I DO believe that the threat of martial law MAY BE a red herring as you state, but I have one disagreement with your figures. It's irrelevant, but I
don't think you can use population density, OR square miles. Either one of these will lead to misperceptions.
I'm sure some uniform-wearing bean counter has figured it our somewhere, but as one stated above, this isn't so much a mathematics issue.
If it were all about math, we wouldn't BE the United States of America. To push the american people into a statistic will only back fire. There
certainly ARE a lot of people that would reluctant to stand up, a lot of people that will be traitors to their countrymen and, in my opinion, a lot
more that will resist in ways so minor, but compounding as to be a major force to be considered.
On the other side of the coin, I don't think anyone would necessarily HAVE to control the whole country and it's ENTIRE population. If you control a
few key elements, as stated above, of this nation, you eliminate the majority of the resistance.
Fuel, communications, food...just those three will smack an awful lot of folks into line. Given the prevalence of monopolistic control of these
necessities, control will be much easier than I think a lot of people care to consider.
As far as the red herring, we have seen the threat of martial law used by members of our governing body to speed up the adoption of legislation. It
was unwarranted in the context it was used, but the warning of it IS apparently a very favored method for motivating skeptical lawmakers.
What some fail to consider, but I know some also don't is that the United States is not made up of battleships and missile launchers and nuclear
weapons and high-tech killing machines. It's made up of Americans. The elite might have STARTED all of wars, but it was the rank and file American
that finished them.




