How many Americans become suitable for military service from EACH STATE in the U.S per year?

[Dayton3]

Your math sucks and your numbers are way off.

2020 United States Military Strength

Go to the US and expand on Manpower

Sorry. I was just going by wikipedia numbers. With the numbers your site gives (more than 4,000,000) reaching military age annually, my minimum goal of 10,000 from each state (500,000 total) should be even more reachable.

The 4,000,000 a year translates to 12,000,000 for a three year age frame. With half of those males, that means 6 million men age 18-20.

Assuming only 25% of those 6 million men are physically and mentally capable of military service that is 1.5 million men. An average of 30,000 per state. Thus obtaining a minimum of 10,000 per state is even more practical than I had originally thought.

 

[Tangmo]

The Army in recent years has changed its recruiting focus geographically and demographically.

Army recruiting is now focused on a couple of dozen major cities instead of states per se such as Buffalo, Providence, Raleigh, Seattle, Sacramento, Denver, Houston, Colombus to name a few. Recruiting has surpassed goals in 16 of the 22 selected cities with a major effort underway since the beginning of summer to revamp recruiting since the Coronavirus.

Army will continue to recruit in the fertile zone from the Carolinas through Texas to include some of the midwest but its focus is on increasing the number of soldiers from cities. Pentagon doctrine has also changed to prepare for warfare in urban areas given the US experiences of recent decades in Iraq, assessing conflicts in the ME and elsewhere. The Pentagon shift of focus to urban warfare is also predicated on the fact the majority of the world's population live in cities.



Army new recruiting efforts include emphasis on 22 cities

Training and Doctrine Command boss Gen. Stephen Townsend, left, is heading up a top-to-bottom review of the Army's recruiting and training organizations. Gen. Townsend meets with Rotc cadets during their advanced summer training exercises at Ft. Knox, KY, July 5, 2019. (Army)


February 11, 2019

WASHINGTON -- The Army's new accession strategy includes expanding into major metropolitan areas and more into social media to reach a more diverse, qualified audience, leaders said in a Pentagon briefing Jan. 31. The service identified 22 focus cities with growing populations of highly-qualified 18- to 24-year-olds with minimal exposure to the Army, including Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles. The Army is using social media, outreach events and key leader engagements to help increase awareness of Army opportunities in these areas.


The service will also increase its regional presence on social media applications, like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook, and has upgraded the interface of GoArmy.com, making the Army's official recruiting website more user and mobile friendly. "We wanted to get the word out to a broader swath of America," said Gen. Stephen Townsend, commander of Army Training and Doctrine Command. The outreach efforts have already shown results. Recruiters in 16 of the 22 targeted cities have improved their recruiting numbers. Townsend credited a stronger presence on social media and an increased number of recruiters for the recent success. "We feel very confident in the morale of the recruiting force," Townsend said. Maj. Gen. Frank Muth, commander of Army Recruiting Command, said a concentrated recruiting strategy helped ease the burden on recruiters.

New recruiting efforts include emphasis on 22 cities | Article | The United States Army

Urban warfare has long and always been a no-no for an Army to do but this is changing too as the Army and Marines both retool and develop new training doctrines to fight more effectively in cities based on recent experience.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Duh, you think?

And you don’t. :roll:

There are millions of people in this country who are well armed and could easily become very effective gorilla fighters.

In short, due to these gun owners, occupying the US would be impossible.

 

[dave8383]

The North Vietnamese did not win using guerrilla tactics.

The NVA used both guerrilla and conventional tactics.

 

[Jredbaron96]

mid east?

What about it?

 

[Peter]

the U.S. Supreme Court has long since held that drafting only men is constitutional.

precedent has been established

Times change and so can the verdict of the Supreme Court.
Just because precedent has been set doesn't mean it can never change.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Times change and so can the verdict of the Supreme Court.
Just because precedent has been set doesn't mean it can never change.

