Food for thought when next we consider gun control.
After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started.
The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River . Remember, we had a 2 million man army and war ships… all fighting the Germans.
So, why did they not invade?
After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked that question.
Their answer, they knew that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them!
The world’s largest army… America ‘s hunters! I had never thought about this….
A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .. allow me to restate that number.
Over the last several months, Wisconsin ‘s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
More men under arms than in Iran. More than in France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed. That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan ‘s 700,000 hunters All of whom have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
The point?
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
Hunting — it’s not just a way to fill the freezer. It’s a matter of national security.
That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
Food for thought when next we consider gun control.
(ETA: Bold mine, something to point out next time someone says a gun makes a person want to murder)
I wonder what the number would be if one could count the total number of armed Americans regardless of whether or not they bought hunting licenses? I have several rifles and pistols, but no longer hunt due to both health reasons and that it’s now too expensive for me. I still shoot, though, as I can do that by simply driving to a gravel pit an hour away. The missus goes along ’cause she likes the drive so we make a day of it. Still, if one counted every American who has and knows how to use a rifle or pistol, and publicized the number, it might give the nanny statists cause to reconsider.
I made a very similar post last year on this exact subject.
http://antitango.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/japan-would-never-invade-the-united-states/
IIRC, the normal number cited is something like 80,000,000 gun owners in the nation, sometimes cited as “[some number around 50 million] gun owning households.” But I’ve been a number around that one for years, and I keep hearing of new gun owners.
Of course, some households are, ahem, better equipped than others.
Forgive me for playing devil’s advocate, but I must call into question the capabilities of said military in the field. Is the college student with a .38 in a lockbox capable of taking on a squad of armed invaders? Is Uncle Bob with his boltie 30-06 have the skills and means to take on a mounted patrol armed with full-auto AKs as well as a crew weapon? Will Mr. Smith who keeps a pump action shotgun really pump a few rounds into the invaders knocking at his door? Do you and your friends who go to the shooting range have the skills and teamwork to take down a tank if need be? And of all the numbers cited, would all these people be in agreement that the invaders must be stopped?
dfwmtx:
That is a valid point. However, if only 1% of that 80M gun owners had the equipment, skills, will, and discipline to actively resist an invading force, that is still a guerrilla army of 800,000, which is more than possible, and likely to give any invading commanders some very bad dreams, and even worse waking moments.
Minor point of historical fact which doesn’t change your over all point at all:
As late as December of 1943, the U.S. had more military personnel deployed in the Pacific than in Europe. Just over 1.2 million each way, with a few tens of thousands more against Japan.
The balance shifted soon after.
And those flag officers I think are greatly overestimating Japanese logistical capabilities. Even if they had enough ships to move an invasion force across the Pacific, supporting it as it moved inland would have been extremely difficult.
And I would think that even if the Japanese had everything they needed, stopping them on the line of the Cascades-Sierra Nevada-Colorado River would have been relatively simple.
In response to dfwmtx’s question about the effectiveness of armed individuals.
Using my neighborhood for an example, I could quickly muster about twelve to fifteen armed men, one of whom is a former Army Ranger (1st gulf war). Between his combat experience, and my former cop experience and many years of management, we could organize, drill and train our small unit to a minimal standard of fire discipline, support, military-based command and obiedience to orders, and other small skills.
And while even that degree of training wouldn’t make ’em ready to go up against a good ol’ fashioned Banzai charge, it would serve to make our squad more “useable” to a more highly competent commander, say from a couple of neighbhoods over, a former Green Beret captain, who could take squads like mine, and begin to produce a more useful force in short order.
Repeat this through countless communities, pretty much nationwide. I’d predict that such is a pretty good prediction of how a true “homeland defense” would evolve in crisis conditions.
Fact is, it’s not too dissimilar to how various companies, battalions and brigades were raised up in the (un)Civil War, and often, those units also elected their own officers.
So, I agree that the “lone wolf” or “scared to death untrained amateur” wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance against professionals such as the Japanese Army of WWII. That said, I’d stand up a few thousand motivated companies of neighbors who are fighting for one another, home and country against the invaders, and take my chances with those odds.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
I’m going to agree with Heartless Libertarian with a few hustoricl caveats. In December, 1941 our armed forces didn’t number 2 million, nor we’re they engaged in fighting the Germans. Germany only declared war after Pearl Harbor.
Now let’s look at the logistical and manpower objectives of the Japanese Fleet. Let us assume the Japanese army could embark two divisions on their troop ships, approximately twenty thousand men. Even close to their base of supply, ie their ships, it is unlikely the invading force could occupy a large portion of the West Coast, and advancing inland would be met with US forces advancing, perhaps sacrificially, from Western US bases. Due to the initial dearth of troops on the part of the Japanese and their winnowing by combat losses, it is unlikely they could penetrate deep into the American West, even under the cover of air superiority from their aircraft carriers, certainly not anywhere near the Mississippi River. Remember the vastness of the American West, somewhere in the range of 180 million sq. miles. Logistically, it would have been suicidal for them to attempt an invasion, without even factoring in the armed population. This brief analysis does not even factor in the US carrier force in the rear of the the Japanese fleet. I’m sure all these factors influenced the decision not to invade. Though fanatical, the Japanese commanders were not unsofisticated and suicide was not yet a tactic widely used.
dfwmtx – Like Jim, I could pretty quickly muster a squad of hunters, cops, and Vets. All competent with hunting and black-rifles that would pass-through body armor like paper.
We wouldn’t be dumb enough to attack front line units head-on. Logistics, small patrols, and law-enforcement would be absolutely impossible in my neighborhood. No way could an invader move materials through this area without using divisions to guard it (instead of attacking our divisions).
So, I think my first comment got flagged as spam. Yes/No?
Basic problem for such an invader wouldn’t be ‘organized squads/platoons meeting them in battle’; it’d be ‘lots of people sniping at them from woods and buildings, meeting a squad going through the door with a shotgun’ and such. Lots of casualties, slowed down to deal with the attacks, and while that was going on the military and militia would have time further on to prepare for the enemy.
dfwmtx – There are a lot of “ifs” in your question. IF Uncle Bob just happens to be retired Marine Gunnie Robert Smith, then the chances of him using that boltie 30-06 to keep a squad at bay? Good. IF Uncle Bob us Billy Bob Bubbah, the beer-guzzling champion of the Corner Saloon? Not so much. But even Billy Bob Bubbah can use that 30-06 with devastating effects if they’re being organized by people like Jim’s Ranger neighbor.
Even if only one out of every four hunters in Wisconsin is worth a darn on a battlefield, that still leaves 175,000 competent riflemen to repel the enemy. In Wisconsin. That doesn’t count the rest of the Southern, Southwest, Midwest, or the Pacific Northwest, and I’ll put the hunting population from Idaho up against the Cheeseheads any day of the week for patriotism, skill, and former military affiliation. And I happen to LIKE Wisconsin.
Rather than thinking about just the number of people, think divisions. Wisconsin would have a little under TWELVE divisions of troops, all fighting on their home turf. That’s more than we currently have on Active Duty in the Army right now. Add in all the other states? Ain’t no way the enemy is just going to waltz in.
Of course, considering that our greatest danger lies not in an enemy assault, but destruction from the progressive cancer that’s killing our country, our chances of losing to an invading force really don’t amount to a hill of beans. We’ll destroy ourselves long before the barbarians reach our gates.
If you do a search on the number of deer that hunters took in Wisconsin this year (200.000+ I think), it looks like close to 1 in 3 of them can at least shoot. Not sure how well that translates to battle, but it can’t hurt.