5 ms·

> Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight In the 1940s, the DoD pub

> Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight In the 1940s, the DoD published a field manual on how folk with "puny little guns" - or no guns at all - can fight.

DrewADesign 1y ago
Let's see... military drones; satellite surveillance; comms surveillance; giant network of flock cameras vacuuming up facial, descriptive vehicular, and license plate movement data; small-scale tactical nuclear weapons; a huge fleet of hypersonic aircraft and extremely maneuverable helicopters; decades of urban combat experience; militarized law enforcement; the largest military in the world by orders of magnitude fighting on its own turf; complete control of utilities infrastructure, centralized resource creation for food, fuel and weapons; large stockpiles of modern chemical weapons that they wouldn't hesitate to use for a second if it was an existential threat... the world is a very very different place than it was in the 40s, and the modern US military is very very very very very different than any military was back then. Even if you can argue that our power has grown linearly with more access to guns or whatever, the US military's power has grown at a much much faster rate.
- varjag 1y ago
  Good luck with hypersonic nukes when your patrols are pecked by ambushes and FPV drones in the spaghetti of neighborhoods with opposing alignments.
  - DrewADesign 1y ago
    Except this violence will absolutely be preceded extensive operations by the giant existing police and national guard presence that knows the neighborhoods like the backs of their hand. They would put a giant dent in that well before a single shot was fired. Would that absolutely be the case if we invaded, say, Canada? Quite likely. The US government has so much existing control on US soil that I'd eat my hat if any US city lasted a week in active conflict.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Afghanistan
  - DrewADesign 1y ago
    Would you consider the US military presence in Afghanistan comparable to it's presence in the US? How about knowledge of the landscape, ability to understand local cultures, having local contacts, having working transportation routes, resources in place, and the fact that none of the people fighting back are going to be backed by foreign governments? These two scenarios are incomparable.
    - I-M-S 1y ago
      True, but it goes the other way around as well - the Taliban had absolutely no way to infiltrate the ranks and do damage to the military operations from within.
      - DrewADesign 1y ago
        Was that a significant problem during the civil war?
        I-M-S 1y ago
        Excellent question. Perhaps someone knowledgeable on that subject can tell us more.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      They're absolutely comparable, notwithstanding their being different. One could just as well argue that it was a lot easier for the military to do drone strikes or call in CAS on the Taliban with zero risk of political blowback. You remind me of someone who was seriously arguing with me in 2004, telling me the Iraq war would not turn into a quagmire because Iraq was arid desert whereas Vietnam was semi-tropical and forested.
      - 1y ago

DrewADesign 1y ago

Let's see... military drones; satellite surveillance; comms surveillance; giant network of flock cameras vacuuming up facial, descriptive vehicular, and license plate movement data; small-scale tactical nuclear weapons; a huge fleet of hypersonic aircraft and extremely maneuverable helicopters; decades of urban combat experience; militarized law enforcement; the largest military in the world by orders of magnitude fighting on its own turf; complete control of utilities infrastructure, centralized resource creation for food, fuel and weapons; large stockpiles of modern chemical weapons that they wouldn't hesitate to use for a second if it was an existential threat... the world is a very very different place than it was in the 40s, and the modern US military is very very very very very different than any military was back then. Even if you can argue that our power has grown linearly with more access to guns or whatever, the US military's power has grown at a much much faster rate.

varjag 1y ago
Good luck with hypersonic nukes when your patrols are pecked by ambushes and FPV drones in the spaghetti of neighborhoods with opposing alignments.
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  Except this violence will absolutely be preceded extensive operations by the giant existing police and national guard presence that knows the neighborhoods like the backs of their hand. They would put a giant dent in that well before a single shot was fired. Would that absolutely be the case if we invaded, say, Canada? Quite likely. The US government has so much existing control on US soil that I'd eat my hat if any US city lasted a week in active conflict.
anigbrowl 1y ago
Afghanistan
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  Would you consider the US military presence in Afghanistan comparable to it's presence in the US? How about knowledge of the landscape, ability to understand local cultures, having local contacts, having working transportation routes, resources in place, and the fact that none of the people fighting back are going to be backed by foreign governments? These two scenarios are incomparable.
  - I-M-S 1y ago
    True, but it goes the other way around as well - the Taliban had absolutely no way to infiltrate the ranks and do damage to the military operations from within.
    - DrewADesign 1y ago
      Was that a significant problem during the civil war?
      - I-M-S 1y ago
        Excellent question. Perhaps someone knowledgeable on that subject can tell us more.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    They're absolutely comparable, notwithstanding their being different. One could just as well argue that it was a lot easier for the military to do drone strikes or call in CAS on the Taliban with zero risk of political blowback. You remind me of someone who was seriously arguing with me in 2004, telling me the Iraq war would not turn into a quagmire because Iraq was arid desert whereas Vietnam was semi-tropical and forested.
    - 1y ago