Precedence is the root of American law. Are you lobbying for the abortion law to change?

 

[Robertinfremont]

The NVA used both guerrilla and conventional tactics.

When the NVA used conventional tactics, they lost hugely.

We had the majority of sound conventional tactics that we used.

 

[Peter]

Precedence is the root of American law. Are you lobbying for the abortion law to change?

Nope, I'm simply saying that things change and laws that are on the books now are possible to change in the future.
I'm saying that it's not impossible for the supreme court to mandate women be drafted.

 

[Dayton3]

The Army in recent years has changed its recruiting focus geographically and demographically.

Army recruiting is now focused on a couple of dozen major cities instead of states per se such as Buffalo, Providence, Raleigh, Seattle, Sacramento, Denver, Houston, Colombus to name a few. Recruiting has surpassed goals in 16 of the 22 selected cities with a major effort underway since the beginning of summer to revamp recruiting since the Coronavirus.

Army will continue to recruit in the fertile zone from the Carolinas through Texas to include some of the midwest but its focus is on increasing the number of soldiers from cities. Pentagon doctrine has also changed to prepare for warfare in urban areas given the US experiences of recent decades in Iraq, assessing conflicts in the ME and elsewhere. The Pentagon shift of focus to urban warfare is also predicated on the fact the majority of the world's population live in cities.



Army new recruiting efforts include emphasis on 22 cities

Training and Doctrine Command boss Gen. Stephen Townsend, left, is heading up a top-to-bottom review of the Army's recruiting and training organizations. Gen. Townsend meets with Rotc cadets during their advanced summer training exercises at Ft. Knox, KY, July 5, 2019. (Army)


February 11, 2019





Urban warfare has long and always been a no-no for an Army to do but this is changing too as the Army and Marines both retool and develop new training doctrines to fight more effectively in cities based on recent experience.

Why do they think that soldiers from cities will tend to be more effective in urban warfare?

 

[Tangmo]

Why do they think that soldiers from cities will tend to be more effective in urban warfare?

Few are saying they'd be "more effective" in urban warfare. More Soldiers from cities provides several positives the Army favors.

In Boston for instance there are 101 colleges and universities of higher education to be drawn on plus their feeder high schools. Rotc was returned to MIT, Harvard and other IHL nationally after Congress lifted the prohibition of gays in the military. It's not as if the Army or the armed forces are campaigning for more gay members, but rather, the high tech learner is the object of the Army's MOS intentions.

Army's not running national recruiting ads any more showing tankers in their M-60s roaring through obstacles and across a field. They're running targeted ads showing enlisted and officers in cyber security and cyber warfare. 7500 Soldiers have applied for 20 positions to set up a computer war games site for young Americans online and to chat with 'em to promote joining the Army; you can bet the final 20 Soldiers will be exactly right for the mission.

The valid point's been made in scrolling the Soldier needs to know his environment and to use it to his advantage. Just as it stands to reason a country boy such as yourself can be expected to adapt to the field environment with facility, so too a city boy such as myself can be expected to be adept in the urban environment. It's not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Army history includes prominently Sgt. York of Tennessee who never quite got to school much and who decimated a battalion of Germans in the field warfare of WW I starting with his trusty rifle. It includes Pickett's Charge across an open field. Rangers scaling the cliffs at Normandy beaches, the head to head battles of Marines and Army on the beaches and in the fields of the Pacific islands of WW II and so on. Not many meanwhile want to talk about the battle of Manila that was a grueling task of a different kind.

The refocus of the Army -- and Marines -- to fighting in the metro and urban areas is a new doctrine drawn from the experiences of the two forces since 9/11...and also includes some lessons from Vietnam where urban centers were frequently the target of major enemy attacks. Indeed and as I'd said, urban warfare has always been the thing to avoid yet that is too often unavoidable, but in the 21st century world of warfare the metro and urban center is a major battlespace in ways it hasn't always been before given half the world population live now in cities. In the 21st century the on the ground urban warfare needs to be figured out which is what Congress and the Pentagon are doing. They're trekking in the right direction btw.

