patrick.net

Either of the following will happen:

1) reject DEI and get more white people to volunteer as cannon fodder, or
2) get very itchy on the nuke trigger because there're no troops to man the lines.

stereotomy says

get very itchy on the nuke trigger because there're no troops to man the lines.

That is where the illegals in the military come in.

Bring on the woke Army recruiting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8-Yslv4PME

This is bad. Because when the Elites orders the Army to fire on MAGA, they'll actually be likely to do so because of the racial disparities between the two groups.

Noticing race is a base instinct. Diversity is death...for someone.

UkraineIsTotallyFucked says

This is bad. Because when the Elites orders the Army to fire on MAGA, they'll actually be likely to do so because of the racial disparities between the two groups.

.



.

Our military has been a mercenary army (not a national army or army of the Republic) for the banksters, corporations and Vatican since 1871, and all the false flag conflicts have been mercenary conflicts.

RC2006 says

Harvey's motto was "If you can't beat them off, fist them". Do the crew wear open ass bell bottoms?

.

Just hope the strategic forces at least remain competent and ready such as the nuclear submarine force and the ICBM force.

That also depends on then the supply chain like the Lockheed Martin's and also the civil service at NAVSEA and Air Force Material Command.

.

What do we even need the military for? Who's gonna attack us? Mexico? Canada? Puhleeze!

RWSGFY says

What do we even need the military for? Who's gonna attack us? Mexico? Canada? Puhleeze!

The Founding Fathers put in the Constitution only a need for an active duty Navy.

The standing "army" or ground force the Founding Fathers envisioned was the Marine Corps which was attached to the US Navy, as in the Marine Corps hymn includes "the shores of Tripoli".

The Founding Fathers did not want a standing or active duty Army. They wanted the states militia to be available to defend the country against an invading army.
.

AD says

They wanted the states militia to be available to defend the country against an invading army.

Yep
Every able bodied person should keep and bear arms. There are already a LOT of foreign invaders in this country waiting to attack.

AD says

.... defend the country against an invading army.

.... but only if GDP per capita is to everybody's satisfaction. 🤡

Onvacation says

Every able bodied person should keep and bear arms. There are already a LOT of foreign invaders in this country waiting to attack.

Yeah, I'd like to keep and bear an F-35, plz. All expenses paid, of course. Not sure how I'm going to combine my day job with all the time required to train and stay current on that thing though. Maybe the state would compensate me the lost income if have to quit my job in order to be 100% up to the task to blast foreign invaders at a minute notice...

Eric Holder says

Yeah, I'd like to keep and bear an F-35

Are you trolling?

Eric Holder says

Maybe the state would compensate me the lost income if have to quit my job in order to be 100% up to the task to blast foreign invaders at a minute notice...

You don't need to quit your job to arm and train yourself with a shotgun, pistol, or AR15. We had F4 jet fighters and Bell Huey Cobra attack helicopters against Viet Cong wearing pajamas and carrying AK-47's. They kicked our butts.

The most important reason for amendment 2 is to stop tyrannical governments from taking ALL of our rights. The additional benefit of having an armed populace is to dissuade an enemy from invading.

When someone asked the Swiss if they feared the Nazi army which was twice as big as the Swiss army, the answer was, "No, we'll just have to shoot twice.

Onvacation says

Are you trolling?

Dead serious. You don't plan to employ any sophisticated military equipment in the militia? How is it going to hold its own against any even semi-modern state military?

Onvacation says

You don't need to quit your job to arm and train yourself with a shotgun, pistol, or AR15. We had F4 jet fighters and Bell Huey Cobra attack helicopters against Viet Cong wearing pajamas and carrying AK-47's. They kicked our butts.

We were fighting with stupid restraints like "never cross the line into the North and go for their capital", "never hold ground but re-take it over and over", etc. And they were fighting with full support of USSR and Chyna (and 50K and 100K troops from them respectively, according to the latest batch archives opened by Vietnam govt). Also, are you 100% sure they only had ak-47 and no MiGs (-17, -19, -21), SAMs (S-75, S-125), MANPADs (Strela), artillery, etc? And what was that thing Hanoi Jane was sitting on - AK-47 or modern Soviet anti-aircraft gun? How's the weather in the alternative universe?

And have you checked the relative body counts (850K vs 58K i.e. 15 theirs to 1 ours)? Are you willing to pay this kind of price?

PS. And no, they technically never kicked our butt: we were subwerted by leftie jornos and holllyweird actors from within, demoralized and persuaded to quit.

Eric Holder says

You don't plan to employ any sophisticated military equipment in the militia?

How did the Vietnamese beat all invaders?
French, American, Chinese, all were beat by Vietnam and now they have a prosperous, independent, country.

Eric Holder says

we were subwerted by leftie jornos

We still are.

Eric Holder says

demoralized and persuaded to quit.

Never should have been there in the first place. Vietnam was a deep state grift.

Onvacation says

Eric Holder says

You don't plan to employ any sophisticated military equipment in the militia?

How did the Vietnamese beat all invaders?
French, American, Chinese, all were beat by Vietnam and now they have a prosperous, independent, country.

With Soviet and Chinese arms and shitload of bodies. MiG-21 was state of the art tech back then and this is what they deployed against F-4s, not AK-47, LOL. Your fantasy of peasant army with sticks and stones easily defeating modern armies is just that - fantasy.

