SPC is quite correct. i could give a thoughtful response to this but it's just too far beyond our understanding to orchestrate a defensive procedure on that kind of scale. personally though, god help anyone who invades a country with 100 millions shotgun toting rednecks.
2007-05-03 19:12:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by HugoBossDB 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
One factor that any potential invading force/country must take into consideration is the more than 80 million guns in the hands of the civilian population. Right now, these weapons are not registered. That is, there is no central registry to which an invading enemy could go to locate all these weapons. If we had gun registration in this country, then an invading enemy could simply go to the registry and locate all (or at least most) of the privately owned firearms. Consider what the term "citizen soldier" would mean then. This fact, the individual, personal ownership of firearms, and their deterrent effect on potential foreign invaders, was one of the principal reasons our founders wrote the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
2007-05-04 02:48:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by judgebill 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Nobody will be right, because the basic principle of War is to do what your Enemy doesn't expect.
Assassinating Leaders is against the Geneva Convention and also does nothing for war tactics. If a leader of an enemy state is killed, it usually only fuels the troops and puts them into blood lust while someone else steps up.
An Airstrike on a capital city is meaningless. Such as it would be in the US. A bomb in the capital would only make us mad, not weak. Where as an Airstrike on NYC would cripple us, because that's the center of our Economy.
2007-05-04 02:05:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Burn It 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
So who saw the old 80's movie Red Dawn? Wolverines!!!!!
Any foreign military that showed up in the U. S. would lose in the end. Truth be told we are a violent culture that values our right to bare arms. Between our military and civilians with guns( most with military training) would kick the sh*t out the invaders real bad. Then we would go to their land and take it from them to form a new state.
2007-05-04 04:22:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by sonofmary 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
An invasion such as the continual influx of illegal aliens from Mexico and Latin America, or an invasion as in elements of the Mexican Army cross the border?
In either case, our current leadership will do . . . .
NOTHING AT ALL.
Both of these events have been happening on a regular basis in the past few years.
2007-05-04 10:05:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dave_Stark 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's already happening! What do you think Mexico is doing? Bush keeps trying to do things to stop it but all the bleeding heart liberal Democraps won't let him.
2007-05-04 02:10:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Just so you know, it is illegal in the US for our government to assaignate foriegn leaders. Prolly hasnt stopped it from happening though.
2007-05-04 02:40:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by Amanda E 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
My, my. We are already being invaded by Mexicans. Do something!!
2007-05-04 02:06:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