Curse

Winterclaw · Dec 01, 2008, 05:21 PM // 17:21

It has begun.

Time to form a militia and get some anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry as well as any assult rifles we can get our hands on.

Abedeus · Dec 01, 2008, 05:29 PM // 17:29

Good for you.

Poland still doesn't have a professional army, everyone in it was practically forced. Unless he's a student/is incapable of becoming a soldier (alergy, overweight, crippled or disabled in any other way, problems with eyes/ears).

MMSDome · Dec 01, 2008, 08:57 PM // 20:57

It's a bad thing to feel safe?

Arkantos · Dec 01, 2008, 09:36 PM // 21:36

tl;dr version plz

Master Fuhon · Dec 01, 2008, 10:03 PM // 22:03

I don't know what to say about this yet.

It seems like there is no need for a conventional military force anywhere in the world at this time. That means that every nation that has an army needs to think about retraining the soldiers to do police work. This allows for a blending of goals on how we fund the military: to be able to deal with situations where you cannot use bombs and wipe people out. I hope this article implies that we will be retraining these people, otherwise this move is going to be stupid.

However, this also could mean something bad. If anyone ever needs to use a conventional army again for any reason, they will have to find it from somewhere else. This type of manuever taken to extremes would leave the U.S. severely unequipped to fight wars; which means our generals will only have access to big bombs to fight wars. I think that's what my greatest fear would be, leaving a country with only the most extreme ways of defending itself left. Of course, it's cheaper to have an aggressive military instead of a reactive one, while it's even better still to have a proactive one. Sounds like government's going to be looking for some help from the people on this one.

DarkFlame · Dec 01, 2008, 10:12 PM // 22:12

Yay, more wasteful spending that'll balloon tenfold before it gets done.

the savage nornbear · Dec 01, 2008, 11:22 PM // 23:22

Run to the hillllssss!!! Run for your liiiivvveesss!!

Winterclaw · Dec 02, 2008, 02:10 AM // 02:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

It's a bad thing to feel safe?

He who trades his freedom for a temporary safety deserves neither.
-Ben Franklin

Stormtroopers in the streets is not a good thing.

mrmango · Dec 02, 2008, 03:39 AM // 03:39

Though if you could steal a Stormtrooper's helmet and live you'd get mad props.

The Red Messenger · Dec 02, 2008, 03:59 AM // 03:59

"The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials."

this is hardly breaking news. we've been bolstering our training and response to different scenarios since october of '01. "how to respond" is basically teaching the military police, fire dept, and EOD how to use nuclear detection tools and the basics of response in the case of a mishap or attack. the biggest stuff would probably be evacuation, emergency aid, and site containment

it's probably a waste of manpower because probably nothing will happen, but yeah the threat is out there so we better be ready in some form or another. too many of our problems are solved after the worst happens, which i get, but we might as well try a little bit to get ready

I pwnd U · Dec 02, 2008, 04:01 AM // 04:01

I don't get the jist that they will be walking the street. Rather they will train with the police and then if needed they will respond to a threat. They won't be walking on the street enforcing the laws that the police are suppose to uphold.

I think Guru is blowing another subject way out of proportion...

the savage nornbear · Dec 02, 2008, 04:32 AM // 04:32

but guru has never been wrong before

pumpkin pie · Dec 02, 2008, 05:18 AM // 05:18

you guys seems to forget the military/soldiers are also deploy during time of disaster like the Hurricane...

besides this plan was started in 2007
"In late 2007, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a directive approving more than $556 million over five years to set up the three response teams, known as CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces. Planners assume an incident could lead to thousands of casualties, more than 1 million evacuees and contamination of as many as 3,000 square miles, about the scope of damage Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005.

Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans. Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia will each focus on a particular threat -- pandemic flu, a terrorist attack, hurricane, earthquake and catastrophic chemical release, respectively -- speeding up federal and state emergency planning begun in 2003."

don't make nothing into something then live to regret it.

MMSDome · Dec 02, 2008, 05:42 AM // 05:42

I don't get what you are panicing about, they are not invading your homes and setting up quarters.

nebuchanezzar · Dec 02, 2008, 06:04 AM // 06:04

Because it is unconstitutional to have a standing military of any kind on US soil. That is why the states get the National Guard and the right to form militia's.
Read Winterclaws quote of Franklin again and think about who that is. That quote is just as valid today, if not more so, than when it was made.
Steps like these are a direct step against individuals and individual freedom. The trade off is a false feeling of security and safety.
Do you think the Nazi party had a coup and seized power? No, they were voted in democratically and allowed to do the very things that such things as the Patriot Act and the Military Tribunal Act have done. Not that the US has turned to a fascist state but is implementing the tools to do so.
Our founding fathers understood the steps and tools necessary and set safeguards but they are/have been eroded by our own desire to feel safer from whatever threat we are offered to be scared of.
/End rant...

Snow Bunny · Dec 02, 2008, 06:21 AM // 06:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by nebuchanezzar

Because it is unconstitutional to have a standing military of any kind on US soil. That is why the states get the National Guard and the right to form militia's.

Do your homework before criticizing the situation.

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. -- james madison

20,000 troops does not exceed 25,000-30,000.

Furthermore....

§ 1890 of the book describes the Second Amendment:

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace

The US is in an extralegal state of war currently; an ideological war, but war nonetheless.

Furthermore, if you read the article at all, it stated quite clearly that the forces would be acting in the capacity of the National Guard, training militias and being ready for an attack, not actively patrolling the streets.

I am not a supporter of this for financial and psychological reasons, but in terms of legality, this is within the realm of reasonable executive action.

zwei2stein · Dec 02, 2008, 07:30 AM // 07:30

Only time will show whether they are just gonna be firemen in green or if they are trained to be anti-riot force, but considering that USA is gonna be in need of these forces once people understand full extend of crisis and reasons why it happened....

Anyhow, historically, army makes terrible cops, even if they are there to actually help and not to oppress. Years of brainwashing training (and experience) that taught them to mercilessly shoot first and ask questions later is not easily undone. I would expect numbers of innocent getting gunned down by "weapon failures" go up dramatically at least.

Avarre · Dec 02, 2008, 07:59 AM // 07:59

The USA should have compulsory 2-year enlistment for all citizens of both genders, if only to make their youth less pathetic. The security benefits are just a side effect!

Vaal 84 · Dec 02, 2008, 11:24 AM // 11:24

so the big question is what do the national guard do? I thought they were there to protect Americans from any threat. To be fair i've only seen them protect America from flooding and saving Tom Cruise in the War of the Worlds...

the savage nornbear · Dec 02, 2008, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

The USA should have compulsory 2-year enlistment for all citizens of both genders, if only to make their youth less pathetic. The security benefits are just a side effect!

/tear Worry about Singapore. I'm not joining no army.