Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network issues. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
>>556384279 Give more detail. Are they suited up for war against regular civilians? Are they dressed like regular people? Do the civilians who own guns use them and the ones who don't are fucked? What do you mean
>>556383845 well lets be honest, how many supplies dose the US military really have on hand? how many civilians are already working in or around the military?
if they didn't loose in the 1st 24 hours to a massive onslaught on their core infrastructure... then in the coming war of attrition the side that actually controls the food... factories... and everything else. yeah they win. hell that 1.4 would be down to just 1mill or even less when a shit tone of their manpower needs to be reassigned just to make up for the fact they don't have any production capabilities.
i guess in a no holds war we would see nukes used... but they would just poison the military and destroy the land they would be fighting over... so not really a realistic scenario. massive civil war would be more likely, if either side is even pretending to stick to the geneva convention then yeah... no military could win without a civilian support... which they don't have. its just logistics.
>>556384663 >most of the population owns guns To call this overly optimistic is a vast understatement. While there are millions of gun owners, it's not even close to a majority among the 300 mil.
That being said, no-one seems to be taking into account non-military armed services - from local SWAT to FBI, there are plenty of organized, armed police groups which would form the core of any resistance.
It'd be a close call, but I'd say that unless the civilian police unilaterally betrayed the populace, the military would inflict massive casualties and damage, but eventually fall to attrition.
>>556385864 because the entire military armed and easy for war against 300mil civilians is a no fucking brainer. but if it's just regular people versus regular people, which I didn't think about at first, civilians would stand a chance given at least half of them own guns. Faggot
>>556386225 Starts to make the whole thing even more ridiculous.
Sure, if every single member of the military and police began aggressively murdering everyone, the population would be decimated in days, and combined with air strikes, you could probably exterminate every population center on the continent in a couple months. Law enforcement officers make up the vast majority of US gun owners.
Obviously the military would 'win' because the only parts of our population interested in fighting would be dumb inbred rednecks, the rest of us would watch on passively as they were all carted away to camps and/or murdered by a better equiped and better trained force and then we would get back to enjoying x-box live / mma fights / reality tv / 4chan / [insert your dissension suppressant of choice]
Well in virtually any scenario, there's going to be a large contingent of soldiers who refuse to indiscriminately murder US civilians, and a smaller but significant portion that would take their military toys and join the other side. There might be many more civilian deaths, but in the end the military would collapse.
>>556386924 you partially right but the pop number includes women children and disabled. So that number would have to be trimmed before we even start. I live in the south and gun ownership while not considered out of place isn't done by the majority. However about half of gun owners have excess guns and could help arm some of those who don't own any guns. >>556386540 also this. It really comes down to how much the gov pulls their punches. If they go all out the citizens don't stand a chance. They will, however, want to end this with a few casualties as possible because the gov needs us to survive. dem taxes.
Put it this way - if you're a person who honestly believes that there is any force or population or nation on the planet that can stand up against a true total war with the US, you're deluding yourself.
The US has been in only very limited engagements for nearly 70 years. There were SINGLE BATTLES of WWII where we lost more people than in the entirety of both Iraq "wars". If we were to mobilize the entirety of the US war machine, in anything except a full-on nuclear conflict (where collateral damage would make declaring a 'winner' fairly difficult), no military or population could resist.
WHere the US has gained a reputation for military failure is through: a) gross media exaggeration of every perceived failure, b) attempting to restore order and infrastructure to inherently unstable areas and c) incredibly harsh efforts to avoid civilian casualties fettering attacks
The US military has air supremacy. People don't realize it because of the incredibly limited wars that we've waged for most of living memory, but one squadron of F-18s (much LESS modern F-22s) could reduce Beijing, or [INSERT ANY OTEHR CITY ON THE PLANET HERE] to uninhabitable rubble within minutes.
>>556387595 The entire premise is ridiculous because if you assume every man women and child in the states was suddenly ravenously calling for the death of the government AND you assume the opposite is true that the entirety of the armed forces along with various police and other paramilitary organization were for some reason willing to massacre the civilian population in the name of winning a 'war' it's obvious what would happen. Civilians die en masse and then get mopped up with nukes.
In a 'realistic' conflict the number of civilians actually interested in armed revolution in our current sociopolitical climate would be vanishingly small and easily suppressed by their local law enforcement agencies / national guard.
>>556388034 Continuing, the only reason we even bother putting boots on the ground is because we want to occupy and restore order/democracy to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. A true all-out us-or-them fight wouldn't even begin to resemble the house-to-house fighting of the last 20 years. Air forces would PULVERIZE any and all infrastructure. Hell, if we really wanted to just throw away all of that pussy limited war philosophy, we could obliterate ANY nation's infrastructure within a few days, and then just sit back and watch them starve.
It is for this reason that most developed nations have nukes, and it is for this reason that less-developed nations WANT nukes. Nukes change everything.
Also if there was another civil war or a revaluation the paramilitary civilian group would probbly only have a 100 thousand or so. But if they were decently outfitted, we'll organized and lead, as we'll as have some popular support... The civilian army wins.
>>556388650 And that's actually one of the clever things about the US - whereas the fanatical nationalism instilled in most militaries is heavily rooted in the state, the US military emphasize IDEOLOGY as the core element of patriotism.
People make fun "Freedom hurr durr democracy lol apple pie", but the fact is that the US military is ACTIVELY INDOCTRINATED to not kill civilians, much less turn on the US population. It works nicely - when you make "freedom" a basic, defining value which you tie directly to your country's defninition of patriotism, and joining the military is generally linked to high levels of patriotism, you've built-in a safeguard against a coup d'etat through purely ideological methods. If you read a bit about people like Jefferson and Hamilton and the Adams bros, you will see that this is NOT an accident.
The population would never rally together to overthrow our government. They've gotten to good at keeping people complainant or in the dark. At this point it doesn't matter if we only have five hundred thousand soldiers, the people will never unite to rebel.
>>556390167 Indeed, if the CIVILIAN government/police were to begin enforcing a draconian regime, the military would logically be the first to resist - it is, after all, the mandate of the military to protect the US Constitution. Thus, the only time a coup d'etat is a GOOD thing is the only time it would be even remotely likely..
>>556390547 Well, if my CO ordered me to ride into Jacksonville and start murdering people, I'd tell him to fuck off, because I know my fellow Marines would back me up on that. But I know my Captain would tell HIS CO to fuck off before that happened, and I know the COlonel would tell HIS CO to fuck off before that happened, and I know the fucking Commandant of the Marine Corps would tell the fucking President to fuck off before that happened. Does that answer your question?
I have been thinking of a second American revaluation alot lately. I think people should bear arms and march to DC for a peaceful protest. The guns are there simply to remind the government who they work for
Nope, haven't ever had a job, have always been self-employed
And I'm currently working on making an online platform that will likely be outlawed within a year of it's release as my contribution to the fight against the US Gov't which no longer recognizes it's own Constitution as well as other oppressive regimes such as the UK, Russia, China, North Korea and Muslim nations.
This generation is to much of a pussy to every fight the gov. But yeah in the civil war half the army quit and that was on a very diffrent bases. If the government tryed to go all commie I'm sure that 99% of the military would just fucking quit
>>556391535 The fucking towl heads don't have any of that and we did nothing in the Middle East. Plus same in Vietnam. It dosent matter what weapons you have I there not as effective as the other group.
>>556392060 I notice you ignored my response, hipsterfag.
>haven't ever had a job, have always been self-employed
Much basement. So neckbeard.
>>556391819 You don't really have a firm grasp of history OR current events, do ya buddy?
The only failures of the US military have been failures to restore the infrastructure of rekt fucking shitholes. If you somehow think that we "lost" in Iraq or Afghanistan in any meaningful military sense, you're a fucking retard. We not only defeated Iraq's military (the 3rd-largest in the FUCKING WORLD) in less than a week, we left there having brought a bass-ackwards nation up to modern levels of infrastructure from almost nothing, from indoor plumbing to a funstional school system.
Oh, was that not on your pathetic clickbait news sites?
