3 ms·
I agree that random people with guns has nothing to do with US dominance globally, but you're wrong that the US army would win versus the armed civilians in the
by iepathos 4y ago
I agree that random people with guns has nothing to do with US dominance globally, but you're wrong that the US army would win versus the armed civilians in the country. There are only 1 million US army soldiers and over 81 million armed civilians in the US capable of fighting a sustained guerilla war. You only need to look at history to know that's a bad scenario for any armed forces trying to take and hold control of a region. I agree the cost of mass shootings and also just regular daily non-mass shootings are not worth it in modern society.
- shadowgovt 4y agoIt really depends on how vicious whatever commanding force controls the army would want to be. If they're willing to rule over a country of bones, the asymmetric warfare resources the United States has available are sufficient to put down any rebellion. How much fight do you think 81 million armed civilians would keep in them if cities just started vaporizing? A hypothetical American government with open rebellion wouldn't need to take and hold territory... It could decide specific chunks of the country are worth saving and nuke vast quantities of the rest. I'd say that scenario is impossible, but this is America we're talking about... If there's one thing the history of American warfare teaches, It's that you can't apply the rest of the history of war to the way America fights wars. This is the country that gave us, in modern times, ending a rebellion by putting civilian cities to the flame until the civilians became too tired and hungry to support the war.
- MrMan 4y agoI think you will see a right wing government using weapons of mass destruction on cities like NYC in our lifetime