Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks
The U.S. Government has a huge nuclear arsenal and thousands of tanks at its disposal.
|
None of which is even remotely relevant. The US is not going to use nuclear weapons on its on soil.
Whether the US has zero tanks or 1 Million tanks isn't relevant, either.
The only people who mention tanks are those who know nothing about tanks.
Tanks are of no value in a civil war, except for the "intimidation factor."
For those who never served and those who have no contact with the military and whose only source of info is Hollywood films, I can see why they might be intimidated by a tank.
But, for those of us who know, tanks are no big deal.
There are 100s of 1,000s of miles of roads in the US that tanks cannot travel upon.
Those roads weren't built for tanks and tanks will tear them up. Trailing tanks might follow, and so might Bradleys, but not wheeled vehicles. Wheeled vehicles will have to double-back and find a different route.
There are 100s of 1,000s of bridges in the US that tanks and IFVs cannot travel upon, either.
The weight of the tank is too great and the bridge will buckle or out-right collapse. So, now you have a dead or injured tank crew, a damaged or destroyed tank, and you have to wait around for hours waiting for the engineers to come up and find a way to bridge the area, assuming that's even possible.
Something else about tracked vehicles: they cannot traverse slopes greater than 35°.
If you've ever traveled in Germany, you might have noticed autobahns are elevated above the surrounding terrain by 3 meters to 6 meters.
That's by design, not accident.
Who on this forum would like to know why?
Because Hitler wanted them built that way as defensive barriers.
Since the slopes are 35°, no country's tracked vehicles like tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled howitzers, air defense platforms and engineering equipment can't traverse them.
That means you have to bring up the engineers and waste time blasting a hole through the berm,
which is the whole freaking point.
Or, you have to waste valuable time trying to find a way around it,
which is also the whole freaking point.
It's shocking really how little you all know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
You can buy a fleet of tanks.
|
And who would crew them?
Do you understand that tanks require infantry support?
Obviously not.
Where are you going to find the 100s of people to operate your support services?
Tanks get stuck. That's what they do. During Desert Storm, lots of tanks got stuck and that was mostly flat open terrain.
Are you going to recover the tank, or just leave it for capture?
When you run out of ammo, whose going to be carrying it for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Nukes are a different animal, much like chemical weapons due to their natute of being dangerous for lack of constant care.
|
Nukes are irrelevant and only ignorant people bring them up to side-track the issue.
Fissile materials are strictly regulated and governed by all countries for many different reasons including adherence and compliance to certain international treaties and covenants.
I can see where uninformed people wouldn't be aware of that.
No country is going to allow nuclear weapons to be produced for consumer consumption.
Again, only disingenuous people mention nukes when they get beaten and try to side-track the debate.
Even if States did let people buy nuclear weapons, as with a great many things, they would require compliance to regulations.
Before you bought your nuke, you'd have to build an ABREST -- Atomic Blast-Resistant Earth-covered Structure.
That's 20' x 10' x 40' at a minimum with 3' thick reinforced concrete covered with 3 meters of earth.
And then at least one 10-ton blast door, but not any blast-door, a blast-door with weighted vents tethered with lead (Pb).
Why lead?
Um, because lead melts at low temperatures, so if there was a fire in your ABREST the lead tether would start to melt and the weights would help break the tether allowing the vents to close to cut off the air supply that would feed the fire.
Good luck getting a bank to loan you the money for that.
But, none of that matters, because you'd never get a bank to loan you the money to buy the permissive action link system which costs a helluva lot more than your house costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
The 2nd clearly states that I can be armed, even with a tank.
|
No, it does not.
The operand is "
bear arms."
If you cannot carry it -- which is what "bear" means -- then you cannot have it.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(If indeed the government is planning confiscation or ban, media wouldnt breathe about it) .