 

[TypicalRussian]

What about it?

low trained insurgetns with guns wins

 

[BahamaBob]

And you don’t. :roll:

My posts had nothing to do with any war. I simply stated the US could not be occupied. If you need to deflect to hide your ignorance, go for it.

 

[skeptic llc]

"In short, due to these gun owners, occupying the US would be impossible."

And that is why I support gun rights despite all the problems they cause. Over time, it is virtually inevitable that a foreign or domestic tyranny will emerge. An armed populace is the best antidote. And BahamaBob, I fully agree, our populace is so well armed that it would be difficult if not impossible ...

 

[RaleBulgarian]

My posts had nothing to do with any war. I simply stated the US could not be occupied. If you need to deflect to hide your ignorance, go for it.

If not another country, as an act of war, who would try to occupy America, Bob?

Or do you not consider attempting to occupy our country an act of war?

You really ought to put your thinking cap on before posting. It might help save you from making a fool of yourself.

 

[Jredbaron96]

low trained insurgetns with guns wins

Insurgents win though not through direct combat with American forces though. It was the Vietnamese who grasped this concept centuries ago "It is better to conquer hearts than citadels".

The Taliban, for example, are able to successfully and continuously undermine NATO in Afghanistan because of how much they excel at turning villages and local officials against the US. Instead of focusing on killing as many Americans as possible they focus on keeping American influence underwhelming by making so that Afghans don't want to work with NATO. They usually do this through intimidation, torturing or killing a local who was known to be working with NATO, but they also play a lot on local Pashtun customs and history, often by pointing out how corrupt the government in Kabul is.

And they succeed because they're often right. The Taliban are harsh, cruel, and capable of horrendous acts of evil, but be beholding themselves to tradition and custom (usually) they present themselves as the "firm but fair" alternative to the Islamic Government, which is notorious for its excessive corruption.

NATO can't really beat this because to beat it we would need to start murdering Afghans for working with the Taliban. That may seem alright for the Afghans who help plant IEDs and shoot at NATO soldiers, but for most Pashtun their "support" for the Taliban is just not telling us when the Taliban come through. We start killing people for that we lose moral supremacy pretty quickly.

The only way to therefore keep NATO's influence strong is to have basically a permanent presence, or have enough troops to cover every village. That's why surges work at first, but once the surge dies down the Taliban come back because the surge does not to address the root of this problem, that the Afghan government is so corrupt that it creates its own insurgency.

The same thing happened in Vietnam. American soldiers could patrol every village and hamlet in South Vietnam, but that by itself did nothing to convince the South Vietnamese people that their corrupt, autocratic government was worth fighting and dying for.

Yeah we bitch at the Taliban for being ******s who won't fight us, but why would they? They know we have them badly outgunned and outmatched, and the Taliban aren't suicidal. So they're content to keep doing what they're doing, and its working. We can stay there for as long as we can afford it, but as long as the Afghan government is as corrupt as it is, it won't change anything.

 

[BahamaBob]

If not another country, as an act of war, who would try to occupy America, Bob?

Or do you not consider attempting to occupy our country an act of war?

You really ought to put your thinking cap on before posting. It might help save you from making a fool of yourself.

Someone with an actual intellect would know that any country considering invading another country would consider if they would be able to occupy it or not. That is what is known as a deterant. Retarded people probably do not understand that. It is not laid out in a comic.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Someone with an actual intellect would know that any country considering invading another country would consider if they would be able to occupy it or not. That is what is known as a deterant. Retarded people probably do not understand that. It is not laid out in a comic.

And someone with a fully functioning cerebrum, and only an “evening news” level of knowledge of U.S. military weaponry and those of other non-friendly countries knows civilians, with civilian grade firearms, would be absolutely no match against over the horizon missile and naval gunfire, not to mention submarine launched missiles, aircraft launched missiles and bombs, heavy caliber gatling guns, and on, and on, and on.

