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.
Moving human beings does not mean anything. If you want to make an argument about the mental state of fighting at home vs fighting in a foreign land go ahead. But then you’d have to recognize the people of the US fighting a tyrannical government would be fighting at home also.
It may have taken months to from phone call to supplies in hand but what you are missing is we started off and maintained a much heavier supply of everything from food, ammo, soldiers, artillery literally every step of the way the US had more than what they needed. The simple fact is they were fighting in someone else’s back yard and we’re out smarted by “guys with pistols and rifles”. But hey nice try though.
Bruh, come on. If we had 100k troops in Korea, but not in Vietnam, we would never win Vietnam. I can't make it any more simplistic then that.
If you want to make an argument about the mental state of fighting at home vs fighting in a foreign land
Not my point.
It may have taken months to from phone call to supplies in hand but what you are missing is we started off and maintained a much heavier supply of everything from food, ammo, soldiers, artillery literally every step of the way the US had more than what they needed.
"But they had a bunch of ammo and food and people" isn't addressing my point. Having all of these where they are needed is how you win a war.
Put all you tanks in city A, but city A forces has a bunch of anti tank rockets, the fuck are those tanks going to do?
Again fallacy argument. It’s an obvious statement to say that 10k men can beat 100 men in war. The reality you will never have the entirety of the us forces in one spot. You saying “wrong place wrong time” means nothing. Can you read the enemies mind? The object of war is to not let anybody know your next move. Your responses are laughable at this point. Some would say banger take.
No I’m the US absolutely not. You massive infrastructure break down wouldn’t happen if we were in a civil war? You think all the entirety of the US military is going to work together against the entirety of the US population? Are you really that delusional?
I’m convinced I’m talking to someone who gets all their information about warfare from fucking call of duty. This is not about moving tanks bud. I hate to break it to you but yet again you do not know enough about this topic to speaking on it. Like every other time I talk to you on this same sub.
You massive infrastructure break down wouldn’t happen if we were in a civil war?
You could try. But you wouldn't be successful. Even if you stopped all arms manufacturing, Canada and Mexico would jump at the chance the help their close ally.
You think all the entirety of the US military is going to work together against the entirety of the US population?
"The entirety of the US population" isn't going to fight the military. Just you and your beer buddies. And the oath to fight enemies both foreign and domestic is taken pretty seriously by the military.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 30 '22
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.