5 ms·

You already have the National Guard out in Missouri, and they have Blackhawk helicopters which have chain guns as their standard armament. The idea that in the

You already have the National Guard out in Missouri, and they have Blackhawk helicopters which have chain guns as their standard armament. The idea that in the US civil militias could really hold their own against the state is an absurd fiction. Unless significant portions of the armed forces defected to join an uprising and managed to take their equipment with them, then it would be very one sided. The militias will have hand guns and rifles, the state has everything up to and including nukes. There is a probably apocryphal quote attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto, that if you tried to invade the mainland US, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Isoroku Yamamoto was born in 1884. War has progressed since then. Satellites can look behind every blade of grass and let you know where the rifles are, then you can send in the drones while you sit back in your bunker and sip tea.

bitexploder 12y ago
I just have to say, for a long time, I have read sentiments like yours. Namely that, because the government has the big arms, they can win a fight against a civil militia. I would argue that we need to look no further than the middle east and how intense urban warfare really is to see that big weapons don't help. When you can't reliably root out the enemy force from the civilian force it is very hard to apply your big weapons. When the enemy eschews the Internet and uses traditional couriers (like the ISIS leader), they can be very hard targets. All that technology and weaponry, but you still need somewhere to aim it. Look how long it took to get OBL. It would be a brutal civil war. Brother against brother again, if it ever happened at scale in the US.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Sometimes it goes down that way, if the military feels it needs to hold back and win the narrative, not just the ground. On home soil it may well do this, but equally it may go completely nuts if it feels subject to a genuine existential threat. Look to the end of the Tamil Tigers for an example of what a modern military is capable of against insurgents when it pulls out all the stops. - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/01/17/death-of-the-tiger http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/01/17/death-of-the-ti... And remember that the Tamil Tigers were one of the most experienced of the various guerrilla groups around the world.
  - staunch 12y ago
    Comparing the Tamil Tigers and a popular uprising of 200 million armed Americans is laughable. Your mistaken notion that a rebellion can't fight a sophisticated military has been decisively disproved over the last decade in the middle east. Plausibly debated 15 years ago but now we know you're wrong. ISIS took control of a large part of Iraq and Syria and they started with small arms. They took over army bases and stole gear (didn't think of that?). IDF has been throwing the best technology in the world at Hamas for decades. They're stronger than ever because they have popular support. Suggesting that the U.S. military would fight against a popular uprising is beyond crazy and entirely ignorant. You can't know how our military works, or who it's made up of, and think that. This is crazier than any common conspiracy theory you can think of.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      If there is ever a simple uprising in the US, I would completely agree with you, it would be next to impossible to get the armed forces in the USA to fight against a general popular uprising. If it is more fragmented then it gets more complex as national solidarity breaks down at that point. Sure the army won't shoot Americans, but propaganda can start to redefine who counts as American. ISIS did take over well equipped army bases with AK-47s, however only because the people with the equipment were not trained and ran away instead of using it. And the IDF has only ever been in limited engagements against Hamas. They have never tried to completely destroy them militarily. My point with the LTTE was never that a rebellion cannot fight a sophisticated military, just that if a sophisticated military uses total war tactics, they can utterly annihilate a foe. What stops armies from doing this against a weaker enemy is not capability, but politics. The US could have nuked Vietnam for instance, but politically it would have been unjustifiable. Ultimately, it is the attitude and makeup of your military that protects you from them, far more than the personal ownership of guns. Edit - Regarding common conspiracies. My personal bet at the moment, ignorant and uninformed as I may be, is that there are a bunch of secessionists with power in Missouri and that this explains the bewildering actions of the Ferguson police. It would seem a very good explanation for the actions of many of the authorities involved in the situation. Though, then again, so would complete incompetence, so in truth I am 50/50 on this.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

bitexploder 12y ago

I just have to say, for a long time, I have read sentiments like yours. Namely that, because the government has the big arms, they can win a fight against a civil militia. I would argue that we need to look no further than the middle east and how intense urban warfare really is to see that big weapons don't help. When you can't reliably root out the enemy force from the civilian force it is very hard to apply your big weapons. When the enemy eschews the Internet and uses traditional couriers (like the ISIS leader), they can be very hard targets. All that technology and weaponry, but you still need somewhere to aim it. Look how long it took to get OBL. It would be a brutal civil war. Brother against brother again, if it ever happened at scale in the US.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
Sometimes it goes down that way, if the military feels it needs to hold back and win the narrative, not just the ground. On home soil it may well do this, but equally it may go completely nuts if it feels subject to a genuine existential threat. Look to the end of the Tamil Tigers for an example of what a modern military is capable of against insurgents when it pulls out all the stops. - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/01/17/death-of-the-tiger http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/01/17/death-of-the-ti... And remember that the Tamil Tigers were one of the most experienced of the various guerrilla groups around the world.
- staunch 12y ago
  Comparing the Tamil Tigers and a popular uprising of 200 million armed Americans is laughable. Your mistaken notion that a rebellion can't fight a sophisticated military has been decisively disproved over the last decade in the middle east. Plausibly debated 15 years ago but now we know you're wrong. ISIS took control of a large part of Iraq and Syria and they started with small arms. They took over army bases and stole gear (didn't think of that?). IDF has been throwing the best technology in the world at Hamas for decades. They're stronger than ever because they have popular support. Suggesting that the U.S. military would fight against a popular uprising is beyond crazy and entirely ignorant. You can't know how our military works, or who it's made up of, and think that. This is crazier than any common conspiracy theory you can think of.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    If there is ever a simple uprising in the US, I would completely agree with you, it would be next to impossible to get the armed forces in the USA to fight against a general popular uprising. If it is more fragmented then it gets more complex as national solidarity breaks down at that point. Sure the army won't shoot Americans, but propaganda can start to redefine who counts as American. ISIS did take over well equipped army bases with AK-47s, however only because the people with the equipment were not trained and ran away instead of using it. And the IDF has only ever been in limited engagements against Hamas. They have never tried to completely destroy them militarily. My point with the LTTE was never that a rebellion cannot fight a sophisticated military, just that if a sophisticated military uses total war tactics, they can utterly annihilate a foe. What stops armies from doing this against a weaker enemy is not capability, but politics. The US could have nuked Vietnam for instance, but politically it would have been unjustifiable. Ultimately, it is the attitude and makeup of your military that protects you from them, far more than the personal ownership of guns. Edit - Regarding common conspiracies. My personal bet at the moment, ignorant and uninformed as I may be, is that there are a bunch of secessionists with power in Missouri and that this explains the bewildering actions of the Ferguson police. It would seem a very good explanation for the actions of many of the authorities involved in the situation. Though, then again, so would complete incompetence, so in truth I am 50/50 on this.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]