English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

4 answers

Sounds interesting. There are probably "problems" with state laws that conflict, and there would be problems about which state or which branch of the safety forces would be in charge.

Just my 2 cents.

2006-07-13 08:26:08 · answer #1 · answered by Malika 5 · 0 0

They already utilize the services of prison inmates at virtually no additional costs, so they probably aren't considering using military personnel. Sounds like an interesting option though...I wonder if it's already been looked into and, if there are reasons to not use them, what those reasons are.

2006-07-13 08:34:38 · answer #2 · answered by hotandtastylady 3 · 0 0

The military is organized, trained, and equipped to destroy enemy forces. They are not, except for a very few people, trained to fight fires and do not have firefighting apparatus. Also, the military does not, in my humble opinion, have enough active duty forces to effectively handle the massive task they are faced with in the world today.

Just my $.02 as well...

2006-07-13 08:35:58 · answer #3 · answered by John S 2 · 0 0

That is what the National Guard is for, but they are busy.

2006-07-13 08:26:25 · answer #4 · answered by RDHamm 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers