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

[BahamaBob]

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.

It is easy to see you have never tasted combat. You do not have a clue about guerrilla warfare. Guerrillas strike fast from sites that they chose and benefits them. They hit then disappear within minutes blending back into the populace. They are not stupid enough to hang around long enough for you to bring your air power or big weapons into play. They have to be rooted out nest at a time.

Just a guess but in America with a population of 330 million it would not be a stretch to see a force of 50 to 100 million armed resistors. Anyone who thinks this country could be occupied is not capable of deductive reasoning.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It is easy to see you have never tasted combat. You do not have a clue about guerrilla warfare. Guerrillas strike fast from sites that they chose and benefits them. They hit then disappear within minutes blending back into the populace. They are not stupid enough to hang around long enough for you to bring your air power or big weapons into play. They have to be rooted out nest at a time.

Just a guess but in America with a population of 330 million it would not be a stretch to see a force of 50 to 100 million armed resistors. Anyone who thinks this country could be occupied is not capable of deductive reasoning.

Nobody needs to have “tasted combat” to know your assertions are pure idiocy.

No major occupation throughout history was accomplished without resistance. There have always been people who fought back in the face of overwhelming opposition during occupation. That resistance did not negate the fact that those countries were “occupied”.

And while there are likely more firearms than citizens in America, fewer than half of American homes have firearms in them.

Literally nothing you’ve asserted can be supported by logic or facts.

 

[Jredbaron96]

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.

Hitler came to power through democratic process, as did Chavez.

Mao came to power precisely because millions of Chinese were willing to fight and die for the Communist cause. Stalin came to power through political power-brokering, but the Communists in Russia were able to seize power explicitly thanks to the support of millions of armed Russians. In both cases an armed populace *helped* dictators come into power, rather than stopping them.

 

[BahamaBob]

Hitler came to power through democratic process, as did Chavez.

Mao came to power precisely because millions of Chinese were willing to fight and die for the Communist cause. Stalin came to power through political power-brokering, but the Communists in Russia were able to seize power explicitly thanks to the support of millions of armed Russians. In both cases an armed populace *helped* dictators come into power, rather than stopping them.

Here is a good read on the subject.

Gun Control Dictator Style - Tyrants Who Banned Firearms Before Slaughtering The People - Freedom Outpost

 

[BahamaBob]

Nobody needs to have “tasted combat” to know your assertions are pure idiocy.

No major occupation throughout history was accomplished without resistance. There have always been people who fought back in the face of overwhelming opposition during occupation. That resistance did not negate the fact that those countries were “occupied”.

And while there are likely more firearms than citizens in America, fewer than half of American homes have firearms in them.

Literally nothing you’ve asserted can be supported by logic or facts.

Hmm, speaking of history since you claim to be expert. You know that America was once occupied by a foreign army? Gee, it seems that militias with civilian guns threw their butts out.

Only a total fool would say that any country has firearms than America. That may be the stupidest thing I have ever read.

 

[skeptic llc]

And while there are likely more firearms than citizens in America, fewer than half of American homes have firearms in them.

The current distribution among households is not all that important. In the face of tyranny some households with multiple firearms would share them with others.

 

[skeptic llc]

It is easy to see you have never tasted combat. You do not have a clue about guerrilla warfare. Guerrillas strike fast from sites that they chose and benefits them. They hit then disappear within minutes blending back into the populace. They are not stupid enough to hang around long enough for you to bring your air power or big weapons into play. They have to be rooted out nest at a time.

Just a guess but in America with a population of 330 million it would not be a stretch to see a force of 50 to 100 million armed resistors. Anyone who thinks this country could be occupied is not capable of deductive reasoning.

Exactly, to all of this.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Here is a good read on the subject.

No, that is not a good read.

It doesn't address the fact that none of those dictators actually came to power because of a disarmed populace. In fact it completely glosses over that Hitler was elected by German law, and that the Communists in both Russia and China were supported by millions of armed supporters.

The whole premise that dictators can't come to power if the populace is armed is totally naïve and not supported by history. In fact it completely ignores how most dictators come to power. In all the four you listed, all of them came to power because the majority of the people supported them, or did not care enough to oppose them. The entire reason the Communists were able to gain control in Russia and China because millions of citizens there supported them.

 

[MaryP]

It is a very simple inquiry. How many Americans (males only)...in each state...reach the age...where they become eligible for military service...and how many of these are physically fit enough to serve in any branch of the U.S. military?

18 year olds have to register, but they don't get a physical, so how could your question be answered?

 

[Dayton3]

18 year olds have to register, but they don't get a physical, so how could your question be answered?

I figured the U.S. military had statistical models based on testing of young people who volunteer for service.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Hmm, speaking of history since you claim to be expert. You know that America was once occupied by a foreign army? Gee, it seems that militias with civilian guns threw their butts out.

