Could civilian gun owners defeat the US military?

I didn't read every post so pardon me if this has been mentioned.

1. In regards to drones, nukes, missiles, etc. where exactly would one use these in the USA without killing thousands of innocent people? So the military/government would willingly kill thousands of innocent people to eliminate the insurgents?

2. Once this civil war starts you can better believe that many other countries that hate America would get involved. One can easily imagine a scenario in which Islamic militants would begin to kill people on BOTH sides.

3. Never discount rebels that amass in small numbers. As has been pointed out that in Vietnam, the NVA was supplied by Moscow however, the VC basically were self sufficeint. The VC used hit/run tactics and were quite effective at being an incredible nusiance to a far superior military force. All the tanks, air power, etc couldn't help the USA win in Vietnam. Did you know that Vietnam had more tonnage of bombs dropped on it than in all of WW2 combined? Look it up.

4. I have no idea who would win but it would be an extremely long, protracted war in which the human suffering would be indescribable. The USA would probably never recover into what it is today.

Gold Counter wrote:

3. Never discount rebels that amass in small numbers. As has been pointed out that in Vietnam, the NVA was supplied by Moscow however, the VC basically were self sufficeint. The VC used hit/run tactics and were quite effective at being an incredible nusiance to a far superior military force. All the tanks, air power, etc couldn't help the USA win in Vietnam. Did you know that Vietnam had more tonnage of bombs dropped on it than in all of WW2 combined? Look it up.

The U.S. military absolutely crushed the VC. The Tet Offensive was basically the end of the VC. The NVA took over South Vietnam in '75 after the US left. If we had left a division on the border, like in Korea, there would be a South Vietnam to this day.

If the military ever did try to set up a dictatorship (an absolutely laughable idea) . . . difficult to imagine. They'd probably need more people, for one. Depends too on if most people went along with it. It isn't hard to imagine a dedicated resistance doing some major damage though, but likely not engaging them in direct combat.

Interesting question - I wonder if the Pentagon has wargamed this scenario? That would make for some fascinating reading.

i don't think vietnam is a very relevant analogy. in this (admittedly ridiculous) hypothetical, the US military is not trying to take over new territory, as it was in vietnam.

sure, a small band of insurgents could pester the US military for decades, causing deaths here and there. but there is no way they would defeat the military and take over governing the US. (absent a meaningful chunk of the military refusing to be part of this hypothetical military dictatorship).

I think people are really underestimating what the underdog could do to the US military. Could it win? I doubt it BUT they could keep the USA in chaos and make life a living hell for years. At some point a foreign country would invade us and win. Americans have great wealth and other countries wouldn't idly sit by and watch the war play out.

Any kind of armed revolt by citizens would probably cause the USA as we know it to break into several smaller countries. The vast technology of the military would be rendered useless unless a decision was made to wipe out thousands of innocent people in an effort to regain control. Who knows maybe that scenario has been thought of and planned for?

Gold Counter wrote:

Any kind of armed revolt by citizens would probably cause the USA as we know it to break into several smaller countries. The vast technology of the military would be rendered useless unless a decision was made to wipe out thousands of innocent people in an effort to regain control. Who knows maybe that scenario has been thought of and planned for?

great idea for saturday morning cartoons

tardbro wrote:

Civilian gun owners in the U.S would overpower any military on earth including its own in a matter of weeks.

Imagine if the Indians had rifles when the spanish and english landed in the new world. Thats about how it would go.

Blahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa! Have you been to your local gun club lately?

Gold Counter wrote:

2. Once this civil war starts you can better believe that many other countries that hate America would get involved. One can easily imagine a scenario in which Islamic militants would begin to kill people on BOTH sides.

I'm sure Billy-Bob and his redneck buddies would appreciate the support of Al-Qaida.

Hardliner Torito wrote:

Texas would have no problem defending itself against the vast US military. We have - after all - the Alamo to fight off the intruders. Put five thousand heavily armed Texans and aint no one getting in!

yes, but do you really remember the Alamo?[/quote]

Yeah I was thinking the same thing when I read this. I'm no historian but I could've sworn the Texans got their asses beat at the Alamo. Maybe not a good example of Texas holding out against a stronger force?[/quote]

It is true that W. Travis, Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie et al were slaughtered but they held out valiantly for about 13 days. It was only 200 courageous defenders up against enormous odds. Their weaponry is not sophisticated as it is today. Imagine not 200 but 5000 heavily armed soldiers. Plus, their are numerous retail stores all around the Alamo, or Mission San Antonio de Valero as the proper name, and maybe 1000 fighters could be placed throughout the stores. thus, the US military forced to face down fire from numerous places!!! It would be another slaughter but in the opposite!

