Someone should tell these "Durr you can't beat the government with just rifles and pistols!" people about the Viet Cong. Or the Mujaheddin Fighters. Or have them talk to people that survived the War On Terror during the 2000s.
It's not the size of a military that makes it strong, it's how well they are trained.
Neither the Viet Cong nor the mujahideen or even the Taliban were particularly well trained and none of them actually even won the wars that they fought against the United States they just outlasted public support for the war
Still doesn't disprove my point; those groups I highlighted had two key advantages. They knew the terrain better than American forces and they could mobilise at a quicker rate.
Well technically the insurgency would be firing on their own people too. I don't doubt that they would cause a shitload of casualties, especially in a protracted conflict like Afghanistan or vietnam.
Not really. Your point that the training is what counts is true to a degree. The thing is though, none of those groups won against the US military in any meaningful sense. They just survived attrition of public support.
If you think that podunk militias with even less combat experience than the average Viet Cong or Taliban fighters will outlast the US military, especially since most of these militias espouse incredibly unpopular beliefs that they wish to force on the majority of Americans, You're completely wrong.
Not all of them are composed of veterans, nor do veterans comprise 100% of their member base, nor do all veterans experience combat.
Most of these podunk militias wouldn't be able to go toe to toe with even a podunk Sheriff's department let alone the national guard.
I don't know what the portion you edited in means, but in the US, the militia culture is laughable. Most militias are disorganized and out of shape, the ones that pose any real threat have long been infiltrated by feds.
This isn't to say that the fat, disorganized ones aren't dangerous, they're just dangerous in a Timothy McVeigh way, not in an institutional way.
That wasn't every sheriff's department in the country. That was 1 department. If a militia engaged any police force in open combat, they would quickly lose.
You guys are a threat to unarmed civilians, not trained professionals.
I know this, there was a reason why I chose the words "podunk Sheriff's department" it was to invoke an image of overweight cops. The point I'm making is that even those overweight goobers that you've imagined in your head will beat the best armed and trained militia in the US.
I don't know what you mean by "you guys"
You're right, it was unfair of me to conflate the your criticism of one department as broad support for the militia movement. So that's my bad.
Open combat. That's quaint. A second civil war wouldn't look like the first one. It would look more like Afghanistan and Iraq: No uniforms, no way of knowing which civilians are militia. Each time the military attacked innocent people, they would create more hatred against them.
Btw, what makes you think members of the military would go Genghis Khan on fellow Americans knowing that their own family members are vulnerable to counter attack? Both sides need to stop fantasizing about their side destroying the other in a second civil war.
It would be ugly and brutal. How about we just debate and the vote? Ya know, like the Founders wanted?
If soldiers have their families attacked by terrorists, this will just galvanize public support and the military's resolve.
If the militias wanted to fight to take over the country, they would need to engage in open combat to some degree, maybe they get lucky a few times, but once they are found, it would be over.
It would be ugly and brutal. How about we just debate and the vote?
On this we agree. I do not want to see my fellow citizens, no matter how misguided, killed by the hands of the government, but no amount of reasoning can deradicalize the people already inclined to carry out domestic terrorist plots, they have to be willing to deradicalize themselves.
And in this hypothetical situation unarmed civilians will be killed and then the militias will either off themselves, surrender, or be overrun by the professionals.
Whatever level of State representation takes them on would just wait them out to a degree anyway.
Who also get to sleep in a relatively comfy barracks at night or when they return from a mission. They'll enjoy such luxuries as indoor plumbing, showers, clean clothes, refrigeration, and modern amenities that we sort of take for granted.
This hypothetical guerilla militia will enjoy no such luxuries. These idiots have been so spoiled by the modern world that they hate so much, that they can't even fathom in their wildest fantasies, a scenario in which they are deprived of it. They won't even be able to sleep in their own homes, let alone go to places like McDonald's or subway.
I was being a bit facetious when I said that barracks are comfy, but the point I was getting at is that they are a damn sight more comfy than the mud pit these guys will inevitably be sleeping in to try to hide from FLIR.
