My ideal, wave-my-magic-wand-and-it-is-so solution would be to reduce our military by 90%*, and then make state national guard service mandatory for a few years after high school- Complete with government issued rifle and sidearm for which each citizen would be responsible. Similarly, disarm the police, but allow them to call up the guard in the event of a SWAT-worthy event.
This maintains a well regulated militia which can be called upon in order to raise armies, fulfilling the Constitutional mandate. It would also make governmental oppression is impossible not because the citizens are better armed, but because it would, by design, require the oppressors to pull those weapons on their own friends and family and neighbors, rather than relying on federal troops pulled in from hundreds of miles away.
*Standing military would consist of a slightly beefed up Coast Guard, enough people to man the nukes, radar, and NORAD, and a handful of NAVY SEAL- type special forces units.
Remember that that is what Freddie Gray was arrested and killed for- Possessing a knife which was, in fact, legal to carry.
The NRA and other right wing “rights watch” groups were silent. That’s when they lost any support they might have had from me. You know full well that if he had been white, they would have pumped it right up there with Benghazi for their daily dose of manufactured outrage.
Do you mean defending the American mainland, or invading Eurasia? Those oceans make a pretty good moat.
How much do you think they could draw down while maintaining an adequate defensive force? One without the ability to casually invade countries around the globe.
I mean defending the US. The moat isn’t much of a use against ICBMS. @MikeTheBard’s concept is for an army consisting of people with small arms. I don’t think thats going to be of much use against the big players.
Neither is anything else. For now, the only defence against ICBMs is deterrence and diplomacy. Apart from deterrance nukes (which requires a few, not the thousands currently maintained by the US), the military provides no defence against nuclear threats.
The moat should work pretty well against a seaborne invasion, when backed up by a moderate coastal navy and air force. Russia and China only have one operational carrier each.
I’m not talking about @MikeTheBard’s proposal; I’m genuinely curious as to what would be the minimum force that would enable an adequate defence of the US mainland. A real defence force, not one that is intended to project overwhelming power across the world.
Look, I’ve watched enough TV to know that you can fire off thousands of rounds of ammunition from semi-automatic and automatic weapons without managing to cause half as much carnage as a lone ninja armed with a blowpipe, sword and shuriken.
The best form of defence is to fight your wars in the other guy’s country; so the vast US Fleets is a viable deterrent. Unfortunately, the politicians keep on using the big stick to poke the wasp nest.
Unlike The Distinguished Mr. Norman, his constituents have to pass through airport-style security (except that no ID is required) to be able to reach his DC office.
As a citizen lobbyist, I was, a few years ago, denied entry to a Congressional Office Building because the handle of the umbrella I was carrying on a rainy day resembled (as viewed by X-ray) Brass Knuckles, which are illegal to possess in the District (even though I bought the umbrella at a convenience store in the district). The guards were unable to dispose of the alleged weapon for me, and also for security reasons, there are no trash cans on the street within a block. Fortunately, a passing cabbie welcomed the donation.
I have no real problem with someone owning an assault rifle, not really. Getting one might be harder. We can do that. I don’t think they make sense, but I also don’t think supercars make sense, or alcohol - but hey - it’s a free country.
But what I have a problem with, at the end of the day, is people owning more guns than they can carry.
That happened way too close to the election, many ballots had already been cast in advance polls. The flip side is that this is probably way too far from the election. Based on Access Hollywood I’d say you need the event demonstrating how revolting the candidate is to happen somewhere between 10 and 18 days before the election for it to matter.
I’m pretty sure the US military plans on being able to fight two nation sized conflicts at the same time. While having a nuclear deterrent, own the seas and both theater and strategic air superiority (offer may be invalid over Russia, China or say, Israel). Not to mention space based assets like satellites or what-have-you. Then ya got yer spec ops, psy ops, spy ops, cyber ops, etc etc. We should take a lesson from the current Russian pos/cyber ops asymmetrical warfare success (they got a dolt elected ‘president’ in the US) and do a lot more with a lot less.
But cutting defense spending isn’t on anyone’s to do list. It is the biggest pork barrel waste of resources ever invented. Think if we’d spent half that on space exploration or energy research or education or just split that up among all three. We’d be on Mars, colonizing the belt already and trying to float a cloud base on Venus. Probes to all the promising moons. And maybe we start thinking about sending tiny probes to other stars.
