- 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 1:51 pm to WaWaWeeWa
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:51 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
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?
The "rules" we placed on our military placed them in a very unfair disadvantage. Doubtful those would ever be put into place in such a scenario as a citizen uprising.
1
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:56 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:They signed up to get a job. The majority of cops and military would kill their neighbors if ordered to. You think the very people who are bankrupting this country, killing thousands of innocent people overseas, and infringing upon our rights at home give two shits about the Constitution or your rights or any other bullshite?
Why is that funny? Isn't that what they signed up and swore to do if it ever became necessary?
A little brainwashing/framing and we'd all be labeled as the next Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Kent State students, Sitting Bull, etc and done away with in a flash.
The US has had a holocaust in the past 180 years, internment camps in the past 80 years, and assassinated Americans, without a trial, in the past decade.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:57 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
I prefer the thread where we talk about who can beat up the largest group of 8 year old kids.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:57 pm to crispyUGA
quote:
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.
Totally agree with this. Im all for gun rights but if it means that my wife or kids will be killed, I’ll give them up right now and just chalk it up as a loss this time. But I guarantee sooner or later I wont lose and will eventually get them back (as will others).
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:58 pm to ForkEmDemons
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/6/20 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 1:59 pm to JOHNN
quote:
But I guarantee sooner or later I wont lose and will eventually get them back (as will others).
Wait wait wait, citizens can't defeat military, but you're gonna get your guns back unarmed?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:02 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Wait wait wait, citizens can't defeat military, but you're gonna get your guns back unarmed?
Do you not think there would be an enormous amount of guns available on the black market?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:02 pm to skrayper
quote:
GPS satellites just broadcast a signal. It would take a MASSIVE retooling of all the military equip
That's not how GPS works at all. The military can shut down civilian GPS in a second if they want. In the extreme north west of Alaska you'd be able to use Russian GLONASS satellites but that's pretty much it.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:06 pm to crispyUGA
quote:
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.
Goalpost have been moved so much in this thread, I cannot keep up.
So 200 of the 300 million would not fight? How many of the active 1.2 million military choose not to fight? 800,000 are reserves and may never show up.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:12 pm to DarthRebel
It depends on what the ROE for the military would be. If the military's goal was to destroy everything and KOS any non military, the military would win I'm a landslide.
If they were ordered to only fire upon combatants and therefore had to go town to town determining combatants from non combatants, as in Afghanistan, etc. then civilians would win.
If they were ordered to only fire upon combatants and therefore had to go town to town determining combatants from non combatants, as in Afghanistan, etc. then civilians would win.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:13 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
We need to get started building more Sonics if this shite is going to happen.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:15 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
As long as this guy isn't in the military, the civilians should be able to win.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:38 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Considering the majority of countries in the world have next to no military of any significance, I'd say there's a good chance we could hold out.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:45 pm to ForkEmDemons
quote:
US Military and it won't be even close.
Our weapons are no match for this:
Considering all the F14s are just sitting in the bone yard, then yeah, civilians could probably take 'em.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:46 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
most of the fighting part of the military would fight with the civilians.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 2:46 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Look at what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and that was just the US Marshalls, ATF, and FBI.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:01 pm to SpqrTiger
quote:
This particular question is kind of flawed from the start, because it operates from the assumption that the U.S. military would actually turn on its own people, who are politically aligned with them.
I can't see the patriotic, anti-tyranny crowd not having common political beliefs with the defenders of the constitution.
So two million in the military? Not so fast. Take out a bunch of that.
I would not be too quick to discount the abilities of the U.S. citizenry, either. The military has air power, high-yield weaponry and surveillance advantages, but the U.S. citizenry has widespread support, interior lines of communication, and collective knowledge of every building, tree and rock in America.
The military manpower it would take to occupy a single American metropolis would be jaw dropping. Chicago is 10 times the size of Fallujah (population-wise), and there are about 80 U.S. cities bigger than Fallujah.
If you took every single soldier in the U.S. army and Marines and distributed them across the 80 cities, that would be 9,000 soldiers per city. Think 9,000 soldiers could hold out against say... 200,000 Baton Rougeans? How about 3.8 million Los Angelenos?
But I know the argument.... sure, they won't use just 9,000 men on Los Angeles. Let's say they bump that up to 90,000 men. Well, that's 9 other cities you've lost control of right there.
Two million simply isn't enough. And like I said before... good luck getting all two million to fight.
This guy gets it.
The standing military isn't anywhere near big enough to actually fight, hold, and win a war to subdue the entire U.S. It would take at least a 15MM person military (and probably more like 20 to 25MM).
There are about 150,000 combat arms personnel in the U.S. military. Even with the massive advantages in armor, air support, artillery, organization, and logistics, that might not be enough manpower to conquer and legitimately hold California or Texas, much less the entire U.S.
The motivations behind the fighting forces are critical in this scenario as well. Who is willing to collaborate, who is willing to cut off internal logistics trains for the military (remember, there are quite a few of us out there who know the military as well as the soldiers themselves), where and how to apply pressure, etc., etc.
I look around Chicago and see a lot of the same architecture (just mile after mile after mile of 3 and 4 story buildings packed right next to each other), geographic quirks, and so forth that I saw in Baghdad. Chicago is but one city out of dozens that would be a nightmare to take and hold. Baghdad metro has half the population of Iraq.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:13 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
chemtrails win
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:26 pm to crispyUGA
quote:
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.
including 95% in this thread. The other 5% would soon be 2.5% after they negligently discharge their weapon (that wasnt on safe dangit) in to the back of their fellow patriots head.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 3:34 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
No military force that has ever existed could take and hold the continental U.S. Our military could not pacify a country the size of Florida during the Vietnam war. How could they possibly pacify, take, and hold a rebellious population that springs up over much of our country?
We have roughly 3,000 aircraft, 5,000 tanks, and somewhere around 4,000 artillery pieces. Now spread that out across our country. The military would have zero ability to project overwhelming force.
But this entire argument is moot anyway because this senerio will never happen.
We have roughly 3,000 aircraft, 5,000 tanks, and somewhere around 4,000 artillery pieces. Now spread that out across our country. The military would have zero ability to project overwhelming force.
But this entire argument is moot anyway because this senerio will never happen.
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News