Even our very own Revolutionary war was fought and won with superior, not inferior equipment and tactics (much more rifles than smoothbores, aimed fire vs volleys, etc).

RWSGFY says

Your fantasy of peasant army with sticks and stones easily defeating modern armies is just that - fantasy.

Who had that fantasy? And what are you guys trying to say? It's senseless to try to fight with small arms? Or you have to have fighter planes and tanks to win a war?RWSGFY says

Even our very own Revolutionary war was fought and won with superior, not inferior equipment and tactics (much more rifles than smoothbores, aimed fire vs volleys, etc).

The British had state of the art "man of war" ships, organized, well trained, armies, and an empire where, "The sun never set". Chinese or "Soviet" soldiers are more likely to desert and join us than defeat us.

@RWSGFY @Eric Holder Do you guys think citizens should be armed? If so for what purpose?

Why is everyone talking about Vietnam as an example of low-tech vs high-tech war when the Taliban is a more recent example.

Eric Holder says

(850K vs 58K i.e. 15 theirs to 1 ours)

In fairness, those are MBA collected stats.

The "Body Count" was the order of the day. So if two fingers, a limb, two corpses, and a blood trail was found, that's 5 KIA and 1 WIA

5 KIAs counted by Infantry, Close Air Support, Artillery, so 15 KIAs.

Just like the combined drug busts of the 80s and 90s - each agency claimed 5 tons of coke, so if four agencies were involved, the government impounded 20 tons of coke

Officers who didn't get their Body Count were passed over and mustered out. Ironically, XOs who were left back in Germany got promoted faster than those who volunteered for service in Vietnam. One of the reasons is they avoided low Body Count allegations while running a unit above their pay grade for a time - demonstrating their skill and promotability.

It was probably more like 500K to 60K. Still pretty close to 10:1

HeadSet says

Why is everyone talking about Vietnam as an example of low-tech vs high-tech war when the Taliban is a more recent example.

Both are examples of US fleeing not because it was defeated on the battlefield. In both cases we've chosen to leave, not forced to.

Not limited to Vietnam either. You should see the Pacific War claims. Far fewer Jap submarines sunk than claimed, but they never pulled any unit or individual awards. Surface ships too.

Somebody joked once that every Japanese sub was sunk 4 times, and every ship 5 times, but several survived the war.

RWSGFY says

Both are examples of US fleeing not because it was defeated on the battlefield. In both cases we've chosen to leave, not forced to.

True, but a low-tech Afghanistan did manage to chase out the USSR.

Body count instead of grabbing and holding ground and going for the heart of the enemy was a mistake flying into face of thousands of years of military thought. An MBA war indeed. This approach prolonged the war and allowed Commie moles to do their subversive work. The rest is history.

Let's not even get into dogfight claims. Everybody exaggerates those at least two times over. Sometimes 5.

And snipers, forget it. Those are exaggerated on purpose to create fear. Including your favorite sniper, I don't care if he's Finnish or Soviet or whatever.

RWSGFY says

Body count instead of grabbing and holding ground and going for the heart of the enemy was a mistake flying into face of thousands of years of military thought. An MBA war indeed. This approach prolonged the war and allowed Commie moles to do their subversive work. The rest is history.

Agreed. Ruff Puffs were the way, nobody defends land like their own. We could have made every Vietnamese landlord a millionaire to compensate for land and it would have been cheaper than a few months of that war by far.

HeadSet says

RWSGFY says

Both are examples of US fleeing not because it was defeated on the battlefield. In both cases we've chosen to leave, not forced to.

True, but a low-tech Afghanistan did manage to chase out the USSR.

Again, not because they defeated them but because oil prices have crashed (thanks to Reagan's deal with the Saudi) and Commies started to run out of dough. Back then they had to buy everything, even fucking grain, so lack of cash did bite hard and fast.

If you think losing 15K KIA over 10 years has kicked out Red Army you should be able to explain why losing 10x that in 3 didn't kick it out of Ukraine yet*. The difference now is dough: back then they didn't have Chyna and India to fall back on and now they do. And we, insted of Reagan, got ourselves a fucking potato, peeing his pants about "escalation".

*) The previous Ukie commander openly admitted that 140-150K bodycount was what he thought would bring the Commies to their senses. Alas, they don't give a fuck about their dead. Neither did NV and VC.

RWSGFY says

Again, not because they defeated them but because oil prices have crashed

Interesting, I will have to check that out.

Eric Holder says

Dead serious. You don't plan to employ any sophisticated military equipment in the militia? How is it going to hold its own against any even semi-modern state military?

Technically the Navy and Marines would. Navy would have the strategic weapons like ICBMs and nuclear armed cruise missiles, as well as the fighter / attack aircraft.

I've heard Libertarians say to streamline the Pentagon (and fully comply with the US Constitution) so its just the Navy and Marines (who fall under the Navy administratively). The Navy could have its own air force just like the Marines are its ground force.

.

.

I see the point that if Harris wins, then expect to see during her administration the no more than the same percentage of recruits who are white male.

About 30% of Army enlisted have been black since the 1980s, whereas black people are 12.5% of the USA population.

.