[FlyinPolack]

Then what the **** have we been spending all this money on?

If you're telling me we have spent as much as the rest of the world combined on military and defense for the last 50 years, and we're "not that strong" then the DoD has some serious explaining to do.

Go back to Iraq part 1. We routed the 3rd largest army in the world in a couple of weeks. Iraq part 2, we routed their military in a matter of days. All while maintaining a domestic presence and numerous other major international presences.

China is growing, Russia is reinvesting in military. Neither of them are YET a credible threat. When they start getting closer (like say 20% of our size), maybe we can start reinvesting. Spending now is wasting money on equipment that will be obsolete by the time we need it and could be spent suring up our infrastructure so we actually have an economy to pay for a war. Additionally, until those two start getting a little closer, our own government and people are greater threats to us.

You can't compare what we spend. Our military's Payroll is 200% higher than Chinas is.
We may have taken out # 3 in a week but we are #2, not #1 strength wise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States

How many of our troops are actually here to protect us anyway?
Pre WW2 Noone thought it could happen here either...

 

[narlus]

today's thread-relevant strategy forecast email addresses the barrett, p90, & mexican border problems

that was a cool link, thanks.

 

[ohio]

You can't compare what we spend. Our military's Payroll is 200% higher than Chinas is.
We may have taken out # 3 in a week but we are #2, not #1 strength wise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States

How many of our troops are actually here to protect us anyway?
Pre WW2 Noone thought it could happen here either...

How's the stockpile coming along?

First of all, manpower doesn't equal strength. Not even close. Second, even if it did, how much luck do you think the Chinese would have transporting all of those soldiers over here? Think we wouldn't notice? Third, what would China possibly have to gain from an invasion? It will never happen, not in the even remotely distant future, because we have nothing (except Alaskan oil) to offer them. They have plenty of arable land, plenty of buildable land, a fair amount of natural resources, and they need us (desperately) to keep buying their stuff.

If we meet China on the battlefield, it won't be in China or the US. It will be over some 3rd party nation.

We have plenty to be paranoid about. China and Russia aren't it.

 

[Samirol]

OK, sure, I agree that nukes would be the worst of all. That doesn't somehow obviate other threats.

If being shot sucks, that doesn't make being stabbed hurt any less, or make it less likely.

Sure it does, lets say hypothetically that everyone in the town knows that you will kill anyone, their family, and all their friends if they step on your property, they probably won't try to stab you

 

[sanjuro]

China is currently building the biggest army the world has ever seen, who the **** do you think they'll aim it at?

Russia and India. I think their army will drown when they march to Taiwan.

I love the "can't happen here" attitude from most Americans. We aren't as strong as many seem to think we are, & I just hope we never have to find out the hard way..

It sounds like you don't know as much about the military strategy as this San Franciscan liberal, but the concept you fail to grasp is "mobilization".

While you might believe China is building their forces to invade California, there are no reports of them mobilizing their forces, at their borders or massively growing their navy.

Conversely, we are not prepared to repel a full scale invasion of China, but unless they built a tunnel to Mexico, I don't think Red Dawn is imminent.

On the other hand, we are mobilized to handle small scale conflicts, like Afghanistan, but by being divided in Iraq, it does prevent us from being more effective on another front.

 

[Squeak]

If China invades we could all be considered Terrorists or insurgents.

Cool

 

[$tinkle]

well we do have wmd's (an hour from me & 2 hrs from you is the pueblo mustard gas armory)

 

[Squeak]

well we do have wmd's (an hour from me & 2 hrs from you is the pueblo mustard gas armory)

That's a milk factory, nothing to see there...

 

[BMXman]

Anyhow, once Skynet becomes self-aware, you will all get the point.

 

[sanjuro]

If China invades we could all be considered Terrorists or insurgents.

Cool

Not all of us. My classified the day before China invades:

Looking to rent cellar or attic. Preferably with secret trap door, hidden wall, or otherwise obscured from a search.

 

[Westy]

Not all of us. My classified the day before China invades:

Looking to rent cellar or attic. Preferably with secret trap door, hidden wall, or otherwise obscured from a search.

I'm sure the gubment would have a nice little interment camp for you with all the comforts of home.

 

[manimal]

The average hunting rifle is bolt action, an AR-15 is not. An AR-15 is also fairly easy to convert to full auto given the proper knowledge and a pre-ban trigger assembly.

Compare apples to apples here, dude.

