If the governor of your state called up the militia would you show up?

[Rich2018]

Its 30 years from the day you first signed your contract to join.

I signed up in April 1993, spent 3 weeks in the delayed entry program, and reported to Basic Training in May 1993. I can be recalled until April 2023, 30 years.

Oh OK, so if you joined at 18, you can recalled until you're 48.

 

[armycowboy]

Oh OK, so if you joined at 18, you can recalled until you're 48.

Exactly, but only if you retired. If you just got out after an initial enlistment, you are only eligible to be recalled for 8 years after you joined, so age 26 in this scenario.

 

[Rich2018]

Exactly, but only if you retired. If you just got out after an initial enlistment, you are only eligible to be recalled for 8 years after you joined, so age 26 in this scenario.

In the British Army, you're eligible for full pension after 22 years service.

 

[armycowboy]

In the British Army, you're eligible for full pension after 22 years service.

In the US you can retire at 20 years and receive 50% of your base pay. That goes up 2.5% every year you go past 20. It caps out at 75% at 30 years.

 

[Rich2018]

In the US you can retire at 20 years and receive 50% of your base pay. That goes up 2.5% every year you go past 20. It caps out at 75% at 30 years.

That's quite generous

In Britain, the ideal was to make Regimental Sergeant-Major (the highest ranking non-commissioned officer in a battalion) at 38, retire at 40 and get a job as a cop and retire from that a 55.
Then enjoy retirement with two retirement paychecks, per month.

 

[armycowboy]

That's quite generous

In Britain, the ideal was to make Regimental Sergeant-Major (the highest ranking non-commissioned officer in a battalion) at 38, retire at 40 and get a job as a cop and retire from that a 55.
Then enjoy retirement with two retirement paychecks, per month.

My ex wife is from Scotland and one of her friend's husbands did almost the exact same thing, although he didn't make it all the way to Sergeant Major.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

While all 50 States have the ability to create a militia, there are only 22 (plus the territory of Puerto Rico) who have active State militias. They are called the State Defense Force.

Alaska is one of those 22 States with an active State Defense Force. The Alaska Governor activated them in 2020 during the State of Emergency to help with COVID-19 testing.

The Alaska State Defense Force has been routinely used for search and rescue missions, or rescuing Denali mountain climbers. Although, since we began requiring climbing insurance before being allowed on the mountain, the number of mountain climbers rescued has dropped significantly. The Alaska State Defense Force plays a vital roll in Alaska.

Go ASDF – Alaska State Defense Force

goasdf.com

I did mountain search and rescue training in the army. We participated in finding a little boy who wandered off into the dessert. It was a cowboy on horseback who found him. The kid was scared and hiding but came out for the cowboy. Watching those westerns the kid trusted the cowboy.

 

[Rich2018]

My ex wife is from Scotland and one of her friend's husbands did almost the exact same thing, although he didn't make it all the way to Sergeant Major.

Not many do, I used to live in Scotland and served in the 25th Regiment of Foot, The King's Own Scottish Borderers
My wife is ex-USAF

 

[BahamaBob]

Trump who paid doctors to come up with a "bone spurs BS excuse not to serve"

But, but, but, but Trump. I guess you forgot Biden got 5 deferments for his Asthma. Ever seen him wheeze?

So how is that one instance of him stumbling up the steps of AF1, proof that he cannot walk up stairs ?
I dare say there's a multitude of things you can't do based on one episode, maybe can't drive without crashing/getting a tickrt, can't walk without slipping/bumping into people, can't ride a bike without falling off...etc
That's your bigotry talking, as evidenced by your use of the word "bastard"

He fell down three times not once. He also fell in his home and broke his foot.

Here is what Verywell Health says.
"People with Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia tend to be at a high risk of falling. "

Neither do you
Are you calling the MS-13 gang, immigrants now ? (are you saying they never dared to commit crimes on American soil under Trump?)

And Mexican illegal immigrants never committed crimes in the USA over the last 4 years...

Yeah, Trump kicked them out and now Biden is letting them back in.

 

[Rich2018]

But, but, but, but Trump. I guess you forgot Biden got 5 deferments for his Asthma. Ever seen him wheeze?

