- 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 6:13 pm to Obtuse1
Posted on 10/4/17 at 6:13 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
I think the ones that think they are the only gun owners would be surprised
I didn’t say it would split left vs right. I said it would split gun owners can non-gun owners for the most part. What side would you be on?
1
Posted on 10/4/17 at 6:16 pm to WaWaWeeWa
Yeah, with "the gloves off" the US military is capable of completely destroying the infrastructure of the country and killing tens of millions. After that comes the hard part. The US is huge and I doubt the military has the numbers to control more than a region or a few major population centers.
Not that any of this would happen because most of the military would refuse to wage war on the American population.
Not that any of this would happen because most of the military would refuse to wage war on the American population.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 6:19 pm to colorchangintiger
I'm not sure thats true. How many guns owners were In Vietnam and Iraq before the fighting started? There were plenty of people that were willing to fight with or without firearms as well
I think you all underestimate the will of any people (Not just Americans) when facing extermination or total subordination
I think you all underestimate the will of any people (Not just Americans) when facing extermination or total subordination
Posted on 10/4/17 at 6:24 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Yeah, with "the gloves off" the US military is capable of completely destroying the infrastructure of the country and killing tens of millions. After that comes the hard part. The US is huge and I doubt the military has the numbers to control more than a region or a few major population centers. Not that any of this would happen because most of the military would refuse to wage war on the American population.
Exactly. Let's just say there are 60 mil resistance fighters and the military wipes them out with a 60:1 kill ratio, which is a crazy number by the way and I'm not sure if that has ever been done in history). That leaves 1 mil troops to occupy and control 4 mil square miles containing possibly ~300 mil remaining people...
The numbers just don't work out
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 8:42 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
After reading through pretty much all of this thread, I find it astounding that people think the military would lose.
Think about it, some people are claiming that we'd receive help from other nations but they aren't taking into consideration how the help would get here. The Navy would shut off ALL shipping along our coasts and the Air Force would shut down ALL flights in and around the country. The citizenry would be shut off from the rest of the world.
Next, nobody is taking into consideration the fact that the ground forces we have are the most technologically advanced Marines and soldiers in the world.
They'd go hit every gun manufacturer and bullet manufacturer in the country and shut them down, nobody else is capable of getting a gun and ammo that they didn't already have.
The citizenry has no ability to shoot down tanks or aircraft. Primarily because that "help" that was supposedly on its way from other countries would either be turned back or destroyed. And then the military would have unopposed traffic in the skies; and for the most part on the ground as well. Primarily due to the fact that the military would have free reign in the sky to cover ground forces.
I see people talking shite about the American military might not meaning much in Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Tell me, how many battles did the military lose in those wars? I'll wait....
....oh yeah that's right, the US military didn't lose a single one. Those wars were lost because the US government thought it'd be a good idea to send the military over to those countries to be diplomats. They wanted to win hearts and minds, not wars. The military's job isn't to do that. It's to kill and break stuff and the military has shown that it's very VERY good and efficient at doing both. The military isn't the carrot of diplomacy. It's the stick.
The military would win running away in this scenario.
Now, clearly, if this scenario ever came to fruition, the military would join the citizenry and completely de-fricking-stroy the powers-that-be.
God bless America.
Think about it, some people are claiming that we'd receive help from other nations but they aren't taking into consideration how the help would get here. The Navy would shut off ALL shipping along our coasts and the Air Force would shut down ALL flights in and around the country. The citizenry would be shut off from the rest of the world.
Next, nobody is taking into consideration the fact that the ground forces we have are the most technologically advanced Marines and soldiers in the world.
They'd go hit every gun manufacturer and bullet manufacturer in the country and shut them down, nobody else is capable of getting a gun and ammo that they didn't already have.
The citizenry has no ability to shoot down tanks or aircraft. Primarily because that "help" that was supposedly on its way from other countries would either be turned back or destroyed. And then the military would have unopposed traffic in the skies; and for the most part on the ground as well. Primarily due to the fact that the military would have free reign in the sky to cover ground forces.
I see people talking shite about the American military might not meaning much in Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Tell me, how many battles did the military lose in those wars? I'll wait....
....oh yeah that's right, the US military didn't lose a single one. Those wars were lost because the US government thought it'd be a good idea to send the military over to those countries to be diplomats. They wanted to win hearts and minds, not wars. The military's job isn't to do that. It's to kill and break stuff and the military has shown that it's very VERY good and efficient at doing both. The military isn't the carrot of diplomacy. It's the stick.
The military would win running away in this scenario.
Now, clearly, if this scenario ever came to fruition, the military would join the citizenry and completely de-fricking-stroy the powers-that-be.
God bless America.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 8:51 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
A better comparison would be civilians vs the National Guard. Military still wins.
I know you weren't serious about US Military vs. Civilians. Lol
I know you weren't serious about US Military vs. Civilians. Lol
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:05 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Its probably been said but Im not reading through 13 pages of this shite....
