How Effective is an Armed Populous as a Deterrent to Invasion?

[Space05us]

Well?

It's obviously not much of a deterrent to the US Military. So could it be assumed that it wouldn't be a deterrent to any other modern military either?

I know our high-tech military and massive nuclear, chemical, and biological arsenals are the biggest deterrent to anyone looking at invading. Yet all too often people argue that we should retain the right to own handguns and assault rifles just in case we get invaded by Russia and/or China.

The more I think about it though the less it would seem to matter whether or not a population is armed, what really matters is how well armed and trained their military and allies are.


There is also the argument that we may need at some point to overthrow our own government. History has already shown though that force is only a good idea after you build support through propaganda and free cookies. By the point you are ready to put force into action you would have what you need by then, whether or not guns were legal leading up to that point.

[Pekka]

I don't think it is a deterrent at all.

Handguns, even assault rifles, these weapons in unison, defending neighbourhoods and cities? They aren't a match for any trained army. They'll just blow the neighbourhood up, with no losses. Or even urban warfare. In a real war that is.

In situation where you are occupying and having active resistance, it still won't deter any army, but naturally then the army has to take some losses. Populous, in many places, have been armed for the longest times. Against an army, they are no match, just civilians with guns. What can you realistically do when an army is approaching? Shoot in the air? It's an army, they'll destroy the place and the people don't stand a chance.

Soldiers and army look at the situation from their POV. Armed neighbourhoods don't even match a weak army. Even surrendering army poses a bigger threat IMO. Or starving and not well armed one. Or one that is about to run. Or one that is actively avoiding confrontation.

Armed populous is only one notch up from populous getting murdered and slaughtered without weapons. The difference is, they might have some cold steel on their hands when they fall, but from combat POV, armed populous is not a threat at all. It's a nuisance at most.

[Q Classic]

Switzerland hasn't been invaded in years...

[DanS]

Terrain is important.

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by Pekka
I don't think it is a deterrent at all. ...

Obviously you never saw Red Dawn. Wolverines!!

[Barnabas]

I disagree with Pekka, I can think of a couple of examples now, the Napoleonic invation of Spain and the British invations of the River Plate.

But the people have to be really filled with anger and hatred against the occupation army. The occupation army has to feel that every man woman boy girl old man could possibly shoot them in the back.

Goya's painting, inhabitants of Madrid fighting the French hired Mamluks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata

[Pekka]

Barnabas, yeah, OK, but that's a long time ago when sword skills mattered

But virtual points for Goya's painting

[Barnabas]

I think nowadays it would be easier, shooting enemy soldiers from the window of some tower block

[Dis]

Originally posted by Supr49er


Obviously you never saw Red Dawn. Wolverines!!

qft

[Boris Godunov]

Not nearly as effective as Substitutiary Locomotion.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

the only realistic invasion of US in near future is by alien invaders - thus the weaponry currently in private arsenal will not be very effective. I think they should lift the ban on automatic machine guns, RPG's and equip the population with high-tech laser guns. (I am sure that they already have lethal versions of this http://www.janes.com/security/law_en...1125_2_n.shtml )The ensuing productivity increases would also serve well to restart the economy sliding into recession.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Pekka
Barnabas, yeah, OK, but that's a long time ago when sword skills mattered

But virtual points for Goya's painting

Hmm, current example of an armed populace fighting occupying troops...

Iraq, Afghanistan (especially in the 80's), Vietnam, etc.

Yes they take tremendous losses, yes they use other weapons besides assault rifles (which folks in Tennessee would be able to come up with somehow too), but make things very troublesome for the occupying forces to remain in power, costing them support at home and costing them money & lives in the process.

American rednecks taking to the hills would turn "fly-over country" into "no man's land".

[Berzerker]

if the armed populace has no backing it wouldn't be pretty, but our words are backed by nuclear weapons Seriously, we could do away with half our military budget easy and still outspend everyone. We're paying for the ability to invade other countries, not defend this one from invasion.

[Felch]

What Ozzy said.

Large numbers of firearms in civilian hands would make an occupation of the United States very difficult. Tanks can't enforce control over 3.5 million square miles. You need lighter, unarmored vehicles to cover that kind of area. Those would be vulnerable to high powered rifles, that are common throughout America. Lost of people in middle America have .30 caliber hunting rifles. Many of those are essentially identical to the sorts of rifles that military snipers use.

Pistols and shotguns aren't really useful for fighting invading armies. They could be used to harass foot patrols, but not much more. A decent bolt-action .30-06 can take out targets wearing body armor, and accurately fire at longer ranges than regular military rifles.

Basically, civilian ownership of firearms deprives the enemy of options. That's really all a good defense can do. You make it impossible for them to act as they wish, and deny them the initiative. An army that has to smother every square inch in artillery just to avoid being harassed by militias will not profit much from the war. They'd essentially be scorching the earth in front of themselves. It would slow their progress, deny them infrastructure, and deny the opportunity for plunder. There's a reason why armies try to take things in one piece, and that's because it's better to steal than to rebuild.

As far as overthrowing the government, they're absolutely essential. Look at Zimbabwe. Mugabe controlled the police and the army, and in spite of losing a couple elections, he's not letting go of either. Even with the power sharing agreement, there are still abuses ongoing. Do you think ZANU-PF would do that to American Republicans, or Libertarians? Their truncheons and lead pipes are no match for our Armalites. I've mentioned in a previous thread (and was widely criticized for being honest) that the easiest way to overthrow a government was to attack it's civil service. Teachers, judges, traffic cops, local politicians - those are the people successful guerrillas kill. The professional army would kick their asses, and they know it. So they try to diminish the government's legitimacy, show the population how unstable things are, stuff like that.

Privately owned firearms are an essential element in maintaining individual liberty.

[SlowwHand]

I would prefer a .308 or maybe a .243, in bolt action.