Well you watch him close enough to notice his speech impediment when making public speeches

Are you suggesting that you can fake asthma ?

He fell down three times not once. He also fell in his home and broke his foot.

One occasion, and so what
I've known several people who've stumbled in the home and fractured a bone

To paraphrase yourself: "But, but, but, but Trump Biden"

Here is what Verywell Health says.
"People with Alzheimer’s and other types of dementia tend to be at a high risk of falling. "

People with vertigo too
Are you saying President Biden might have Alzheimer's disease now ?

To paraphrase yourself: "But, but, but, but Trump Biden"

Yeah, Trump kicked them out and now Biden is letting them back in.

What are the figures you have for the number of illegal immigrants arrived & the numbers deported under Trump's watch ?

 

[BahamaBob]

Well you watch him close enough to notice his speech impediment when making public speeches

Lots of liars stutter. It is because their brains can not think up the lies fast enough.

Are you suggesting that you can fake asthma ?

You don't have to fake anything. All you need is a note from a doctor.
By the way, are you suggesting you can fake bone spurs?

One occasion, and so what
I've known several people who've stumbled in the home and fractured a bone

I see you know as little about math as you do about politics. Falling 3 times on AF1 and once in his home does not equal one. Try again you fail.

 

[beerftw]

So now you admit you're WRONG and that the US army using the tactic and suddenly you don't damn it as:



Now you say the hull down position: "relies on both defensing and offensive positions, and even uses agressive force"

Before you said:



Which is it ?
Hull down is not an offensive tactic Btw, it is for a tank firing in a static position; a great amount of resources have been devoted to developing the stabilized gun and being able to shoot accurately on the move



A far too simplistic assessment of armor tactics to be worth discussion
Suffice to say that although tanks will retain their mobility, in defense, they will adopt a static position whether facing a Chinese human wave in Korea or a Soviet mass attack in the Cold War

Please stop pretending you're some expert in the field, from your rather childish posts, I doubt if you've ever been in a tank, let alone served in the military

Saddam's armored forces didn't employ "piss-poor" strategy either. They were simply dominated by vastly superior Western technology.
Please quote any respectable source that agrees with you



What figures do you have for "short supply" ?



Wrong

"In 1982, during the Falklands War, Argentine Super Étendard warplanes carrying the air-launched version of the Exocet sank the destroyer HMS Sheffield...and the merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor. 2 ship-to-ship missiles were removed from the destroyer ARA Seguí, and transferred to an improvised launcher for land use. The missiles were launched on 12 June 1982 and one hit the destroyer HMS Glamorgan."

Exocet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Argentina WAS sold the air-to-surface, anti-ship Exocet missiles by France. They jury rigged surface-to-surface missiles, for use from land

Parachute bombs? WTF are they ?



It was the 3rd largest in the world
OK not "massive", but the RN had a lot more hulls than they do today



No, apart from the American colonies, what part of the British empire ever broke away by force ?
The British empire Broke up because that was the way the world was moving post war. What would be the point of trying to keep anywhere that wanted independence, even if Britain had to power to suppress any independence movements
To put it another way, what part of the British empire do you think Britain should have fought to keep ?



So you think cost was the real reason Britain chose to de-colonize ?
You really think that if Britain had the resources of say the USA it would have attempted to keep at least some of the empire ?

What a warped education you received.

I said they used your version of the supposed tactic when shoot on the move was impossible, which you claimed nato stood still in one spot then retreated as defensive.

I shown your hull down position requires mobility not just sitting still and running, which means your own statement was very poor, assuming that sitting in a dugout was all nato knew how to do, I already knew your idea of it was bs as the british proved during the gulf war they knew tank tactics.

On the british empire it broke up because it could not maintain it, the empire was broke after two world wars, like I said the only smart thing britain did over the other empires was admit it could not keep it and let it go rather than go down swinging like france did and lose what else it had left. Britain lost force projection, it lost power, it lost it's empire. In ww2 it could easily muster 900 warships just to aid allies ontop of what it already had in a warfront, a few decades later it could barely muster enough sea power to combat a third world nation playing nice.

To me that says the british lost their empire, there is no way in hell they could maintain it if their colonies rebelled when they could barely muster the power to combat argentina.

