremely uncomfortable. Now with some support from the remaining military forces, they would be a force to be reckoned with...

 

[dwh]

To further illustrate the lack of fact check... hunters can, do and are killed by accidental shootings each season.

But that never happens to trained military personnel?

I think many states and residents would and could defend their freedom under some circumstances. But as many have eluded to, tactical organization plays a far greater roll in the success of an army than the sheer number of troops, particularly 100% untrained troops with a 30% success rate hunting unarmed deer and geese

I keep seeing this mis-characterization, that all hunters are untrained, overweight goofballs who can't even shoot an animal competently.

No doubt, some are. Nevertheless, it's a gross generalization which I see no evidence of. Sounds witty, but I, for one, don't believe it's true of the majority.


(And I should perhaps mention that I myself am not a hunter. I have done it in the past, enough to get good at it, and would again if I needed to harvest food. Same with fishing. I consider myself an outdoorsman, but not a sportsman.)

 

[dwh]

If the revolt was nation wide the military would not be fighting them... our military is from as many states as our union.

Revolt? That's what? the second time you've mentioned revolt? What got you off on that tangent? The OP was about foreign invasion.

Talking about how the U.S. military would kick the butts of the U.S. civilians is the exact same argument that Noam Chomsky uses when he preaches about why we no longer need the Second Amendment.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

But that never happens to trained military personnel?

Remind me where I said that? I was simply pointing out the lack of fact check in the OP's email.

I keep seeing this mis-characterization, that all hunters are untrained, overweight goofballs who can't even shoot an animal competently.

Those are your words not mine

But how many hunters do you know that are trained in any fashion of military study with the exception of shooting their choice of firearm? I'm a hunter, a shooter and an avid gun owner. Heck I just got back from my second day in a row at a large gun show here in SLC (my only find was Scepters ). I shoot an array of different firearms regularly and feel semi-proficient with them... but I don't feel I am in the least bit trained to participate in any form of organized and effective military front.

Its about like comparing a father/son pond fishing combo with Captain Phil and sons on the the Cornelia Marie. They both know where the water is but that is about where the similarities of 'fishing' end.

To be clear I am simply discussing the hunters=army discussion. I do believe that US gun owners (including hunters) could be a major force depending on the situations and particulars of a homeland threat. My neighbors are borderline militia, I think when they order 5.56 by the pallet (yes, 100k rds at a time) I think I'd feel comfortable sticking around the neighborhood and fighting it out

 

[dwh]

But how many hunters do you know that are trained in any fashion of military study with the exception of shooting their choice of firearm?

Well, now that I think about it...pretty much every adult hunter that I've personally known was a veteran.

In my family alone my dad and his 5 brothers were all hunters and were all veterans. Their sons, most of whom were hunting from the time they were boys and still do as adults, mostly all served as well.

I'm the exception to the rule, since I never followed the family tradition and joined the military. But then, I'm also don't consider myself a hunter. I've done it, and I have the skills and enjoy tracking and stalking, but for a long time now I don't kill if I don't have to. I also used to qualify expert with rifle, pistol and shotgun (back when I still had 20/15 vision) and have shot a whole boatload of different guns. Not to mention doing a fair amount of gun smithing. I've never fired a full-auto AK or M16, but I'm pretty sure I could figure it out AND hit my target (though I did shoot full-auto Uzi and MAC-10 decades ago at some range in Texas).


And then there are people like my son, who was the designated "knowledge recruit" in his company at MCRD SD, then MOS 0311 (and a fire team leader) and cross-trained as 0331 and 3531. If he became a hunter, he surely wouldn't fit the characterization of a "14 year old rabbit hunter" (your words) or a "100% untrained troops with a 30% success rate hunting unarmed deer and geese" (also your words).


Also, the military promotes hunting. Quite a few bases have hunting areas.

I have no idea how many hunters are ex-military. Your guess is as good as mine. I would bet good money though that it's a significant number. 50% maybe? More?

 

[overlander]

...Also, the military promotes hunting. ..

I can only speak for the Army (not the Marine Corps) but that is not true. I have never been encouraged to hunt in my 20 years of service. not even suggested. What the military does encourage is recreation and balanced life style, and in that end, provides many services to include parks, lakes for fishing, and sometime hunting areas for military family recreation.

Just to be clear.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Revolt? That's what? the second time you've mentioned revolt? What got you off on that tangent? The OP was about foreign invasion.

My fellow Texicans and I frequently engage in debates on this topic, and fear of the populace is always at the heart of the argument. It also happens to be implied by the last three sentences of the OP's statement.

Talking about how the U.S. military would kick the butts of the U.S. civilians is the exact same argument that Noam Chomsky uses when he preaches about why we no longer need the Second Amendment.

While I would not agree with that statement, I would agree that the military would "kick the butts" of the U.S. civilians in almost any concievable tactical engagement.

 

[BeachinFJ]

I hope your right(OP), because if there is another world war I think our country would be in deep ****. Wall street and the politicians have given away our manufacturing and intellectual property. To sustain a war for very long our leaders would probably resort to nukes to have any chance of coming out on top of a world war.

 

[Ray Hyland]

Watch out for Canada. They've done it in the past. Cocky buggers when they have too many Mooseheads.
:wings:

 

[overlander]

I cannot conceive of a scenario where US military would deliberately fire on US civilians. an armed uprising that was too large for state and federal police is just not imaginable to me. Worst case would involve the National Guard augmenting the police forces, as part of the outer-cordon or crowd control. It's just so against our principals. If I told soldiers to fire on US civilians, I think most would refuse orders.

I just can't visualize what domestic scenario is being discussed here as a separate topic from the foreign aggression.