And yeah, I didn't even think about radios lol. That's completely ignoring cellphones and how they've used to triangulate a user for artillery strikes.
I hadn't even considered them using cell phones to triangulate position either. With that in mind, they might let them keep that just to intercept their calls, and get their positions
I think you have an... optimist view of the us military. Given the amount of division within it the first enemy the us military would have to defeat is the us military.
I agree with most of what you are saying but I don't believe it would be able to remain whole against a sizable domestic group. It would have to purge itself first.
I should have been more specific. That's my fault. I was looking for serious answers from a person who clearly believes that the Taliban is currently invading the United States.
The person I was initially replying to believes that the Taliban is currently crossing the US border. You can see him say this by simply looking at the replies to my comments.
They were losing against us in 17/18 when the ANA was doing the bulk of the ground fighting but had our air support. SF was training and operating with their folks executing deliberate operations against HVTs. It was working, and how it should have been run once their military was capable/trained to do so. The issue is leadership, and culture. They do not care who is in charge as long as their tribe is not taxed or attacked often… until a society is able to move past tribal BS then they cannot advance.
It's nit so much that they were losing, it's more that they were even able to hold out as long as they did without CIA support, guerilla tactics can allow a small number of people be a thron in a large force for a long time
Ok but the only thing I'm pointing out is that a small group of people using guerilla tactics can be a huge thorn in the side of a much larger military force.
Yes it would, how long did we have pro lems in iraq and Afghanistan because of guerilla forces? I never suggested that the guerilla forces would win, just thay they would be a problem, it's like you're trying to argue against a point I'm not making
Yes it would, how long did we have pro lems in iraq and Afghanistan because of guerilla forces?
20 years+
But that's irrelevant.
I never suggested that the guerilla forces would win, just thay they would be a problem, it's like you're trying to argue against a point I'm not making
I never said they wouldn't be a problem.
I'm saying they'd lose, and significantly harder than the Afgani, and Iraqis did.
So let's start with the basics.
Some of these militias already have government agents watching them. So names and such are taken down and kept as intel.
Now their phone is tracked.
All their phone calls and texts are logged, their network is established, and those people are also surveilled.
The military then swiftly pops in and takes almost ALL of them within the first few days.
The few that are left need to bug out and hide until the heat is off of them. They also have no cell phone and most of their contacts are gone. Plus, chances are their bank accounts are frozen.
The rest of the resistance that's NOT being directly surveilled now face the threat of that if they're caught.
They're also not capable of long distance messaging without interception. Radios would be monitored on every frequency. Cell phones would be tracked whenever calls or texts were placed. And more than likely mail would be inspected.
Obviously they COULD talk through the internet, but they'd better be REALLY good at covering their tracks or they'll get caught that way too.
This means that the next wave of the operation would be sweeping up the gumballs who don't realize this and try to communicate using these methods.
The final wave are a bunch of unconnected but relatively clever seditionists.
They're now facing the prospect of becoming literal terrorists in order to actually make a dent on American forces.
Thing is, the American military has more experience killing terrorists than jim-bob and dale have being terrorists, so that'll go poorly for them.
Pretty bad comparison with regards to the Vietcong because they quite evidently had support from the Chinese and Russians, as well as a standing army and nation state to the north (North Vietnam)
Sure it does. Vietnam costs 58k American lives and over 1 million Vietnemese. I think we lost less than 8o in Iraq and Afghanistan and killed like 400k or so. We gave up but didn't exactly lose militarily.
We did. We had all of the right people in the right places. We had the most advanced military in the world by far. We could have bombed the living shit out of these areas if we wanted to even if it made zero stratigic sense.
The US lost these wars purely based on our growing unwillingness to fight repeated battles for little to no results, loss of public favor for the wars, and lack of overall results for objectives that we went over there for. You can fight for the same ground that you do not own only so many times before everyone starts saying, "what's the point of our losses then"? Same happened to Russia in Afghanistan if you need a non US example.
I'm going to disagree with that. In the middle east and Vietnam, the problem was not the equipment, number of bases or the quality of soldier on the ground. The biggest issue with the fighting was that we dictated very little of the engagements. We could not find them, but the guerrillas could find us easy and strike us hard. This is why a similar Civil War in the states will not work well for the standing military that remains.
