Poll: Would military personnel deploy nuclear weapons?

By now, I hope you are aware of threats by California Democrat Rep. Swalwell to use nuclear weapons to enforce gun control laws (newsletter subscribers will get an early look at a detail column on the subject; others will wait until Tuesday).

He’s trying to walk back the threat as sarcasm (it wasn’t) or hyperbole to demonstrate that the government has gun owners out-gunned.

Nonetheless, he is working on the assumption that military personnel will be willing to — illegally — exercise overwhelming military force, including Weapons of Mass Destruction, against American civilians to enforce gun control laws.

A couple of decades ago, military personnel were surveyed on a similar issue; the infamous Twenty-Nine Palms Combat Arms Survey. The results were very disturbing.

Swalwell has now upped the ante by suggesting that military personnel would go so far as to conduct nuclear weapon strikes against Americans for the sake of gun control.

I would like to limit this poll to current military personnel and veterans. I suggest reviewing the Posse Comitatus Act before taking the poll.

Please share this poll, to reach as many people as possible. If limited to regular TZP readers, I expect I’ll see a strong bias in responses.

The Question: “The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms (“assault weapons”). A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

12 thoughts on “Poll: Would military personnel deploy nuclear weapons?”

  1. I am not a veteran and so I did not reply. However, from what my son tells me, as a Navy 2nd class Petty Officer, we are most likely safe from attack by the military.
    In an informal survey of his ship mates, around 500 of them, he says that an overwhelming number of them, even the women, would refuse an illegal order such as this one, and would not turn weapons upon the nation for defending our 2nd amendment rights.
    I didn’t ask him about other issues, such as would they use force to quell a huge riot at the White House, or some such thing. But I suspect that they would get involved in something like that. But to intervene in a struggle for our rights, I think it is probably a big no, coming from the military.
    And also in speaking with him, our nation is in good hands, with the youth who have enlisted in the military. While it sounds great for the media and the Democrats, but I repeat myself, sounds great for them to put down the military, as being mindless drones, my take on them is that they are among the best that our country has to offer, even in this crazy time. And they are every bit as competent and brave as those from what we call the greatest generation.
    Not to take anything from those of the WWII era, as they truly were our nation’s greatest generation, the current one is not too shabby, either.

  2. To me, this ranks right up there with those who bite a child to teach him not to bite or hit a child to teach him not to hit. It was an non-thinking comment, and I will trust myself to the military first and the California congressman last. My husband and I talked about this many times, and we agreed we would not accept that order. I’m glad the military members are thinking about it beforehand.

  3. I have been retired for longer than I was on active duty, but my Oath of Office is STILL IN EFFECT! I feel that there are may other old farts out there that feel the same way. The congresscritter seemed to forget that to use nukes, he has to have the support of the military.

  4. Since we know where Swalwell lives, I’d say that if this country moved in that direction, he would get a bullet to the head first. Then the crap would really hit the fan as other state “problems” were eliminated.

  5. What would their answer be if the target was Washington D.C.?

    Or the Pentagon?

    I suspect they would still refuse, but they would do so reluctantly.

  6. [Your poll is flawed — you ask questions requiring an individual answer to a question that addresses the probability of potential actions by individual members of a large group.]

    No, sworn members of FedGov’s elite would never open fire on innocent civilians resisting tyranny, much less use weapons that targeted resisters and the innocent alike.

    [Now ^that^ is sarcasm, Comrade Swalwell!]

    Vietnam. Iraq. Syria. [Yeah, yeah, those were wars — undeclared ones, I remind you.]

    Waco. Ruby Ridge. [Yeah, yeah, those were not military actions — although the “para-” prefix does not matter to the dead.]

    “It can’t happen here!” Go to Sand Creek and tell that to the tormented spirits there. (The 154th anniversary is a mere ten days away.)

      1. And I am saying that just because I wouldn’t doesn’t mean nobody would. And nukes are not technically crew-served weapons at the pointy end. Yes there are “fail safes”, but there have also been several documented near-misses in situations where only “the foreign enemy” was the target.

  7. Dear Rep. Eric Swalwell;

    Next time you have a Congressional security briefing, ask the folks in the green uniforms what kind of targets nuclear weapons are worth expending on. They’ll tell you, “Big cities and military bases.”
    1. If you’re planning on using the military to take my guns away, you probably don’t want to obliterate it.
    2. So, remind me where the gun control party lives?

    Sincerely: Rural American

  8. Personally, I have met a number of servicemen who might well “exercise illegal force against American civilians” if said civilians were marginalized properly by the puppet masters. I am not sanguine about the behavior of military personnel under manipulated circumstances. I cite numerous examples in my original reply.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *