Random Question

[matt_rah]

I saw or read something the other day about how much trouble the U.S. is in if anyone were to, oh, say, attack us. Because our military is coming apart at the seams and so many of them are overseas and have PTSD when they get back and so on and so forth. So, here's what I'm wondering: does Posse Comitatus cut both ways? That is, if the Chinese (

Comments

[evilmagnus]

In the unlikely event of an invasion of the mainland (setting aside, for the moment, that no country has the landing crafts necessary), the National Guard and Reservists will provide enough raw infantry for a ground war.

We won't have all the fancy-schmancy Strikers and Bradleys, but there's no real shortage of military-trained people who can be called up and given a gun. You can do a heck of a lot with that, c.f. Soviet Union, circa 1941-45. ;)

Now, if North Korea rolled into South Korea, things would get very interesting. Or if China managed to pull off an invasion of Taiwan. The US would still win those conflicts, but we'd be back to Korean War / Vietnam War levels of casualties.

On a more theoretical level, I'm pretty sure that governors can do all kinds of funky stuff to raise local forces.

[marcus_sez_vote]

There's also using selective service to draft a whole lot of people real quick. Invasion of the United States would be kind of berserk. The supply logistics would be really rough.

Be well.

[tedshubris]

But what about CANADA?! They could invade at any moment!

[redcrosse]

Does this law only apply to Dixieland, as wikipedia seems to suggest? If so, and China invaded, and the police were lawfully assigned to defend the northern states but rule of law was upheld to let the southern states fall, the Glorious People's Republic of Dixieland would be pretty sweet. Just sayin'.

[matt_rah]

I don't think so--I think it applies everywhere. But my point was, I don't know that it *is* illegal to assign the police to defend stuff; the Act says that it's illegal to have the military act in a law enforcement role; AFAIK it doesn't say anything about the other way 'round.

Matt

[redcrosse]

If you look at the page, though, it seems to indicate that the law was originally only relevant in former Confederate states, as it was framed during the Reconstruction. And yeah, I get that it doesn't address your question at all. But if it doesn't work vice-versa, then my dream of Glorious People's Republic of Dixieland is still further from plausibility, and I cannot allow that to come to pass.

[kitsuchan]

According to my reading of that act, no, I don't think there is any constraint on using the police as a military force. That act does one thing, and that is prevent military forces from being used as law enforcement.

However, I can see several problems with using the police as a military organization. Police training isn't, nor should it be, military. Even SWAT teams aren't really geared for homeland defense, they're geared for stakeouts and kicking down doors and shooting little old ladies. Presumably if we were in a sudden situation where homeland defense was necessary, we would be looking to our veterans and reservists and anyone who's ever had actual military training for leadership. Some police officers might get drafted, but you probably wouldn't want to pull all of your law enforcement out of a city during wartime unless you're evacuating the city.

Besides, treating the police as a military organization is just creepy.

[ornithoptercat]

Somehow I think it would be kind of a moot point. I mean, really, we have so many non-governmental guns it's not even funny. Just try and take West Philly or anywhere in Texas with ground troops.