A study similar to this was conducted a number of years ago by a Marine officer, I believe at Twentynine Palms, but I'm not sure. Marines were surveyed to find out whether or not they would fire on civilians if they were sent to disarm the population. Damned if I can remember the name of the guy who did the survey or what the results were. Maybe someone else here can remember.
Question for the military folks - would you shoot?
- Thread starter Control Group
- Start date
- Status
SIOP-I read the questionaire you are speaking of. Something slightly larger than 30% of the Corps said they would employ violence if necessary to disarm the general population.
For me as a former soldier, the first scenario would be, "it depends". I'm not going to blow Art's grammaw off a freeway entrance ramp 'cause some pimple faced E-4/O-1 told me to. If there was anything resembling reason for keeping civilians off the freeway-such as large units moving in the direction of an invasion of the country, I would open fire as a warning, then attempt to disable the vehicle-pretty much anything before killing.
In the second scenario, the only door I'm kicking in is at the White House to find out what in the wide world of sports is going on?
For me as a former soldier, the first scenario would be, "it depends". I'm not going to blow Art's grammaw off a freeway entrance ramp 'cause some pimple faced E-4/O-1 told me to. If there was anything resembling reason for keeping civilians off the freeway-such as large units moving in the direction of an invasion of the country, I would open fire as a warning, then attempt to disable the vehicle-pretty much anything before killing.
In the second scenario, the only door I'm kicking in is at the White House to find out what in the wide world of sports is going on?
jefnvk
Member
I'm not mil, but I'll give my opinion anyways.
Sit. 1) If I were posted there, yes. This is assuming that the general population has the knowledge that the interstates are closed, and that there would have been baracades out to prevent entrance. If there is no baracade, however, and they turn onto the ramp, see me blocking the way, and turn around, probably not.
I would think that if there were a situtation closing the interstates, though, that the resources could be better used than patrolling a ramp.
Sit. 2) Nope. And the reason that this is different, is that the person is no immediate danger to me. In the first situtation, the person was choosing to ignore the barracade and general rules, and coming at me, posing a threat. In the second, the person was doing nothing when we kicked in their door.
Sit. 1) If I were posted there, yes. This is assuming that the general population has the knowledge that the interstates are closed, and that there would have been baracades out to prevent entrance. If there is no baracade, however, and they turn onto the ramp, see me blocking the way, and turn around, probably not.
I would think that if there were a situtation closing the interstates, though, that the resources could be better used than patrolling a ramp.
Sit. 2) Nope. And the reason that this is different, is that the person is no immediate danger to me. In the first situtation, the person was choosing to ignore the barracade and general rules, and coming at me, posing a threat. In the second, the person was doing nothing when we kicked in their door.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Your question is naive.
An enlisted soldier (an officer, as well) is required to obey lawful orders from his/her superiors. A soldier is also required, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to NOT obey an unlawful order. However, at least when I went through basic training back during the Vietnam "conflict," the latter part was just barely mentioned, and it was not presented as a requirement. It was presented as if we could CHOOSE whether or not to disobey an order we knew to be unlawful. Now that I am older and (I hope) wiser, and have read portions of the UCMJ, I know that this is not optional. A soldier is REQUIRED to disobey an unlawful order.
The problem, of course, is how to know that an order is unlawful. You propose that the order to fire on civilian vehicles has come down through the chain of command and is, therefore, legal. Two problems. First, even though it may have come down from somewhere higher up, it still may not be legal. But the grunts with the boots on the ground may not be in a position to know that. Second, the grunts probably have no way of knowing if the order has come down the chain of command. If I'm stationed at Exit 78, I probably get my rules of engagement either from a squad NCOIC or maybe from the platoon leader, a 1st or 2nd Lieutenant. How do I know the order has come down the chain of command? And how high are you positing the origin? The theater commander? The Sceretary of Defense? The President? How high?
I'm really not sure, but I think in your first scenario I would fire.
