7 ms·

And this is why I don't believe in uprisings and revolutions in modern societies anymore. As an individual, even if you can buy guns, you are not that far away

And this is why I don't believe in uprisings and revolutions in modern societies anymore. As an individual, even if you can buy guns, you are not that far away from the goat compared to what tech and training current militaries have.

behringer 8y ago
But humans aren't goats, even if they aren't in the military.
- trhway 8y ago
  From the POV of an alien civilization observing how humans have been screwing Earth ecosystem we as well may be just like those goats.
AWildC182 8y ago
Let's revisit this comment once the US leaves the middle east.
- sametmax 8y ago
  Does it look like any local fighting in the middle east is winning ? Also, I've you looked at the body count on each sides ? And in the end, don't the USA have the control of the local natural resources exactly as they wanted to ?
  - AWildC182 8y ago
    Doesn't look like anyone is winning really. If the military leaves right now, we'll probably just have ISIS 2.0 in a few years. Urban combat is really painful for all involved. If it was like shooting goats from a helicopter wouldn't the conflict be over already?
    - sametmax 8y ago
      Counter terrorism is not the real reason there is a war here. Several countries in Europe fight terrorism, and they don't need to go to war. The american are still here because they benefit from it.
  - pfisch 8y ago
    Winning a war and body counts are not the same thing. Even in vietnam the US had a good ratio in terms of killing Vietnamese vs allied deaths. That doesn’t mean the US was winning.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      The local fighters are slaughtered in mass for very little effect toward their objectives of liberation while the US still maintain control of the natural resources the way they want. Winning is not always necessary.
chongli 8y ago
A human can carry a shoulder-launched anti-aircraft weapon and destroy the helicopter, while hiding amongst the rubble of a chaotic urban environment. Asymmetric warfare is very difficult. The US military struggled for many years and spent huge amounts of money fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are small countries compared to the US. Trying to fight an insurgency on home soil, without the support of a tax-paying public? Forget about it!
- sametmax 8y ago
  > The US military struggled for many years and spent huge amounts of money fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan They kill 100 fighters for one death on their side, and have control over the natural resources they want. I don't see the bright side for the opposite party. > Trying to fight an insurgency on home soil, without the support of a tax-paying public? Forget about it! That's a better argument. But that would assume the revolution would last. The local population would not have money or food either, but wouldn't have the supply chain or the reserve the military have.
  - pfisch 8y ago
    The us lost these engagements though. Truly defeating insurgencies like these is currently beyond the reach of the most technologically advanced and well funded armies in the world.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- gumby 8y ago
  FWIW insurgent asymmetric warfare was how the US primarily fought its own revolution (there were a few set piece battles as well, e.g. Yorktown, hardly insignificant). In the end I believe quite a bit of cash spread around Whitehall is what made the difference, though not everyone will agree. In the US civil war there was much less of this for reasons unclear to me.
  - 8y ago
some_random 8y ago
In the specific, an unarmored helicopter hovering or moving predictably close enough for a marksman to shoot at a target (goat or otherwise) would be easy prey for a handful of people with small arms. In the more general case, I don't think you quite appreciate how difficult counterinsurgency operations are, or how little tech affects them. Jets can drop some pretty nasty ordinance, but require targeting (the counterinsurgents _really_ don't want to damage infrastructure if they can avoid it) which they have trouble doing. Attack Helicopters are lean mean killing machines, but aren't great in urban environments and also need to PID their targets if the brass gives any fucks about civilian casualties. Tanks are great pretty much everything when it comes to conventional warfare, but _MUST BE SCREENED BY INFANTRY_. Looking at you, giraffe-man. All this probably makes you think of drones (I'm going to only talk about large UAVs here), which are in fact a pretty useful asset to security forces. They can carry out assassinations, recon, target designation, gather intelligence, and all without risking pilots. However, in a large scale insurgency, they really aren't that useful in a tactical sense. This is because of the simple truth that the only thing that can hold territory (especially cities) is infantry. A drone can't disperse a mob. A jet can't set up a checkpoint. An attack helicopter can't search a neighborhood for contraband. A tank can't rescue an informant in the middle of the night. Only infantry can do this. And in spite of any training or technical advantages to date, an insurgent with a rifle can still kill infantry.
- sametmax 8y ago
  Makes sense, thanks.
ALittleLight 8y ago
Except... A. You don't have to be alone. B. You can be armed. C. You have more intelligence than a goat. I think that, until we get to automated police forces, rebellion will still be possible.
nyolfen 8y ago
which is why lightly armed irregulars have such a shoddy record against superpower militaries

behringer 8y ago

But humans aren't goats, even if they aren't in the military.

trhway 8y ago
From the POV of an alien civilization observing how humans have been screwing Earth ecosystem we as well may be just like those goats.