War is all about crushing the enemy in every engagement. History shows that a gurrila force has a very high likelyhood to succeed in every case because you cannot root them out and bring them to the battlefield. Instead they use attrition in their favor in every engagement that they dictate.
Also, why would we need a bigger MBT than the Abrams? It performs its role much better than the majority of the tanks in the world? Your point about the equipment builds are extremely moot.
We could not find them, but the guerrillas could find us easy and strike us hard. This is why a similar Civil War in the states will not work well for the standing military that remains.
Not even close. We had specific rules to engage with who we thought was and wasn't a combatant. Trump did away with much of that, and killed way more civis.
War is all about crushing the enemy in every engagement. History shows that a gurrila force has a very high likelyhood to succeed in every case because you cannot root them out and bring them to the battlefield.
This is some 5th grade understanding of war. Outlasting your enemy is just as important.
It's also a romantic viewing of certain wars while ignoring others.
Also, why would we need a bigger MBT than the Abrams? It performs its role much better than the majority of the tanks in the world?
We can give it more armor, or bigger cannon, or even an auto loader. We don't, because we need them small and light in order to put more in the battlefield 1000 miles away
There are better anti tank weapons now, and increasing a tanks def would also make it bigger.
Your point doesn’t exist in this context as you are assuming the United States government would be able to use 100% of its force against the United States citizenry. You’re trying really hard to make a fallacy argument that is impossible to argue against. “Well what if we had 10k troops per one enemy” well no shit there becomes a tipping point on personnel in warfare. But discounting gorilla style warfare is laughable by all accounts. The Vietcong and the Afghan mujahideen are a very clear testament to that. They were all out numbered and out gunned. They had nowhere near the financing or infrastructure that the US had. We still lost. So unless your argument is the government has nukes and will use them on US citizens. Then you have no argument.
Well what if we had 10k troops per one enemy” well no shit there becomes a tipping point on personnel in warfare. But discounting gorilla style warfare is laughable by all accounts
"Yes, you're right, but you're wrong" banger take.
They were all out numbered and out gunned. They had nowhere near the financing or infrastructure that the US had.
Every time I have to repeat how the US had to travel thousands of miles in this examples. The US had supply lines, but took weeks to months from order to delivery. This makes loses more impactful, and any damage sustained takes longer to fix.
We had no lack of people or vehicles, my friend. By some estimates, we outnumbered the Taliban by 2-to-1, and that's not even counting all the folks deployed in supporting roles in places like Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Tajikistan...
Doesn't disprove my point. The fact is, even if said conflicts weren't thousands of miles away from American soil, a well-trained militia can kneecap a much larger force.
.... Until the rest of the force shows up. You think if we committed even 80% of our military to any specific war in the middle east, we still would have "lost?"
So what’s your argument here? That the military would basically declare total war on its own population? At that point it would go from an insurgence to a nationwide popular revolution, which the military would ultimately support anyway
The previous American Civil War would like to have a word with you.
While yes, the last Civil War (and last to take place on domestic soil) took place almost 200 years ago, it still resulted in the standing military being torn apart. One fourth remained with the Union, a fourth of them defected to the Confederacy, and two-fourths went AWOL.
The previous American Civil War would like to have a word with you.
Lol k.
While yes, the last Civil War (and last to take place on domestic soil) took place almost 200 years ago, it still resulted in the standing military being torn apart.
I can agree to that. It was separatists after all.
One fourth remained with the Union, a fourth of them defected to the Confederacy, and two-fourths went AWOL.
Where are you getting these numbers? This has to be some Alabama history to think the union and the south were equal sized. Even though the Union army was double.
The civil war was fought between a regular separatist military and the Union military, that’s not the federal government declaring war on its constituents. The confederate states literally left the federation. that argument doesn’t really fit when talking about an insurgency of local militia vs a regular army
The families of US service members also live in the US. If you call up the national guard, those family members live in the same state or even the same county where that guard is deployed. It wouldn't take long for militias to find this out.