In the second, we all know that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, any order to confiscate arms is unlawful because it is unconstitutional. I would not obey.
An enlisted soldier (an officer, as well) is required to obey lawful orders from his/her superiors. A soldier is also required, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to NOT obey an unlawful order. However, at least when I went through basic training back during the Vietnam "conflict," the latter part was just barely mentioned, and it was not presented as a requirement. It was presented as if we could CHOOSE whether or not to disobey an order we knew to be unlawful. Now that I am older and (I hope) wiser, and have read portions of the UCMJ, I know that this is not optional. A soldier is REQUIRED to disobey an unlawful order.
The problem, of course, is how to know that an order is unlawful. You propose that the order to fire on civilian vehicles has come down through the chain of command and is, therefore, legal. Two problems. First, even though it may have come down from somewhere higher up, it still may not be legal. But the grunts with the boots on the ground may not be in a position to know that. Second, the grunts probably have no way of knowing if the order has come down the chain of command. If I'm stationed at Exit 78, I probably get my rules of engagement either from a squad NCOIC or maybe from the platoon leader, a 1st or 2nd Lieutenant. How do I know the order has come down the chain of command? And how high are you positing the origin? The theater commander? The Sceretary of Defense? The President? How high?
I'm really not sure, but I think in your first scenario I would fire.
In the second, we all know that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, any order to confiscate arms is unlawful because it is unconstitutional. I would not obey.
RangerHAAF
Member
Personally,
I would never fire on citizens if the military chain of command ordered me to. When that happens and all extenuating circumstances should be considered, the people in charge of the government have declared themselves to be the enemy of the the citizens of the USA, the same as King George IV did back in his day. When that happens the government will have to be abolished and we will have to start over. The good thing about starting over is that we have a solid blueprint(the Constitution) to go from. The bad thing is that starting over will cost a lot of lives.
I don't take my statement of not firing lightly, I was with the 1st Ranger Battalion and Rangers train constantly to destroy things as is the case with the other units of SOCOM but we were trained to focus our destruction outwardly on the enemies outside of the country and not turn our guns on our fellow citizens and to do so is not an option for me and for most of the guys that I served with.
I would never fire on citizens if the military chain of command ordered me to. When that happens and all extenuating circumstances should be considered, the people in charge of the government have declared themselves to be the enemy of the the citizens of the USA, the same as King George IV did back in his day. When that happens the government will have to be abolished and we will have to start over. The good thing about starting over is that we have a solid blueprint(the Constitution) to go from. The bad thing is that starting over will cost a lot of lives.
I don't take my statement of not firing lightly, I was with the 1st Ranger Battalion and Rangers train constantly to destroy things as is the case with the other units of SOCOM but we were trained to focus our destruction outwardly on the enemies outside of the country and not turn our guns on our fellow citizens and to do so is not an option for me and for most of the guys that I served with.
Sam
Member
No. And no one under under me will either. Not a lawful order, irrespective of who gave it. Cannot just shoot up the world willy nilly because some idiot Lieutenant got the orders wrong in any case. You know how dumb us sergeants are.
As for the second scenario, no!
A soldiers oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. As you should be well aware, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact I would have to consider anyone that gave that order to be what is referred to in the oath as the "and Domestic" kind of enemy.
I suspect I'd have to disarm some of the younger troops but that would be my butt not theirs.
Sam
As for the second scenario, no!
A soldiers oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. As you should be well aware, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact I would have to consider anyone that gave that order to be what is referred to in the oath as the "and Domestic" kind of enemy.
I suspect I'd have to disarm some of the younger troops but that would be my butt not theirs.
Sam
Mark in California
Member
Members of the military will follow orders under almost all conditions. I would never bet on a service member deciding to violate his orders to my benefit. I could see some people leaving the service (past retirement date) to avoid following those orders, but line personnel are going to follow directions.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the Lieutenant who, during the 60's, ordered everyone on base to go off base and with a short distance from the base, ARREST everyone who was not in their homes. This included all member of Law Enforcement. The base had just suffered an explosion at a missile silo (fuel) and the nuclear package had been ejected off the base. Within the hour they had recovered the weapons package.
