- 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
2
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:16 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:I meant, how are the civilians going to coordinate if they don't know where they are and they can't communicate with each other.
It means you don't need GPS to find US military strongholds
Civilians will be on the defensive in this confrontation. Knowing where the bases are so they can go on the offensive is out of the question.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:17 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Did you seriously just ask this?
Yuuuuuup
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:19 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
If it ends up 1m vs 61m due to defects, it's not even close. The defection rate would be the key metric in my opinion.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:20 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
I meant, how are the civilians going to coordinate if they don't know where they are and they can't communicate with each other.
100%, nobody has ever fought a war like that before
quote:
Civilians will be on the defensive in this confrontation. Knowing where the bases are so they can go on the offensive is out of the question.
You can guarantee that?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:21 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
My point still stands that it's very unrealistic. The entire military is extremely unlikely to turn versus 60 MILLION people.
Hell you even stated in the OP that's it's very unlikely to ever happen but now you're arguing that it's not.
Hell you even stated in the OP that's it's very unlikely to ever happen but now you're arguing that it's not.
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:21 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
100%, nobody has ever fought a war like that before
Condescending response because he doesn't have an answer. Classic.quote:Uncoordinated civilians with small arms attacking a military base with trained soldiers and heavy weapons? Yeah, you can rule out the offensive.
You can guarantee that?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:22 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
Condescending response because he doesn't have an answer. Classic.
It's not condescending at all. It's absolute truth
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:23 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
US Military Vs Civilians
The military relies a frick TON on civilian items to work.
Who would feed the soldiers?
Manufacture their ammunition?
Deliver their fuel?
They don't have the personnel to do all that themselves.
The military would make immediate gains, but ultimately the infrastructure for maintaining their gains would fall apart. Once they could no longer operate their aircraft and armored vehicles, sheer numbers would wipe them out.
Assuming you're not thinking nuclear weapons. Then all bets are off, but honestly no one wins.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:24 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
See any difference between the countries that fought that way and your average American?
For the fun of it, why don't you explain how the civilians will overcome having no GPS and no communications. Try avoiding "well someone else did it" as a response.
For the fun of it, why don't you explain how the civilians will overcome having no GPS and no communications. Try avoiding "well someone else did it" as a response.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:28 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
For the fun of it, why don't you explain how the civilians will overcome having no GPS and no communications. Try avoiding "well someone else did it" as a response.
No GPS - what difference does it make. There's these things called maps. You can get to where you'd like to go. unless the military can move physical places to other physical places, this would make 0 difference
As far as communication, you are assuming that all 60 million would need to know each other's movements at all times. The ability to speak would not leave, and people could still coordinate locally, which is how the battles would be waged anyway
ETA: but let us also not forget, the lack of these things would also hinder the military's tracking of their enemy
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:29 pm to skrayper
quote:
The military relies a frick TON on civilian items to work.
Who would feed the soldiers?
Manufacture their ammunition?
Deliver their fuel?
They don't have the personnel to do all that themselves.
The military would make immediate gains, but ultimately the infrastructure for maintaining their gains would fall apart. Once they could no longer operate their aircraft and armored vehicles, sheer numbers would wipe them out.
Assuming you're not thinking nuclear weapons. Then all bets are off, but honestly no one wins.
Do not bring that logic here, we got some stoopids arguing
Which side has Chuck Norris, I am saying that side wins.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:30 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
explain how the civilians will overcome having no GPS and no communications
Um, GPS satellites just broadcast a signal. It would take a MASSIVE retooling of all the military equipment to change that signal to something civilians couldn't use. Something that would be difficult as the military doesn't operate any factories.
As far as communication, the internet is civilian. They could easily communicate via that.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:32 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
with drones, tanks, air crafts and ships, the military wins going away in a couple of days
How can people be this dumb?
Go watch the Vietnam documentary. We were head and shoulders above the north Vietnamese in every measurable category and we had no chance to defeat them.
All it really boils down to is how hard would the American people be willing to fight? If they fought to the death with no regard for their lives they would win 100% of the time
Think about how hard it would be for the military to know who is with them and who is against them, same prob as vietnam
Sure they could control the major cities, but how to 2 mil troops occupy the vast areas of land in this country. Impossible
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:36 pm to WaWaWeeWa
The US is roughly 4 mil square miles. That's one troop per 2 square miles. There is no way they could control a country this size if the people were hell bent on not giving it up
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:45 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
The US is roughly 4 mil square miles. That's one troop per 2 square miles. There is no way they could control a country this size if the people were hell bent on not giving it up
LOL, but they got planes and boats and that is enough for OT morons.
No way military wins, unless they go nuclear, chemical or biological.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:47 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
If it's not a tsunami victory for the military in less than a month, civilians will win.
Consider:
Conservatively, you can expect around 20 percent of the military do disobey/desert. I'd say that's the actives. I'd expect higher numbers from guard units.
There would be materiale that would find its way to the Civi side. Then you have outside countries aiding the rebels with effective shoulder fired as weapons.
Production is ground to a near halt. So those air frames won't have PM done and they won't fly as much.
The whole point is to NOT engage fights but hammer the logistics.
Naval wise, there are a number of war games that were torn to shreds when a ballsy commander of opfor handed the USN a severe arse whooping. Find the plan and duplicate as the 3stars reset the games so the navy could win.
Just remember the bigger the asset the harder it is to effectively engage a tiny target. Be everywhere an owhere all at once and you have a fighting chance.
Consider:
Conservatively, you can expect around 20 percent of the military do disobey/desert. I'd say that's the actives. I'd expect higher numbers from guard units.
There would be materiale that would find its way to the Civi side. Then you have outside countries aiding the rebels with effective shoulder fired as weapons.
Production is ground to a near halt. So those air frames won't have PM done and they won't fly as much.
The whole point is to NOT engage fights but hammer the logistics.
Naval wise, there are a number of war games that were torn to shreds when a ballsy commander of opfor handed the USN a severe arse whooping. Find the plan and duplicate as the 3stars reset the games so the navy could win.
Just remember the bigger the asset the harder it is to effectively engage a tiny target. Be everywhere an owhere all at once and you have a fighting chance.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:50 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:Would the military not face the same problem with us?
If our military wanted to we could glass the entire middle east in less than a month. We'd pretty much kill everyone there so that is the moral problem that the military is faced with.
And why would the military stick up for the government if civilians were outraged enough to go to war with the military?
Guns and bombs aren't everything in war.
I think the civilians win this war.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:50 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
Uncoordinated civilians with small arms attacking a military base with trained soldiers and heavy weapons? Yeah, you can rule out the offensive.
How many military bases do you imagine can employ anything but small arms to defend their incredibly porous perimeters? In my nearly 20 years in the military so far I have yet to see gate guards with crew-served weapons with the exception of weeks following 9/11. Even then it was only one or two HMMWV's with a mounted 240B and the guy behind it would have been easy pickings for an old baw with a .270. The US military would lose a war with the civilian population, quickly and decisively. Defections, loss of support structure, our reliance on civilian industrial and medical support...it would not go well for the DoD. Those that imagine otherwise are completely uneducated about how the military works here.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:51 pm to Clames
Nu-uh bruh, civilians would lose because they wouldn't have a GPS telling them to take the wrong turns
ETA: I am 100% pro military despite this thread
ETA: I am 100% pro military despite this thread
This post was edited on 10/4/17 at 12:52 pm
Page 9 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News