The second amendment was indeed for national defense, at the time when a professional army did not exist. It does exist now, and includes local chapters in the National Guard. ie: citizens do not need to defend the homeland anymore unless they are enrolled in said professional army.

the average modern hunting rifle is no longer a bolt action. most firearm manufactures are making several semi-auto rifles in varying calibers...and they're selling like hotcakes.

http://hunting.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=hunting&cdn=sports&tm=49&gps=46_8_1020_599&f=00&su=p531.49.336.ip_&tt=3&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/category.asp?value=002B

as far as reliance on the military/nat'l guard for all major threats well...as a veteran, i can promise you that our professional military is not an army FOR the people in regards to command. the nat'l guard has become a reserve extension of the regular military and the response time, during an emergency, is tragic. so when the feces start to bounce off of the reciprocating ceiling room cooling device i will still have my personal protection devices to rely on while my family and i wait to be rescued by the *cough* professional national guard.

 

[sanjuro]

the average modern hunting rifle is no longer a bolt action. most firearm manufactures are making several semi-auto rifles in varying calibers...and they're selling like hotcakes.

http://hunting.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=hunting&cdn=sports&tm=49&gps=46_8_1020_599&f=00&su=p531.49.336.ip_&tt=3&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/firearms/category.asp?value=002B

as far as reliance on the military/nat'l guard for all major threats well...as a veteran, i can promise you that our professional military is not an army FOR the people in regards to command. the nat'l guard has become a reserve extension of the regular military and the response time, during an emergency, is tragic. so when the feces start to bounce off of the reciprocating ceiling room cooling device i will still have my personal protection devices to rely on while my family and i wait to be rescued by the *cough* professional national guard.

One could look at Katrina as a very likely scenario.

While there were not gun battles in the street, having a gun meant a higher level of security than without.

Just ask Sean Penn:

 

[ohio]

I'll just hole up at Hunan Garden (or Jade Palace or Panda House), they love me there and have all you can eat everyday from 11-3.

 

[Defenestrated]

I'm sorry to point out the irony and burst all of your bubbles but... the American people who scream about gun rights all day long are also some of the most nationalistic and sheepish members of our society.

I would go so far as to say many of said individuals would be shooting AT the revolutionaries in order to defend "America".

 

[$tinkle]

whitey, get your gun

 

[MikeD]

Sure it does, lets say hypothetically that everyone in the town knows that you will kill anyone, their family, and all their friends if they step on your property, they probably won't try to stab you

And the fact that we could be nuked back sort of changes that equation back away from us using nukes in the first place. MAD worked and will continue to work. I'm sort of shocked to hear such 1950s cold-war thinking from a guy like you.

Also, you're dealing with too may unknowns to make your sort of prediction credible in any sense. There could be realistic technology which renders ICBMs obsolete or other even more destructive super-weapons, etc.

Basically, everyone always wants to point at a technology or event and say, "This changes everything," when nothing, as of yet, has actually changed in a meaningful way.

World War I was supposed to end all wars. The atom bomb was supposed to change how wars were fought. Mechanization was supposed to render the infantry obsolete. Yet, somehow, men on the ground with weapons pretty still much seem to be the deciding factor in combat. Even evolutions in technology which have forced massive social shifts (the longbow, for example, which took combat away from the mounted knight and thus ended the feudal system) hasn't changed the ultimate fact that it's men with weapons that decide the day.

This hasn't yet changed and I don't think we should plan on it changing. If it does, perhaps due to an unforseen/unforseeable change in technology, we can adjust at that time. And again, even if new technology seems to change things, we still need to remain prepared on the most basic level.

 

[Defenestrated]

MAD really wasn't a product of the cold war, the principal has probably been in use since the dawn of time, we just took it to the next level (nuclear).

It's just really sad that the two super powers were only able to settle their ideological differences in such a barbaric fashion (brinkmanship). It is fairly immature if you think about it, a fraction of the worlds population was ready to possibly annihilate civilization, and consequently everything we as a species had worked for up until that point, for what...

 

[Samirol]

The atom bomb was supposed to change how wars were fought.

Well, instead of the US and Russia fighting, it was their proxies fighting, which IS a big game changer.

Ideally, I would like to see the U.S as a non-imperialist neutral country, but that isn't going to happen.

I just don't think that a land invasion of the United States will happen in our current hyper-militarized state. If it does, then I can see where having a high gun proliferation is beneficial, but no country out there has a reason to attack the U.S. Russia wants to be known as a world power, not get locked in a battle to the death with the U.S. China wants money, and the U.S in "real" war threatens that.

 

[MikeD]

The world can be an ugly place. I don't think 'immature' is really the way to characterize it...but I do see where you're coming from.

