Before Modern Police Forces. America in 1922.

[macbeth25]

Stephen, we can also be invaded across the Bering Strait through Alaska and down through Canada or up from South and Central America through Mexico.  Yes, I'm citing another movie --- Red Dawn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn.  I'll bet you're getting tired of movie citations but think about this -- A lot of research goes into such things and into the kind of books I like to read, both science fiction and others.  Remember, practically everything which man has made was once science fiction.  As an example, you probably knew that geosynchronous communications satellites were first conceived by Arthur C. Clarke and the orbit where these satellites are located is called the Clarke Orbit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit 

[Ocklawaha]

I think the drug lord take over of Colombia a few years back speaks volumes on a professional Army verses a Militia. Until the Republic brought in American, British and Israeli forces to train them into professionals, they could not make any progress even with military hardware. Without a ready professional force, Colombia would sink right back into the cesspool that it just climbed out of.

A lesson from the War of Yankee Aggression is valid too. Lincoln called on 75,000 volunteers to greatly enlarge the armed forces. The Confederacy likewise called for volunteers in order to create it's armys. Very few professional soldiers on either side and a death toll that still squashes any other war Americans have fought. A full 8% of all white males in the North and a huge 18% of all white males in the South were killed. Grant lost 9,000 men at Cold Harbor within 20 minutes. Why? Because nobody knew what the hell they were doing.

Another note: Within the "Army" are many Army's. There is no such thing as an Army that incorporates all soldiers at one place and time. This is why you have divisions, regiments, platoons, company's, squads, etc... Combine such and such division and you might have the 1St Army, over in another location, a totally different combination of divisions or regiments might make up the 2Nd Army, and so it goes.

OCKLAWAHA

[macbeth25]

Regarding armies -- there being a number of them.  They are directed by the President through the Secretary of Defense, the various service secretaries, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of the various services among others.  When necessary one person may be promoted to five stars (general of the army, etc.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_star_rank and there are other citations.  Pershing in WWI actually had the rank of general of the armies.  My point is a number of different military units representing air, ground and/or naval forces may be consolidated and their actions directed by one commander as MacArthur or Eisenhower did in World War II. For all practical purposes, MacArthur had his own air force and navy along with his army units.  General Kenney commanded the aircraft and I'm not sure who the naval commander was but he (MacArthur) sometimes clashed with Admiral Nimitz on what the Navy should do. 

[Ocklawaha]

Exactly Ock..   Thanks for the input. 

What do you think of the old militia system?

Macbeth, I loved Red Dawn.

One of my favorite movies of the era.

It depended on the Cubans being the South American leaders.

Red Dawn was a cool movie, the idea that a professional Soviet Army would be crushed by a bunch of kids was very Afghanistan. Actually the concept for the film came out of Yamamoto's quote speaking to the Japanese leadership. "We cannot invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass..."

The Swiss system would make a great compliment to our current armed forces, however it should be exposed that their system does make for professional soldiers. The EVERY able bodied male thing goes further then just paper, they are required to attend drills, exercises, and keep their weapons at the ready.

OCKLAWAHA

[macbeth25]

Good Point.  I truly believe that we continue to be a free nation because of our right to bear arms and the simple fact that Admiral Yamamoto was quite correct.  There would be a gun behind every blade of grass -- and, for that matter, just think what some of our archer hunters could do with those long range bows and a little ingenuity.  As far as teenagers taking on an army -- In Red Dawn, they didn't take on the whole army -- they applied the same tactics as Americans have always applied against superior forces and as the Viet Cong did against us.  There is no reason to suppose that, unless the opposition wanted to destroy everything -- something quite pointless, teenagers couldn't make quite an impression on an enemy force.  After all, the Japanese in WWII were so afraid of the Negritos (literally little negroes or black pygmies) http://www.everyculture.com/East-Southeast-Asia/Philippine-Negritos.html that they would never go into the jungles in small parties.  Negritos were quite instrumental in rescuing American soldiers from the Bataan death march.  They had blow guns, bows and arrows but you sure didn't want to get one mad at you.  You might have a highpowered rifle, but it did little good if you couldn't even see your target -- and he could hit you from quite a distance away.

[gmpalmer]

I'd like to go back to Stephen's original attempt at a discussion:

1 -- Should the standing army be disbanded?

Well -- depends on if you want another 2 million or so unemployed folks.  I think a better use of the standing army would be to bring them home from abroad (including our lovely little twin jingos in Asia) and set them at infrastructure work (just like the Romans used to do).  Anyone with military experience knows that the military pattern is for one guy to mow the barracks yard while 8 guys watch him (there being only one mower, natch).  So let's give them some nice domestic tools and put them to work.  Hell, with 2 million soldiers and less than 200 million yards in the country the military could provide free lawncare for everyone!

2 -- should the police force be disbanded -- yes, but only if laws are changed to reflect this.  About 2 years ago we had a crack/meth house for a neighbor.  Had this been the late 1800s, I (and other neighbors) would have kindly but forcefully suggested to the drug proprietor that he move his business elsewhere.  Had he not been interested in doing so, we would have done more than suggest.  However, current law prevented us from such behavior -- including even going to his porch to talk things over, as both front and back were blocked by fences and gates.  Instead, we had to rely on JSO -- who was then dependent on the US Marshalls' office (because they had a "more important" warrant ) and couldn't even act when they wanted to (and had all their evidence ducks in a row).  Result -- we were saddled with a crack house for about 12 months or so longer than we needed to be.

3 -- speeding laws -- speeding laws are part of the problem that kills people, along with seatbelts, etc etc -- when people expect a certain level of safety they relax their awareness accordingly.

4 -- drug laws -- look at portugal

[sheclown]

When I visited Montana a few years ago (okay more than a decade), the speed limit sign said "whatever is wise and prudent" or something to that effect. 

I was thinking, at the time, it would be wise and prudent to have a limit.

[BridgeTroll]

Dogwalkers analysis of the need for a standing Army during the 50's 60's 70's and early 80's is spot on.  I submit that though the threat may be different the need for the armed forces is is as clear now as it was then.  Daily news reports of the mayhem North Korea would do to South Korea and Japan are rampant.  Like it or not most of the worlds oil passes through some of the most politically unstable areas of the world (middle east and Indonesia).  China has its eyes on Taiwan and the south china seas.  Pakistan and Iran are powderkegs awaiting a match.

Whether a foe wants to invade "fortress America" or not really is not the issue.  The people and economies of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are very important to the economic well being of the USA.  The same holds true for the worlds economies who depend on the free flow of oil from the middle east.  Defending our interests overseas is just as important as defending the beaches.

Long gone are the days of "Calling up an Army".  Recruits are no longer given 30 days to learn to march, given a weapon and pointed in the direction of the enemy.  Training takes months and even years before soldier or sailor actually takes the field.  In my case... for example... I was trained for over a year before I saw my first active duty squadron.  A professional, well trained, well paid, standing Army is essential to the welfare of this country.

[macbeth25]

Remember that series, Jericho, I mentioned earlier?  Orson Scott Card also wrote a very interesting novel called Empire in which the United States undergoes a second "civil war" pitting "Red" against "Blue" states rather than a war between races.  Colors are taken from the presidential or other political races.  I've read several comments on the Internet from a number of people who seem to think that some sort of "revolution" or "civil war" may well be just down the road. My point: invasion may not be the only thing we have to worry about. Not only that, and I'm not joking here, but there is also always the possibility that War of the Worlds or Independence Day might turn out to be real.  Now that's a discussion I'd like to see.  I always liked the original The Day the Earth Stood Still.

[NotNow]

Ummm....OK.  I suppose that I have gotten "belligerent" again somehow.  Does that mean when you call my points "dumb" and state that I have made an "ass" out of myself that I am being belligerent?  This is the point where my friends here tell me to just not respond to you because StephenDare! just likes to "stir things up".  I honestly don't understand how insulting people is called "stir things up".  If you disagree with my arguments, then factual replies are "what civil people" do.  

Your definitions have confused several of us.  For instance, "standing army":

Main Entry: standing army
Function: noun
Date: 1603
: a permanent army of paid soldiers

This is the correct definition from Websters.  Also, the term "law enforcement" refers to all forms, so that when one is talking about different jurisdictions one does not have to use different terminology.  See the definition:

Noun
Singular
law enforcement
 Plural
uncountable


law enforcement (uncountable)

The various government agencies involved in the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals.

[edit] Usage notes
The term normally excludes any private organizations such as private detectives or security guards.

[edit] See also
police
sheriff
FBI
Interpol
Scotland Yard

I will repeat the fact that the United States has maintained a standing Army since the inception of the Continental Army in 1775.  The United States Army will be happy to confirm this if needed.  While the size of the armed forces is a political as well as a tactical matter, I will restate my reasoning for the maintenance of a larger force now than prior to WW2 or WW1.  To maintain a CREDIBLE modern fighting force, proper recruiting, education, equiping, training and exercising MUST be accomplished PRIOR to the engagement.  To state it simply, you cannot train a modern artilleryman or armor commander in two, three  or even 12 months. See the first Gulf War as an example of a modern fighting force used against an old style conscription army.  In addition, troop and weapon movement are much faster now than in the past.  The concept of blitzkreig, or "lightening war", enlightened modern warfighters that the advantage of terrain and distance was greatly reduced by the introduction of mechanized warfare.  Never before had Europes powers been over run with such speed and effectivness.  Only the Russians, who had time to prepare and an American benefactor of equipment stopped the well trained, professional German Army.  Now, I realize that I am very limited in conversation but I hope that answers the question of why do we maintain a large Army?