The military has all the advantages.....
to defeat another military.
Whats their target with all their bombs and tanks and planes? What the frick are they going to do with 150 million+ people running guerilla warfare from the hills and picking them from the trees?
You dont think the average American can figure this out? 3rd world peoples across the globe have broke the will of major powers for generations this way. Vietnam war much? How about the Afghans that made the Russians quit? Dude, the Russians. Quit.
The military has all the advantages.....
to defeat another military.
Whats their target with all their bombs and tanks and planes? What the frick are they going to do with 150 million+ people running guerilla warfare from the hills and picking them from the trees?
You dont think the average American can figure this out? 3rd world peoples across the globe have broke the will of major powers for generations this way. Vietnam war much? How about the Afghans that made the Russians quit? Dude, the Russians. Quit.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:08 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
The civs and in the aftermath I would rise from the ashes as dictator supreme
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:13 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
I tend to think that the military would win but then, when actually facing inferior forces that are willing to do what it takes to win, the US military has been beaten or at least, a long drawn out stalemate:
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:23 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Stupid question.
In a civil situation like the government trying to take control, I think the military would eventually side with the citizens.
In a civil situation like the government trying to take control, I think the military would eventually side with the citizens.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:26 pm to Landmass
You people spouting that bullshite about Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq are so wrong it's almost funny. In none of those wars did the military ever fight with its gloves off. Hell, I'd make the argument that the military fought with one hand tied behind its back and STILL never lost a single battle.
Take the gloves off the military and it would be frightening how many people would die and how quickly the wars would be done with.
Take the gloves off the military and it would be frightening how many people would die and how quickly the wars would be done with.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:30 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
You people spouting that bullshite about Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq are so wrong it's almost funny. In none of those wars did the military ever fight with its gloves off. Hell, I'd make the argument that the military fought with one hand tied behind its back and STILL never lost a single battle.
Take the gloves off the military and it would be frightening how many people would die and how quickly the wars would be done with.
You're absolutely right and it's been stated many times but people keep trotting that Iraq Vietnam shite out like it proves a point. We never even came close to waging all-out war on those countries.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:33 pm to nola000
quote:
What the frick are they going to do with 150 million+ people running guerilla warfare from the hills and picking them from the trees?
quote:
You dont think the average American can figure this out?
No, I think the average American could figure that out, I don't think they would have the capability of doing it though. The average American is generally out of shape and doesn't have the ammunition to do such things.
Plus, you have to take into consideration the fact that not every citizen would fight. You say 150 million people and I'd say it's closer to 70 million people going against the military, if that.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 9:37 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:38 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
The military would lure us civilians to the hot gates where our massive numbers would count for nothing.........unless we found the old goat path, then we could flank them
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:40 pm to GeauxGoose
JADE HELM 2K17!!!!!
Make it happen, boys.
Make it happen, boys.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:58 pm to northshorebamaman
Some numbers people might want to keep in mind when bringing up Iraq:
During OIF 1 (the invasion of Iraq), when the US was in straight warfighter mode we defeated the fourth largest army in the world and inflicted 30k-50k casualties in less than six weeks while taking less than 150 losses. Those are outlandish numbers. The military kicks arse at war, it just isn't fully unleashed often, if ever.
During OIF 1 (the invasion of Iraq), when the US was in straight warfighter mode we defeated the fourth largest army in the world and inflicted 30k-50k casualties in less than six weeks while taking less than 150 losses. Those are outlandish numbers. The military kicks arse at war, it just isn't fully unleashed often, if ever.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 10:03 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Posted on 10/4/17 at 10:11 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
During OIF 1 (the invasion of Iraq), when the US was in straight warfighter mode we defeated the fourth largest army in the world and inflicted 30k-50k casualties in less than six weeks while taking less than 150 losses. Those are outlandish numbers. The military kicks arse at war, it just isn't fully unleashed often, if ever.
This was against a standing army Im not surprised.
We are talking about a guerilla war, thats why we are citing Vietnam
To everyone who is saying we didnt take the gloves off in Vietnam, what were we holding back?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 10:14 pm to Mr. Hangover
quote:
Seriously though, what in the hell is going through your head that makes you believe the police force in this country can do anything to stand up to the military??? Pretty stupid line of thinking IMO
Your line of thinking is incredibly short sited. Even though they may be donut warriors they are incredibly well supplied. Tactically their weapons/armor, drugs in the evidence lockers, vehicles, helicopters, communications, infrastructure etc would be invaluable additions to the civilians.
It is incredibly stupid line of thinking that this would not be an immense benefit IMO.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 10:17 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
This was against a standing army Im not surprised.
We are talking about a guerilla war, thats why we are citing Vietnam
I understand that. Those numbers are for the people acting like the military got its arse kicked in Iraq. We didn't fail because of the military, we failed because of a mixture of diplomatic and political ineptitude and misuse of the military.
Had they been given the order to do so they could have left the entire country in smoldering ash, guerrillas could fight over the scraps.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News