AWildC182 8y ago

Let's revisit this comment once the US leaves the middle east.

sametmax 8y ago
Does it look like any local fighting in the middle east is winning ? Also, I've you looked at the body count on each sides ? And in the end, don't the USA have the control of the local natural resources exactly as they wanted to ?
- AWildC182 8y ago
  Doesn't look like anyone is winning really. If the military leaves right now, we'll probably just have ISIS 2.0 in a few years. Urban combat is really painful for all involved. If it was like shooting goats from a helicopter wouldn't the conflict be over already?
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Counter terrorism is not the real reason there is a war here. Several countries in Europe fight terrorism, and they don't need to go to war. The american are still here because they benefit from it.
- pfisch 8y ago
  Winning a war and body counts are not the same thing. Even in vietnam the US had a good ratio in terms of killing Vietnamese vs allied deaths. That doesn’t mean the US was winning.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    The local fighters are slaughtered in mass for very little effect toward their objectives of liberation while the US still maintain control of the natural resources the way they want. Winning is not always necessary.

chongli 8y ago

A human can carry a shoulder-launched anti-aircraft weapon and destroy the helicopter, while hiding amongst the rubble of a chaotic urban environment. Asymmetric warfare is very difficult. The US military struggled for many years and spent huge amounts of money fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are small countries compared to the US. Trying to fight an insurgency on home soil, without the support of a tax-paying public? Forget about it!

sametmax 8y ago
> The US military struggled for many years and spent huge amounts of money fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan They kill 100 fighters for one death on their side, and have control over the natural resources they want. I don't see the bright side for the opposite party. > Trying to fight an insurgency on home soil, without the support of a tax-paying public? Forget about it! That's a better argument. But that would assume the revolution would last. The local population would not have money or food either, but wouldn't have the supply chain or the reserve the military have.
- pfisch 8y ago
  The us lost these engagements though. Truly defeating insurgencies like these is currently beyond the reach of the most technologically advanced and well funded armies in the world.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gumby 8y ago
FWIW insurgent asymmetric warfare was how the US primarily fought its own revolution (there were a few set piece battles as well, e.g. Yorktown, hardly insignificant). In the end I believe quite a bit of cash spread around Whitehall is what made the difference, though not everyone will agree. In the US civil war there was much less of this for reasons unclear to me.
- 8y ago

some_random 8y ago

In the specific, an unarmored helicopter hovering or moving predictably close enough for a marksman to shoot at a target (goat or otherwise) would be easy prey for a handful of people with small arms. In the more general case, I don't think you quite appreciate how difficult counterinsurgency operations are, or how little tech affects them. Jets can drop some pretty nasty ordinance, but require targeting (the counterinsurgents _really_ don't want to damage infrastructure if they can avoid it) which they have trouble doing. Attack Helicopters are lean mean killing machines, but aren't great in urban environments and also need to PID their targets if the brass gives any fucks about civilian casualties. Tanks are great pretty much everything when it comes to conventional warfare, but _MUST BE SCREENED BY INFANTRY_. Looking at you, giraffe-man. All this probably makes you think of drones (I'm going to only talk about large UAVs here), which are in fact a pretty useful asset to security forces. They can carry out assassinations, recon, target designation, gather intelligence, and all without risking pilots. However, in a large scale insurgency, they really aren't that useful in a tactical sense. This is because of the simple truth that the only thing that can hold territory (especially cities) is infantry. A drone can't disperse a mob. A jet can't set up a checkpoint. An attack helicopter can't search a neighborhood for contraband. A tank can't rescue an informant in the middle of the night. Only infantry can do this. And in spite of any training or technical advantages to date, an insurgent with a rifle can still kill infantry.

sametmax 8y ago
Makes sense, thanks.

ALittleLight 8y ago

Except... A. You don't have to be alone. B. You can be armed. C. You have more intelligence than a goat. I think that, until we get to automated police forces, rebellion will still be possible.

nyolfen 8y ago

which is why lightly armed irregulars have such a shoddy record against superpower militaries