Ahem.
It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war. In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender. However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes. This carries on even to today. Japan does not have an army, navy or air force. Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force. So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.
Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.
Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components. These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training. Sounds like your definition of a militia to me. Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?
If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.
Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example. He also specifically defined a militia. I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition. Please, keep up with the conversation. I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
I fail to see how you have established a lack of necessity. Militias have always been around, and continue to exist virtually everywhere even today. The fact that they still exist speaks for their necessity. But, let us examine your perception of reservists. I can assure you that reservists have participated in every major US conflict that I can think of. You are absolutely wrong in your statement that they rarely participate in military operations. I was in the USMC reserves, and I know which recent military operations my old unit participated in. It sounds to me that you started with Petitio Principii, moved to Dicto Simpliciter when you got called out, and are now trying to back out using Non Sequitur arguments. How many more fallacies are you and your cohorts going to try to pass off as valid debate tactics?
Existence doesn't imply/infer/prove necessity by a long shot.
It may prove potential usage, but necessity is a very specific term.
In this sense, x being necessary to the security of a state means that without x, a state isn't secure.
Ergo, if x is not present, then a state isn't secure.
So, Mr. Roach, allow me to present a list of countries without both reserve military forces, or paramilitary forces.
i.e. all countries without civilian involvement in state defence.
By your logic, all these countries shouldn't be secure.
Bahamas
Bosnia
Cape Verde
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Kosovo
Mozambique
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
South Sudan
Suriname
Timor
Turkmenistan
Trinidad and Tobago
United Arab Emirates
A lot of these countries are doing pretty bad, true.
But if the founding fathers were correct, then
all of these countries shouldn't be secure.
And yes, reservists have participated in military conflicts. I concede that.
But it is a far cry to say that participation equals necessity.
If all reserve forces were taken out of the equation, and the only military available was professional soldiers, are you saying that the nation would fall?
Bear in mind that if the Founding Fathers were correct, this rule needs to apply to all free states, past and present.
Poll