An Armed Populace: Still The Need Exists

[casingpoint]

How very prophetic for the Founding Fathers, two centuries ago, to craft an amendment that would always ensure a pool of weapons bearing citizens from which to form a militia if necessary. Of course, some will say how pathetic instead. But it seems the need for a militia is not always so far fetched as some would purport:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_ ... ng_america

[LedJedi]

what? i'm not sure where you're getting your information buddy but big brother is here to protect us. :)

*these are not the droids you're looking for*

[gregthehand]

While I think sometimes about the possibility of having to bear arms against an armed enemy of the United States here on our home turf, I just don't see that happening anytime really soon. Think about how many troops you would need just to pull off such an invasion. How in the World would you get them here without us noticing and the US military taking action? I guess the only fear we would have is if some goverment started putting it's troops at the Mexican border, and instead of attacking them while they were in transport our goverment, tried to pander and talk things down.

Once that happened though I know there would be a strong UN troop presence (probably US, Canadian, British, French, German, Japaneses, Aussie, and a few others) at the border waiting for them. Now I know if it was someone like China with there billions of people that they can throw wave after wave of people, but consider this. An ATACMS missle system can take out one grid square of troops at a time (that's one square kilometer). Basically to regiments of troops will/can occupy a grid square. That means with about 3-4 shots (2 launchers stationed at Ft Hood can pull that off in no time flat) you could make an entire division combat ineffective. That's just one system we have at our disposal. There are air wings, mine systems that are right out of star wars, the MOAB, and of course Artillery which has seen signifigant gains in the last 10 years. Go ahead and throw wave after wave. A private with a laptop is going to sit in a bomb shelter hundreds of miles away, look at you through the Air Forces UAV and sattelite screens, and then reccomend fire missions from artillery, air, and sea born at you all day long. This is called a "combat multiplier". One guy being able to kill very many of the enemy with one click of a mouse and some typing. If there is ever some huge troop build up at our border then you can bet they are going to really wish they were somewhere else should they head north. Parachuting is out of the question b/c as soon as a bunch of cargo planes get close and don't identify themselves they are getting shot down. Plus it would take a huge number of airborne troops to pull that off. Anyhow I could talk about this alllllll day since I used to work around such things but I'll digress.

Oh and I know we are under a socio-economic invasion right now from Mexico. Unfortunaley we can't really fix that with bombs.

- Greg-o
Headquarters III Corps Artillery
- HHB - Fire Support Element
- FAIO ADOCS Operator (Targeting and Target Acquisition) March '02 - December '03

[KD5NRH]

An ATACMS missle system can take out one grid square of troops at a time (that's one square kilometer).

What would it take to get approval to launch on downtown Laredo or El Paso?

Lob one across the border as a preemptive strike and you're looking at war with Mexico, and don't forget the number of potential combatants they have already in place deep within this country.

[seamusTX]

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

[gregthehand]

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

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]

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

[gregthehand]

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

no doubt!

[casingpoint]

As the article points out, an attack on the U.S. may come from within, and not involve an invading force. The National Guard is cited regarding the utilization of "citizen soldiers," but a potential citizens militia is apparently not mentioned in the report to Congress as a source of response military manpower. Not quite the forward vision the Founding Fathers had. Makes you wonder if the aforementioned report is in cahoots with that las amicus brief from the Solicitor General in Keller v. D.C. Anyway, the future ain't altogether pretty:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_repo ... _TR391.pdf

[KBCraig]

While I think sometimes about the possibility of having to bear arms against an armed enemy of the United States here on our home turf, I just don't see that happening anytime really soon.

I'm more worried about home turf battles against domestic enemies of the Constitution.

[Texbow]

It's not masses of troops that we have to worry about. Think about the effects Katrina and just imagine what would happen if terrorist were to smuggle in several large dirty bombs and hit 4 or 5 major cities on the same day. A handful of terrorist could cause major civil unrest along with huge economic impacts. The goal is to attack our economy not our troops. Without money for beans and bullets our military is not much of a deterrent.

[lawrnk]

While I think sometimes about the possibility of having to bear arms against an armed enemy of the United States here on our home turf, I just don't see that happening anytime really soon. Think about how many troops you would need just to pull off such an invasion. How in the World would you get them here without us noticing and the US military taking action? I guess the only fear we would have is if some goverment started putting it's troops at the Mexican border, and instead of attacking them while they were in transport our goverment, tried to pander and talk things down.

Once that happened though I know there would be a strong UN troop presence (probably US, Canadian, British, French, German, Japaneses, Aussie, and a few others) at the border waiting for them. Now I know if it was someone like China with there billions of people that they can throw wave after wave of people, but consider this. An ATACMS missle system can take out one grid square of troops at a time (that's one square kilometer). Basically to regiments of troops will/can occupy a grid square. That means with about 3-4 shots (2 launchers stationed at Ft Hood can pull that off in no time flat) you could make an entire division combat ineffective. That's just one system we have at our disposal. There are air wings, mine systems that are right out of star wars, the MOAB, and of course Artillery which has seen signifigant gains in the last 10 years. Go ahead and throw wave after wave. A private with a laptop is going to sit in a bomb shelter hundreds of miles away, look at you through the Air Forces UAV and sattelite screens, and then reccomend fire missions from artillery, air, and sea born at you all day long. This is called a "combat multiplier". One guy being able to kill very many of the enemy with one click of a mouse and some typing. If there is ever some huge troop build up at our border then you can bet they are going to really wish they were somewhere else should they head north. Parachuting is out of the question b/c as soon as a bunch of cargo planes get close and don't identify themselves they are getting shot down. Plus it would take a huge number of airborne troops to pull that off. Anyhow I could talk about this alllllll day since I used to work around such things but I'll digress.

Oh and I know we are under a socio-economic invasion right now from Mexico. Unfortunaley we can't really fix that with bombs.

- Greg-o
Headquarters III Corps Artillery
- HHB - Fire Support Element
- FAIO ADOCS Operator (Targeting and Target Acquisition) March '02 - December '03

I agree we have a massive geographical advantage, but I do worry about China in a decade.

[lawrnk]

It's not masses of troops that we have to worry about. Think about the effects Katrina and just imagine what would happen if terrorist were to smuggle in several large dirty bombs and hit 4 or 5 major cities on the same day. A handful of terrorist could cause major civil unrest along with huge economic impacts. The goal is to attack our economy not our troops. Without money for beans and bullets our military is not much of a deterrent.

A member on this forum was evacuating Rita and his passenger had to brandish to scare off 2 BM's who wanted to steal gas from them.
Agreed, civil unrest is more likely than a invasion on our soil.

[lawrnk]

Oh and I know we are under a socio-economic invasion right now from Mexico. Unfortunaley we can't really fix that with bombs.

Nah, I think bombs would work just fine.

[Truck]

As late as WW II hunting club's on the east coast provided armed patrols at the request of state government.
Greg