- 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 11:38 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:38 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
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.
I think this is going back to my point from earlier. Any smart opponent is never going fight the American military on its terms.
Think of trying to drive to a major city within the U.S. with a corps or something with all attendant air support and logistics - easily seized, right? Of course it is.
You could then try to blast everything that moves - up to a point. Even besides pissing off every last citizen to grab a rifle and take up fighting, the logistics train for a sustained campaign like that isn't sustainable, not at the size of our force. If you want to start raking suburbs with an A-10, then there are enough people out there who know that the way you cripple the A-10 is not at the point of attack - it's at the logistics train, which is within the U.S. itself. There aren't enough escorts in the world to sustain something like that - it'd be all those LOGPACS running up and down MSR Tampa times a thousand or a million. An insurgency would eventually render our force inert and isolated, probably cooped up on a few bases unable to do shite except huge movements in heavily guarded convoys, and the country is way too big, way too heavily populated, and way too geographically diverse for that to be a sustainable strategy for any lengthy period of time. It'd be death by logistics attrition - 35 BCTs and 9RCTs just aren't enough to handle a country the size of ours even with the gloves taken off.
Think about how this force is going to get food over any sustained period - are they going to send battalions and BCTs to guard corn fields? Boom - limited combat power gone. Are they going to guard refineries and (even worse) pipelines? Boom - more combat power.
That's always been the advantage of a lighter insurgent force, and it's magnified many, many times over in a country the size of ours with an educated population. Even if the military tried to kill everything in its path, that'd be, besides immoral, strategically fruitless - they couldn't sustain that for long enough.
1
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:39 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
To everyone who is saying we didnt take the gloves off in Vietnam, what were we holding back?
For one, we didn't completely raze Hanoi to the ground like Tokyo, Hamburg, Berlin and various other cities in WWII. We opted for strategic strikes. We also didn't really do anything to stop them from using the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Sure we bombed it every now and again, but we never sent troops over there in vast numbers to stem the flow coming down from there. We were too worried about pissing off fricking Laos and Cambodia.
After the Tet Offensive, we never went on the attack even after they were on the brink of defeat altogether and would've not been able to do anything about it.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:47 pm to AMS
quote:
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.
First off, there's roughly 765,000 police officers in the US, their equipment isn't used to take out any military equipment, it's to take out citizens who are shooting at them. Their helicopters aren't military strength, they can't shoot hellfire missiles or the like out of them. Also, only a handful of cities have the use of helicopters so they wouldn't make a dent. Helicopters are incredibly easy to shoot out of the sky as well.
What are the drugs in the evidence locker gonna do? Hell, majority of it would probably be a hindrance to anybody trying to mount any kind of warfare while on them.
Their comms, along with the rest of the country for the most part would be shattered.
And, most importantly, at the end of the day, police officers are just your average citizens and aren't as equipped to deal with warfare as the military. Sure there are tons of ex-military guys wearing the blue, but the vast majority of the officers have no training to fight a war.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 11:51 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:50 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Not reading 14 pages, but all the military baws I know have tags that say 100% disabled. Buncha damn cripples if you ask me.
Posted on 10/5/17 at 12:04 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Firing on our own citizens is an unlawful order, no matter who gives it.
Posted on 10/5/17 at 12:09 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
765,000 police officers in the US,
Well that is like 40% of the entire military so seems like that is a solid start. I would imagine that 30% of them have seen more shite go down than a significant amount in the military.
the drugs thing was kind of a joke, but since youre nitpicking you could use it as payment for cartel/drug/gang operations who no doubt have seen more shite than a significant portion of the military. Hell a bunch of meth'd up tweakers could probably wreck some shop.
and I suppose just not having helicopters would be better? Cops dont have body armor, rifles, handguns, ammo, armored vehicles like bearcats etc.
Maybe your right the citizens would fare much better if all of those resources were on the opposite side.
Posted on 10/5/17 at 3:12 am to MontyFranklyn
quote:
Unless they have fighter jets and a navy, they ain't winning
Cajun Navy and Crop Dusters!
Posted on 10/5/17 at 5:05 am to AMS
Cops are spread out over too wide an area. They'd have to allocate all their resources into a few big cities from smaller citiein which case would never make it to their big cities. Like I said, the military would shut down any and all weapons manufacturers and ammo manufacturers. The citizenry doesn't have enough ammo to fight for a long time.
Also, the fact that they've seen some stuff go down is irrelevant, same with the cartel. They've never been in no shite, full fledged battle with tanks rolling around, planes in the sky and bombs dropping all around.
The cartel would be fricked same as the cops.
Also, the fact that they've seen some stuff go down is irrelevant, same with the cartel. They've never been in no shite, full fledged battle with tanks rolling around, planes in the sky and bombs dropping all around.
The cartel would be fricked same as the cops.
This post was edited on 10/5/17 at 5:09 am
Posted on 10/5/17 at 5:19 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
The military would win all day. But the problem is that many in the military will probably side with the 'people' and try and help. At least, I would hope that.
Because the military has weapons that will frick you up real fast. Ever see the video of them using the infrared at night and can see everything, every easy?
Although, if the military did go to war vs the civilians, it probably will take 20+ years to finally 'win' for the military.
Because the military has weapons that will frick you up real fast. Ever see the video of them using the infrared at night and can see everything, every easy?
Although, if the military did go to war vs the civilians, it probably will take 20+ years to finally 'win' for the military.
Posted on 10/5/17 at 6:35 am to dawgsjw
I think the question is how to define win?
Yea the military has all the weapons but what’s the point if they destroy entire swaths of the US? Guerilla warfare has been proven to be effective time and time again.
The point is to deter the event. Knowing the resistance you’d have to face is the point.
Yea the military has all the weapons but what’s the point if they destroy entire swaths of the US? Guerilla warfare has been proven to be effective time and time again.
The point is to deter the event. Knowing the resistance you’d have to face is the point.
Posted on 10/5/17 at 8:58 am to AbuTheMonkey
Those are very profound points. Smh at downvoters. 
I guess too complex for the simple minded.
I guess too complex for the simple minded. Posted on 10/5/17 at 9:14 am to TheGasMan
quote:
If the military is using F-14s they have bigger problems...
Those have been retired for over a decade baw.
A side note since this thread is retarded, is the F-14 the coolest damn aircraft in U.S. history? We've had a lot of cool stuff but everytime I see one it just screams awesome in a unique way.
Posted on 10/5/17 at 10:35 am to ChewyDante
I'll take the vast superior weaponry and training and technology as a whole over the shear numbers.
The military would frick the population up big time.
The military would frick the population up big time.
Page 14 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News