4 ms·

There are gun nut americans who truly believe gun owners would contribute an effective resistance to a modern invading army because they own an ar15. That count

There are gun nut americans who truly believe gun owners would contribute an effective resistance to a modern invading army because they own an ar15. That country is deluded and everyone falls off eventually and trump may have actually accelerated the country out of it's golden age

ap99 7mo ago
[flagged]
- bnj 7mo ago
  I don’t feel well educated in modern military actions- are you saying that civilian gun owners in America would contribute meaningfully to the national defense (maybe because of things like civil resistance in other modern conflicts?), or am I misunderstanding? Do you have any suggestions for how I could start to broach the topic? It’s so broad and fast-moving that it’s hard to know where to start.
  - edgyquant 7mo ago
    Yes absolutely they would and insurgencies are not the same thing as two nations fighting each other. America has twice as many gun owners as there are people in Afghanistan, a large chunk of them have combat experience.
    - FpUser 7mo ago
      And nearly every soldier playing government side would very likely have relatives on the other side. Most likely great demotivator
      - heavyset_go 7mo ago
        Civil wars happen all of the time. Not only is propaganda effective, but militaries have ways to mitigate this, like moving soldiers far away from home to fight in places they don't have familial/cultural/economic/etc ties, which also makes it more likely that the propaganda will work.
  - bluGill 7mo ago
    What makes you think the us army would unite against them? Sure a few nut militials would be suppressed, but if gun owners in mass are raising up that means a large controversy that the military will be aware of. The us military is not full of 'yes men' who will follow orders that blindly on home turf, a lot of them will follow. i doubt we will see this in my lifetime
    - riskable 7mo ago
      > What makes you think the us army would unite against them? I'd turn that around and ask, "What makes you think the people would accept the gun nuts rebellion?" Many would be celebrating in the streets if the military showed up with tanks and started blasting. Furthermore, there's enough people in the military from far, far outside whatever state is being threatened to care that much about the locals. "Fuckin' Texas gun nuts" <starts shooting>
      - bluGill 7mo ago
        Again, you are assuming a small rebellion - of course those will be put down. Texas has enough gun owners to put down a small rebellion without the military (they would let the military/police do it). However if things got so far that the majority of gun owners were willing to go to war that implies the US is at least very divided and the military is going to at least partially be on the side of the rebellion.
  - amalcon 7mo ago
    The thing that makes the large quantity of American gun owners potentially useful in that sort of scenario is not that they possess guns. That matters a little, but usually most of the equipment a resistance uses is captured and/or supplied by allies. The thing that would be useful is these individuals' skills with firearms. It's theoretically kind of an alternate route to a similar (but lower) background proficiency level that some countries achieve with mandatory military service. Note however that America is not only not unique in having that background proficiency -- but unlike mandatory military service, this approach has not really been tested. It's far from a certain proposition either way.
    - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
      The hardware still matters because it lets you execute suspected collaborators and force the occupiers to incur cost hardening their logistics train (i.e. insurgency 101 type stuff) without waiting for the bureaucrats in whatever foreign country wants to fund your insurgency to prepare your arms shipments.
      - bcjdjsndon 7mo ago
        Ummhmm... and how you going to stop either a tank, artillery, drones or air strikes?
        deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
      - amalcon 7mo ago
        If you're in a situation where the thing you're doing can be meaningfully called an "execution", a firearm is a convenience, not a necessity. There are also plenty of effective attacks on logistics trains that don't involve firearms, though I will grant that they are at least sometimes a force multiplier there. Hence "that matters a little".
    - bcjdjsndon 7mo ago
      Exactly the type of gunnut I'm talking about. You lot couldn't handle being asked to wear a COVID mask, you wouldn't be able to handle actual war against a state armed with ya assault rifle and tinned food
- Fricken 7mo ago
  The 2nd amendment types are a little too impressionable for their guns to be of much use. They were soundly defeated in 5th generation warfare without the need to fire nary a shot. Less gullible americans tend to not own guns, so they were also defeated without firing nary a shot. Now America is just a big dumb worm that Netanyahu has his hooks in and uses to cruise around the desert with.
  - freedomben 7mo ago
    > Less gullible americans tend to not own guns Guns are not only for counter-insurgency on invasion/warfare. For most people I know who own guns, that's not even on their top 10 list of reasons. But if you don't think they'd be a factor, then you disagree with some of the top generals around the world.
    - bcjdjsndon 7mo ago
      [flagged]
  - ap99 7mo ago
    This comment isn't worthy of HN.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Fricken 7mo ago
      Then why did you make it?
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
    Civilian guns (armament generally, not just guns) aren't for going toe to toe with a trained military in the field. They're for putting a bullet in you and/your your family if you act as a collaborator, taking potshots at the logistics train, and all the other nasty stuff you have to do to make occupation costly in terms of both life and dollars. Every cent spent on putting bullet proof glass in the camera installation van and drone cages on the police station and using those cameras and drones to track down the guy who shot you for collaborating is a cent that must be extracted from either the occupied population or the population that's financing the occupiers and not spent in direct pursuit of the political goal.
throw0101c 7mo ago
> There are gun nut americans who truly believe gun owners would contribute an effective resistance to a modern invading army because they own an ar15. It would depend on their patience. The insurgency in Iraq was eventually suppressed (American COIN manuals were updated). The insurgency (?) in Afghanistan outlasted the patience of the invaders. So how long do the 'gun nutters' want to keep at it compared to the opposing force? Further, it's worth asking how effective, on average, is violent disobedience. Generally speaking a movement has about double the odds of success by not using violence: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc...

ap99 7mo ago

[flagged]

bnj 7mo ago
I don’t feel well educated in modern military actions- are you saying that civilian gun owners in America would contribute meaningfully to the national defense (maybe because of things like civil resistance in other modern conflicts?), or am I misunderstanding? Do you have any suggestions for how I could start to broach the topic? It’s so broad and fast-moving that it’s hard to know where to start.
- edgyquant 7mo ago
  Yes absolutely they would and insurgencies are not the same thing as two nations fighting each other. America has twice as many gun owners as there are people in Afghanistan, a large chunk of them have combat experience.
  - FpUser 7mo ago
    And nearly every soldier playing government side would very likely have relatives on the other side. Most likely great demotivator
    - heavyset_go 7mo ago
      Civil wars happen all of the time. Not only is propaganda effective, but militaries have ways to mitigate this, like moving soldiers far away from home to fight in places they don't have familial/cultural/economic/etc ties, which also makes it more likely that the propaganda will work.
- bluGill 7mo ago
  What makes you think the us army would unite against them? Sure a few nut militials would be suppressed, but if gun owners in mass are raising up that means a large controversy that the military will be aware of. The us military is not full of 'yes men' who will follow orders that blindly on home turf, a lot of them will follow. i doubt we will see this in my lifetime
  - riskable 7mo ago
    > What makes you think the us army would unite against them? I'd turn that around and ask, "What makes you think the people would accept the gun nuts rebellion?" Many would be celebrating in the streets if the military showed up with tanks and started blasting. Furthermore, there's enough people in the military from far, far outside whatever state is being threatened to care that much about the locals. "Fuckin' Texas gun nuts" <starts shooting>
    - bluGill 7mo ago
      Again, you are assuming a small rebellion - of course those will be put down. Texas has enough gun owners to put down a small rebellion without the military (they would let the military/police do it). However if things got so far that the majority of gun owners were willing to go to war that implies the US is at least very divided and the military is going to at least partially be on the side of the rebellion.
- amalcon 7mo ago
  The thing that makes the large quantity of American gun owners potentially useful in that sort of scenario is not that they possess guns. That matters a little, but usually most of the equipment a resistance uses is captured and/or supplied by allies. The thing that would be useful is these individuals' skills with firearms. It's theoretically kind of an alternate route to a similar (but lower) background proficiency level that some countries achieve with mandatory military service. Note however that America is not only not unique in having that background proficiency -- but unlike mandatory military service, this approach has not really been tested. It's far from a certain proposition either way.
  - cucumber3732842 7mo ago
    The hardware still matters because it lets you execute suspected collaborators and force the occupiers to incur cost hardening their logistics train (i.e. insurgency 101 type stuff) without waiting for the bureaucrats in whatever foreign country wants to fund your insurgency to prepare your arms shipments.
    - bcjdjsndon 7mo ago
      Ummhmm... and how you going to stop either a tank, artillery, drones or air strikes?
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
    - amalcon 7mo ago
      If you're in a situation where the thing you're doing can be meaningfully called an "execution", a firearm is a convenience, not a necessity. There are also plenty of effective attacks on logistics trains that don't involve firearms, though I will grant that they are at least sometimes a force multiplier there. Hence "that matters a little".
  - bcjdjsndon 7mo ago
    Exactly the type of gunnut I'm talking about. You lot couldn't handle being asked to wear a COVID mask, you wouldn't be able to handle actual war against a state armed with ya assault rifle and tinned food
Fricken 7mo ago
The 2nd amendment types are a little too impressionable for their guns to be of much use. They were soundly defeated in 5th generation warfare without the need to fire nary a shot. Less gullible americans tend to not own guns, so they were also defeated without firing nary a shot. Now America is just a big dumb worm that Netanyahu has his hooks in and uses to cruise around the desert with.
- freedomben 7mo ago
  > Less gullible americans tend to not own guns Guns are not only for counter-insurgency on invasion/warfare. For most people I know who own guns, that's not even on their top 10 list of reasons. But if you don't think they'd be a factor, then you disagree with some of the top generals around the world.
  - bcjdjsndon 7mo ago
    [flagged]
- ap99 7mo ago
  This comment isn't worthy of HN.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Fricken 7mo ago
    Then why did you make it?
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- cucumber3732842 7mo ago
  Civilian guns (armament generally, not just guns) aren't for going toe to toe with a trained military in the field. They're for putting a bullet in you and/your your family if you act as a collaborator, taking potshots at the logistics train, and all the other nasty stuff you have to do to make occupation costly in terms of both life and dollars. Every cent spent on putting bullet proof glass in the camera installation van and drone cages on the police station and using those cameras and drones to track down the guy who shot you for collaborating is a cent that must be extracted from either the occupied population or the population that's financing the occupiers and not spent in direct pursuit of the political goal.

throw0101c 7mo ago

> There are gun nut americans who truly believe gun owners would contribute an effective resistance to a modern invading army because they own an ar15. It would depend on their patience. The insurgency in Iraq was eventually suppressed (American COIN manuals were updated). The insurgency (?) in Afghanistan outlasted the patience of the invaders. So how long do the 'gun nutters' want to keep at it compared to the opposing force? Further, it's worth asking how effective, on average, is violent disobedience. Generally speaking a movement has about double the odds of success by not using violence: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc...