> The problem is that, even with 393 millions of guns, USA can't stop recurrent fireforests year after year.
Not exactly true.
The problem is that nobody wants to pay the money to do so--especially the people who live in those areas.
In addition, you only get to burn those forests once. After that, they are no longer a threat because there is no fuel.
> After that, they are no longer a threat because there is no fuel.
Not necessarily. I bet that the new replacement ecosystem will be, in fact, much more flammable. The water has quit the area.
The issue we worry about post fire is not more fire, it's landslides next time whatever excuse we get for a rainy season comes around.
You simply can't burn a forest to the ground twice without growing another forrest in between.
The succession goes grassland, scrubland, forest. The grass is indeed more flammable, but the fires are much less intense. Dry cheatgrass, for example, flares up with incredible enthusiasm, but burns to ash in literally seconds.
The problem is that, even with 393 millions of guns, USA can't stop recurrent fireforests year after year. And this is only an example. Would be naive to think that, as people have a pistol, can't be killed remotely from a million Km of distance. The idea of a foreign army marching in a country and killing people one by one like stormtroopers, is very outdated.
And of course you can always distroy critical areas and then sit and look how the civilians start killing other civilians for water or food. With so many weapons in the table would be even much faster. Is hardly a guarantee.