But as far as MAD, I do think it was a product of the nuclear age. Never before was it possible to instantly and decidedly wipe out another civilization without doing it man-by-man from relatively close range, or for victims of such an attack to respond in kind essentially from the grave...that said, did it change anything as far as war was concerned? Maybe it kept what would have been hot wars relatively cool, frankly, so in a way, maybe it wasn't so bad. It sure occupied a lot of resources we could've used for other things, but reality can be that way.

 

[Defenestrated]

I think MAD did keep the proxy wars during the cold war relatively chilled. However non of the proxy wars were just anyway, thus really there should never have been any wars after WWII.

 

[MikeD]

Heh, thanks for the neg rep, too...

You'd better learn some target discrimination!!

 

[$tinkle]

Well, instead of the US and Russia fighting, it was their proxies fighting, which IS a big game changer.

if you're saying the bomb has given rise (or significant momentum) to proxy wars, i'd have to disagree & say it's the proliferation of easy to use high tech weaponry; specifically the ak-47

 

[Samirol]

if you're saying the bomb has given rise (or significant momentum) to proxy wars, i'd have to disagree & say it's the proliferation of easy to use high tech weaponry; specifically the ak-47

Somewhat, major countries don't want to clash directly because of the bomb and economic reasons, they would rather throw money and guns at the situation. Weapons like the AK-47 make proxy wars an even more attractive option, but the core reason is that it is more attractive to use a proxy than to use a country's own troops.

The bomb makes both sides more careful of their actions and prevent full-scale war. India and Pakistan are a good example, instead of going to a full war, Pakistan did more insurgent attacks rather than military ones.

 

[$tinkle]

Anyhow, once Skynet becomes self-aware, you will all get the point.

all your base are belong to us

ed: and i do mean all your base

 

[1000-Oaks]

The average hunting rifle is bolt action, an AR-15 is not. An AR-15 is also fairly easy to convert to full auto given the proper knowledge and a pre-ban trigger assembly.

I doubt it, semi-auto hunting rifles are very popular. Probably a tie with bolt guns nowadays.

And who cares about full auto anyway? Have you ever pulled the trigger on a full-auto M16 with a 30-rd magazine? I have, plenty. It lasts about as long as a fart, very different from what what armchair "anti-gun experts" learn from watching war movies.

Semi-auto is much more useful, and you don't have to leave yourself vulnerable every few seconds while changing magazines.

Yes, the ONLY reason "assault" weapons are banned are because of their LOOKS. They function EXACTLY the same as multitudes of hunting rifles, but with a lot less power. M16's (and other "assault" rifles of same caliber) are designed to wound, not kill. If you wound a solder you take him and several others out of the battle while they're pulling him to safety. If you kill a solder, you only take one out of the battle. Simple math.

So what ever happened to the mass murder in the streets that the libs said was SURE to happen the minute the last assault weapon ban expired? What about all the hype on the news the day before? Wow, I'm sure they were really disappointed when assault weapon sales SKYROCKETED but crime rates didn't change a bit. None. Nada.

Just like banning .50 BMG rifles in Kalifornia, now they're illegal but there has NEVER been ONE SINGLE CRIME committed with a .50 BMG rifle. Not once, anywhere in the entire country. How many street thugs want to pay $7,000 for a rifle that uses bullets that cost $5 each? Or wants to lug arond the 20+ pounds one weighs? Glad KA burned a bunch of taxpayer money passed a law outlawing them...brilliant.

 

[1000-Oaks]

I'm sorry to point out the irony and burst all of your bubbles but... the American people who scream about gun rights all day long are also some of the most nationalistic and sheepish members of our society.

I would go so far as to say many of said individuals would be shooting AT the revolutionaries in order to defend "America".

You gotta be kidding, that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's like saying blacks are joining the KKK. Nationalism has nothing to do with blind support of the government du jour. Nationalism is about believing in the ideals on which this country was founded.

 

[1000-Oaks]

I was making a joke at the whole "guns protect liberties" argument, because it is completely ridiculous and not based in reality.

Okay, I'll bite. How is it ridiculous and not reality? Factually now, try to keep personal opinion out of your response.

 

[FlyinPolack]

Don't worry overmuch about the peanut gallery there Oaks.
Those same squids that love to bust on us are the same ones that will curl up in a ball & hide if it ever comes down to it.
Cubicle jockeys don't need guns, they'll have gun toting guys to protect them. Weak little ladies like that always do..

 

[sanjuro]

Don't worry overmuch about the peanut gallery there Oaks.
Those same squids that love to bust on us are the same ones that will curl up in a ball & hide if it ever comes down to it.
Cubicle jockeys don't need guns, they'll have gun toting guys to protect them. Weak little ladies like that always do..

