3 ms·

Yet, the US has pretty much been kept at bay from Irak and Afghanistan, go figure... In general, the US army is not equipped for guerilla-style warfare, and esp

Yet, the US has pretty much been kept at bay from Irak and Afghanistan, go figure... In general, the US army is not equipped for guerilla-style warfare, and especially not on US soil. Local PD are another story on this point, but far less equipped.

082349872349872 6y ago
In general, maybe. Here's a specific case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757
ashtonkem 6y ago
On one hand it’s clear that a guérilla campaign is fully capable of resisting a first class army for a long period of time; this has been clear since the 1970s. What people tend to ignore is that the defenders do this while sustaining much higher casualties. Oh, and civilian casualties are typically an order of magnitude higher because high explosives aren’t very discriminatory. On one hand, that’s an interesting discussion about modern warfare. On the other it is not a convincing argument about how you shouldn’t be too worried about the US military, because while a guérilla campaign might be able to stop them, it would only work after getting hundreds of thousands of people killed in your country. Not exactly a comforting argument.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  I prefer my politicians to bow down to US demands and not start a war in the first place.
- gruez 6y ago
  >What people tend to ignore is that the defenders do this while sustaining much higher casualties Is this supposed to be a good thing for the defender? The us has been there for more than a decade and the defenders weren't running out of combatants.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I mean, there’s no way to look at tens of thousands of deaths and declare it to be a good thing. I say it because usually in common discussion people forget that the defenders in this scenario hold out despite higher casualties, not due to the lack of them.
    - alacombe 6y ago
      > I mean, there’s no way to look at tens of thousands of deaths and declare it to be a good thing. Yes, there is. It was called the Russian WWII front where the Russians sent to the meat grinder by the tens of thousands held back the German army until winter and supply issues decimated them. It is a viable strategy to deal with a lack of equipment. Whether or on it is acceptable to say on HN is another story.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        I’d call that necessary or the lesser of two evils, not good.
        alacombe 6y ago
        > I’d call that necessary or the lesser of two evils Which is literally the very definition of _good_ - "In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good
- alacombe 6y ago
  > On the other it is not a convincing argument about how you shouldn’t be too worried about the US military Another argument is that the US military is likely to be split in case of direct intervention on US national soil, including in support of the National Guard or local PD. Same goes for the National Guard or local PD - ACANB [All Cops Are Not Bastards]. Not to mention the +350 millions firearms (and associated ammunitions & gears) owned by Americans.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
For now... See also training facilities in for instance Fort Polk, or the german Schnöggersburg, where that is only the largest, but not the only one. Also things like https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/7/29/darpa-subterranean-challenge https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/7/29/d... come to mind.

082349872349872 6y ago

In general, maybe. Here's a specific case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24520757

ashtonkem 6y ago

On one hand it’s clear that a guérilla campaign is fully capable of resisting a first class army for a long period of time; this has been clear since the 1970s. What people tend to ignore is that the defenders do this while sustaining much higher casualties. Oh, and civilian casualties are typically an order of magnitude higher because high explosives aren’t very discriminatory. On one hand, that’s an interesting discussion about modern warfare. On the other it is not a convincing argument about how you shouldn’t be too worried about the US military, because while a guérilla campaign might be able to stop them, it would only work after getting hundreds of thousands of people killed in your country. Not exactly a comforting argument.

londons_explore 6y ago
I prefer my politicians to bow down to US demands and not start a war in the first place.
gruez 6y ago
>What people tend to ignore is that the defenders do this while sustaining much higher casualties Is this supposed to be a good thing for the defender? The us has been there for more than a decade and the defenders weren't running out of combatants.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I mean, there’s no way to look at tens of thousands of deaths and declare it to be a good thing. I say it because usually in common discussion people forget that the defenders in this scenario hold out despite higher casualties, not due to the lack of them.
  - alacombe 6y ago
    > I mean, there’s no way to look at tens of thousands of deaths and declare it to be a good thing. Yes, there is. It was called the Russian WWII front where the Russians sent to the meat grinder by the tens of thousands held back the German army until winter and supply issues decimated them. It is a viable strategy to deal with a lack of equipment. Whether or on it is acceptable to say on HN is another story.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      I’d call that necessary or the lesser of two evils, not good.
      - alacombe 6y ago
        > I’d call that necessary or the lesser of two evils Which is literally the very definition of _good_ - "In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good
alacombe 6y ago
> On the other it is not a convincing argument about how you shouldn’t be too worried about the US military Another argument is that the US military is likely to be split in case of direct intervention on US national soil, including in support of the National Guard or local PD. Same goes for the National Guard or local PD - ACANB [All Cops Are Not Bastards]. Not to mention the +350 millions firearms (and associated ammunitions & gears) owned by Americans.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

For now... See also training facilities in for instance Fort Polk, or the german Schnöggersburg, where that is only the largest, but not the only one. Also things like https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/7/29/darpa-subterranean-challenge https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/7/29/d... come to mind.