Kasz216 said:
I disagree. I think gun owning americans could defeat quite a number of armies in the world. There are a lot of shitty ill equipped armies. Outside which, one needs only to look at Iraq to see just how annoying armed militants can be... imagine if every Iraqi insurgent had his own gun. It's be a serious pain in the ass. That said I doubt it's holding any country at bay, since the US army could pretty much beat any other 3-4 nations armies combined... but your ignoring reality if you think it would have zero effect in a invaded situation. I mean picture Iraq, with better armed insurgents, a worse invading army, and FAR more cover, places to hide infrastructure, over a larger area. |
Not only that, throw in the fact that a lot of the gun owners are ex-military..
Go read up on the Chechen War, when Russia attacked Grozny. The Chechens had no armor, no artillery, and no airforce. Despite that, what essentially was militia (including a nice dose of Afghanistan war veterans) held off arguably the 2nd best army in the world for months. The only thing that ended the war was essentially Russia telling the Chechens they were going to flatten the capital with cluster bombs, removing the city from the face of the Earth.
It was so bad during the 1st month of the Russian attack that the Chechens literally destroyed 1/10th of every T-82 tank committed to the fight - and the T-82 was the best Russian tank at the time (the same thing they made to spearhead an attack against NATO in the 80s). What they did resulted in a complete overhaul of Russian doctrine and huge modifications to their armor programs, as militia destroyed huge swaths of their mechanized forces.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.







