Republicans: “We’d win a 2nd civil war, we have all the guns!”
Bitch, do you think your civilian small-arms could stand against the full military might of the federal government!? Not even saying it’s a good thing…
They wouldn’t stand a chance. They’re power grid is so brittle. The US military would destroy it probably within minutes of an actual war being started. The people who can’t stand the heat or the cold (depending on the time of year) would turn on them so quickly.
Just like the south in the civil war, they don’t have the infrastructure for the logistics needed to fight a war.
On their own turf the USA has all the maps of everything including of what’s underground, they already have records of who are the potential insurrectionists, where they live, what they drive, who their families are and they also have the support of a huge part of the population.
Oh and good luck to the guys who own machine guns and hunting rifles when facing drones flying high enough that you can’t see them with your naked eye.
Which is exactly why the US isn’t going to carpet bomb their own territory. One, ruling over a rubble-laden wasteland isn’t very appealing. Destroying your own infrastructure isn’t good for GDP. Two, soldiers are going to have a lot harder time bombing their own homeland, regardless of how well trained they are.
So then the citizenry and army would be fighting on equal footing then and the “we have all the guns here in Texas” argument goes back to making sense. Either the US uses their overwhelming military power or not, you can’t choose both.
I’m saying that if you rely on having F-16 fighter jets and drones dropping bombs, you’re arguing for wholesale destruction. If you don’t rely on fighter jets and bombing raids, that means you’re fighting a ground war against insurgents that are more or less equally armed, assuming they have weapons like AR-15s.
My point is that cruise missiles don’t solve every problem; namely armed local insurgencies. What kind of third use-of-force scenario are you imagining?
We don’t carpet bomb anymore. We hit critical targets. They would destroy the power grid, oil depots, ammo supplies, etc. They wouldn’t do “wholesale destruction”. That hasn’t been a thing for a while now in warframe, except for in Gaza and Ukraine.
Republicans: “We’d win a 2nd civil war, we have all the guns!”
Bitch, do you think your civilian small-arms could stand against the full military might of the federal government!? Not even saying it’s a good thing…
Historically yes, an uprising of civilians has a great chance at asymmetrical warfare on their own turf.
You can’t destroy your own infrastructure like you can someone else’s.
Will they win? Almost certainly not.
Can they force some concessions? Probably
These aren’t the Taliban. These are a bunch of obese losers with handguns. They have nothing once McDonalds pull out.
If they secdee it is not “your own infrastructure” for the main country anymore.
It is though, they will still want to just reconquer and reconcile
Honestly though, gutting the infra and starting from scratch would likely be the better choice in the end.
They wouldn’t stand a chance. They’re power grid is so brittle. The US military would destroy it probably within minutes of an actual war being started. The people who can’t stand the heat or the cold (depending on the time of year) would turn on them so quickly.
Just like the south in the civil war, they don’t have the infrastructure for the logistics needed to fight a war.
The Taliban would like a word.
On their own turf the USA has all the maps of everything including of what’s underground, they already have records of who are the potential insurrectionists, where they live, what they drive, who their families are and they also have the support of a huge part of the population.
Oh and good luck to the guys who own machine guns and hunting rifles when facing drones flying high enough that you can’t see them with your naked eye.
It would have nothing to do with Afghanistan.
The Taliban had the advantage of logistics. Which we all know is important in war according to Sun Tzu.
It will be a whole lot different when they can fight on their own home turf, which they have been fortifying since whenever they arrived.
The guys half way across the world from the US army, where the only thing at stake was a country they’d bombed to shit previously?
Which is exactly why the US isn’t going to carpet bomb their own territory. One, ruling over a rubble-laden wasteland isn’t very appealing. Destroying your own infrastructure isn’t good for GDP. Two, soldiers are going to have a lot harder time bombing their own homeland, regardless of how well trained they are.
That’s like saying the US wouldn’t fight the confederacy because it would damage their land…
So then the citizenry and army would be fighting on equal footing then and the “we have all the guns here in Texas” argument goes back to making sense. Either the US uses their overwhelming military power or not, you can’t choose both.
No?
Why would you assume it works that way.
I’m saying that if you rely on having F-16 fighter jets and drones dropping bombs, you’re arguing for wholesale destruction. If you don’t rely on fighter jets and bombing raids, that means you’re fighting a ground war against insurgents that are more or less equally armed, assuming they have weapons like AR-15s.
My point is that cruise missiles don’t solve every problem; namely armed local insurgencies. What kind of third use-of-force scenario are you imagining?
We don’t carpet bomb anymore. We hit critical targets. They would destroy the power grid, oil depots, ammo supplies, etc. They wouldn’t do “wholesale destruction”. That hasn’t been a thing for a while now in warframe, except for in Gaza and Ukraine.