Jump to content
Survival Threads

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, KCM said:

OK.  Next time, I'll try to be clearer and not sarcastic.

Japan was preparing to arm civilans.  Germany conscripted old men and children.  America, then, had mostly population of "country" people.  Hunt, fish, wrestle.  Tougher.  Not dependent. Physical work.  Shooters to eat. Japan did not want to invade due to our armed population and militia or volunteer spirit.  History.

Now, the situation is reversed.  Most population is concentrated in cities.  Less outside lifestyle. More tech or service.  Every year, I see less kids in sports and "softer" from electronic lifestyle, in general.  There are still ranch kids.

This makes it easier for martial law to be enforced, in theory.

During the war, most people left were women, children, and people who were unfit for service. Most hunters who remained had very little training, if any. Most guns were things like sporting shotguns, or .22 rifles, and most people had maybe 1 magazine's worth of ammo. It's not like now where people have rifles built for fighting, and have massive ammo and magazine caches

 

Japan was arming them with sticks and grenades, which really didn't matter. What did matter was that the empire lied to its people, telling them all sorts of things about what U.S. troops would do to civilians. People were jumping off cliffs, and committing suicide with hand grenades. Most of who was left to resist in japan were the super old, or really young, typically women

 

Japan didn't want to invade because logistics. They could barely acomplish Pearl Harbor.

 

Consider this, pearl harbor was attacked to destroy the US fleet. They chose this to completely destroy US naval power, in order to remove the US as a threat. We no longer sold them oil or steel, thus complicating their planned Asian domination. They had no ability to project enough force, and maintain it, period

 

Before you keep on, please do some research. It's nowhere near as simple as a few militiamen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zackmars said:

Before you keep on, please do some research. It's nowhere near as simple as a few militiamen

Why do we get so antagonistic when someone has a different point of view?

I've studied the invasion subject at the Armed Forces Staff College, and the Air War College.

9-12% of our population served on active duty in WWII.  Way less, in combat.  .5 per cent now.  30% served in WWII Germany.  Japan fought from 1931 to 1945, but it was around 5 per cent serving on active duty.  That left a lot of people! 

In the USA, a very high percentage of working-aged people moved to cities from farming and ranching areas. Texas is full of towns that WWII changed permanently.  They didn't move back.  

My opinion:  Tough people, scrappy.  Many WWI veterans.  Grew up shooting.  Shotgun and .30 cal rifle proficient.  Bolt action and lever action.  Marksmen.  Squirrel hunters.  Sheepdogs, if threatened.  Free to own firearms.

Yes, Logistics is the key to warfare.  Japan hoped we would lose our will to fight.  They did not want to invade America to end the war.

Invading Japan would have been horrific.  Lots of guns and weapons available.  Cottage industry like Germany.  The later Arisaka rifles were not pretty, but there were many.  Motivated people in their own neighborhoods. Deadly.

Back to martial law.  The same freedom our parents/grandparents had would make it very difficult to enforce martial law here.  That doen't mean it won't be attempted.  How big an area or how many people?  Unknown.  People would need to be weakened, fearful, and concentrated for it to succeed.  Watch Venezuela and we might get an idea of how it could happen.

Big cities?  Probably first.  Rural areas?  Not so easily.  Why? People are more independent and multi-proficient.

I didn't bring up militias.  But, it is a very interesting subject, also.

Will we see martial law in the US or another country?  We will see.  It has been demonstrated that populations must be disarmed, first, for it to succeed. 

 

 

 

Edited by KCM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCM said:

Why do we get so antagonistic when someone has a different point of view?

I've studied the invadion osubject at the Armed Forces Staff College, and Air War College.

9-12% of our population served on active duty.  Way less, in combat.  30 per cent served in Germany.  Japan fought from 1931 to 1945, but it was around 5 per cent serving on active duty.  That leaves a lot of people!  Well, maybe not for Germany.

In the USA, a very high percentage of working-aged people moved to cities from farming and ranching areas. Texas is full of towns that WWII changed permanently.  They didn't move back.  

My opinion:  Tough people, scrappy.  Many WWI veterans.  Grew up shooting.  Shotgun and .30 cal rifle proficient.  Bolt action and lever action.  Marksmen.  Squirrel hunters.  Sheepdogs, if threatened.  Free to own firearms.

Yes, Logistics is the key to warfare.  Japan hoped we would lose our will to fight.  Wrong, then.

Invading Japan would have been horrific.  Lots of guns and weapons available.  Cottage industry like Germany.  The later Arisaka rifles were not pretty, but there were many.  Motivated people in their own neighborhoods. Deadly.

Back to martial law.  The same freedom our parents/grandparents had would make it very difficult to enforce martial law here.  That doen't mean it won't be attempted.  How big an area or how many people?  Unknown.  People would need to be weakened, fearful, and concentrated for it to succeed.  Watch Venezuela and we might get an idea of how it could happen.

Big cities?  Probably first.  Rural areas?  Not so easily.  Why? People are more independent and multi-proficient.

I didn't bring up militias.  But, it is a very interesting subject, also.

Will we see martial law in the US or another country?  We will see.  It has been demonstrated that populations must be disarmed, first.

 

 

 

It's not being antagonistic, it's about not beating a dead horse.

 

That 5% would have (generally) been the ones best suited to combat, smart, strong, healthy, and not too young, or too old. Combat is a difficult thing, and it takes a well built person to weather it. But that's another debate. Remember, that 5% or whatever, is all male.

 

Things like bolt action rifles and lever guns were luxuries, and became more common in America during the post war boom.

Most people in the 30's-40's, if they did in fact own a gun, owned something basic, simple, cheap, and did just barely, the jobs it was needed to do. Things like a single shot .22lr was what most people had, or some long barreled shotgun for bird hunting. Very few people even owned a full box of ammo, even then it was common to buy single cartridges, and if you used a few, you'd go back to the store and replace the few you shot.

Marksmanship is a great skill, but hardly key to staving off an invasion

The Germans did not have a cottage industry. They had bunkers and slave labor for the most part.

 

Japan was facing a massive arms shortage towards the end, most civilian planned resistance groups were given sticks. The few groups that were armed were the few true military units, and whatever the Japanese were willing to conscript.

 

Martial law would be very difficult to enforce in rural areas, agreed. There's just way too much open space.

 

Interesting you bring up population, thats something I've overlooked. I don't know how well a military group could contain several million people. Even if those people are un-armed, thats a lot of warm bodies. Multiply that by however many large cities are in the US... I'd be impressed if we could even raise a force large enough to contain even 2 large cities.

 

We've seen martial law several times in recent years, not in the US. They are typically result of a coup, or an attack

 

Some countries i would argue, fall under martial law, but that's semantics.

 

Loom at us, going off the rails again:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trains need rails, LOL!  It's amazing how many troops and suicide aircraft the Japanese were able to put together for the expected invasion.

Martial Law:  Law abiding citizens would abide by it....until they got hungry.  Many of the TEOTWAWKI books press on the martial law subject.  Population control, FEMA camps, etc., versus a war zone type of law.

I agree it would be manpower intensive.  Folks would have to be rounded-up, classified, detained and cared for.  Probably localized to cities that are hot spots of trouble.

Did you know that there are now more than 25 areas in Sweden that are Sharia controlled, "No-go" areas for law enforcement?  What would it take to restore control (law and order) for Sweden?  Localized martial law?  

Don't let me get started on "One World Government" and how that will go.  Unless it's a new post, LOL!

I think we can learn what to expect by watching Venezuela and Europe in the near future.  Folks in this group are from all over the world.  It would interesting to get their perspectives.

In the meantime, I'm glad I'm a "homesteader" in the country.  I am truly blessed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big brother would be unable to sustain nationwide martial law for more than a month. If such law is imposed,  Foreign investors will immediately cease buying our short term bonds, rendering the $100 bill nothing but toilet tissue. Nobody works for free, including soldiers and cops. They'd all have to desert and go try to care for their families. There's only a million troops, and most of them are on ships or overseas. There's a million more Reservists and NG, but most wont answer the call after shtf.  So just  how will a million guys control 100 millon gunowners,  10% of whom have autorifles,  (altho half of those are .22lr, they'll suffice)  1% of whom have night vision, soft armor, walkie talkies, boats, welders, lathes, off-road bikes, even ultralight planes?  It can't be done.  We are not broke, un-educated peasants, like the Russians, Germans, Chinese and Cambodians were!  So, no, i aint worried about martial law.  100,000 of those troops would be shot within a month.  Making a very fine, threaded-on .22lr silencer takes only an hour, once you are set up to do it (takes  3 hours).  Making a "can" for a high-powered rifle takes half a day. Those troops will swiftly learn to hate their duties!

Edited by ratter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2017 at 3:22 PM, KCM said:

Why do we get so antagonistic when someone has a different point of view?

I've studied the invasion subject at the Armed Forces Staff College, and the Air War College.

9-12% of our population served on active duty in WWII.  Way less, in combat.  .5 per cent now.  30% served in WWII Germany.  Japan fought from 1931 to 1945, but it was around 5 per cent serving on active duty.  That left a lot of people! 

In the USA, a very high percentage of working-aged people moved to cities from farming and ranching areas. Texas is full of towns that WWII changed permanently.  They didn't move back.  

My opinion:  Tough people, scrappy.  Many WWI veterans.  Grew up shooting.  Shotgun and .30 cal rifle proficient.  Bolt action and lever action.  Marksmen.  Squirrel hunters.  Sheepdogs, if threatened.  Free to own firearms.

Yes, Logistics is the key to warfare.  Japan hoped we would lose our will to fight.  They did not want to invade America to end the war.

Invading Japan would have been horrific.  Lots of guns and weapons available.  Cottage industry like Germany.  The later Arisaka rifles were not pretty, but there were many.  Motivated people in their own neighborhoods. Deadly.

