Quote:
Originally Posted by von Pilsner
Owning a handgun or AR15 would not stop the military or a SWAT team. If they want to get you, they will...
|
You either didn't read a thing I said or entirely missed the point of it. I never said 1 person could take on any sort of swap team let alone the military.
Very basic military strategy is based on the opposition's armed forces. The population level hardly comes into play (unless it's the US) - only the strength of the weapons and the numbers/amounts of people in the military of that particular country. That is why you could get 20,000 of the Jewish to board a train with only 100 Nazi's overseeing the entire operation. That's why the military doesn't base it's amount of troops for a conflict on the size of the population only the size of it's military.
Because of this strategy, unarmed, helpless civilians can be herded like cattle with relative ease - as was clearly demonstrated with Nazi Germany during WWII. To break it down even further. Just for numbers sake (I'm not going to be bothered to give exact numbers) but lets say Nazi Germany had a military of 500,000 strong. Easily 350,000 of those troops would be near the front lines far spread out. The rest is left to logistical, medical, sustainment etc., of anything from command, to resupply, to maintaining Auschwitz etc, etc., etc.,.. That's pretty standard military operation during any sort of conflict.
Now take the number of population of countries over ran with such a seemingly small amount of troops staggered throughout Europe and then take into consideration the amount of people in the millions that couldn't do anything.
Now take that 100 person swat team you talked about earlier. Now go ahead and try to round up 20,000 of the Jewish when all 20,000 of them have guns. You soon realize, as a military strategist, that this isn't gonna work to well. You soon realize you're going to need many more people to get the same job done. By doing that you also soon realize that this pulls resources from other areas of conflict where you may need them the most. Then you soon realize the sheer amount of resources required to maintain let alone achieve your mission has gone through the roof. Now you need 10x the ammunition, 10x the fuel, 10x the bombs, 10x the tanks, and 10x the manpower to put up with the once unable to do anything population that is helpless and isn't even included in your military strategy as a real threat compared to the now millions of people taking on your military of 500,000. That's what happens when citizens are armed. That's why any sort of military strategy to invade the US would be suicide, and that's why it's one of the few countries if at all, that has never in it's life had any sort of attempt at an invasion. Our military is big enough. But you invade us, you'd have majority of the country doing it's part as well.
You may think "what a crock" or I'm full of BS. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out just how powerful numbers are. Especially those that are armed. People didn't just walk into the gas chambers on their own free will. That armed weapon pointed at their head does a hell of a lot of convincing.
Edit: @ EZ - I don't really consider the war of 1812 an invasion. Most of the fighting occurred on the water or in water ways close to the coastal areas. There was obviously fighting on land but they didn't exactly make it very far
I would consider Iraq an invasion as we setup military bases where ever we needed them throughout the entire country. I guess I should have worded my response differently.