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of our world today is exceeded exponentially by your lack of knowledge and understanding of the world at our county’s beginning.

Again, on an elementary school level, I will attempt to correct and educate you. Hopefully some of the following actual history and facts will make their way into a part of your brain that works properly.

- The United States of America has never been occupied by a foreign army.

At the time British forces occupied parts of America, they weren’t a foreign army. They were the representative forces of the country that established and ruled colonial America.

- American militias, with civilian grade weaponry, did not throw the British out of the newly proclaimed United States of America.

The Continental Army, with much aid from France, Spain, the Netherlands and other countries, forced the British out of America.

Only a total fool would say that any country has firearms than America. That may be the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Looks like one just did. And you didn’t just read it, you wrote it. :doh

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The current distribution among households is not all that important. In the face of tyranny some households with multiple firearms would share them with others.

What makes you think those firearms wouldn’t be confiscated? Or that everyone else would want to, or be willing to, take up arms against a superior occupying force?

Even at the time of our country’s beginning, when patriotism and willingness to sacrifice were more than the bumper stickers they have become today, the majority of our ancestors toed the British line.

 

[BahamaBob]

No, that is not a good read.

It doesn't address the fact that none of those dictators actually came to power because of a disarmed populace. In fact it completely glosses over that Hitler was elected by German law, and that the Communists in both Russia and China were supported by millions of armed supporters.

The whole premise that dictators can't come to power if the populace is armed is totally naïve and not supported by history. In fact it completely ignores how most dictators come to power. In all the four you listed, all of them came to power because the majority of the people supported them, or did not care enough to oppose them. The entire reason the Communists were able to gain control in Russia and China because millions of citizens there supported them.

Dude, you can not impose gun regulations until you are in power. Gun regulations are not about obtaining power, Gun Regulations make sure they stay in power. Ask 10 million Jews, Gypsies and others how well they could protect themselves against Hitler's goons without guns.

 

[skeptic llc]

What makes you think those firearms wouldn’t be confiscated? Or that everyone else would want to, or be willing to, take up arms against a superior occupying force?

I think they wouldn't be confiscated because the US is brimming with guns that would be impossible to trace in order to confiscate them. And if Americans didn't want to take up arms against an occupying force, fair enough, but I'd rather that we have the power to do so. I'm not sure how it is controversial that a heavily armed populace would be more difficult to subdue than one that is not. I'm not trying to be rude here, but this is really obvious stuff.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Dude, you can not impose gun regulations until you are in power. Gun regulations are not about obtaining power, Gun Regulations make sure they stay in power.

Dictators don't need to disarm the populace to stay in power. Dictators stay in power by remaining popular. The Nazis in fact relaxed gun laws for most Germans after they came into power, but there was never any serious German resistance because they didn't want to overthrow Hitler.

Ask 10 million Jews, Gypsies and others how well they could protect themselves against Hitler's goons without guns.

Millions of armed soldiers backed up with tanks, artillery, and aircraft didn't, but okay.

 

[dave8383]

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".

^^^ Quoted from Nguyen Trai.

“Our Great Viet is a country where prosperity abounds. Where civilization
reigns supreme. Its mountains, its rivers, its frontiers are its own; its customs are distinct, in North and South.
Trieu, Dinh, Ly and Tran created our Nation, whilst Han T'ang, Sung and Yuan ruled over theirs.
Over the centuries, we have been sometimes strong, and sometimes weak, but never yet have we been lacking in heroes. Of that let our history be the proof.” (Smith, 1968: 9)

Nguyen Trai was the author of this literary jewel. He “not only played a decisive role in the war for independence but ... was the leading intellectual in Vietnam and its most talented man of letters” who addresses clearly and eloquently “the question of a separate national identity for Vietnam” (O’Harrow, 1979: 159). It is not only what he says but also and foremost how he says it that distinguishes Nguyen Trai as an intellectual and master of poetic language. We may justifiably argue that the “contemporaneity of emotion and language in his poetry represents a significant difference with the more objectified Chinese poetry of his time,” (Nguyen, 2010: xi) making his pronouncements more existentially suggestive and experientially relevant. Nevertheless, it is above all this “tradition of successful resistance to a foreign power,” the establishment and reinforcement of which we may arguably trace to Nguyen Trai, which “once established over time, also begets a gradual consciousness of a nation’s individuality” (O’Harrow, 1979: 160).

A distinct national identity and self-confidence as independent nation was actively promoted during the rule of Le Loi (Lê Lợi, ruled between 1428-1433), the founder of a new dynasty which was to rule Vietnam until 1789. As the new ruler’s right hand and chief strategist, Nguyen Trai played arguably the most significant role in it.

http://xlinguae.eu/files/XLinguae1_2019_10.pdf

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I think they wouldn't be confiscated because the US is brimming with guns that would be impossible to trace in order to confiscate them.