As I recall, the Lieutenant was set for courts martial, for exceeding his authority: declaring Martial Law, until Richard Nixon intervened and said the Lieutenant was his personal representative in this matter. Never heard another word on what happened.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the Lieutenant who, during the 60's, ordered everyone on base to go off base and with a short distance from the base, ARREST everyone who was not in their homes. This included all member of Law Enforcement. The base had just suffered an explosion at a missile silo (fuel) and the nuclear package had been ejected off the base. Within the hour they had recovered the weapons package.
As I recall, the Lieutenant was set for courts martial, for exceeding his authority: declaring Martial Law, until Richard Nixon intervened and said the Lieutenant was his personal representative in this matter. Never heard another word on what happened.
M
mrhuckins
Guest
Sam,
Your my kind of squad/platoon/company leader. I'll fight under your command any day!
Your my kind of squad/platoon/company leader. I'll fight under your command any day!
thorn726
Member
although i don't blame a lot of the soldiers for thinknig they should follow the order (i mean if soldiers didnt follow them, like one guy said, they could all very easily die in combat situations, etc)
this really makes me feel good, that enough soldiers know what they are really about -
thanks SAm
this really makes me feel good, that enough soldiers know what they are really about -
thanks SAm
We have had a lot of talk about this is a lawful order, that is an unlawful order. We have had people say that they would never fire upon US citizens etc.
First of all, how do we know if it is a lawful order or not ?
We don't know why the freeways are shut down. You are just blindly assuming that there is no possible reason for this to occur.
Secondly, how do you know you are firing on American civilians ? The senario says you will fire on civilians or civilian vehicles that approach within 100 feet. We don't know who is in those vehicles. We don't know if the people who are approaching are civilians or just people not wearing uniforms. In the vehicles we don't even know if they are civilians inside from 100 feet or more away.
As was mentioned, this is not a unique senario. On the day of 9/11 the skies were cleared of civilian aircraft. This was enforced with US war planes. As far as I know, no one was shot at but that senario could have easily developed. We recently had another similar aviation situation over Washington where US war planes were tasked with intercepting a civilan aircraft over Washington DC.
First of all, how do we know if it is a lawful order or not ?
We don't know why the freeways are shut down. You are just blindly assuming that there is no possible reason for this to occur.
Secondly, how do you know you are firing on American civilians ? The senario says you will fire on civilians or civilian vehicles that approach within 100 feet. We don't know who is in those vehicles. We don't know if the people who are approaching are civilians or just people not wearing uniforms. In the vehicles we don't even know if they are civilians inside from 100 feet or more away.
As was mentioned, this is not a unique senario. On the day of 9/11 the skies were cleared of civilian aircraft. This was enforced with US war planes. As far as I know, no one was shot at but that senario could have easily developed. We recently had another similar aviation situation over Washington where US war planes were tasked with intercepting a civilan aircraft over Washington DC.
2nd Amendment
member
What is important is whether commanders will give such orders. If they do then the kids will pull the trigger. Asking them not to is absurd. For the most part they are just that, kids, with not a clue what is going on and an assumption their leaders won't steer them wrong. Yeah there's exceptions and there's a reason we call them exceptions: There ain't many of 'em.
No_Brakes23
Member
That is laughable, from my exp. Perhaps older generations were that way, but I witnessed widespread mistrust of leadership from the first day at MCRD until the day I picked up my DD214. Enlisted don't trust the Zeros, and often don't trust the Rockers, either.
Now that doesn't mean orders don't get followed, but it certainly isn't out of trust.
When I went to boot camp, and every time I stood guard duty, we were specifically told NOT to fire a warning shot. That is a violation of the four rules. We WERE told to attempt to incapcitate rahter than kill on guard duty, but no warning shots.
Old Dog
Member
I'm starting to get just a tad bit offended by the suggestions of many that those serving in the armed forces are (1) not capable of critical thinking and (2) not intelligent enough to question orders/policies/regulations. Further, I'm seeing more posts by people who apparently believe most of us in the military are not familiar with the Constitution of the United States of America.
What many of you need to understand is that we've got a whole new generation of folks serving these days. We've got young people who came up understanding -- in some part resulting from the experiences of their parents or grandparents in the '60s -- that it's okay to question authority, but more importantly, we have the most well-educated military forces EVER. Realize that for most of us, the reality is that we have to constantly pursue off-duty education in order to continue getting promoted. For enlisted, this means you've got senior NCOs/POs with at least bachelor's degrees, many with education beyond a baccalaureate, and for officers, a master's is almost a formal requirement in most fields. I've got E-4s and E-5s working for me who already have their bachelor's degrees.
This is NOT your father's -- or your grandfather's -- military. Yeah, you may not approve of the urban fashions, the music choices, the language or the behavior of our younger generation, but I'm here to tell you that we've got a much smarter breed of young people in the military today than when I first got started in this business 25 years ago.
What many of you need to understand is that we've got a whole new generation of folks serving these days. We've got young people who came up understanding -- in some part resulting from the experiences of their parents or grandparents in the '60s -- that it's okay to question authority, but more importantly, we have the most well-educated military forces EVER. Realize that for most of us, the reality is that we have to constantly pursue off-duty education in order to continue getting promoted. For enlisted, this means you've got senior NCOs/POs with at least bachelor's degrees, many with education beyond a baccalaureate, and for officers, a master's is almost a formal requirement in most fields. I've got E-4s and E-5s working for me who already have their bachelor's degrees.
This is NOT your father's -- or your grandfather's -- military. Yeah, you may not approve of the urban fashions, the music choices, the language or the behavior of our younger generation, but I'm here to tell you that we've got a much smarter breed of young people in the military today than when I first got started in this business 25 years ago.
My question is, would you shoot if you weren't the soldier? Suppose you were a bystander who witnessed the police break in, and shoot the man. Would you just watch, try to intervene, ignore it? At what time would you end peaceful protests like Dr.MLK's?
2nd Amendment
member
I may have used the wrong word. The point remains in such a situation they'll do what they are told to do. Regardless of "mistrust" orders will be obeyed. Most won't have a clue there could even BE an illegal order. Their leadership may often be incompetent but never criminal, and that will only become more prevalent as the public schools pump out ever-better indoctrinated kids. As that does continue it all hinges on the leadership.
molonlabe
Member
This thread is a takeoff of this survey conducted at 29 Palms
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/419.html
The officer conducting the survey claimed it was part of a paper he was writing for an advanced degree and the Military had no part in it. That could be true or damage control. This was also run in SOF magazine in detail.
The good news is that I beleive over 80% of the soldiers said they would not fire on US citizens so be wary of the other 20% who have no concept of the US Constitution.
So I guess we can conclude that the time is not right yet and more indoctrination is needed in our schools to increase this number.
More info
Lt. Cdr. Cunningham designed and administered a Combat Arms Survey to obtain statistical data for his thesis. The final question of the survey, number 46, asked 300 U.S. Marines if they would fire upon groups of U.S. citizens that refused to surrender firearms outlawed by the U.S. government. This question was leaked to the press, and the resulting public furor catapulted the reluctant Cunningham onto the stage of public debate over the issues raised by his thesis.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/419.html
The officer conducting the survey claimed it was part of a paper he was writing for an advanced degree and the Military had no part in it. That could be true or damage control. This was also run in SOF magazine in detail.
The good news is that I beleive over 80% of the soldiers said they would not fire on US citizens so be wary of the other 20% who have no concept of the US Constitution.
So I guess we can conclude that the time is not right yet and more indoctrination is needed in our schools to increase this number.