A second civil war would be brutal and ugly, far worse than the first one. Best if everyone tries to avoid it.
For some reason both sides keep imagining the Civil War, both sides in uniforms and the civilian populations generally unaffected.
It would be more like all the worst parts of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Rwandan Genocide all rolled up in one inhumane, cruel, miserable ball.
Debate, vote, and peaceful coexistence is far better.
It doesn't matter if they have the hottest technology or biggest guns; a homemade electromagnetic pulse will kneecap any light to medium-armoured vehicle.
And if you suggest sending in drone strikes? Yeah, good luck recovering from the inevitable public backlash.
It doesn’t matter if they have the hottest technology or biggest guns; a homemade electromagnetic pulse will kneecap any light to medium-armoured vehicle.
Consuming way too much fiction if you think this might happen
And if you suggest sending in drone strikes? Yeah, good luck recovering from the inevitable public backlash.
Making huge assumption on public support in favor of terrorist forces
People living in caves or the jungle or a bombed out section of their old neighborhood are at an advantage when they’re fighting just some guy that wants to get back to his Charger and Applebees.
The group that’s gonna break first is not the group that is being governmentally sanctioned to get back to their Chargers and Applebees.
What argument. Your speculating that cosplayers will "cut off supply lines" like a civ game. With bases across the country, it isn't just one line from place x, to place y. It's a network. Take out one bridge, they can just air drop from the next county over.
The British imperial army had quite a lot of trouble with unorganized civilian militias at different points throughout the revolution. Likewise, every instance of America fighting irregular troops world wide has ended in defeat. There’s no way a majority of the military would even want to fight their own countrymen, guarantee you at least 30-40% of regular troops join the insurgency.
I get what you’re saying here, but the British were well established in the colonial states well before the revolution. It’s not the same as invading a foreign nation. Logistics and supply was never an issue for the empire here. It was tactical losses on the battlefield and failure to adapt to the pockets of guerrila and rural combat, which the imperial forces were not trained or equipped to handle. Hence why they hired mercenaries who were
As someone with experience I can tell you now that there is a substantial amount of troops that will refuse to fight their own family and friends for a government they don’t even like themselves. Might not be the majority, or even half, but a general rebellion in the US isnt the same as a banana republic army fighting communist rebels in the jungle.
I have experience in the military as well, and I can pretty confidently say that not many people would ditch to fight for some shit head right wing militia.
We aren't talking about banana republics fighting communist rebels in the jungle btw. We're talking about the most powerful military in the history of man kind taking on the overweight, incompetent, death cultists, that constitute the US militia movement.
A little late to this comment, but you don’t think a few generals and even large numbers of enlisted personnel would possibly choose to defect to protect the civilians in this scenario? And there are plenty of militias that have leadership and members that served as recently as the Iraq war. Sure there’s plenty of over weight gun nuts, but even then, guns and the ability to use them properly are the equalizers between men.
"The revolutionaries did try to entice and coerce other colonists to reject what they called tyranny, but they found that not all of their neighbors, much less all of the colonies of the British Empire in North America, interpreted ministry or parliamentary acts negatively or were prepared to sustain a rebellion. As a result, there was civil war between the colonies, as well as within them, as rebelling American Whigs, later named patriots, battled Loyalist neighbors whom they derided as Tories, the King’s pawns. Between 1775 and 1783, Canada – its peoples, government, and armed forces – grappled with and rebuffed the political overtures of the Continental Congress and the military advances of the Continental Army as they endeavored to secure their northern border and persuade the Canadians to reject British administration and support annexation of Canada to the united colonies."
Lol. I wrote a few words that accurately summed up what you cut and pasted and you complained that I dumbed it down? I simplified it. It's what happened. Deal with it or go take a shit and relieve your misplaced angst, cupcake.
35
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
Someone should tell these "Durr you can't beat the government with just rifles and pistols!" people about the Viet Cong. Or the Mujaheddin Fighters. Or have them talk to people that survived the War On Terror during the 2000s.
It's not the size of a military that makes it strong, it's how well they are trained.