2 of 22

No

Write now Article Tools

No. Hell no.

There's no way that we can be at all certain that this would have any impact on our security. Nations and organizations don't attack the United States of America, the world's most powerful country, with conventional warfare.

Let's repeat. Nations and organizations don't attack the United States of America, the world's most powerful country, with conventional warfare. Why should they? They would lose. The United States, even with many forces deployed abroad, still has the best armed forces around. If someone comes into the U.S. with small arms, we wouldn't even need the army. LAPD SWAT is better armed and trained than most foreign militaries and terrorist organizations. Conventional weaponry poses no threat to us in conventional conflicts.

Ah, but. The clever ones out there, who follow the trendier sort of international affairs analysts, will claim that one-off terrorist attacks with no intent of sustained battle are the greatest threat to us. You're letting them get away with another 9/11! will be the cry.

Nope. Sorry. Airport security, and security in general, sucks. But even the dumbest minimum wage rentacop can tell when you're carrying a damn AK onto the plane. There's two terrorist methodologies that should be feared in these types of attacks. People armed with concealable or improvised weapons. That's why you can't carry box cutters or nail clippers on planes. Concealed explosives, suicide bombers, or weapons of mass destruction are also problems. But conventional armaments? Hah.

Learn more about this author, Alan Smith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should the US spend taxpayer money to reduce conventional arms caches worldwide??
We want to hear your view. Write now!