Back to martial law.  The same freedom our parents/grandparents had would make it very difficult to enforce martial law here.  That doen't mean it won't be attempted.  How big an area or how many people?  Unknown.  People would need to be weakened, fearful, and concentrated for it to succeed.  Watch Venezuela and we might get an idea of how it could happen.

Big cities?  Probably first.  Rural areas?  Not so easily.  Why? People are more independent and multi-proficient.

I didn't bring up militias.  But, it is a very interesting subject, also.

Will we see martial law in the US or another country?  We will see.  It has been demonstrated that populations must be disarmed, first, for it to succeed. 

 

We had no need to invade Japan. Our sea blockade saw to it that they could not fish or trade. They starve without those avenues. Our firebombing of tokyo killed more people than the 2 nukes put together.  Because of the earthquake risks, they built with only wood and paper. So we could have burned their buildigs and ripe rice fields  and starved them until there was nobody left alive. Presto, easy invasion. The threat was Russia, both in Europe and in Asia. So we scared them off with the nukes. We coudn't admit (at the time) that our "great ally' (russia) was a worse threat than japan and germany put together.

On 6/23/2017 at 3:22 PM, KCM said:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/02/2018 at 10:06 PM, dthomasdigital said:

Politics a bad idea on this forum.

Politics are a bad idea on every forum in my experience. ;) too easy to take things personally.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan ,

 

What a load of BS , your logic as always is WRONG , sorry Buddy , Opps or maybe Kiddie is more apt.

You distort & focus on the wrong things , and your conclusions are wrong .

Guns are not the problem , never have been , they donot kill , we the Humans kill , you are making data fit your own conclusion , thats not real science , Gobbels would be proud of you .

Guns are a convenient scape goat at the moment , but in the main its not the guns its actually a mental health issue .

And the way Dan talks , he more than anyone , should know this , dont know about you guys , But NZ is usually not a world 1st or leader , we usually follow trends from USA/UK , NZ GovT back in the early 80s , shutdown virtually all the Mental Health Hospitals ( prisons holding nutjobs ) , it was simply done as a cost saving , nothing else , IT was SOLD to the public as THEY had to be niceier to the nutters , and IF the nutteres took thier pills all would be right in the world , THAT was a LIE told to get the public on side with the cost cutting of closing ALL Mental Hosp down .The the normal among you will figure out , that its very flawed logical to expect a nutter to remember to take his meds , and when they dont they turn into axe murders ( Opps Yeap , that happened in NZ ) , but we are MORE caring to nutters now in NZ , its a shame when they forget to take thier pills & flip out kill , its just the price you pay for being too caring , stupid ( Opps but it is much cheaper on GovT ) .

In short all law abiding citizens should be allowed to own & use guns , listen , what has to be done & is done in more countries than you would imagine , is criminal /mental screening done to ensure the lawless & nutbars are excluded from gun ownership .

IF you REALLY wanted to reduce gun voilence , you simply draft a Law thats enforced , and its states  IF you use a firearms in the commision of a crime , you get either the death or life in prisonment , the use of guns will almost stop over night , due to the harsh consquicence .

The murder rate will not drop as ( Dan ) thinks , miricle cure , as they will just use , knives,spears, swords, axes, arrows , rocks, clubs etc , you get the idea .

 

What Dan does not say when presenting his data , against the USA , is the cases of Switzerland , Aussie , NZ ,  look at that data .

It dose not align , with his theory , and actually , disproves it , Opps .

Look closely at Aussie , they had a nutter kill a bunch of people in Port Arther Australia , they banned semi-auto rifles completely , and brought them all . And you would think , like Dan sorted , Yeah Na , the gun violenence increased after removing all those rifles , its the Bad people , thats the problem , always has been , and unlike Dan , I believe , the GOOD people should not have thier freedoms reduced due to the acts of criminals , just punish the crims , not the GOODuns .

As to NZ , Opps sorry Dan , Look away NOW , NZ figures hell again SoRRY DAN , look away , actually DAN , get your chart & erase all the data on NZ , quick before anyone see's IT .

What the figures on NZ , maybe donot show IS , NZ should be on the numbers given 2-3 times the USA rate , BUT they are 1/10 th , WHAT the hell is going on , again DAN erase all the NZ data , and maybe all the Aussie & Switzerland data , do IT quick theres a good chap .

 

Later Chris

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun bans , only effect the law abiding , NOT the crims , they usually get theirs illegally , thru smuggling etc , so all you do is punish the GOOD guys my not allowing them reasonible lawful access , YOU dont effect the crims in reguards to access to guns , BUT what you do is signal to the crims , that NOW all thier potential victims will have NO guns to defend themselve , so now the playing field is slanted towards the BADuns , nice IF you be a crim or pirate .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, please lay off the politics and insults. I know it's easy to get charged up on politics, but there's no need for it here.

 

If it matters this much to you, I suggest you and Dan try and work it out over PMs. (But play nice!).

 

I'm going to lock this for now. Too much of a touchy subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×