5 ms·

> their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided Taliban? Vietcong?

by monoideism 5y ago

no-dr-onboard 5y ago
Excellent examples that will undoubtedly be shushed away.
- wavefunction 5y ago
  I disagree that they're excellent examples when you consider the difference in terrain, infrastructure, the cultural and religious differences between the combatants and the status of one side as foreign occupying force.
  - zepto 5y ago
    That seems like just shushing them away by saying they aren’t the same, when in fact those factors don’t make a difference.
    - darkhorse13 5y ago
      There's really no way of knowing for sure, because you can't deny that many of the Talibans fought so fearlessly because of the certainty of their faith and religion.
      - zepto 5y ago
        There at plenty of people in the US who have certainty in their faith, whether it be Christianity, or the desire to confront oppression.
brodouevencode 5y ago
The whole argument that small arms are of no comparison to tanks and nuclear weapons are made by people who have no experience with firearms, fire fight and perimeter and assault tactics, or any type of military strategy. To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side). You would also have to assume that you could safely identify gun owners that would be willing to combat - if there's anything the US attempts to avoid (and with good reason) it is attacking non-combatants (it would be very easy to blend in to the normal population as we've seen in the Middle East). The difference here and the Civil War of 1865 was that there were clear demarcations between the sides. You would also have to assume that whatever resources you employ to launch this war would not interfere with any other outside enemy that may use this time as an opportunity to launch their own assaults (i.e. it would be a great opportunity for another 9/11). Mostly, this is a lazy half-thought-out argument.
- bitwize 5y ago
  > To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side). I hear this a lot from the right, and I think it's hogwash. The Biden administration has already begun ideological screening of military personnel. If the government is forced to go to war against its own people, it will be mostly aging, out-of-shape fanatics on one side and highly-trained, highly-motivated, younger loyalists to the legitimate government on the other. It'll be a rout.
  - Sevii 5y ago
    The 'highly trained' part I doubt. Our military has been crashing its destroyers into cargo ships and bungling withdrawals lately.
  - brodouevencode 5y ago
    This notion is a meme for good reason.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side). This is totally speculation on my part, but it could be important to have a armed civilian resistance to create a "permission structure" for military defection. My understanding is that military strongly inculcates loyalty and obedience to the organization. Those seem like they'd be hard feelings to overcome, especially in isolation when the defection would be solitary and likely pointless. I'd think that in a lot of cases people would just muddle along for lack of options. Having a group to join and take your equipment to seems like it would make the decision much easier.
  - brodouevencode 5y ago
    Keep in mind that a lot of the military are your neighbors: reserves, national guard, and the like.
cratermoon 5y ago
VC was supported by China. Taliban is supported by Pakistan and Russia. They don't have "small arms", they have the backing of major powers.
- oaktrout 5y ago
  Presumably in a war where the US government fought its citizens there would be world powers that would support the citizens, whether they wanted to help the citizens or simply weaken the US government.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    I don't necessarily see that happening. No other country came in on the side of the Confederacy during the US Civil War.
- theandrewbailey 5y ago
  Did VC and Taliban have tanks, planes, or warships?
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
    The VC were conveniently for the North used up in the Tet Offensive, after that it almost entirely the regular forces of the North. Who didn't need planes or warships for their second huge armored invasion after support US was withdrawn for the South.
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  Taliban never had the backing of Russia, what is this bs you're spreading?
  - thisiscorrect 5y ago
    The NY Times spread some misinformation that Russia had offered a bounty to the Taliban for killing American soldiers [1]. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/remember-those-russian-bounties-dead-u-s-troops-biden-admin-n1264215 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/remember-...
nerfhammer 5y ago
There's a very different record of homegrown dictators vs. foreign occupying powers in this regard.

> their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided Taliban? Vietcong?

no-dr-onboard 5y ago

Excellent examples that will undoubtedly be shushed away.

wavefunction 5y ago
I disagree that they're excellent examples when you consider the difference in terrain, infrastructure, the cultural and religious differences between the combatants and the status of one side as foreign occupying force.
- zepto 5y ago
  That seems like just shushing them away by saying they aren’t the same, when in fact those factors don’t make a difference.
  - darkhorse13 5y ago
    There's really no way of knowing for sure, because you can't deny that many of the Talibans fought so fearlessly because of the certainty of their faith and religion.
    - zepto 5y ago
      There at plenty of people in the US who have certainty in their faith, whether it be Christianity, or the desire to confront oppression.

brodouevencode 5y ago

The whole argument that small arms are of no comparison to tanks and nuclear weapons are made by people who have no experience with firearms, fire fight and perimeter and assault tactics, or any type of military strategy. To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side). You would also have to assume that you could safely identify gun owners that would be willing to combat - if there's anything the US attempts to avoid (and with good reason) it is attacking non-combatants (it would be very easy to blend in to the normal population as we've seen in the Middle East). The difference here and the Civil War of 1865 was that there were clear demarcations between the sides. You would also have to assume that whatever resources you employ to launch this war would not interfere with any other outside enemy that may use this time as an opportunity to launch their own assaults (i.e. it would be a great opportunity for another 9/11). Mostly, this is a lazy half-thought-out argument.

bitwize 5y ago
> To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side). I hear this a lot from the right, and I think it's hogwash. The Biden administration has already begun ideological screening of military personnel. If the government is forced to go to war against its own people, it will be mostly aging, out-of-shape fanatics on one side and highly-trained, highly-motivated, younger loyalists to the legitimate government on the other. It'll be a rout.
- Sevii 5y ago
  The 'highly trained' part I doubt. Our military has been crashing its destroyers into cargo ships and bungling withdrawals lately.
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  This notion is a meme for good reason.
tablespoon 5y ago
> To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side). This is totally speculation on my part, but it could be important to have a armed civilian resistance to create a "permission structure" for military defection. My understanding is that military strongly inculcates loyalty and obedience to the organization. Those seem like they'd be hard feelings to overcome, especially in isolation when the defection would be solitary and likely pointless. I'd think that in a lot of cases people would just muddle along for lack of options. Having a group to join and take your equipment to seems like it would make the decision much easier.
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  Keep in mind that a lot of the military are your neighbors: reserves, national guard, and the like.

cratermoon 5y ago

VC was supported by China. Taliban is supported by Pakistan and Russia. They don't have "small arms", they have the backing of major powers.

oaktrout 5y ago
Presumably in a war where the US government fought its citizens there would be world powers that would support the citizens, whether they wanted to help the citizens or simply weaken the US government.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  I don't necessarily see that happening. No other country came in on the side of the Confederacy during the US Civil War.
theandrewbailey 5y ago
Did VC and Taliban have tanks, planes, or warships?
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  The VC were conveniently for the North used up in the Tet Offensive, after that it almost entirely the regular forces of the North. Who didn't need planes or warships for their second huge armored invasion after support US was withdrawn for the South.
Dma54rhs 5y ago
Taliban never had the backing of Russia, what is this bs you're spreading?
- thisiscorrect 5y ago
  The NY Times spread some misinformation that Russia had offered a bounty to the Taliban for killing American soldiers [1]. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/remember-those-russian-bounties-dead-u-s-troops-biden-admin-n1264215 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/remember-...

nerfhammer 5y ago

There's a very different record of homegrown dictators vs. foreign occupying powers in this regard.