 

[Rich2018]

Lots of liars stutter. It is because their brains can not think up the lies fast enough.

Source ?

You don't have to fake anything. All you need is a note from a doctor.

Are you saying that the US military did NOT examine Joe Biden for his asthma ?

By the way, are you suggesting you can fake bone spurs?

Did a Queens Podiatrist Help Donald Trump Avoid Vietnam? (Published 2018)

Dr. Larry Braunstein rented his office from the Trumps. Relatives say he was central to a diagnosis that got the 22-year-old Mr. Trump a medical exemption.

www.nytimes.com

I see you know as little about math as you do about politics. Falling 3 times on AF1 and once in his home does not equal one.

I dare say in his 78 years, President Biden has fallen over many times. I know that I have, I dare say that you have.

He also fell in his home and broke his foot.

I've known several people who've stumbled in the home and fractured a bone
So what ?

 

[Rich2018]

I said they used your version of the supposed tactic when shoot on the move was impossible, which you claimed nato stood still in one spot then retreated as defensive.

Shooting on the move is never impossible. However the best use of a tank, when confronted by a mass armored attack is to dig in and use the tank as an anti-tank gun
The tactic most associated with "digging in" is adopting a "hull down" position as it exposes the tank less to return fire

Not only did British, Dutch, Belgian and German tank units practice this in the Cold War, in Germany, 1945-1990, but guess what, the US army did too....and still practices it
The Germans perfected this technique in North Africa, in WWII

The old adage is that the best defense against a tank, is another tank

You really don't know what you're talking about when it come to military tactics do you ?

It's obvious, that you have zero military experience

I shown your hull down position requires mobility not just sitting still and running, which means your own statement was very poor, assuming that sitting in a dugout was all nato knew how to do, I already knew your idea of it was bs as the british proved during the gulf war they knew tank tactics.

Actually it doesn't
In a war like the hypothetical WWIII, tanks would've dug in until threatened with being flanked (or being over run) and used their mobility to "scoot" to a new firing position
In a war like WWII in North Africa, the Germans (later the British) used hull down to blunt an armored attack, before launching a counter-attack

The scope for any counter attacks, in any hypothetical WWIII, were extremely limited. And yes, delaying the Soviet advance was all that NATO could do. Do you have any idea of what the balance of opposing forces were ?

So tell me, where did you learn your tank tactics ?
Would it be Hollywood movies by any chance ?

On the british empire it broke up because it could not maintain it

No, the British empire broke up because the people ruled from London wanted to rule themselves
So even if Britain was still as powerful as it had ever been, there was no choice, the days of European empires were over and there was a new world in 1945. So tell me, what part of the British empire could have been retained through force of arms ???

...a few decades later it could barely muster enough sea power to combat a third world nation playing nice.

Argentina ?
When did Argentina, under the Junta, ever "play nice"

Did you not read the link I gave you ?
Up to 30,000 of its own people. Google the "Dirty War"...I would love for you to offer a link to a source that confirms this BS

You really don't know what you're talking about.
You're just making pathetic, inflammatory comments because you don't know enough to construct a mature argument.

To me that says the british lost their empire, there is no way in hell they could maintain it if their colonies rebelled when they could barely muster the power to combat argentina.

What other countries, bar the USA could have won in 1982 ?
And yes, it was a close run thing, but at the end of the day, the US DoD said it was impossible, Britain totally proved them wrong.

 

[RF667799]

Shooting on the move is never impossible. However the best use of a tank, when confronted by a mass armored attack is to dig in and use the tank as an anti-tank gun
The tactic most associated with "digging in" is adopting a "hull down" position as it exposes the tank less to return fire

Not only did British, Dutch, Belgian and German tank units practice this in the Cold War, in Germany, 1945-1990, but guess what, the US army did too....and still practices it
The Germans perfected this technique in North Africa, in WWII

The old adage is that the best defense against a tank, is another tank

You really don't know what you're talking about when it come to military tactics do you ?

It's obvious, that you have zero military experience



Actually it doesn't
In a war like the hypothetical WWIII, tanks would've dug in until threatened with being flanked (or being over run) and used their mobility to "scoot" to a new firing position
In a war like WWII in North Africa, the Germans (later the British) used hull down to blunt an armored attack, before launching a counter-attack

The scope for any counter attacks, in any hypothetical WWIII, were extremely limited. And yes, delaying the Soviet advance was all that NATO could do. Do you have any idea of what the balance of opposing forces were ?