>>556392798 Plus, he knew when to fold 'em. He knew that a rural, under-equipped force could harass and terrorize and make life miserable for its enemy, but not ever achieve a meaningful victory against an armed industrial nation.
>>556392597 >Array It would be in the same country that the rev. War took place. Plus the Americans were farmers and the British had the best military in the world an the best equipment of the time. Most of their war ships cost the modern equivalent as our aircraft carriers.
I'm not making it to feel better about myself, I'm making it because it needs to be built. And I'm building it in such a way that no one can control it and no one can become rich off it. because it needs to belong to the people.
Frankly,I don't give a shit about what you think - you are a worthless piece of shit that stands around doing nothing while the government laughs while news story after news story breaks about how the Government is flagrantly violating the Constitution, because the Gov't knows the majority of Americans like you will do nothing about it.
And in fact, you will do more than do nothing, you will ridicule those who give a shit about what's going on and who are working to do what they can to fight back.
>>556393294 lol why did you greentext "array"? you said it's just like the american revolution, and that civilians would win because of guerilla warfare. The American military would not fight in the same manner that the 18th century brits did, which is gay and out in the open in an array.
>>556392821 You're beta a fuck and think you're smart but your not. Fuck you twat. I never said we lost but we haven't done much in those countries. Terrorist groups have reclaimed Iraq you stupid fuck and it'll be the same I'm Afghanistan. I support our troops and our Mistion there but it wasn't what we wanted you fuck. And plus pure referring to something that happened in the 80s. That's not very modern you stupid shit
>>556393856 No you're just stupid and have butthurt that I'm right. You totally missed the point and were eager to offend. Now you only have to say "you mad" because I'm 100% correct and you have nothing left
>>556391819 What the other guy said to you is a good point. Also please tell me how the American population with NO air vehicles capable of combat will take down say an a-10 warthog or an ac-130? Or how about a fucking aircraft carrier or a fleet of destroyers? While the military may not win in terms of infantry combat think of all of the other technology they have at their disposal.
>>556394138 You didn't HAVE a point, faggot. YOu apparently think the Iraq war happened in the 80s. There is literally no point in including you in this discussion, you're calling people "beta" because they point out that you're a fucking moron, you "support our troops and our Mistion there" but you can neither spell nor understand our actual mission.
You're not being excluded because you're just TOO RIGHT FOR THIS SINFUL WORLD. You're not being engaged because you're wasting everyone's time.
>>556394234 Listen the objective of war isn't to kill off the entire enemy. It's to inflict some casualties and then be political and discuss terms. The US military would not use drones to hit a rebel group. It would destroy everything and kill infrastructure and in the end the government would fall anyway because they blew up everything and killed everybody. War isn't won with air support alone.
Most of the US military is rednecks from my experience, who aren't too fond of Obama, and given that it would be well-armed small-town rednecks leading the civilian offensive, chances are that lots of the military would defect.
>>556394886 Look, man, I don't have time to give you an education. Just quietly add "warfare" to the very, very long list of things you don't understand even a little bit.
When summer's over, you'll go back to grade school and hopefully learn a little more.
Also, I don't think you know what drones are, or what they do. A drone strike is an incredibly precision instrument, capable of eliminating a city block, a single house, or a single person with minimal collateral damage - maybe a few additional casualties, but very little damage to infrastructure unless you want it.
>>556395002 How am I wrong in any seance? All I said was gorilla warfare has beaten modern armies. I know the military has an edge with technology but a civilian paramilitary group could cause enough damage to go to peace talks. Kid didn't even know what the golf war was an here he is mixing facts up. Plus you said I don't have a grasp on modern events. Last time I checked the Taliban is still around tormenting people. If you think we fixed it then you're more then welcome to live there
>>556394886 Ok let's say by some miracle the us population manages to over power ALL of the military's ground forces, that includes things like tanks which no civilian has the firepower to destroy one, much less hundreds. Do you really think the gov wouldn't use it's air support? If it was that or losing the war they would use it.
