Depends on how loud the Drum was

Foreign invasion is always a constant threat regardless of the nation

Having the large amount of firearms poses a final problem for any theoretical invasion of the US

Ironically the US cant solve the problem which would be its greatest asset in a defensive war on its home soil

You say that like the numbers of firearms are the problem though.
It seems to stem more from society then the number of firearms.

yep. it's cultural and behavioral

The threat of invasion by the state is a bigger threat than invasion by a foreign nation.

yep

The Issue I was referring to was a prolonged insurgency

rather than prolific gun violence

Outright invasion isn't a threat in the current climate, a slow invasion and then continual terrorist style insurgent attacks are more of a concern and more likely to effect regular citizens, which is exaclty what we should try to avoid.

Tightening borders helps prevent these risks.

Hmm

u know it is too late for that cus it allready happend? they learned their lesons in WW1 and WW2 to take it slowly

Actually, industrial war is exactly why an outright invasion is unlikely since it'll justify escalation which can have globally apocalyptic consequences

Instead, a belligerent nation will fund and support a proxy terrorist group that they expect to become rogue (or pretend they didn't to their superiors)

Speaking of WWII America, do you think we have the capability (as a nation) to mobilize at the scale we could back in that time?

Hell no. Not with the globalist sentiments ATM.

of course no. there are a lot of countries that cant do that because they were slowly invaded and made that they cant defend

Yes, but there is no need that is just not how wars are fought anymore, the next one will probably be the last one

probs

with infinite resistance force

The next large scale industrial war will at least involve limited nuclear exchanges over important strategic targets. And at worst a full exchange.

Nuclear warfare is just another part of the UN's plan for "sustainable development"

Gotta get the world population as close to zero as possible, for the good of the people.

Global warming is bad because it will increase agricultural yeilds.

that's a bit to conspiracy theory for me

more people means more mindless NPCs to enslave

well yeah cus there are not enough souls so the world is creating NPC #nofreethinking

Modern war is so destructive that it would be over long before any of the belligerents have the time to tool up for mass production of modern weapon systems.

You pretty much have to fight with what you have on hand at the onset of hostilities.

Unless the belligerents doesn't have nukes, in which case, it would go on for over a decade

For example, if the US had to suddenly produce multiple F35s a day instead of one or two a week at present production, that would mean lots and lots of factories and specialized tooling.

Your enemy would be able to see you building those facilities, and strike them.

Depends on how early nuclear exchanges go

How many years has it been since the US invaded iraq?

I'm thinking of a peer-to-peer scenario here, not beating up on brown folk.

Also depends on how far anti ballistic tech has gotten.
I am 99% certain we don't know the capabilities to stop a nuclear strike

Beating up on brown folks that are still talked about to this day as a modern boogeyman akin to communism during the cold war.

I wonder if a nuclear shaped charge could be used to intercept missiles.

Well, even if you can intercept the missile, it would have to be far enough from the intended target to not cause major EMP damage which would cripple the country.