Bottom line, Bob, your assertion that civilians could hold off an invading force is pure stupidity.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Insurgents win though not through direct combat with American forces though. It was the Vietnamese who grasped this concept centuries ago "It is better to conquer hearts than citadels".

The Taliban, for example, are able to successfully and continuously undermine NATO in Afghanistan because of how much they excel at turning villages and local officials against the US. Instead of focusing on killing as many Americans as possible they focus on keeping American influence underwhelming by making so that Afghans don't want to work with NATO. They usually do this through intimidation, torturing or killing a local who was known to be working with NATO, but they also play a lot on local Pashtun customs and history, often by pointing out how corrupt the government in Kabul is.

And they succeed because they're often right. The Taliban are harsh, cruel, and capable of horrendous acts of evil, but be beholding themselves to tradition and custom (usually) they present themselves as the "firm but fair" alternative to the Islamic Government, which is notorious for its excessive corruption.

NATO can't really beat this because to beat it we would need to start murdering Afghans for working with the Taliban. That may seem alright for the Afghans who help plant IEDs and shoot at NATO soldiers, but for most Pashtun their "support" for the Taliban is just not telling us when the Taliban come through. We start killing people for that we lose moral supremacy pretty quickly.

The only way to therefore keep NATO's influence strong is to have basically a permanent presence, or have enough troops to cover every village. That's why surges work at first, but once the surge dies down the Taliban come back because the surge does not to address the root of this problem, that the Afghan government is so corrupt that it creates its own insurgency.

The same thing happened in Vietnam. American soldiers could patrol every village and hamlet in South Vietnam, but that by itself did nothing to convince the South Vietnamese people that their corrupt, autocratic government was worth fighting and dying for.

Yeah we bitch at the Taliban for being ******s who won't fight us, but why would they? They know we have them badly outgunned and outmatched, and the Taliban aren't suicidal. So they're content to keep doing what they're doing, and its working. We can stay there for as long as we can afford it, but as long as the Afghan government is as corrupt as it is, it won't change anything.

and no army can ever take out America

 

[BahamaBob]

And someone with a fully functioning cerebrum, and only an “evening news” level of knowledge of U.S. military weaponry and those of other non-friendly countries knows civilians, with civilian grade firearms, would be absolutely no match against over the horizon missile and naval gunfire, not to mention submarine launched missiles, aircraft launched missiles and bombs, heavy caliber gatling guns, and on, and on, and on.

Bottom line, Bob, your assertion that civilians could hold off an invading force is pure stupidity.

More meaningless dribble that has nothing to do with topic. Even a moron knows that 95% of this country could not be reached by naval guns. And where are you going to find this super rich country that is going to fire multi million dollar missiles at guerrilla groups? If you want to see how effective guerrilla warfare can be read about the Russian/Afghanistan war. Read it slow because it contains big words. When you do bare in mind that the Afghans were using junk weapons compared to what sportsmen have here. Also bare in mind that the US has 10 times the population and many times more weapons than Afghanistan. Let that sink in. A super power like Russia could not occupy a country with a population of 34 million and few modern weapons. Even someone with a very low IQ should realize that occupying armies have many disadvantages when facing a population that fights on their terms then disappears back into the populace.

By the way, the main combat rifle of China are the QBZ-95 and the AK-47. Both have a maximum range of 400 meters. An AR-15 beats that by 200 meters with better accuracy. I personally own at least 20 weapons that are superior to Chinese military rifles. I have shot in 700 yard completions were every competitor can hit a pie plate at 700 yards. Rice farmers with AK-47s or QBZ-95s would get slaughtered by these guys.

People with low intelligence and no argument always insert material that doesn't exist. Where did I say "civilians could hold off an invading force"? Try concentrating, maybe you will not post such stupid material.