Weird fact: as viscerally scary as drones are (and lets face it, faceless remote-control planes that can kill you from over the horizon are fucking scary, I know, I've watched Iranian insurgent faces when they hear 'em overhead, even when they're detained they look like they heard the devil himself every time those little engines are above), if police could use them, we'd see not only fewer police casualties, but fewer CIVILIAN casualties from police actions, especially riot control. In a riot, police are faced with overwhelming numbers, and our monkey-brains still interpret numbers as strength - police in riots take actions too drastic and too harsh out of primal, visceral fear. A dron operator is unafraid, objective, and calm. A quadcopter with tear-gas launchers would be not only safer for law-enforcement, it would be safer for the rioters.
>>556383845 Even though the military has far better weaponry, the US pop would win. Even if only 125 million are in fighting condition. People would form their own barricaded camps, sneak attacks on military bases and shear numbers would cripple the military.
>>556396318 Dude typo'd "nit". Summerfag here has called it the GOLF WAR three separate times. I let the first one pass as a typo, but apparently this kid thinks it was really called that, thinks it involved an occupation of Iraq, and thinks it happened in the eighties.
>>556395731 Compared to the U.S. civilian populace, the Taliban is pretty damn tiny, and therefore has to be identified from civilians under intense scrutiny. There's nowhere for the U.S. civilians to hide in such a theoretical conflict as this. Millions upon millions would die within 2-7 days with minimal military casualties. The U.S. military doesn't even need to be on the soil of the U.S. to inflict such devastation.
There is no substantial damage civilians in the U.S. could cause to their military within the span of 1-3 months. Yes, the military would need supplies eventually, but not before they totally wiped out any aggression from U.S. rebels.
Anyone who disagrees has no idea how any war in the history of man has been fought. /thread
>>556383845 civilians hands down. There are more vets than there are soldiers. Also since only the actual military is fighting on one side that means all private security firms are on the side of the people. Throw in 300 million pieces of cannon fodder onto one side as well and the military wouldn't last 24 hours in the fight.
there are plenty of vets around, much more than active service
>assault rifles and grenades
can be obtained elsewhere
>tanks and aircraft
anti-tank weapons explosives can be obtained elsewhere. defense is not needed: many will die but soon those vehicles will be out of fuel and maintenance parts, which are supplied by civilian-controlled corporations.
>>556390167 exarmyfag here. You know not of which you speak. In the military you are trained to follow orders. Most soldiers have 0 qualms performing even the most inhumane acts because they can shift the blame to "just following orders." Furthermore starting in basic they train soldiers to view themselves as different than civilians. Even your laws and rights change. You are no longer an American citizen you are an American soldier. Your brothers in arms become more important than your biological family. You become indoctrinated into their ideology the same ways cult members are brainwashed. The average soldier is too stupid to even realize this is taking place. That is by design. That is why they recruit so heavily from poor uneducated neighborhoods. Those people who kill little kids in the line of duty wouldn't even think twice about firing on "domestic terrorists" which is all you would be to them.
>>556399612 Yep that's how nuclear fallout works. You can bomb all but one sate in the USA and that state will stay in pristine condition. It's not like wind and rain could carry the radiation into the area or that many nukes would cause a nuclear winter or anything.
>>556401617 It wouldn't be livable dumbass. The amount of nukes needed to wipe out a land mass the size of the US would cause a nuclear winter. It'd be the end of mankind. Read a fucking science book and stop talking out your ass. There is a reason counties don't engage in nuclear war.
>>556402134 From the concussive force of an atomic blast coupled with natural air currents/slipstreams, the majority of the nuclear particulates involved in a nuclear detonation would be spread far, far away from the initial detonation. If you [carpet bomb] the U.S. with nukes, as you suggested earlier, the entirety of U.S. soil (except maybe Hawaii, unless you nuked that too) would be utterly saturated with nuclear particulates.
>>556405203 you could at least take the time to point out something wrong with me instead of just a generic insult like faggot. I'm a good looking way above average (albeit too skinny atm) guy so come at me /b/ro! I posted the pic as proof I was in the military not like I was trying to camwhore. Otherwise I'd smile and change out of jammies at least
Thread replies: 170 Thread images: 20
Thread DB ID: 4044
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.