do you think that service men and women don't talk about this in private? They will not turn arms on their family and friends... they are ahead of you.
do you think that service men and women don't talk about this in private? They will not turn arms on their family and friends... they are ahead of you.
googoobeans wrote:
Our government's allies would give the military fuel/resources to crush us. Plus, they've got plenty of fuel to last long enough to destroy all threats. I heard one time that the military has 2 years of fuel reserves.
Supply isn't the issue, logistics is.
402m wrote:
do you think that service men and women don't talk about this in private? They will not turn arms on their family and friends... they are ahead of you.
Kent State
Seems like most of the combat military guys I know would rather fight for the civilian gun owner cause since a lot of them are gun enthusiast, 2nd amendment types.
last big win> March 16, 1968 wrote:
A bunch of short rice farmers beat the US Military four decades ago nothing has changed. The US military has not "WON" a war since 1946 and then it wasn't just them they basically had the whole world helping them do it.
It is hard for any traditional military to fight an insurgency.
It is not like all the armed civillians are going to form platoons and battalions and meet the US military in an open field head to head. No one fights like that anymore. Sabotage is the key and small unit movement is the key. Blend in with the population during the day and come out with your guns and homemade pipe bombs at night.
really????? two out of every seven persons own or have a gun-I think not.
really????? two out of every seven persons own or have a gun-I think not.
We are not rabbits and opossums.
You mean a bunch of "rice farmers" as you call them with extensive equipment and munitions provided by other communist states. You think the Vietnamese could have done anything without other countries supplying them with aircraft, artillery, assault rifles, training, etc etc.
The majority of the US military are staunchly pro gun and most likely have privately owned guns of their own thus they would be unwilling to give up their guns like a dictatorship would probably require them to do. Furthermore it is incredibly unlikely that any considerable amount of the US military soliders would be willing to take part in an full out war on other Americans for the purpose of wanting to abandon democracy.
the idea of attacking their countrymen would not go over well at all with the military.
OTOH, I doubt many fed agents would have a problem with it. The fed law enforcement dudes I know live for 'the bust', think pretty much everyone is a criminal, and have zero qualms putting anyone & everyone in the pokey.
My bro-in-law is a Secret Service agent. He acts like he'd arrest his Mom if given orders to do so - and get off on it.. Not much a stretch from detaining to arresting to shooting.
How did rebelling against the government (the alleged perfect libertarian government of the god-like founders) work out for the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion? Or the CSA for that matter?
SE Asia militarily defeated the cowards of France and the United States governments. Islamic Freedom Fighters have defeated the cowards of NATO and US governments. Thus I don't see how the American people cannot defeat the cowards of the United States government.
Member wrote:
402m wrote:do you think that service men and women don't talk about this in private? They will not turn arms on their family and friends... they are ahead of you.
Kent State
I knew Kent State would come up. Just because a few soldiers made an instantaneous bad mistake that killed four people and injured nine doesn't mean the US army has the "stomach" for a prolonged military struggle against its own citizens that would probably need to result in millions of civilian deaths in order to have a chance to be successful. I think the fact that the Kent State massacre was so traumatic to so many people (military personal included) actually proves that the US military would not be willing to fight and kill millions of its own citizens.
Also keep in mind that in the OP's rhetorical situation the conflict was actually initiated by the US government/military who wanted to over throw the well established democratic tradition of the US. In Kent State the conflict was actually initiated by the students who began a mini riot which protested the spread of the Vietnam war into Cambodia. This doesn't mean the US military's actions were justified at Kent State but the two situations are very different.
Bob the Bookie wrote:
I knew Kent State would come up. Just because a few soldiers made an instantaneous bad mistake that killed four people and injured nine doesn't mean the US army has the "stomach" for a prolonged military struggle against its own citizens that would probably need to result in millions of civilian deaths in order to have a chance to be successful.
and you think the civilian population would stomach thousands of deaths let alone other privations?
Bring back Dancing with the Stars! we surrender! No beer?!?! My god!
The only way to defeat such a miltary is to get them to refuse to follow the orders of the elite.
You ain't gonna take on satellites and fighter jets and tanks and missiles and bombs with a bunch of guns. That is some real foolishness
The only way to defeat such a miltary is to get them to refuse to follow the orders of the elite.
You ain't gonna take on satellites and fighter jets and tanks and missiles and bombs with a bunch of guns. That is some real foolishness
The military and the government would have a extremley low chance of being successful. The US military had a hard enough time fighting the insurgency in Vietnam and is having a hard time doing it now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now imagine if the US military is having to fight a larger and probably better armed insurgency in the US. Also the US military soldiers will be MUCH less motivated and less willing to fight other Americans compared to fighting Iraqis or Vietcong, especially if the purpose of the fighting is to over throw the a democratic way of governing that has existed in the country for over 200 years.
Imagine if the Indians had rifles when the spanish and english landed in the new world. Thats about how it would go.
Guns had nothing to do with it. In fact, the bow and arrows of the Indians were much better weapons than the one shot muskets carried by the Euros.
Two key factors.
1. Disease. The natives were devestated.
2. Ethics. The Indians would not attack a group of people that included women and children. The Euros had no such morality
The US soldiers are humans as well and have the same desires as most Americans. If they were going to have to fight the American civilian population they would also have to make a good amount of sacrifices. Also keep in mind that the US army only has around 1.5 million active personnel, which would not be enough to subdue a country as geographically enormous and populous as the USA. The government will have to call up the reserves and possibly even bring back the draft to get enough armed men on the ground. Will these recent civilians really be willing to put down their beers or stop watching Dancing with the Stars in order to take people's guns away (and probably hand in their own)? I would say no.