Armed — means nepobezhden!

"Since the well-organized militia is necessary for the existence of a free country, the right of the people to keep and bear gun shall not be infringed."

Let us take the hypothetical base model, as are the people who invented chess. I apologize for the arrogance.
Imagine two countries bordering together. Population 1st — 1,000,000 people, the other — less than 500,000 people. As a result, many components of both countries are on the brink of war. And the more the government is preparing anger against the least.

And here comes the moment of truth

In more countries — Prof. army of 80,000 people. Excellent Learnt and armed. Other citizens delegate the right to defend themselves, are not engaged in this issue and not armed, because they do not have it. Well, by law they are not supposed to have a gun.

Now for a small state. His army also prof, but with 40,000 professionals in the army called up for six months, all the men who have reached the right age, as well as the volunteer girls in their will. In addition, boys and girls from the age of 13 undergo an initial military training in schools. And in the end such devices society mobilization effect of virtually the entire population, not counting the kids.

At the technical level, and equal to the comparable arms total anger more countries to the least results in greater destruction of the country the least. Because the "big" army faces resistance fighter is not 40,000, and almost half a million army. And it would seem more puzzles army has more. She did not have to deal with precisely defined locations of the army, "the least" but with widespread resistance, where farm or village, house or hut, or a quarter of the town is the reference Fri defense! As a result of loss are immeasurable and begins retreat, developing into flight. When the "smallest" Army embarks on a larger area of the country in pursuit of the enemy, then it no resistance, or it is small, because population Not prepared and not armed.


This is a very lightweight model as clearly indicates that in countries where the population is not at one with the state, where government refers to his own people as his own foe, not giving him the right to defend itself, and in the event of war, and their state (because, by definition, the people can be public, but it is not in the country), the loss in the war against the aggressor itself was defined.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: