5 ms·

I used to think similarly as well. But realistically speaking, the military weapons and civilian weapons are just too far apart nowadays. The military would abs

I used to think similarly as well. But realistically speaking, the military weapons and civilian weapons are just too far apart nowadays. The military would absolutely smoke us compared to the intent when it was written into the bill of rights.

frogperson 9mo ago
The US couldnt win a war agaisnt Afganistan or Vietnam and neither of them had state of the art weapons systems. Winning a war is so much more than expensive, shiny weapons.
antonymoose 9mo ago
It was my understanding that the Ukrainian government handed out small arms and various destructive devices to resistance fighters during the initial Russian invasion. That they were able to impede the advancing forces until their assault stalled due to bad supply lines dooming their attempt at a Gulf War style takedown of the country. Is that accurate or just Ukrainian propaganda like the Ghost of Kiev?
SR2Z 9mo ago
The power of military weapons is great if you want to bomb buildings and burn down bridges, but there is no point fighting your own people just be crowned King of the ashes. Estimates for counterinsurgency are that an occupier needs ~20 soldiers for 1000 occupied civilians. The US army has 1.3M troops - the entire might of the US military would be needed to pacify just CA alone, and that would leave the rest of the country virtually defenseless. It's easy to bomb a building from a jet; it's much harder to kick in doors and arrest dissidents _even if_ there is no armed resistance. The hard truth that allows democracy to survive is that it is not possible to govern without the consent of the governed. It is certainly not possible to occupy a rich, productive region and have it remain rich and productive unless the occupier has overwhelming force.
- JCharante 9mo ago
  couldn't the government just pull an Alderaan? e.g. destroy 1 city as a message to all other cities not to resist?
  - jonplackett 9mo ago
    Don’t give them ideas…
    - assaddayinh 9mo ago
      [dead]

frogperson 9mo ago

The US couldnt win a war agaisnt Afganistan or Vietnam and neither of them had state of the art weapons systems. Winning a war is so much more than expensive, shiny weapons.

antonymoose 9mo ago

It was my understanding that the Ukrainian government handed out small arms and various destructive devices to resistance fighters during the initial Russian invasion. That they were able to impede the advancing forces until their assault stalled due to bad supply lines dooming their attempt at a Gulf War style takedown of the country. Is that accurate or just Ukrainian propaganda like the Ghost of Kiev?

SR2Z 9mo ago

The power of military weapons is great if you want to bomb buildings and burn down bridges, but there is no point fighting your own people just be crowned King of the ashes. Estimates for counterinsurgency are that an occupier needs ~20 soldiers for 1000 occupied civilians. The US army has 1.3M troops - the entire might of the US military would be needed to pacify just CA alone, and that would leave the rest of the country virtually defenseless. It's easy to bomb a building from a jet; it's much harder to kick in doors and arrest dissidents _even if_ there is no armed resistance. The hard truth that allows democracy to survive is that it is not possible to govern without the consent of the governed. It is certainly not possible to occupy a rich, productive region and have it remain rich and productive unless the occupier has overwhelming force.

JCharante 9mo ago
couldn't the government just pull an Alderaan? e.g. destroy 1 city as a message to all other cities not to resist?
- jonplackett 9mo ago
  Don’t give them ideas…
  - assaddayinh 9mo ago
    [dead]