Japan did not invade the US---in fact, there were strong military reservations about victory itself because of America's industrial capacity---because it didn't have the resources to do so.
As for the Zero fighter, no American fighter could come near it in any conditions until introduction of the Grumann F6F Hellcat in 1943---not even the contemporary Spitfire, Hurricane, Messerschmidt 109. One-on-one, fixed undercarriage and only 1,000hp notwithstanding, to tangle with a Zero was suicide, according to US military analysts and historians.
As for the Hunter Defence Force notion, it's not a bad one: warfare of today proves the limits of our surpassing military power in North Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan. Canada couldn't control the streets of Kandahar after 10 years in Afghanistan; read Sebastian Junger's best-selling "War" to discover 10 years of US Army's ineffectiveness in the Korengal Valley. That's why our countries are leaving.
Citizens everywhere dislike being occupied by foreign countries, and have simple and cost-effective ways of defeating them. Nineteen Muslims scared the world half to death and changed it forever on 9/11. It was intended solely as a provocation and we got the message. America didn't invade beaten Japan because the casualties would have been prohibitive. Why would America be different?
Gun control within this context is least of our problems. The greatest danger to US sovereignty is its currently dysfunctional political system which is weakening its armed forces and indirectly paying the full shot of China's growing military capacity. Canada's current military debate is a complete make-over to give more autonomy to front-line troops. Our command and support "tail" has grown four times as fast as deployment of our fighting men and women.
|
Threaded Mode