As for the question of Police forces, I would again point out the fact that no other civilized city in the world does its policing with private forces.  Probably the closest example are the muslim enforcement squads in parts of the middle east.  There is probably a reason for this, don't you think?  Now, in the United States local police take the form of municipal police departments, sheriff's offices, county police forces, city marshalls, constables, and even state police serve in this function in some places.  The term "law enforcement" is widely used to refer to these forces.  Ever heard the term "one riot, one ranger!"?  That wasn't the militia, it was a Texas Ranger.  Law enforcement has commonly handled large disputes and riots.  There have been many instances where militia or what is now known as the National Guard (and even US Military) have responded to such instances, but larger cities have most ofter had the forces to deal with such incidents.  Of course, in our modern society, law enforcement is much more likely to handle these incidents.  

I won't scold StephenDare! as to his claims of knowledge of military history or the organization of the armed forces.  His command of military affairs and most recently, his condemnation of "municipal police forces" is well known by everyone here.  I would ask politely, however, that he cease with the personal attacks before he actually hurts someones feelings.  

Oh, by the way, I am wrong quite a bit, but not as often as my wife claims, and certainly not all the time as StephenDare! claims.   Almost three decades of military experience and over two decades of police experience, plus a B.S. (from a real college!).   I'm pretty thick, but a few little facts seep in now and then.  How about you BT?

[BridgeTroll]

I'm pretty thick, but a few little facts seep in now and then.  How about you BT?

Me too... though I am at a loss as to why Stephen seems perturbed at my questions and answers.  My intent was not to be confrontational but to determine the direction of Stephens queries.  I have answered as completely and as truthfully as I know how.  I am even willing to concede (for the purposes of discussion only) the minor and irrelevent differences between a Standing and Regular army.  If the discussion is about the geo-political realities of needing a modern, well trained and paid armed forces then I am ready to go baby!!

[NotNow]

Maybe it is my inferior intellect, but I don't seem to see a point in your last post.  What "point" is it that you think I have lost?  I didn't start the thread, but I can see "Re: Before Modern Police Forces. America in 1922." above each post.  Isn't that the title of the thread?  If we are limiting the conversation  to that, then why did you bring up standing armies or nuclear weapons?  Please enlighten the rest of us.  

[NotNow]

I am afraid that the definition of "standing army" does not correlate to what StephenDare! says it does.  I would concede it too if I thought it would save us the three pages of sidestepping and fifteen letter words. 

[NotNow]

StephenDare!, seriously, without insults and such, can you see the arguments about the size of the military?  How about the use of professional Police " or as I like to call 'em" law enforcement forces?

[jaxnative]

Dogwalkers analysis of the need for a standing Army during the 50's 60's 70's and early 80's is spot on.  I submit that though the threat may be different the need for the armed forces is is as clear now as it was then.  Daily news reports of the mayhem North Korea would do to South Korea and Japan are rampant.  Like it or not most of the worlds oil passes through some of the most politically unstable areas of the world (middle east and Indonesia).  China has its eyes on Taiwan and the south china seas.  Pakistan and Iran are powderkegs awaiting a match.

Whether a foe wants to invade "fortress America" or not really is not the issue.  The people and economies of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are very important to the economic well being of the USA.  The same holds true for the worlds economies who depend on the free flow of oil from the middle east.  Defending our interests overseas is just as important as defending the beaches.

Long gone are the days of "Calling up an Army".  Recruits are no longer given 30 days to learn to march, given a weapon and pointed in the direction of the enemy.  Training takes months and even years before soldier or sailor actually takes the field.  In my case... for example... I was trained for over a year before I saw my first active duty squadron.  A professional, well trained, well paid, standing Army is essential to the welfare of this country.

Thank you BT, the best comments so far regarding the armed forces.  Whether one likes it or not, the United States of America is the pivot point for world trade and security.  Starting in the 1500's Europe had that role until they lost it in the 19th and 20th centuries.  The Europeans, especially the British, controlled the  Atlantic trading routes until WW2.  During that period, any power or state who tried to interfere with that trade or attempted to become powerful enough to interfere understood that they would be challenged.  Today the US is the sole superpower and for the first time in history controls both the Atlantic and Pacific trade routes.  This has become even more critical as the majority of trade has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific routes with raw energy supplies being critical to the world economy.

In this view, the US military has become much more than a force waiting to react to an aggresive act by an enemy.  The goal of the US forces in many instances will be to prevent the emergence of any power, preferabley without lethal force, who can threaten the flow of free world trade and/or threaten the interests of the US.  A small professional army waiting at home monitoring hotspots around the world will not be able to react to situations in a timely and effective manor.

The size of the US armed forces rank 3rd in the world with our army ranking 6th and getting smaller.  The world economy, the emergence of China, a recovering and growling Russia, Islamist-Jihadist threat, and the ever present possibility of the irrational actions of rogue nations, will prevent the return of a small, professional military in the foreseeable future.