Uh, I lived in several inner-city neighborhoods where I had to drive kids home after practice so they wouldn't get shot after. I've also chased several muggers down, and fought off someone breaking into my apartment.

I did all this without a gun.

Let me guess: you live someplace safe and sound, and the only threats you deal with are on the intraweb.

 

[FlyinPolack]

Uh, I lived in several inner-city neighborhoods where I had to drive kids home after practice so they wouldn't get shot after. I've also chased several muggers down, and fought off someone breaking into my apartment.

I did all this without a gun.

Let me guess: you live someplace safe and sound, and the only threats you deal with are on the intraweb.

Ohhh, you win tough guy.. Haha

 

[loco-gringo]

Shotgun with a home defense load. nice big spread, lots of power, and will not blast through the walls and kill your neighbor's kid.

I love the morons who talk big and think they can hit a home in vader from across the house, with a rifle or handgun, in the dark, with adrenaline pumping, not 100% awake.

Good luck hitting the broad side of a barn under those conditions without proper military/SWAT training.

Where is Vader and how far away are you???

 

[loco-gringo]

Ohhh, you win tough guy.. Haha

Don't mock him. He didn't even mention the bitch he slapped down for egg salad.

 

[1000-Oaks]

Uh, I lived in several inner-city neighborhoods where I had to drive kids home after practice so they wouldn't get shot after. I've also chased several muggers down, and fought off someone breaking into my apartment.

I did all this without a gun.

Let me guess: you live someplace safe and sound, and the only threats you deal with are on the intraweb.

Some here are completely missing the point. I'll wager the bulk of those rushing out to buy "assault" rifles are NOT doing so for home defense. That's what short-barrel pump shotguns are for.

No, these folks are buying them for a few reasons:

1. The .223 caliber is a good varmint (small animal) round, and is cheap and fun to shoot (very little "kick"). It is just powerful enough to be used for deer in a pinch, if food becomes scarce for some reason. (Yes there are a few other assault weapon calibers, but most are equally cheap to shoot and inexpensive ammo can be stockpiled.)

2. Should the citizens ever have to revolt against the government, assault rifles in the hands of citizens provide the same wounding ability (wounding, not killing) that the government's rifles will have. So the fight would be a little more even.

3. Should #2 occur, ammunition will become scarce in a hurry. So it makes perfect sense to have rifles that shoot the same ammo as your enemy, so that you can hopefully find new ammo as you use it.

 

[1000-Oaks]

Just read that some countries* prohibit citizens from owning firearms that shoot the same caliber ammo as their military, though it's legal for them to own weapons that are more powerful or less powerful. Clearly their government is taking steps to prevent #2 above. Gun registration is along the same lines really; they want to know what you have so that they round 'em up should the people start getting seriously upset with the government.


* Including Mexico.

 

[jimmydean]

Don't worry overmuch about the peanut gallery there Oaks.
Those same squids that love to bust on us are the same ones that will curl up in a ball & hide if it ever comes down to it.
Cubicle jockeys don't need guns, they'll have gun toting guys to protect them. Weak little ladies like that always do..

I don't need a gun, never have. I have carried one in the military and am fully trained in how to use one, but I have never felt the need to carry or even own one outside of that.

I'm all for the right to own a gun even though I chose not to. But some guns serve no logical purpose outside of the military and should not be sold to Joe Public, period. If you need a semi-auto for hunting, you need to take a class on how to shoot.

 

[bohorec]

Yeah but you need these guns to control the government. You know just in case of pinko takeover. Did I mention aliens? Who's going to fight them when regular army will be shattered and defeated?

 

[Transcend]

I keep an ax at home for the zombies. My auto converted AR 15 is for squirrel hunting.

 

[1000-Oaks]

But some guns serve no logical purpose outside of the military and should not be sold to Joe Public, period.

That kind of thinking sure sounds familiar, it's just like pro-lifer's telling other people what they can and can't do in their own personal life. Or the religious extremists telling homosexuals they can't be gay because it's a sin.

So you don't want a gun - don't buy one. It's your choice. How does someone else choosing to own a gun affect you? It doesn't, not one bit. So what right do you have to tell someone else how to live?

 

[Transcend]

That kind of thinking sure sounds familiar, it's just like pro-lifer's telling other people what they can and can't do in their own personal life.

No, it isn't.

Your wife having an abortion has 0 possibility of ever affecting your neighbors. You owning a gun can potentially kill them when you screw up cleaning it, get drunk and trigger happy, try to defend your home in the dark and have a round go through the wall, it gets stolen and used to rob their home etc.

Nice try with a very cunning straw man though.