- 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 11:20 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:20 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Some of us are both Military (Reserves) and civilian. Either way, we're not Venezuela, North Korea, pick any Arab nation, et al where the military and civilians have a sharper philosophical contrasts.
1
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:20 am to AMS
quote:
If civilians get to draft police to their side then civilians win. If military gets to draft the police then its a 15 year war that Russia or some other country wins.
I’m not wasting my number one pick on some doughnut warrior
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
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:22 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
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.
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.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:23 am to goodgrin
quote:
Some of us are both Military (Reserves) and civilian. Either way, we're not Venezuela, North Korea, pick any Arab nation, et al where the military and civilians have a sharper philosophical contrasts.
I get that. And this is an extreme hypothetical, but it's not like it hasn't happened before
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:27 am to CarRamrod
quote:
Kinda like the American Revolution huh.
Except the colonists also had a lot of help from other countries such as France.
The US military would win 100/100 times. But if the government were to go rouge I highly doubt many in the military would follow.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:31 am to 1BamaRTR
quote:
Except the colonists also had a lot of help from other countries such as France.
Colonist forces were outnumbered 1.5 to 1
In the hypo presented, US military is at roughly 35-1 in absolute best case
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:31 am to Pettifogger
quote:
That's why we need the tactical flashlights, obvs
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:33 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Civilians have the Cajun Navy on our side. We'll own the minor inland waterways with flatboats.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:35 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Colonist forces were outnumbered 1.5 to 1
In the hypo presented, US military is at roughly 35-1 in absolute best case
The Red Coats didn't have tanks and jets though...both sides were fighting with the same level of musket weaponry.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:35 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
Civilians have the Cajun Navy on our side. We'll own the minor inland waterways with flatboats.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:38 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Colonist forces were outnumbered 1.5 to 1
In the hypo presented, US military is at roughly 35-1 in absolute best case
That wasn't my point. My point was the colonists couldn't have won the war by themselves. So the two situations aren't comparable.
Civilians don't have an air force or anti-aircraft weaponry so numbers don't even matter.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:43 am to 1BamaRTR
Unless you are willing to go nuclear, boots on the ground is what wins wars
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:43 am to colorchangintiger
The reality some forget is the citizens will likely be split between 50-50 and 60-40 on most any issue big enough to cause a full scale civil war. The citizens will more or less cancel each other out so the side which keeps the main force of the US military will ultimately win.
The military would take and hold the strategic targets and without power, water, fuel and food the other side would fold quickly. Making comparisons to the citizens of countries we have fought and are fighting in is rather weak sauce, they live with lack of all modern convenience anyway, the vast majority of Americans would lose their mind if you just slowed down their internet long term. In the prescient words of Col. Kilgore "Charlie don't surf" but practically every American surfs, a lot and can't really fathom not surfing.
The military would take and hold the strategic targets and without power, water, fuel and food the other side would fold quickly. Making comparisons to the citizens of countries we have fought and are fighting in is rather weak sauce, they live with lack of all modern convenience anyway, the vast majority of Americans would lose their mind if you just slowed down their internet long term. In the prescient words of Col. Kilgore "Charlie don't surf" but practically every American surfs, a lot and can't really fathom not surfing.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:44 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
I don't believe this. They have some things, like full auto, available that most civilians don't. But I would bet many of the civilian owned AR's are light years ahead of the average lowest bidder Military AR.
You are forgetting the other small arms in the arsenal.
M249
M240
M2
Mk19
Just those 4 would lay quick waste to a bunch of civilians. Id bet a lot would quite when they see their friend hit with 50 to the face.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:45 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Who wins?
you think a couple of yokels with AR-15s can stand any chance against the US military? How do they stop tanks and planes? I know they can build IEDs but it wouldn't even be close.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:46 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
How do you plan on overcoming the lack of communication and GPS?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:48 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Unless you are willing to go nuclear, boots on the ground is what wins wars
Or you could just bomb the hell out of everything. Plus what are people going to do to stop tanks? Assuming the military follows through (which is the super unrealistic part), do you honestly believe civilians have a chance?
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 11:49 am
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:48 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
I don't believe this. They have some things, like full auto, available that most civilians don't. But I would bet many of the civilian owned AR's are light years ahead of the average lowest bidder Military AR.
The Military does have bombs and shite tho
LOL you bring your most advanced AR to the fight, the Army will bring an Abrahms tank.
What a dumb question, and what a bunch of dumb shits who believe that civilians could take on the US military.
But it would never come to that, if the civilian leadership ordered the military to go to war against Americans that civilian leadership would be arrested for treason BY the military.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:50 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
The military hasn't been able to win a guerrilla war, look at Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq. You think they'd be able to do that against their own countrymen? I mean yeah they'd kill a lot of people, but they'd be dealing with a bloody insurgency for decades. And it begs the question of why would they be fighting the populace to begin with.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:52 am to tokenBoiler
quote:
I think you mean the people with A-10s
Neither tanks or A-10's are very effectual in house to house combat. In a convential setting of course, but nobody is stupid enough to go up against the US military toe to toe on some random battlefield out in the country somewhere.
I want you to imagine how that would go down in the press when a mother and her three kids were inadvertently mowed down by an A-10 while ground forces were attempting to take some guy's M-4. It's just not going to happen.
Ruby Ridge fiascos would happen every single day, with or without aircraft or tanks, which would only prove to be very heavy handed and over the top, and that would be VERY unpopular amongst even those who were in favor of taking people's weapons. This whole thing would be a PR nightmare they would have to endure every day, multiple times a day at that. 
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News