- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: US Military Vs Civilians
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:51 pm to DarthRebel
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:51 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
No way military wins, unless they go nuclear, chemical or biological.
Yep, and alot of these options will be off the table if the resistance is mixed among regular citizens or in close proximity to the military, unless we are saying they don't care about civilian casualties.
That's the only way the military wins, no regard for civilian casualties
0
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:54 pm to Clames
quote:
would not go well for the DoD. Those that imagine otherwise are completely uneducated about how the military works here.
I think if it was 100% "us or them" war, the military wins due to firepower. Anything else civilians would have a fair to overwhelming advantage
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:57 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
think if it was 100% "us or them" war
For the sake of the hypothetical, this is what I assume.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:00 pm to biglego
quote:
For the sake of the hypothetical, this is what I assume.
Yeah but even in that scenario, the resistance would be more than a small annoyance. The government wouldn't bomb the country to oblivion with nukes, and people are too spread out
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:02 pm to colorchangintiger
quote:
But the citizen split would pretty much be gun owners vs non-gun owners.
I think the ones that think they are the only gun owners would be surprised.
I consider myself left of center but still own more guns than the average person right of center. I shot 3 position small bore in competition for 20 years, shot on a nationally ranked college team where I was also an NRA class C coach and shot on the CGs marksmanship team when I was stationed at FLW. While my gun CV may be an anomaly I am certainly far from unusual on the left of center side as far as owning and knowing how to use a gun.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:04 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
I think if it was 100% "us or them" war, the military wins due to firepower. Anything else civilians would have a fair to overwhelming advantag
Firepower means nothing. We learned nothing from Vietnam. Look at the size of Vietnam. We couldn't control a piece of land that size because of guerilla warfare and not having the troops to occupy the land. It would be 10 times worse here. With resistance fighters spread amongst civilians where do you use your firepower? Where do you bomb?
It would be way worse than Vietnam for the military
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:12 pm to biglego
quote:So the military is willing to kill their friends and families?
For the sake of the hypothetical, this is what I assume
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:13 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Brother, anyone who thinks a populace armed with light weaponry can stand up against the most technologically advanced fighting force the world has ever seen is kidding themselves. Keep in mind that not everyone who owns a weapon will be willing to fight and risk the lives of their families. Maybe half? Probably less. The only hope would be to retreat into the countryside, mountains, and swamps and use partisan tactics. It would be tough living that most people wouldn't be willing to go through, and then, when you finally piss command off enough, they send in special forces and wipe your arse out. Armed resistance like that might go on for decades, but it wouldn't be very effective.
That being said, if ever ordered to attack the American populace, the military would fragment into those who obey orders and those who would refuse and take up arms against the military. That could very well swing the odds in favor of the populace if military technology and expertise was to aid them.
That being said, if ever ordered to attack the American populace, the military would fragment into those who obey orders and those who would refuse and take up arms against the military. That could very well swing the odds in favor of the populace if military technology and expertise was to aid them.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:20 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
I think if it was 100% "us or them" war, the military wins due to firepower. Anything else civilians would have a fair to overwhelming advantage
100% DoD vs 100% Civilian the DoD still loses horribly. Do you not understand how much the DoD relies on civilians? The military does not operate in a bubble, its major weapons systems are built and maintained by civilian contractors. Its small arms ammunition manufacturing base is owned and operated by civilians. Out of the entire DoD only a minor fraction are combat-trained and experienced with the vast majority being support personnel who have never really considered the possibility of being on a 2-way range.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:21 pm to crispyUGA
quote:
Brother, anyone who thinks a populace armed with light weaponry can stand up against the most technologically advanced fighting force the world has ever seen is kidding themselves.
Didn't help us in Iraq or Vietnam and those frickers basically had sticks and stones in the beginning. What "advanced technology" do you think would be so beneficial in a guerilla war?
Again, assuming the military cares about civilian casualties
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:27 pm to Ed Osteen
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:30 pm to crispyUGA
quote:
Brother, anyone who thinks a populace armed with light weaponry can stand up against the most technologically advanced fighting force the world has ever seen is kidding themselves.
Sooner or later, boots have to occupy territory or buildings and 300 million is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 million
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:33 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
If it came down to it, the Military would coup the government.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:35 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Many of the country bumpkins you speak of are former military. Not to mention in the scenario posed, many current Military would jump ship
I think alot more “country bumkins” would have enough common sense to say frick that and want no part in going against the military than those that would jump ship to join those with a death wish.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:35 pm to Blue Velvet
Why is that funny? Isn't that what they signed up and swore to do if it ever became necessary?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:36 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
There is only one way the military wins
The military would have to be absent of humans to win, there is no other way they win.
The military would have to be absent of humans to win, there is no other way they win.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:37 pm to JOHNN
quote:
I think alot more “country bumkins” would have enough common sense to say frick that and want no part in going against the military than those that would jump ship to join those with a death wish.
Think of it as this kicks off with guns being taken. You have people who have been waiting their whole lives for this moment. The fact that citizens have arms, even if not up to military standards, keeps this from happening
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:43 pm to WaWaWeeWa
If the military is ordered to turn on its own populace, RoE go out the window.
US causalities in Iraq and Afghanistan have been amazingly light, considering all the troops that have been deployed, even with strict RoE's in place. Roughly 2.5 million US troops have been deployed since 2001 and casualty figures are right around 36,000 killed and wounded in those 2 theaters. Not make light of the sacrifice made by our armed, but that's .01% casualty rate. Statistically speaking, that's an astoundingly low number.
Vietnam was a different animal. The NVA might have lacked air superiority, but they were backed and supplied by China and, to a lesser extent, the Kremlin. The technology available to the military today has far outpaced the technology currently available to the civilian population. Without some serious weaponry, you're going to have a helluva time stopping a Stryker rolling down your street. That's not even including a main battle tank like an M1A1 or air support. A military ordered to violently subjugate the populace could do so with ruthless efficiency. There would be setbacks while fighting a determined partisan force and the conflict, as I stated in my last post, would likely go on for decades, but in the end it would not end well for anyone trying to stand up to our military given carte blanche.
US causalities in Iraq and Afghanistan have been amazingly light, considering all the troops that have been deployed, even with strict RoE's in place. Roughly 2.5 million US troops have been deployed since 2001 and casualty figures are right around 36,000 killed and wounded in those 2 theaters. Not make light of the sacrifice made by our armed, but that's .01% casualty rate. Statistically speaking, that's an astoundingly low number.
Vietnam was a different animal. The NVA might have lacked air superiority, but they were backed and supplied by China and, to a lesser extent, the Kremlin. The technology available to the military today has far outpaced the technology currently available to the civilian population. Without some serious weaponry, you're going to have a helluva time stopping a Stryker rolling down your street. That's not even including a main battle tank like an M1A1 or air support. A military ordered to violently subjugate the populace could do so with ruthless efficiency. There would be setbacks while fighting a determined partisan force and the conflict, as I stated in my last post, would likely go on for decades, but in the end it would not end well for anyone trying to stand up to our military given carte blanche.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:47 pm to SG_Geaux
quote:
Sooner or later, boots have to occupy territory or buildings and 300 million is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 million
And at least 200 million of those people will submit to the rule of the government/military from sheer threat of force. Most people will back down if they fear for the lives of their families. You're assuming every American civilian is willing to fight and die for their freedoms, which is far from the truth. Most are willing to sign them away at the slightest bit of adversity.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:48 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
The US military. It would be like Tyson boxing an infant.
Page 10 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News