More info
Lt. Cdr. Cunningham designed and administered a Combat Arms Survey to obtain statistical data for his thesis. The final question of the survey, number 46, asked 300 U.S. Marines if they would fire upon groups of U.S. citizens that refused to surrender firearms outlawed by the U.S. government. This question was leaked to the press, and the resulting public furor catapulted the reluctant Cunningham onto the stage of public debate over the issues raised by his thesis.
molonlabe
Member
This might be a good time to post this
Oath of Office - "...support and defend the Constitution..."
§ 3331. Oath of office
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:
''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''
Oath of Office - "...support and defend the Constitution..."
§ 3331. Oath of office
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:
''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.''
2nd Amendment
member
Ten years ago. Those were MY days. The guys taking that survey graduated within a few years of the time I did. Most knew nothing about Zero Tolerance or not taking their Buck 110 to class or not having rifles in the gun rack of the Old Man's truck. They didn't yet know what Clinton would do to the military or what leftism would do to so much of society in such a short period of time. We've taken leaps and bounds on the road to hell since 1994.
Put that questionaire out today and see if the results look as good for us as they did then...
Put that questionaire out today and see if the results look as good for us as they did then...
cropcirclewalker
member
I read all but about the last 10 postings so if somebody else said it, sorry......
somebody said,
By the time they got to Jefferson City (state capitol) the legislature had escaped to Arkansas where they voted to secede.
Yes, it has already happened.
somebody said,
Summer of 1861. The Missouri Legislature adopted a position of "Armed Neutrality" They instructed both the Union and the Confederacy to stay the heck outa Missouri.
Consequentially and I suppose naturally, the Union Army invaded Missouri. They confiscated privately owned firearms all along the Missouri River, starting in The Lou and working their way across the state.
By the time they got to Jefferson City (state capitol) the legislature had escaped to Arkansas where they voted to secede.
Yes, it has already happened.
longtooth
Member
Betweener
I am not military but my dad a II & Korean combat vet, Son a career guy about to retire & has one tour over there. Concerning the 2nd question. I have told him & many other young military people as well as LE that there will come a day that they wll have to decide whether they will obey orders & confiscate using any force necessary or defend the constitution against domestic enemies. That is their oath. Defend the constitution against ALL enemies foreign or domestic. LE has one option the military does not. They can turn in their shield. Military that choses to defend the constitution will by then probably be tried for treason. Really hope I do not see it. They that love liberty more than life die only once. They that fear death more than oppression die every time they close their eyes. Me.
I am not military but my dad a II & Korean combat vet, Son a career guy about to retire & has one tour over there. Concerning the 2nd question. I have told him & many other young military people as well as LE that there will come a day that they wll have to decide whether they will obey orders & confiscate using any force necessary or defend the constitution against domestic enemies. That is their oath. Defend the constitution against ALL enemies foreign or domestic.
LE has one option the military does not. They can turn in their shield. Military that choses to defend the constitution will by then probably be tried for treason. Really hope I do not see it. They that love liberty more than life die only once. They that fear death more than oppression die every time they close their eyes. Me.Randy in Arizona
Member
But Sir, you forget that Der Slickmeister was a legend in his own mind!
After all, how long did he tie up LAX while he got a haircut?
I once had the pleasure of being on one of the southbound lanes of a freeway Willie was northbound upon. I rendered a suitable gesture of respect* to the limos in the motorcade as they passed.
This may have been among the reasons that tighter security was evident later in his administration.
* Junior Peaceman Salute (It was beyond my abilities to both drive the old pickup and moon someone at the same time! And Willie didn't deserve that much effort.)
Sam
Member
molon labe,
That oath is for Officers. Us enlisted folk have one just a leetle bit different:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
The change replaced the words Law of War with UCMJ
Every enlisted person is required to be educated on the subject of what is and is not a lawful order. There are certain elements to the lawfulness of the order that must be met:
Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 916(d) states that superior orders are a defense "unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful." US Army Field Manual (FM) 27-10, Law of Land Warfare, contains similar language. In other words, unless soldiers know an order is illegal or should know it is illegal, they may safely follow it. Indeed, R.C.M. 916(d) specifically states that unless the accused knew or should have known of the order's illegality, "[a]n act performed pursuant to an unlawful order is excused."
