Return to “An Armed Populace: Still The Need Exists”
no doubt!seamusTX wrote:I agree that an invasion of the type that I described would ultimately be overwhelmed by regular U.S. forces. But when the incident started, you would be on your own, just as you are when criminals attack.
Therefore the need for an armed civilian militia as a deterrent to an enemy attack still exists.
- Jim
I agree it could happen with a couple of commandos but the article was talking about a massive attack. A couple hundred commandos (about a battalion) could pretty much just take over a city. Granted if it was a Southern city they would get a lot of harrasment fire/"sniper" fire from the locals who hid out. But I'm sure in very little time they would get pushed out by US forces. The problem with the millions of "attackers" here illegally is that they would need a centralized command, and a uniform mode of communication. As is I know they have phones but it would take way too long. All they would be able to do is cause a lot of civil disobediance in the area that they are in. Not take over the country. As far as launching preemptive strikes well I think they would. I'm betting the US goverment would say "If you live in an area where these troops are you need to get out." Believe me we would be willing to deal with the collatoral damage so as not to have foriegn invadings troops on US soil.seamusTX wrote:A frontal invasion of the U.S. border is just a messy form of suicide for the attackers, but ...
Millions of people enter this country illegally every year, and large numbers enter legally who are not what they claim to be when they get their visas (that is, tourists).
Hundreds of tons of illegal drugs and conterfeit goods (DVDs and so forth) are smuggled in.
How hard could it be to get several hundred commandos and their weapons into the country?
I honestly think the only reason it hasn't happened is that no one wants to try.
- Jim