mrstickball said:
I know the answer to this A professional, volunteer, standing army is the most effective form of defense. Also, the issue with military is that you do need a national military force that can protect everyone within the union. If we only had NGs, the problem arises that some states and NGs may be unwilling to defend another state, which would cause problems. Furthermore, the types of equipment NGs would be able to procure as individual entities would not be as great, nor robust if they were all parsed out. There would be multiple costly redundancies if NGs were responsible for 100% of military defenses. For example, could all states buy F22's? Would there even be F22s? Many states would have no air force, and the balances of power would be concentrated in Ohio, Florida, New York, Texas and California, which may or may not be strategic at all. Having said that, though, we do need to look at, and re-define our militaries role in what they do, where they do it, and how they do it. The military is far too large, and doesn't even take on the role that it was initially intended to do - e.g. defend America. In a nutshell, we need all 3 tiers of military. A real, active militia (which we don't have), a strong NG, and a moderate national military (but smaller than what we have now, and concerned with national defense, not offense) |
Plus Ohio totally might of invaded Flrorida after that Lebron James debacle.
The American Revolution pretty much taught us why you need a national army along with local miltias. Or the SNES games 1776 for that matter... fun game. The miltia groups are very helpful but they work by themselves and won't leave their states.
I like the alternate history you get when you play the UK side.
