Agreed. However, I'd argue that most American hunters have more training in using modern rifles than the typical conscript in any "millions strong" army. One of the reasons behind American military dominance that is usually overshadowed by our technological prowess is the fact that we train incessantly. I'd put money on the fact that the average American hunter has fired a gun a lot more than the average Chinese/Russian conscript.
Tens of thousands to one huh? That's a knack for exaggeration. I'd submit that most of these "tens of thousands" examples of Goliath winning were cases where both David and Goliath used similar tactics.
I'd argue against that. The majority of hunters I've known throughout my life were remarkably untrained, or unpracticed, riflemen. They dust off their chosen hunting piece a few weeks before hunting season, fire off a few rounds for zero, take a deer or two, then it goes back in the safe till next fall. They get good with a piece over years of using it...but they are from from true shooters.
I would even go out on a limb to say that this describes the majority of deer hunters.....no stats behind it, just a general impression from knowing and hunting with folks up north, down south, and out here in Oklahoma.
After this supposed conflict my argument is that their control of air and sea would be insufficient to support an invasion of a country our size.
Looks like you need to re-read my posts as well. I have never argued for a hunter army but quite the opposite. An army is a centralized entity that utilizes symmetrical warfare. What I've argued is that the hunters would be able to beat back an organized invasion force by using assymetrical warfare for a long enough time for the hostile nation to lose its economic ability to keep sustaining an invasion or for said nation to lose its will to fight.
Agreed.
They don't want to play the economic card any more than we do. They can call our debt but we can stop buying their stuff. No one wins in this scenario and both nations realize it.
Exactly. They get good because they've used it for years. The American Air Force out trains foreign pilots by a ridiculous margin. Some of the most "experienced" fighter pilots in foreign air forces fly a whopping 2 hours per month. The concept is no different when applied to ground forces. Ever read the accounts of the soviet army that was so poorly equipped and trained that it's tactic was to have its young conscripts pick up rifles from the men killed in front of them? That actually happened. The chinese may have a horde, but it's a very poorly trained/equipped horde.
Now we have something to talk about. Another poster alluded to it, as well. We can stop buying their stuff and should whenever possible. The real problem is that we've gone too far down that road. We can't stop buying their stuff because then we'd have to do without. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've actively tried to "not buy Chinese" and run up against a brick wall. You'd be surprised how often you have to either do without or pay an exorbitant price.
This is the war that worries me most. I'm old enough that I won't likely see the final outcome, but a lot of you and your kids will. I hope you win.
I'm afraid that simply shouting "buy American" from the rooftops isn't enough to win the struggle. People need to have economic incentive to buy American goods and we're not giving it to them. Why not? Unions, rising health care costs, etc. Before "Buy American" becomes a viable strategy, our companies will need to be placed back on the level ground that our "progressive" government has screwed them out of.
I'm in large agreement. However, it is difficult to see our current government leveling the playing field. We could have an impact by buying American at every opportunity that makes some sense. But, you're right, lip service won't cut it.
Our first step should be to cut the NLRB off at the knees and rebuild it. Oh, rats! Here I go.
Actually, our first step should be to depose all the Czars.
Similar threads