So tell me, where did you learn your tank tactics ?
Would it be Hollywood movies by any chance ?



No, the British empire broke up because the people ruled from London wanted to rule themselves
So even if Britain was still as powerful as it had ever been, there was no choice, the days of European empires were over and there was a new world in 1945. So tell me, what part of the British empire could have been retained through force of arms ???



Argentina ?
When did Argentina, under the Junta, ever "play nice"

Did you not read the link I gave you ?
Up to 30,000 of its own people. Google the "Dirty War"...I would love for you to offer a link to a source that confirms this BS

You really don't know what you're talking about.
You're just making pathetic, inflammatory comments because you don't know enough to construct a mature argument.



What other countries, bar the USA could have won in 1982 ?
And yes, it was a close run thing, but at the end of the day, the US DoD said it was impossible, Britain totally proved them wrong.

73 Easting

 

[RF667799]

"Hull down" T-72s.

 

[beerftw]

Shooting on the move is never impossible. However the best use of a tank, when confronted by a mass armored attack is to dig in and use the tank as an anti-tank gun
The tactic most associated with "digging in" is adopting a "hull down" position as it exposes the tank less to return fire





Argentina ?
When did Argentina, under the Junta, ever "play nice"

Did you not read the link I gave you ?
Up to 30,000 of its own people. Google the "Dirty War"...I would love for you to offer a link to a source that confirms this BS

You really don't know what you're talking about.
You're just making pathetic, inflammatory comments because you don't know enough to construct a mature argument.



What other countries, bar the USA could have won in 1982 ?
And yes, it was a close run thing, but at the end of the day, the US DoD said it was impossible, Britain totally proved them wrong.

Best defense against a tank another tank? this has been in dispute since ww2 with the soviet il-2 jacking up tank columns and being the inspiration behind the a-1 skyraider, a-10 warthog and and su-25.

I really do not care if europe practiced it, the fire and run was a bad tactic even in ww2, and to call it the best tactic despite the fact The only major tank battle since ww2 involved the hull down position getting completely destroyed like it was the most worthless tactic on earth. The tactic as you describe it only works if it is only tank on tank, and the enemy does not progress but tries to fight a stationary battle, problem is tanks have had fire control systems for even fire on the move and quick firing while stationary for decades, there was no reason to do such tactics in modern war knowing aircraft and precision artillery completely remove any and all benefit of the hull down position.

The fact that every enemy america or nato has has the ability to use artillery and missiles to attack from above means it was an antique ww2 strategy that generals clung to, and when it came to actual tank on tank battles like easting 73, the first tank on tank major battle since ww2, the hull down position got tore apart, showing it was an antiquated design that was stuck in ww2 warfare with commanders refusing to adapt, but in the gulf war american commanders did adapt, and shown not just agression, but also combined arms and low visibility fighting techniques rendered the hull down useless.

On argentina they did play nice, they could have launched exocet missiles in mass against troop carriers, and wiped out the whole british fighting force before they landed, argentina had it against it's rules to do so however.

Also britain could barely even get troop transports at the time, their navy was a joke by then, you ask who else could have done the invasion, reality says most nations could not have as they lacked force projection, however let me remind you at the time the soviet union had a vastly larger navy, and even with their non existent naval force projection they likely could have mustered a larger naval force, britain was too weak to hold onto anything.

You want to claim they decided out of their good will to disband their empire, there was some pressure from the un and america to do so, but it was britain becoming too weak and too broke to maintain an empire. Every empire that participated in both world wars lost their empires with the exception of america who basically became an empire, and russia who lost it's empire after ww1 due to the socialist revolution but gain some back after then made massive gains after ww2, only to lose their empire after 1991.

 

[Waddy]

You want to claim they decided out of their good will to disband their empire, there was some pressure from the un and america to do so, but it was britain becoming too weak and too broke to maintain an empire. Every empire that participated in both world wars lost their empires with the exception of america who basically became an empire, and russia who lost it's empire after ww1 due to the socialist revolution but gain some back after then made massive gains after ww2, only to lose their empire after 1991.

