Skip to comments.Why Our Right to Bear Arms Will Prevent Mainland Attack (Language warning)
Posted on 04/18/2013 10:37:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
There is a famous saying, wrongly attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto (Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II), that goes: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Historians, by and large, have claimed the attribution of the quote is unsubstantiated and has never been seen in writing; yet the quote has been repeated thousands of times. Why? Probably because the words ring so very true. This recognized concept may be exactly why our right to bear arms will prevent mainland attack of the United States.
Admiral Yamamoto did say, however, The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants. Same concept, different words.
There are many reasons why an invasion of the United States would be, at the very least, impractical for any conventional military force. Foremost, perhaps, is the sheer size of this country. There is no way to attack the entire United States at one time without use of nuclear weaponry. There isnt a military anywhere on the globe that has enough people to control the vast terrain that is America not to mention corral every man, woman, and child that lives within it.
More to the point, as adroitly noted by blogger Brett N. Lashuay:
Americans arent really known for their sanity. Were more known for our blind patriotism, our love of fatty foods and our proclivity towards mindless violence. Even if 90% of the nation fell in with the invaders, and thats a huge f***ing if, that would still leave around 30 million freedom fighters....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanlivewire.com ...
Why Our Right to Bear Arms Will Prevent Mainland Attack From Kenyan-Led Armies
Why did the South quit fighting?
Foreign and domestic enemies had better realize that they would become Targets of Opportunity .... at every opportunity.
They were beaten and starved.
You were out manned and full-on tired, from the onset of that terrible conflagration. Though, only, by the south’s mendacious nature, was the field won. Beggars of Truth often fail, by the shortcomings of misfigured integrity. As you well know.
Well, doesn’t that put the lie to the notion that a people who are heavily armed cannot be defeated?
What the hell are you talking about?
Heavily armed people can be starved out but they can also scavenge.
True, but what if their home towns are burned to the ground, and their loved ones are raped and pillaged? Point is, don’t get too complacent about our ability to fight off an internal or external enemy by virtue of being heavily armed. A brutal enemy can impose its will if it figures out how to inflict more pain than can be endured.
You’re right on.
Maybe take control of the major cities on either coast if an invasion was to happen and personally I’d have no problem since that would resolve most of America’s problems by taking out the Liberal trash.
Sherman’s March to the Sea DESTROYED the South’s “Breadbasket” and the Southern Homefront collapsed.
Misquoted and misattributed. The observation is from naval strategist and tactician Minoru Genda, who planned the three-wave attack on the Pearl Harbor base and advised Admiral Yamamoto on the probable outcome if only the first, or first and second, or all three waves of the attack were successful. And what the likely overall results of the attack setting Japan and the USA against each other would be.
Accordingly, the quote could be noted as advice to the Admiral from one of his most qualified and trusted subordinates.
Genda was a strong proponent of Japanese naval air power, and has sometimes been referred to as Japan's Billy Mitchell, though Genda's visions were more appreciated in his native land, and he reached the rank of Captain in the Jaopanese Navy, and after the war, that of General in the post-war Japanese Air Self-Defense Force. He rejoined his wartime comrades lost in the war in 1989.
The Boston area is shut down due to one (1) terrorist. That says something.
guerrilla armies succeed against us because we dont retaliate against villages and civilians. a barbaric invader, muslim or commie, would not likely be so squeamish.
The South and it’s defeat in the War of Northern Aggression.
A similar thing could happen to the much more effeminate population of the US today in the event of homegrown tyranny, or even in the event of an outside invasion. Say you live in Colorado, and you and a band of warriors head to the hills to start a guerrilla campaign against the tyrants. Only these tyrants don't play fair. When rebels are from, say, a neighborhood in Denver, the tyrants burn down that neighborhood. They find the kinfolk of the rebels they capture, and put them in slave labor camps. They take the women and teenage daughters into the service of their armies, if you get my drift. They take the boys and send them away to be trained as warriors for the regime, or if they are difficult to retrain, make them into slave labor, too, killing the ones who are not compliant.
Eventually, more and more of those in the mountains, and hiding in the hills of the Ozarks and Tennessee, and those in the swamps in the Gulf Coast, either give up, to avoid more pain to their people, and because those they left behind no longer support fighting back. They just want to eat and survive. So the rebellion dies.
This is how you win in places like Afghanistan and Vietnam. This is how we won the civil war and WW2, against enemies who would have fought to the death. We do not fight like this any more, which is why we lose. Our enemies will, however, fight like this. Picking off a few of them in a guerrilla war won't be the solution. Maintaining control of an army that can inflict greater damage on what the enemy cares about is the only way to defeat such barbarians. If we have rifles but no global reach, no way to hit Mecca or Washington or Moscow or whatever, we will be bit pinpricks on a giant to any hypothetical invader.
Outstanding post! I fully agree with all the points you covered. Well done. I am begining to see, that my brevity in posting, can result in confusion, at times. Great response, thank you, Defiant.