I got robbed at gunpoint today....

[duby229]

So now it comes to nukes... OK. I like it. Lets roll with it.

In the 80's the US had deployed Ohio class submarines. These have the ability to launch ICBM weapons. This sub can fire a total maximum of up to 48 of these weapons. It can park anywhere in the world and hit any target in the world up to 48 times. That's one sub. And it will never be alone. It's one ship in a fleet of dozens of other types of ships.

This sub can destroy any navy in the world all by itself. It is a superweapon.

[zester]

So now it comes to nukes... OK. I like it. Lets roll with it.

In the 80's the US had deployed Ohio class submarines. These have the ability to launch ICBM weapons. This sub can fire a total maximum of up to 48 of these weapons. It can park anywhere in the world and hit any target in the world up to 48 times. That's one sub. And it will never be alone. It's one ship in a fleet of dozens of other types of ships.

This sub can destroy any navy in the world all by itself. It is a superweapon.

Hey I said "possible" not likely or feasible, ... The US's biggest defense is the fact that its just to dam big, and anyplace you go your going to be surrounded
by an army of severely pissed off locals.

If the US ever does fall it will be from the inside out, destroyed by its own people. But the reason I mentioned this is some have said that the US Federal Government will bring in china or russia to disarm us. Not going to happen.

[Luke]

Large area weapons of little use in insurgency warfare

So now it comes to nukes... OK. I like it. Lets roll with it.

In the 80's the US had deployed Ohio class submarines. These have the ability to launch ICBM weapons. This sub can fire a total maximum of up to 48 of these weapons. It can park anywhere in the world and hit any target in the world up to 48 times. That's one sub. And it will never be alone. It's one ship in a fleet of dozens of other types of ships.

This sub can destroy any navy in the world all by itself. It is a superweapon.

Such a weapon cannot destroy insurgents unless the enemy is willing to depopulate an entire region. If the insurgents are blended into a population including the enemy's OWN population such weapons become useless. Even in Syria the use of things like chemical weapons has been the exception rather than the rule. I heard that in El Salvador, during a 1990 FMLN offensive in the civil war there, guerillas staying in poor neighborhoods in San Salvador attracted aerial bombing, so they simply moved their bases to buildings liberated from rich neighborhoods, then dared the government to continue bombing.

So long as insurgents can get close and "grab the enemy by the belt" as the Vietnamese used to say, they can severely limit the effectiveness of artillery, much less airpower, nukes and gas. The trap to avoid is being forced to defend a large area in a conventional battle, with the enemy deeming the entire population hostile. Sometimes this cannot be avoided, then it becomes necessary to rely on such advantages as terrain, or even appeals to international opinion to make an enemy fear external intervention and/or trade consequences. Allowing an entire insurgent force to be drawn into open battle to defend a fixed base is a formula for defeat, like what happened to the Tamil Tigers.

[duby229]

A massive foreign invasion of the US would require an equally massive naval logistics program. It would require a large organized navy to implement. The Ohio class sub was designed to destroy navies.

[zester]

Such a weapon cannot destroy insurgents unless the enemy is willing to depopulate an entire region. If the insurgents are blended into a population including the enemy's OWN population such weapons become useless. Even in Syria the use of things like chemical weapons has been the exception rather than the rule. I heard that in El Salvador, during a 1990 FMLN offensive in the civil war there, guerillas staying in poor neighborhoods in San Salvador attracted aerial bombing, so they simply moved their bases to buildings liberated from rich neighborhoods, then dared the government to continue bombing.

So long as insurgents can get close and "grab the enemy by the belt" as the Vietnamese used to say, they can severely limit the effectiveness of artillery, much less airpower, nukes and gas. The trap to avoid is being forced to defend a large area in a conventional battle, with the enemy deeming the entire population hostile. Sometimes this cannot be avoided, then it becomes necessary to rely on such advantages as terrain, or even appeals to international opinion to make an enemy fear external intervention and/or trade consequences. Allowing an entire insurgent force to be drawn into open battle to defend a fixed base is a formula for defeat, like what happened to the Tamil Tigers.

Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could. The fact is even thou the US Federal Government is well armed, unless there willing to exterminate there own population there going to loose a civil war in a very big way. And I don't see them wan't to do that, as it would leave not only them but the country defenseless to invasion.

[zester]

A massive foreign invasion of the US would require an equally massive naval logistics program. It would require a large organized navy to implement. The Ohio class sub was designed to destroy navies.

Thats just to reach mainland thou, after that invaders have a whole set of different problems.

[zester]

The 14 Trident II SSBNs together carry approximately fifty percent of the total US active inventory of strategic thermonuclear warheads. Those aren't Navy killers those are Nation killers. Could you even imagine being hit with 336 Nukes!!!!!

[corebob]

Guns don't kill people*. Bullets kill people. So let guns stay legal and only ban the ammunition. Problem solved.

* Unless you throw them pretty hard.

This is not correct. Its the combination of a person and a gun that kill people, at least until we got drones

[gamerk2]

1. For ever US Solder, and Federal Government Official there is 310 armed civilians.

But you forget a few things: The distribution across the US isn't flat. The southeast, for instance, is far more heavily armed, so if you distributed the forces properly, you can get the proper amount of soldiers to armed civilians.

You also forget to factor in state/local police forces, which would likely side with the government.

I also note the government reflects the people, since the people are ultimately responsible for forming the government. So if a disarmament did take place, it's only because its what the majority of the population wants.

[gamerk2]

If you really think that giving everyone a gun will decrease gun violence, then I submit we should give every country nukes, for the same exact reason, since no one would risk retaliation.

And if you say "It only takes one crazy", then yeah, you made my point. You don't want crazys having weapons, because they will use them, no matter the risk of retaliation.