- 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 9:38 am to MontyFranklyn
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:38 am to MontyFranklyn
Thank you!
We had to call in to the frickin CoC when we were taking fire and wait on them to give us the 'go ahead' to engage back. Gloves off, the war on terror could have been a lot cleaner (from a US death toll)
We had to call in to the frickin CoC when we were taking fire and wait on them to give us the 'go ahead' to engage back. Gloves off, the war on terror could have been a lot cleaner (from a US death toll)
0
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:38 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Military has WMDs.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:38 am to S
quote:
US Military Vs Civilians by S
Retitle: Cajun navy vs US Navy
I dunno, we would need some of the baws from our west who do long range shooting
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:39 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Google BZ gas, "voice of god" technology, DARPA, etc.
Then consider that the military is organized, trained and armed with everything from the above mentioned, to tanks, planes, bombs conventional and otherwise, etc. while the average American citizen is a fat person on a smartphone.
If the military (as a whole) obeyed orders to fire on American citizens, we'd be fricked.
Then consider that the military is organized, trained and armed with everything from the above mentioned, to tanks, planes, bombs conventional and otherwise, etc. while the average American citizen is a fat person on a smartphone.
If the military (as a whole) obeyed orders to fire on American citizens, we'd be fricked.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:39 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Civilians, most likely. Also, a lot depends on what various police departments would do.
A country as large as the U.S. with an armed population is pretty much impossible to control.
A country as large as the U.S. with an armed population is pretty much impossible to control.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:39 am to rebeloke
quote:
Military has WMDs.
What's the point of governing a land that you wiped out yourself?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:39 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
assuming every single person in uniform is fighting.
And there are plenty of 2A folks who won't be in near good enough shape to fight. There are tons of obese neck beards that would get winded enough to be useless just walking to the battlefield with a combat load of guns and ammo, much less actually fighting.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:40 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:It would be easier than a cake walk.
I think the government would win, but it would not be the cakewalk most think
Military could shut down GPS and all communications.
Now what?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:42 am to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
It would be easier than a cake walk.
Military could shut down GPS and all communications.
Now what?
Shoot everyone you see in uniform?
Jesus that sounds bad and I feel bad for typing it
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:43 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Just walk around shooting military, huh?
Piece of cake.
ETA: No coordination. No communications. No training. Inferior weapons and technology.
It would be a slaughter.
Piece of cake.
ETA: No coordination. No communications. No training. Inferior weapons and technology.
It would be a slaughter.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 9:46 am
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:44 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
America wins and America loses.
The reason Japan never invaded the US during World War 2 was because Japan was worried that too many civilians owned guns which would make it an impossible task.
The reason Japan never invaded the US during World War 2 was because Japan was worried that too many civilians owned guns which would make it an impossible task.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:45 am to StrongBackWeakMind
I have redneck cousins that actually believe that because they sit in a tripod a few Saturdays out of the year, drink beer, miss deer, and walk around in camo; this somehow gives them autonomy over the government.
At Sunday dinners, you will hear "I'd luv ta cum see em take ma gunz"
Bruh, they'd take your guns and rape you if they wanted.
At Sunday dinners, you will hear "I'd luv ta cum see em take ma gunz"
Bruh, they'd take your guns and rape you if they wanted.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:45 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
They'd have to bomb the entire country.
I meant in urban combat like chiraq. There's no way civilians could shoot down a military aircraft.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:46 am to ctiger69
quote:
The reason Japan never invaded the US during World War 2 was because Japan was worried that too many civilians owned guns which would make it an impossible task.
Not really a fair argument to use, the Japanese had to contend with bringing everything across thousands of miles of ocean, our military has tons of their toys already on US soil, makes invading(or taking over) a much easier job.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:47 am to TigerDog83
quote:
If the military is using F-14s they have bigger problems... Those have been retired for over a decade baw.
Well aware, but it was the best picture I could find. Also, the F-14's were really beautiful.
quote:
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan all tend to lend evidence against your assertion. Afghanistan involves primitive cave dwelling insurgents with limited weapons and no air power and outside powers have yet to beat or control them.
Very true, but that is also in another isolated country. As such there are political reasons why we aren't utilizing more force/agression against those countries.
If an uprising would occur I would the military has the capability to dismantle it quite quickly. Any uprising wold have to eventually control a major city (would need a port for supplies) which would be very difficult to do.
Military would have the definite advantage. Only way I could see the citizens topple the government by use of force is if the military is somehow split.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 9:48 am
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:47 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
I wouldn't count on this. There are a lot of powerful countries who hate us but tolerate us because as of now they don't have a choice.
I think they'd be willing to watch us crumble
Supporting the rebels would be instigating the crumbling. People always choose sides and love an underdog.
If it happened now, don't you think Russia would come to the aid of whomever was breaking off from the rest of the country? Don't you think the EU would step in to try and take Trump out of power?
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 9:49 am
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:48 am to colorchangintiger
quote:
Supporting the rebels would be instigating the crumbling
Good point
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:49 am to Carson123987
how crazy awesome would it be to see tanks and shite driving up to the Capitol an down Penn Ave. rounding up a Pres like Hilary and a liberal Congress once they passed stuff taking away civilians rights.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:50 am to TDcline
quote:
I have redneck cousins that actually believe that because they sit in a tripod a few Saturdays out of the year, drink beer, miss deer, and walk around in camo; this somehow gives them autonomy over the government.
At Sunday dinners, you will hear "I'd luv ta cum see em take ma gunz"
Sounds like the average OTer.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 9:52 am to CarRamrod
Not very awesome... Much more awesome to have a Pres like Trump and republican congress that will just preserve civilian rights.
Page 3 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News