Exactly. Britain was broke, and couldn't afford an Empire. They sought a big loan from the US. The terms of the 1946 Anglo-American loan of around $3.75 billion dollars forced the British to convert outstanding loans from Sterling to Dollars, drained the British dollar reserves of almost a billion dollars and forced Britain to devalue the pound almost in half. The terms of that loan meant the end of Empire. Britain did not voluntarily disband the Empire. They were backed into a corner.

BTW; that loan pretty much sealed the deal on the Dollar becoming the world's reserve currency.

And you're also absolutely correct about tanks in hull down positions.

 

[BahamaBob]

Exactly. Britain was broke, and couldn't afford an Empire. They sought a big loan from the US. The terms of the 1946 Anglo-American loan of around $3.75 billion dollars forced the British to convert outstanding loans from Sterling to Dollars, drained the British dollar reserves of almost a billion dollars and forced Britain to devalue the pound almost in half. The terms of that loan meant the end of Empire. Britain did not voluntarily disband the Empire. They were backed into a corner.

BTW; that loan pretty much sealed the deal on the Dollar becoming the world's reserve currency.

And you're also absolutely correct about tanks in hull down positions.

While all that is true. It also a fact that the reason Britain was able to build an Empire was they possessed a great advantage in weaponry. Following the two World Wars, this advanced weaponry was common in all the countries that comprised the Empire. This made subjugating these countries all but impossible. British leaders realized this and realized that making them friendly trading partners was the best option available.

 

[RF667799]

Best defense against a tank another tank? this has been in dispute since ww2 with the soviet il-2 jacking up tank columns and being the inspiration behind the a-1 skyraider, a-10 warthog and and su-25.

I really do not care if europe practiced it, the fire and run was a bad tactic even in ww2, and to call it the best tactic despite the fact The only major tank battle since ww2 involved the hull down position getting completely destroyed like it was the most worthless tactic on earth. The tactic as you describe it only works if it is only tank on tank, and the enemy does not progress but tries to fight a stationary battle, problem is tanks have had fire control systems for even fire on the move and quick firing while stationary for decades, there was no reason to do such tactics in modern war knowing aircraft and precision artillery completely remove any and all benefit of the hull down position.

The fact that every enemy america or nato has has the ability to use artillery and missiles to attack from above means it was an antique ww2 strategy that generals clung to, and when it came to actual tank on tank battles like easting 73, the first tank on tank major battle since ww2, the hull down position got tore apart, showing it was an antiquated design that was stuck in ww2 warfare with commanders refusing to adapt, but in the gulf war american commanders did adapt, and shown not just agression, but also combined arms and low visibility fighting techniques rendered the hull down useless.

On argentina they did play nice, they could have launched exocet missiles in mass against troop carriers, and wiped out the whole british fighting force before they landed, argentina had it against it's rules to do so however.

Also britain could barely even get troop transports at the time, their navy was a joke by then, you ask who else could have done the invasion, reality says most nations could not have as they lacked force projection, however let me remind you at the time the soviet union had a vastly larger navy, and even with their non existent naval force projection they likely could have mustered a larger naval force, britain was too weak to hold onto anything.

You want to claim they decided out of their good will to disband their empire, there was some pressure from the un and america to do so, but it was britain becoming too weak and too broke to maintain an empire. Every empire that participated in both world wars lost their empires with the exception of america who basically became an empire, and russia who lost it's empire after ww1 due to the socialist revolution but gain some back after then made massive gains after ww2, only to lose their empire after 1991.

One notable point about that picture I posted of Iraqi T-72 tanks in their hull down positions. They're burnt. One seems to be missing its turret.

 

[Rich2018]

Best defense against a tank another tank? this has been in dispute since ww2 with the soviet il-2 jacking up tank columns and being the inspiration behind the a-1 skyraider, a-10 warthog and and su-25.

CAS is not always available, the best defense against a tank is still another tank

And aircraft are far more vulnerable than tanks
Moreover, studies after WWII found that aircraft like the IL-2 did NOT "jack up tank columns". The unguided rockets were too inaccurate and their cannons too weak.

A low level strike by an A-10 might have worked against the poorly equipped Iraqi army in 1991, but it'd be a suicide mission today against Russian or Chinese troops.