Thats why when Capt. Medina tell Lt Calley to "ice the gooks" and the dumb@$$ does it, we court martial him.
Sam
That oath is for Officers. Us enlisted folk have one just a leetle bit different:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
The change replaced the words Law of War with UCMJ
Every enlisted person is required to be educated on the subject of what is and is not a lawful order. There are certain elements to the lawfulness of the order that must be met:
Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 916(d) states that superior orders are a defense "unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful." US Army Field Manual (FM) 27-10, Law of Land Warfare, contains similar language. In other words, unless soldiers know an order is illegal or should know it is illegal, they may safely follow it. Indeed, R.C.M. 916(d) specifically states that unless the accused knew or should have known of the order's illegality, "[a]n act performed pursuant to an unlawful order is excused."
Thats why when Capt. Medina tell Lt Calley to "ice the gooks" and the dumb@$$ does it, we court martial him.
Sam
B
Boss Spearman
Guest
It's frightening to me to hear military guys say they would uphold the violation of the US Constitution, which is what an order banning certain types of weapons would be, IMO.
Igloodude
Member
I was in the Navy as a surface line officer for eight years. Notwithstanding that I can't imagine how I'd end up guarding a US interstate or enforcing seizures of guns, my answers to the two scenarios are:
1. If I'd been satisfied that issues regarding Posse Comitatus and the like had been resolved, yes, I'd order my men to fire on cars that ignore stop signs and signals, ideally shooting to disable the car rather than kill the occupants but understanding that there's not much difference between the two.
2. Nope. Guarding a post where the presumption is that anyone ignoring warning signs is either criminally stupid or an enemy is one thing, directly violating the US constitution is quite another. Individual circumstances would dictate how I avoid or refuse the order, but there's no way I'd be following it.
1. If I'd been satisfied that issues regarding Posse Comitatus and the like had been resolved, yes, I'd order my men to fire on cars that ignore stop signs and signals, ideally shooting to disable the car rather than kill the occupants but understanding that there's not much difference between the two.
2. Nope. Guarding a post where the presumption is that anyone ignoring warning signs is either criminally stupid or an enemy is one thing, directly violating the US constitution is quite another. Individual circumstances would dictate how I avoid or refuse the order, but there's no way I'd be following it.
HankB
Member
In time of emergency - invasion, massive terrorist attack, biowar quarantine - I can see using the U.S. military to shut down interstates. And I believe in such a case, the soldiers would shoot . . . provided they had some indication of WHY they were there. I hope U.S. troops wouldn't open fire on U.S. civilians just because they were told to.
In the second [tinfoil hat] situation - using U.S. troops to do a nationwide house-to-house sweep for gun owners or anyone else - this would lead to such MASSIVE problems that the U.S. could cease to exist as a nation. Consider - American soldiers also have American families. If U.S. soldiers started invading U.S. households and harming Americans and their families, how long would it be until someone started targeting military families in retaliation? I mean, there's a bond between the US military and the US public . . . even people with no military service know someone - a parent, an uncle, a spouse - who served honorably. Break that bond by misusing the military against other Americans, and things would go into a downward spiral rather quickly.
In the second [tinfoil hat] situation - using U.S. troops to do a nationwide house-to-house sweep for gun owners or anyone else - this would lead to such MASSIVE problems that the U.S. could cease to exist as a nation. Consider - American soldiers also have American families. If U.S. soldiers started invading U.S. households and harming Americans and their families, how long would it be until someone started targeting military families in retaliation? I mean, there's a bond between the US military and the US public . . . even people with no military service know someone - a parent, an uncle, a spouse - who served honorably. Break that bond by misusing the military against other Americans, and things would go into a downward spiral rather quickly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked