6 ms·
Literally nothing. America is armed to the teeth. If the government deputized and allowed citizen militias to patrol its borders, there would be very low risk o
by orangepurple 3y ago
Literally nothing. America is armed to the teeth. If the government deputized and allowed citizen militias to patrol its borders, there would be very low risk of invasion. Any invasion force would face tremendous logistical problems and irregular warfare by a well armed populace. Simply put, nobody can invade and control America. We would see a repeat of the Battles of Lexington and Concord.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoAwesome - so we would live in a mad max world fighting irregular warfare across Asia, Europe, and the Americas, instead of developing open source software and playing video games? I think I’d rather be conquered if that’s the alternative and go back to playing video games and developing open source software.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y agoTV used to be the opiate of the masses. Now it's video games and social media.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoAnd open source software.
- rhcom2 3y agoHow does a populace with small arms defend against a cruise missile? A bomber? A submarine? Certainly there would be irregular war akin to any of the irregular warfare the US military has faced and control might never be completely established, but it wouldn't have to be for it to be the end of the US as we know it.
- orangepurple 3y agoYou don't. You pull a North Vietnam and never surrender to the occupation forces. Eventually the enemy cannot afford to sustain an occupation and withdraws. America has so many more guns than any other country on earth and people intelligent enough to use them well that an invasion force has NO CHANCE of success in the medium to long term. Never underestimate the amount of power and influence a small group of people with rifles and irregular warfare tactics can wield. Especially locals that know every square inch of their backyards by heart. Look no further than Ukraine for a recent example, which is somehow hanging on for over two years mostly with light arms, almost no training, while completely outgunned. America has geography strongly in its favor except Alaska. A successful adversary would need to fragment and manufacture American allegiances with divide and conquer tactics to succeed.
- stetrain 3y agoI’m not sure being Vietnam in this scenario is particularly desirable. Not being completely defeated during a bloody invasion isn’t the same as never being invaded.
- naniwaduni 3y agoBeing Vietnam would suck, sure, but being in Vietnam also sucked and is avoidable. (And who do you think has the resources to pull a Vietnam on the US?)
- stetrain 3y agoSure. I’m not advocating for the US invading Vietnam. But holding up Vietnam and Ukraine as examples of successful outcomes is also missing the horror and destruction wrought on those countries and their people in the process. The commenter I replied to is using the fantasy of armed citizens valiantly repelling invaders in their backyards in guerilla warfare to support the idea that “Literally nothing.” would happen without the US military.
- jemmyw 3y agoUkraine seemed to do it with MANPADs and anti-tank equipment over small arms. Unless you're counting those, but that doesn't seem like the kind of weapons ordinary Americans have at home.
- simne 3y agoUnfortunately, at the moment, Ukraine lost more than 10% of territory under occupation, and other suffer from constant attacks on infrastructure, and sea export extremely limited, so we now very depend on grants from US and EU. In foreseen future, if West will not give aviation and long range rockets, Ukraine will need revolutionary restructure of economy to survive. For example, before war, Ukraine was one of the top food exporters, but now, with limited access to sea, have to use land routes, which are just add too much to cost of raw grain.
- nine_k 3y agoAny invasion force on land would have to attack either from Mexico or from Canada. I don't see it as remotely probable. An invasion force with a slightest chance of success would have massive seaborne and airborne components, along with armor, and would start with a massive aerial and missile attack at the area of prospective invasion. This is not something a well-regulated militia with small arms would be effective against. If the current war in Europe is any indication, small arms are not even effective against armed consumer-grade drones. What a militia might be efficient against could be e.g. short-term incursions by drug cartels, or similar.
- defrost 3y agoThere'd be an excess of bored former soldiers and a barely secured excess of military hardware loose in a nation polarised and sharply divided. If the FBI terror watchlists are in any way accurate it's not threats from beyond the borders that the U(?)SofA would be threatened by.