The government doesn't trust the military, they would not rely on them at all in this situation, the would not put the military in the position to choose to shoot or not too shoot. That would strong arm gun owners using the contractors.... Blackwater(XE, Academi), AirScan, Hambright, Obelisk, Saber Teams.... etc... these private military companies are exactly what the military would used to combat any threat from a citizen gun owning militia.... they have 100,000 plus contractors working in Iraq.... with basically zero liability. They would have zero problem killing a civilian, they wouldn't even give any single military branch a choice to make, because they know they cannot count on the military to openly attack it's own citizens.... now mercs? different story. GOV wins hands down, you're 9mm ain't going to do shit against a predator missile raining down on you from 30,000 ft!

defacto wrote:

The government doesn't trust the military, they would not rely on them at all in this situation, the would not put the military in the position to choose to shoot or not too shoot. That would strong arm gun owners using the contractors.... Blackwater(XE, Academi), AirScan, Hambright, Obelisk, Saber Teams.... etc... these private military companies are exactly what the military would used to combat any threat from a citizen gun owning militia.... they have 100,000 plus contractors working in Iraq.... with basically zero liability. They would have zero problem killing a civilian, they wouldn't even give any single military branch a choice to make, because they know they cannot count on the military to openly attack it's own citizens.... now mercs? different story. GOV wins hands down, you're 9mm ain't going to do shit against a predator missile raining down on you from 30,000 ft!

The Alamo could be equipped with the most high-tech anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense systems known to man.

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.

That's not true. The US military whopped Grenada (population 91,000) in 1983 with just 8,000 troops/Navy Seals, in a brilliantly executed invasion.

"Maps provided to soldiers on the ground were tourist maps on which military grid reference lines were drawn by hand to report locations of units and request artillery and aircraft fire support.

They did not show topography and were not marked with crucial positions.

U.S. Navy ships providing naval gunfire and U.S. Marine, U.S. Air Force and navy fighter/bomber support aircraft providing close air support mistakenly fired upon and killed U.S. ground forces due to differences in maps and location coordinates, data, and methods of calling for fire support.

Communications between services were also noted as not being compatible. The landing strip was drawn-in by hand on the map given to some members of the invasion force."

Surprise! wrote:

tardbro wrote:

Civilian gun owners in the U.S would overpower any military on earth including its own in a matter of weeks.

Who would lead them? .

MAURICE/DWIGHT SCHRUTE/attack of the zombie fetuses/My name is Lance (etc, etc) would lead them!

And he would be shot in the back by his own fellow gun nuts. They'd say "whoops.....sorry 'bout that!"

It would be like the 3 stooges with guns. Oh how great it would be to watch such a comedy unfold and watch the gun nuts do each other in with their precious weapons.

aw T-Rex, you're just sore because you know 'don't ask don't tell' wouldn't apply to my militia. No polesmokers allowed, no exceptions. Sorry bro'

This is an amusing claim, considering that the military has weapons that can exterminate all life on earth. Your small arms fire does not mean squat against tanks or planes or any number of bombs all the way up to megaton Hydrogen bombs. And guns do not make households safer. Despite the NRA inserting amendments to bills cutting off any federal funding for assessing gun violence, studies out of Emory University showed that having guns in the home makes you 43 times more likely to suffer gun deaths in your home. So, if you are going to wrongly interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual, rather than a collective (=state) right, and wrongly interpret it as denying regulation ("a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ..."), then you need to justify gun ownership for hunting purposes, because it sure does not work either for gun safety or for your fantasy of fighting off the U.S. military.

In the event of such a conflict, many people who are now in the military would join the civilian uprising.

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.

)

THOSE SHORT RICE FARMERS ALSO defeated China, in a sense, as they sent all the Chinese ethnics who were living/working in their country home a few yrs. after we left.

You're wrong about Korea. The communists backed by China were eliminated from South Korea thanks to our army/marines.

A terrible price was paid -- 56 million US soldiers.

We also defeated the Evil Empire in the 1980's/1990's in the cold war...Ronald Reagan whupped them while sparing millions of lives on both sides. Sainted genius.

Remain positive about America.

ur stupid wrote:

In the event of such a conflict, many people who are now in the military would join the civilian uprising.

If the uprising was backed by the vast majority of the people then this might be so. However, this is the unlikeliest sub-scenario within this overall unlikeliest of scenarios.

My name is Lance wrote:

aw T-Rex, you're just sore because you know 'don't ask don't tell' wouldn't apply to my militia. No polesmokers allowed, no exceptions. Sorry bro'

man, that was fast. You really don't have a life, do you? And your comeback? Calling me gay. What....a .... shock.

Hey, maybe one of your kids will someday be as brave as this young man and do the right thing too, and use one of his daddy's guns for a good purpose:

or maybe you'll end up like another fellow gun nut:

All of his high powered guns and knowledge about them REALLY did him a TON of good, huh? ha ha ha ha Redneck clown reaped what he sowed. what a tragedy........not.

Guns make you safer? Hilarious! T

is true that W. Travis, Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie et al were slaughtered but they held out valiantly for about 13 days. It was only 200 courageous defenders up against enormous odds. Their weaponry is not sophisticated as it is today. Imagine not 200 but 5000 heavily armed soldiers. Plus, their are numerous retail stores all around the Alamo, or Mission San Antonio de Valero as the proper name, and maybe 1000 fighters could be placed throughout the stores. thus, the US military forced to face down fire from numerous places!!! It would be another slaughter but in the opposite!

That would be hilarious! One tactical nuke....and all those morons would be roasted. Heck maybe the government SHOULD instigate an insurgency just to deal with all the NRA gun nut/evangelical crazies/etc etc if that was ever their plan. Get all the crazies in one place and solve that problem!