No doubt, many firearms wouldn’t be found/confiscated. Many would though.

And if Americans didn't want to take up arms against an occupying force, fair enough, but I'd rather that we have the power to do so.

That’s the point of confiscation. To prevent citizens from having the means to resist. :doh

I'm not sure how it is controversial that a heavily armed populace would be more difficult to subdue than one that is not. I'm not trying to be rude here, but this is really obvious stuff.

Of course, it’s obvious. What isn’t obvious is why you’re bringing it up.

 

[Tangmo]

Gas.

Poison gas.

A foreign state and its forces trying to invade the USA would not gas everyone and everywhere but it would use various gas weapons against selected targets at locations that would be important tactically or strategically. Gas weapons can be delivered in numerous effective ways, ie, cheaply and without significant loss of life among the invader's forces.

Some number of resistance fighters would have protective masks yet in a combat environment a protective mask would have its limited utility. Resistance fighters who don't include masks in their own private arsenals would be easy pickings for a foreign state force that would presumably be well prepared to use gas to an anticipated extent and volume.

Gas as a weapon is an awesome psychological factor besides, ie, people fear gas more than they fear a hail of bullets or artillery.

Speaking of bullets and also bombs too resistance fighters will be severed from resupplies of ammo of whatever kind as the enemy invader would secure any source of ammunition to include local gun stores as well as factories that produce ordinance. Getting ammunition resupplies requires transportation and other communication routes in addition to resistance forces having to beg borrow steal and bribe to get even some ordinance.

A dropped or lost weapon is not as obscure as it can sound either which means being able to access replacements. Same is true for ammo left behind during a hasty and sudden retreat to include because of an ambush.

 

[BahamaBob]

Dictators don't need to disarm the populace to stay in power. Dictators stay in power by remaining popular. The Nazis in fact relaxed gun laws for most Germans after they came into power, but there was never any serious German resistance because they didn't want to overthrow Hitler.




Millions of armed soldiers backed up with tanks, artillery, and aircraft didn't, but okay.

Gee, I guess the incident when they tried to blow him up in a bunker was all imagined. All those officers he had murdered for being involved in that incident were really happy with him. All those Jews were happy to be murdered? Your remark is obviously built on ignorance.

 

[skeptic llc]

Of course, it’s obvious. What isn’t obvious is why you’re bringing it up.

Umm ... because people seemed to be denying the obvious?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Gee, I guess the incident when they tried to blow him up in a bunker was all imagined. All those officers he had murdered for being involved in that incident were really happy with him.

Well since you're clearly very well versed on the subject, please enlighten us to what the German public reaction to the attempt on Hitler's life was. Were they secretly supportive, or were in they in fact appalled and condemned the attempted assassins and called for their executions?

Because the reality is that the German populace was in fact very supportive of Hitler, right up until the end of the war. And every time someone did try to stop Hitler, they found themselves very lacking in support.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Umm ... because people seemed to be denying the obvious?

Really? Who? Repost those comments.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Well since you're clearly very well versed on the subject, please enlighten us to what the German public reaction to the attempt on Hitler's life was. Were they secretly supportive, or were in they in fact appalled and condemned the attempted assassins and called for their executions?

Because the reality is that the German populace was in fact very supportive of Hitler, right up until the end of the war. And every time someone did try to stop Hitler, they found themselves very lacking in support.

You’re wasting your time with Bob. The guy is clueless, making **** up as he goes along.

 

[Dayton3]

Gas.

Poison gas.

A foreign state and its forces trying to invade the USA would not gas everyone and everywhere but it would use various gas weapons against selected targets at locations that would be important tactically or strategically. Gas weapons can be delivered in numerous effective ways, ie, cheaply and without significant loss of life among the invader's forces.

Some number of resistance fighters would have protective masks

masks don't mean anything against modern never agents anyway. They permeated exposed skin easily enough.

 

[BahamaBob]

Well since you're clearly very well versed on the subject, please enlighten us to what the German public reaction to the attempt on Hitler's life was. Were they secretly supportive, or were in they in fact appalled and condemned the attempted assassins and called for their executions?

Because the reality is that the German populace was in fact very supportive of Hitler, right up until the end of the war. And every time someone did try to stop Hitler, they found themselves very lacking in support.

Yeah, if you can sell that you can sell anything. Hitler purged more than 10 million people. Stalin purged more than 20 million. Mao purged more than 30 million. And you are trying to say everyone loved them.

Only someone devoid of knowledge thinks the German people were supportive.

Learn How Adolf Hitler Rose to Power, Who Supported Him and Why

Hitler did not take over a Germany and run it into destruction against the wishes of the populace. Learn how he gained and retained support.

www.thoughtco.com

Germany 1933: from democracy to dictatorship

After Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany became a dictatorship. Read how the Nazis used oppression and violence to eliminate Jews and political opponents.

www.annefrank.org