World's largest army, never thought of this.

[rhodesbe]

I am thankful to lived in an armed society, but to call that group an 'army' is a little boastful.

A well disciplined, trained, cohesive, and supplied fighting force can defeat a numerically significant army of amatuers any day. The krauts almost took Soviet Russia, for pete's sake.

A bunch of guys with guns only marginally corresponds to 'safety'. When Yamamoto made his quote, rural USA consisted of a bunch of farmers dependant upon thier own marksmanship to eat. Modern USA may possess more guns, but mostly recreational hunters.

Be proud of our potential ability for defense, but please regard that popping a bunch of deer rifles at an organzised enemy rifle squad looks an aweful lot like insurgents in Iraq. Guess what? Those dudes have surplus class III and RPGs laying around, and the US Military still persists in those regions.

 

[ronny]

China won't steamroll anybody over here unless they can swim the Pacific with full pack.

 

[ripnbst]

Yeah, in order for anyone to invade us they would have to get here first which means traveling across hundreds of miles of ocean. There's no way we wouldn't see them coming and prepare accordingly. You want to talk ammo shortage lol.

Anyone close enough to invade us without traversing lots of ocean doesn't stand a chance and everyone knows this.

While the Chinese may have more military aged inhabitants that doesn't necessarily mean they are all proficient in firearms. At least the hunters would know how to operate one firearm with a high probability of learning those similar quickly.

My issue is while we are hunters we are also fat and slow as a nation. Anything requiring guerilla warfare, moving quickly, and any level of stealth well forget it. You don't see many fat Afghani's/Iraqis.

 

[ignerntbend]

but how many tactical nukes do they have ;0) the U.S. has more than an ample amount, I beleive enough distroy the world over like 7 times, that being said all the electronics in those nukes are most likely made in china. Would that be an example of irony.

I'm afraid for the U.S. to really come outta this slump and become a true superpower again it's gonna have to invade and colionalize a few places starting with the united comunist/socialists states of america (CA, NY, WA, MA, ect ect) and once we drive out the unAmericans mabey we can go back to being a great country

I don't no whether to say laugh out loud, or Zig Heil

 

[ronny]

My issue is while we are hunters we are also fat and slow as a nation. Anything requiring guerilla warfare, moving quickly, and any level of stealth well forget it. You don't see many fat Afghani's/Iraqis.

My issue is while we are hunters, that's all we are; hunters. Hunters don't fight armies. We would have no leaders, no logistics, no supply lines, etc.

If we were invaded, would we (the hunters) kill a bunch of the invaders? Yes! Would we defeat an invading army? No! Is that a reason to worry? No! Because that will not be the scenario until and unless our entire mililtary is destroyed. In that case, it won't be China invading, it will be from south of the border.

 

[soonerwings]

I seem to recollect a story where a whole bunch of non-professional guys with guns laid a smack-down on the world's premier army a couple of centuries back....

 

[rhodesbe]

I seem to recollect a story where a whole bunch of non-professional guys with guns laid a smack-down on the world's premier army a couple of centuries back....

It is not the doctrine of any modern army to fight symmetrically against an assymetrical foe. The British were as stupid and arrogant as much as the Patriots were bold and brave.

The Poles in 1939 were equally brave, bold, ingenious, angry, intelligent, and armed as we would be if faced with the same problem. And they got their asses kicked by a modern army.

 

[soonerwings]

What about that little charlie guy over in Vietnam that stood up to the vaunted power of the United States? Modern armies, by their very nature, are ill equipped to fight assymetric adversaries. Piddly little things like chains of command and principles such as the massing of force make them symmetrical by default. How about the tribesmen in the Afghan region? Did the modern Soviet or American militaries enjoy a great deal of success against them? If you think that Americans lack the resolve to defend their nation against an invading army (which wouldn't be much of an army after it clashed with the American military), just wait and see if their resolve doesn't harden when their backs are against the wall.

Body armor is warn by many a mall ninja these days and I'll take a scoped 30-06 over an AK-47 for delivering energy downrange any day of the week. UAV's aren't exactly what one would call proliferated anywhere outside of the U.S. and the amount of airpower it would take to put down rebellions everywhere in a geographic area as large as the CONUS has never been mustered by any nation in the history of the world. RPG's and hand grenades huh? I also seem to remember where a resourceful domestic terrorist blew up a federal building with diesel fuel and fertilizer. Advanced weaponry is by no means an assurance of victory.

The Poles employed primitive weapons AND used the methods employed by traditional armies. As it would turn out, organized attacks using cavalry units didn't exactly work out. Their tactics were a far cry from guerilla warfare.

 

[Zack.S]

Now if only a quarter of those hunters out there would actually step forward
And join us in the millitary we would truely have the manpower to add to our technological advantages

 

[soonerwings]

Now if only a quarter of those hunters out there would actually step forward
And join us in the millitary we would truely have the manpower to add to our technological advantages

Heck...our nation can't even afford to pay our existing obligations much less handle an infusion of several million people into the military.