 

[skeptic llc]

And someone with a fully functioning cerebrum, and only an “evening news” level of knowledge of U.S. military weaponry and those of other non-friendly countries knows civilians, with civilian grade firearms, would be absolutely no match against over the horizon missile and naval gunfire, not to mention submarine launched missiles, aircraft launched missiles and bombs, heavy caliber gatling guns, and on, and on, and on.

Bottom line, Bob, your assertion that civilians could hold off an invading force is pure stupidity.

Respectfully, I think you are just wrong. Armed civilians would be no match against an invading army in a stand up fight for military supremacy, but good luck occupying a vast space like America where everyone is armed. It's a totally different fight.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And that is why I support gun rights despite all the problems they cause. Over time, it is virtually inevitable that a foreign or domestic tyranny will emerge. An armed populace is the best antidote.

None of the major dictators of the 20th Century were stopped by armed populaces, and in fact many were directly assisted by them.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

More meaningless dribble that has nothing to do with topic. Even a moron knows that 95% of this country could not be reached by naval guns. And where are you going to find this super rich country that is going to fire multi million dollar missiles at guerrilla groups? If you want to see how effective guerrilla warfare can be read about the Russian/Afghanistan war. Read it slow because it contains big words. When you do bare in mind that the Afghans were using junk weapons compared to what sportsmen have here. Also bare in mind that the US has 10 times the population and many times more weapons than Afghanistan. Let that sink in. A super power like Russia could not occupy a country with a population of 34 million and few modern weapons. Even someone with a very low IQ should realize that occupying armies have many disadvantages when facing a population that fights on their terms then disappears back into the populace.

By the way, the main combat rifle of China are the QBZ-95 and the AK-47. Both have a maximum range of 400 meters. An AR-15 beats that by 200 meters with better accuracy. I personally own at least 20 weapons that are superior to Chinese military rifles. I have shot in 700 yard completions were every competitor can hit a pie plate at 700 yards. Rice farmers with AK-47s or QBZ-95s would get slaughtered by these guys.

People with low intelligence and no argument always insert material that doesn't exist. Where did I say "civilians could hold off an invading force"? Try concentrating, maybe you will not post such stupid material.

View attachment 67295263

So much ignorance and dishonesty, it isn’t worth my time to un**** all the stupid **** you’ve posted, so I’ll try to respond in a manner that you might be able to comprehend.

- Naval gunfire wasn’t the only method I listed that could be used in softening defenses to aid an enemy in invading and occupying America. That you chose to begin your rebuttal with that misleading assertion proves your intent to debate dishonestly.

- Even a complete moron knows that invading and occupying any country would be a very, very expensive endeavor regardless of what weapons are used in crushing resistance.

- Using Afghanistan as a comparative example for a theoretical invasion and occupation by an enemy government is pure stupidity. America and Afghanistan are polar opposites by any measure.

Read and learn (if you can).
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan | Summary & Facts | Britannica


Returning now to your original completely idiotic assertion that civilians, armed with civilian grade firearms, could repel an occupying force (which, of course, would necessarily follow an invading force); there is no realistic scenario in which it could/would succeed. By the time a foreign government’s forces succeeded in defeating our own military forces, those Americans left with rifles, pistols, etc., would be grossly outmatched.

No “Red Dawn” victory.

Finally, the idea of America being invaded by any other country at this point in history is beyond ludicrous. Only pathetic wannabe Rambo types would even consider such a thing. True 100% idiots.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Respectfully, I think you are just wrong. Armed civilians would be no match against an invading army in a stand up fight for military supremacy, but good luck occupying a vast space like America where everyone is armed. It's a totally different fight.

See my post #73.

 

[BahamaBob]

None of the major dictators of the 20th Century were stopped by armed populaces, and in fact many were directly assisted by them.

You need to examine Hitler, Stalin, Chavez, Mao and other dictators. The first thing they do is disarm the populace. Without arms resistance is futile.