"The subsequent appearance of those and other innovations has transformed warfare, making slow-moving, single-mission tactical aircraft like the A-10 antiques..."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...-american-air-powers-decline/?sh=3a2d00de68a1

I really do not care if europe practiced it, the fire and run was a bad tactic even in ww2...

Unless you can quote a source, it remains your worthless, uninformed and unsubstantiated opinion

Hull-down firing position is a well practiced tank tactic all over the world, including in your beloved US army

The fact that every enemy america or nato has has the ability to use artillery and missiles to attack from above means it was an antique ww2 strategy that generals clung to, and when it came to actual tank on tank battles like easting 73, the first tank on tank major battle since ww2, the hull down position got tore apart, showing it was an antiquated design that was stuck in ww2 warfare with commanders refusing to adapt but in the gulf war american commanders did adapt, and shown not just agression, but also combined arms and low visibility fighting techniques rendered the hull down useless

"The Iraqi military displayed very poor combat skills by contemporary Western standards...Iraqi defensive positions were very poorly prepared....
Western armies dig their fighting positions into the earth below grade, and hide the soil removed in excavation. The Iraqi Republican Guard, on the other hand, simply piled sand into loose berms, or mounds, on the surface of the ground around combat vehicles and infantry positions. This gave away the defenders’ locations from literally thousands of meters away, as the berms were the only distinctive feature of an otherwise flat landscape, without providing any real protection...loose piles of sand cannot stop modern high-velocity tank rounds...

In a ”hull-down” or ”hull-defilade” position, the vehicle’s hull is below grade, but the turret is exposed. A hull-down tank can thus fire and be fired upon, though the defilade reduces the vehicle’s vulnerability by reducing its presented area. In Western practice, prepared fighting positions for tanks are ordinarily dug as a ramp, connecting a deeper, turret-down position and a shallower, hull-down location; above-ground revetments are avoided.

Headquarters, Department of the Army, FM 5-203, Survivability (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, June 19851, pp. 4-144-15; Richard Simpkin, Tank Warfare (New York Crane Russak, 1979"

https://watermark.silverchair.com/isec.21.2.139.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAApwwggKYBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKJMIIChQIBADCCAn4GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMc2zsdEmKelVdsRqaAgEQgIICT5uy3ZRC5QV2W5ZxYyRjcfOkbBLquKX4bz3m8UvqX3_DDgHQDWZuOzDmMRlH_P2G6VW7IWUDNL0MNtWVTrYiPy3cGYOyEyd6KkIcQ1gvj70wbmKMZol71pzLkRKAjrAJcyfRkNvK_G4305xdplaZUZs0WPuPgaOgFOj1oAny4sOgJES7PdPuLRF5lu_4Wk55mNz112EasTr7gJUeKx9q_TtteIL7829YmouAaVxhj3qarj97DJLqAnItbYlAg5yx9Epicy5_CpGN8-c0IIg4QkmUoK0u4i7MvdvzrETczcp0rz6TgUZUMUyRds2O3DCFRntHVS_D8xFln5WaZjSuzmXI3LM7Eu3UQmNW98EZMz52SZfUMEFs6GdhVDOWk5YvQiB5XGueDbDJIGkJaNCWfDRaeQ92sNK3w-8CZrUFIdu9nT6imvDSycjRzfP8COQCOcn5muz4ba8SFyY7IHRaiOZ42jZPBnIta_2r4ymZJ4yr7ZcTw6yCNqA7lXOT2qfQPSMKBa_dLwY-dqWxKSfpwXfaO-L8WHM5zjjIvV_Sr329XaEWmqMV6PemS-fzvgShvZcLWUJFFsZEElogJeNIXkvvEaLwLGh8jwDJVo-HFYKt4fGKaS7giBCV8KNjjbDBnMc17_X9n5H9Bz954GVJjs9y_-txPf7Oem20f1A-kBOE2acJBW5QLVnDqtQO3WlAgxAgqLZ2JjI2GTze2_Ox3U_8hHlHdgYqfl0r34bxi2I1PUbVupOCnfq5yckNxMOFkrdu4sGsQcBfrXj4jJAW7Q

So a hull down position is proscribed by the US army but the Iraqi army just made a poor job of doing it

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong and embarrassing yourself ?

