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

[Chemical Ollie]

There are obviously some examples where it should

[Felch]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Why are you supporting terrorism?

Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology. Opposition to terrorism is like opposition to trench warfare or blitzkrieg.

It's almost impossible to prove whether or not an armed population deterred any invasions. It's certain that a good military planner would account for it, and consider it when deciding whether or not to invade.

[Arrian]

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.

As for the question... not very.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


There have no doubt been thousands of invasions contemplated that didn't happen. Are you seriously contending that the difficulty of occupation never came up at the planning sessions for these non existant invasions?

Can to give any example of your contention? Care to enlighten us on some planning meetings you know about? Because unless you can, this assumption you make adds nothing to the discussion.

The question is about invasions, which are a varied lot. Not all invasions are meant to bring about the complete conquest of a state and its incorporation into some other state. And many that are do not lead to long insurgencies. And insurgencies have been defeated. It is all a question of cost and benefit.

If a country is really serious about conducting an invasion, I would say that the degree of weaponry amongst the population by itself would not be a significant deterrent, if the organized armed ofrces were seen as clearly inferior, or some that could be beaten for a reasonable cost.

[Felch]

GePap, how would you frame the question so that it can be tested against the historical record?

[GePap]

Well, that is extremely difficult, no?

You might want to look at some aggressive power, and determined whether they avoided certain specific neighbors more than others, and then see if an armed populace was the cause.

Or look at states in particulalr regions and try to see if any one of them was invasion free, then see why and if an armed populace was key.

Otherwise, to me this is purely a thought exercise.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Armed Populous has never managed to deter an invader. It's even worse than Armed Civilization II or Armed Rise of Nations.

An armed populace may be what you need though.

Edit: Corrected misspelling of "Civilization".

[Space05us]

Perhaps.

[Felch]

Originally posted by GePap
You might want to look at some aggressive power, and determined whether they avoided certain specific neighbors more than others, and then see if an armed populace was the cause.

Determining the cause is tricky. The easy example here would be WWII Switzerland. Look at any map of the Third Reich at its peak, and the Swiss stand out like a sore thumb. But is it because they're armed, or because they had banks, or because even Tiger Tanks have trouble scaling the Alps? I think the Swiss militia was the less influential than the terrain and the banking laws, but still would have been considered.

I don't look at it as "The sole reason we didn't invade was the armed population." I think of it in terms of "The army is not the only thing that will shoot at us. We should account for the likelihood of civilian resistance."

Large scale resistance movements can bog down invading forces and damage morale. A leader who doesn't consider the dangers of armed civilians is ignoring a critical factor.

[GePap]

Can you give any example of armed civilian resistance seperate from the activities of the organized military being a significant factor in slowing down an invasion itself? I ask this because in Switzerland, the people are armed in possible preparation of invasion, meaing that they can essentially be counted as part of the military manpower available to the Swiss government at the start, and figure it into plans that way.

This is different from people just being armed cause they feel like it, without it being connected to pre-existing military plans.

So, are we talking about creating a centralized system of arming the populace in the expectation of drafting it into the military as part of a national reserves (like in Israel, where the military can balloon from 120,000 to 600,000 in a few days) or are we simply talking about the idea of letting people exercise a 2nd Ammendment like right to weapons ownership?

[Felch]

Originally posted by GePap
Can you give any example of armed civilian resistance seperate from the activities of the organized military being a significant factor in slowing down an invasion itself?

Well, no. America hasn't been invaded in any real sense since the War of 1812. And during that war the armed civilians cooperated with and fought beside the regular army. I guess our second amendment has deterred further aggression.

Really the question is impossible to answer based on historic experience.

There are very few cases of people privately owning firearms in sufficient quantities. Of those cases, some are integrated into the national defense policy, and the other hasn't been invaded for nearly two hundred years. And proving the factors that deter invasion is very difficult.

Besides the countries mentioned, who else has tons of guns?

[Unimatrix11]

I think the answer to the question is highly situational.
If it deters depends on how likely a resistance is thought to emerge by the attacker. In that numerous factors come into play, on the defender´s side (GePap just mentioned one) as well as the attacker´s and the relation between the two. It´s hard to tell if intimidation will work beforehand, or if the armed populace will have sufficient will to resist actively. If picking up the gun will just mean you get shot, as opposed to sit it out, go with it and survive, then the weapons will remain in the shelves (or handed over). If the attacker pretty much shoots anyone at seight anyways, then you can as well pick up the gun (USSR in WW2 comes to mind)... If You have no military otherwise, say, fighting for independence, then an armed and willed populace is your only deterent - if your nation´s military funds make up more than 2/3 of the whole world´s, an armed population doesnt add to deterance at all.

[Blaupanzer]

What do invaders do to secure their occupation, when they know the occupied populous is heavily armed? They disarm the population ala the communists in 1948 in Czechoslovakia or the Germans in western Poland in 1940. In Czechoslovakia, the government asked each citizen to register their weapos, assuring them that registwered weapons could be kept. Next, they outlawed the weapons. They then gave the population the "opportunity" to turn in their now outlawed weapons. Then the Army went door-todoor searching for weapons and arresting anyone who had not turned in a registered weapon or had an unregistered weapon. Obviously, the Russians had not hesitated to "liberate" Czechoslovakia from German rule based on the armed population. However, when the population elected a non-Communist the Russians voided the election and disarmed the Czechs right away.

Armed populations do not seem to be a deterrent to invasion, but they do greatly complicate subsequent occupation. Note: not every invasion leads to occupation by the invaders for more than a few months.

My respect for Felch's reasoning power and use of knowledge:

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Felch


Well, no. America hasn't been invaded in any real sense since the War of 1812. And during that war the armed civilians cooperated with and fought beside the regular army. I guess our second amendment has deterred further aggression.

Really the question is impossible to answer based on historic experience.

There are very few cases of people privately owning firearms in sufficient quantities. Of those cases, some are integrated into the national defense policy, and the other hasn't been invaded for nearly two hundred years. And proving the factors that deter invasion is very difficult.

Besides the countries mentioned, who else has tons of guns?

I believe that there are supposed to be somewhere around 100 million firearms privately owned in the United States. If the US were occupied and the people decided to fight back and to Hell with reprisals they could do serious damage to an occupying force. Occupying troops can't stay inside tanks and APCs forever.

Furthermore, I should point out that every American male over the age of 18 is a member of the Unformed Militia of the United States of America.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Furthermore, I should point out that every American male over the age of 18 is a member of the Unformed Militia of the United States of America.

Mayhaps, but I for one shall welcome our new Canadian overlords.