You didn't answer my question either, do you have even the slightest military experience ?

 

[Rich2018]

Contd/

On argentina they did play nice, they could have launched exocet missiles in mass against troop carriers, and wiped out the whole british fighting force before they landed, argentina had it against it's rules to do so however

Source that the Argentina refused to use its Exocet missiles, to their fullest extent, in the Falklands War ?

You've already made one BS claim that the Argentines somehow took surface-to-surface Exocet missiles and rigged them to fire from an aircraft, so your credibility is pretty low at this point

Also britain could barely even get troop transports at the time, their navy was a joke by then

Barely get troop transports ?

The RN was the 3rd largest navy in the world ion 1982 - what is your criteria for a "joke" in this context ?
A joke navy might be the world's current 2nd largest who keep suffering embarrassing collisions in the Pacific

Here’s how the Japan-based 7th Fleet has changed since 17 sailors died in accidents 2 years ago

The accidents led to wholesale changes in leadership for the 7th Fleet based in the region, including a new commander, Vice Adm. Phil Sawyer, who was tasked with returning his fleet to a high state of readiness in the world’s most dangerous seas.

www.defensenews.com

...let me remind you at the time the soviet union had a vastly larger navy, and even with their non existent naval force projection they likely could have mustered a larger naval force...

The Sea Forces of the Soviet Army lacked an amphibious capability and moreover it was totally lacking in amphibious experience

You want to claim they decided out of their good will to disband their empire, there was some pressure from the un and america to do so, but it was britain becoming too weak and too broke to maintain an empire.

Er, the point of an empire is that it generates money for the home country
An empire that a home country has to spend large amounts of money on to maintain, is a waste of resources

The world changed in 1945 and the time of European colonialism was over. So Britain gave up its colonial possessions (mostly).
I asked you: what part of the British empire, do YOU think Britain could have retained through force of arms, had it the resources of the USA ?

Britain didn't just hand over their empire though to anybody. Communist insurgents were fought and defeated - most famously in the Malayan Emergency 1948-1960 (and winning that little war wasn't exactly cheap
Britain actually beat the communists in SE Asia, the USA lost its war there (in the only major war the USA has fought, since WWI, without the British to hold their hand - unless you count the invasion of Grenada)

Every empire that participated in both world wars lost their empires with the exception of america who basically became an empire, and russia who lost it's empire after ww1 due to the socialist revolution but gain some back after then made massive gains after ww2, only to lose their empire after 1991.

The USA was the big winner in WWII, no question
Only history will tell how long its hegemony will be maintained

Already the Chinese have a larger navy.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

If the governor of your state called up the militia would you show up?

Say there was some emergency, a hurricane, civil unrest, floods.

Militias are why we have the Second Amendment.

As usual, your knowledge in such matters are clueless as always.

Some militias don't carry guns. They are called up by the governer for such emergencies, like hurricane, floods, fires and humanitarian support. Such as the Texas State Guard.

 

[Rich2018]

As usual, your knowledge in such matters are clueless as always.

Some militias don't carry guns. They are called up by the governer for such emergencies, like hurricane, floods, fires and humanitarian support. Such as the Texas State Guard.

When the National Guard soldiers are called out for "hurricane, floods, fires and humanitarian support", do they carry guns ?

 

[beerftw]

While all that is true. It also a fact that the reason Britain was able to build an Empire was they possessed a great advantage in weaponry. Following the two World Wars, this advanced weaponry was common in all the countries that comprised the Empire. This made subjugating these countries all but impossible. British leaders realized this and realized that making them friendly trading partners was the best option available.

Actually their weaponry did not build them an empire, their logistics did. One of the biggest building points of the british empire was actually losing the american revolution, they lost a territory but that loss caused britain to revamp it's logistics to handle global wars, this was realized when am,erica despite being much weaker at the time had the advantage as logistics were homegrown to them while the british had to ship everything by sea.

After that war the british used it's colonies as jump points for logistics to keep their army well supplied worldwide. This however did come at a big cost, keeping such an empire and such logistics was expensive, and required them to use military force to keep their colonies in place or that advanced supply chain would break crippling the empire.