How the Military would crush a rebellion

[MichaelJR]

I'm not a Vietnam vet, but I'm pretty sure the ones we have on NES will confirm the war was being won on the ground. It was lost at home by turds like Walter Cronkite. The U.S. pulled out in 1973. South Vietnam didn't fall to the north until 1975.

At heavy loss though. Winning based on numbers alone isn't necessarily winning, it just means you're killing more than they are. I can't imagine morale was exactly at an all time high. If that conflict was on American soil, with similar casualties and battle conditions, I can't see the soldiers continuing on knowing that the people on the other side of their sights are Americans.

The war was lost at home, no doubt on that. I'm sure the same thing would happen here once kids started getting killed in instances of major collateral damage.

As for Afghanistan, 2001 to present day. I'd hardly say that's a winning fight for anyone.

As you said, soldiers would start switching sides pretty fast if such a conflict was on American soil, and bring their toys with them.

 

[fivepak]

As for Afghanistan, 2001 to present day. I'd hardly say that's a winning fight for anyone.

There it's cultural. Those savages can't change over night and it's not worth American lives to try. Once Osama was dead we should have hauled ass.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

At heavy loss though. Winning based on numbers alone isn't necessarily winning, it just means you're killing more than they are. I can't imagine morale was exactly at an all time high. If that conflict was on American soil, with similar casualties and battle conditions, I can't see the soldiers continuing on knowing that the people on the other side of their sights are Americans.

The war was lost at home, no doubt on that. I'm sure the same thing would happen here once kids started getting killed in instances of major collateral damage.

As for Afghanistan, 2001 to present day. I'd hardly say that's a winning fight for anyone.

Very good point. Winning based on numbers was most likely null and void after Nam because of the causality rate for the US. You're right, the morale wasn't high and I believe it was probably the worst morale ever in US history. Of course I'm young and no .mil background but to think the .gov will win a war on the citizens is a joke.

There it's cultural. Those savages can't change over night and it's not worth American lives to try. Once Osama was dead we should have hauled ass.

Definitely after Osama. The one thing I've gotten out of all the wars we have fought is that US soldiers (mostly men but women as well) are extremely expendable.

 

[enbloc]

The good news, I guess, is that if a revolt were to occur, the American public would not have the stomach for it.

 

[MichaelJR]

There it's cultural. Those savages can't change over night and it's not worth American lives to try. Once Osama was dead we should have hauled ass.

100%.

 

[Climbnsink]

Where is the next George Washington to come from? The same dickwads would step into power or worse dickwad police chiefs would step into the vacuum. It ain't pretty and it ain't simple.

 

[Baystatesuks]

If the guerilla fighters capture some .mil members (or kill them), then they will have military weaponry.

Scavengery will be a useful necessity.

As my brother likes to tell me, he only needs to be more armed than others in his neighborhood. Then during apocalypse times, he can take anything from the neighbors by force.

 

[Terminator03]

You guys are retarded if you think cops and soldiers won't shoot Americans. How many cops resign after a wrong address no knock homeowner shoot? How many resign from the SWAT team? That's what I thought. Anybody that fights cops or soldiers in a revolution is doing it wrong. If such a thing happened you super fighters need to kill pols, selectmen, elected dog catchers and their families. Yeah the cops would be the enemy but engaging them is a losing battle. You don't even need guns, most of those guys are fat bastards, a brick or fire will do the trick.

Excellent points. If there ever ends up being a rebellion/revolution, then guerrilla warfare against the governing infrastructure is the ONLY way to success. Cut of the head of the snake and the body dies. Fighting against organized military, or police units is a losing proposition because they are far better equipped with weapons, technology, supplies, etc.

 

[Terminator03]

I thought it was going to be a multi-national UN force of smurfs that was supossed to disarm the U.S. civillian populus.

Maybe not initially, but you can bet that if the .gov realized they were in over their head, it would not be long before they called the UN in.

 

[noddaduma]

Such an event would be longer, harder, and more horrific than anything you could imagine. And if a rebellion didn't make significant strides at the onset, it would be over before it began.

 

[AntiHippie]

Which is why we have Posse Comitatus.

Oh, there's a law in place limiting the government's authority. Now I'm not worried anymore.

 

[Climbnsink]

Maybe not initially, but you can bet that if the .gov realized they were in over their head, it would not be long before they called the UN in.

One of the other interesting but unpleasant opportunities would be for a foreign nation to invade. If not the mainland then AK, HI or something not 'ours' but defended by us. Something I wonder if planners ever figure on, if you were an opposing nation going to land troops in America would you land them in North Carolina or Massachusetts? Other considerations apply but from problematic civilian population ie guns per household and the knowledge to use them it is no brainer.

 

[Terminator03]

If the guerilla fighters capture some .mil members (or kill them), then they will have military weaponry.

Scavengery will be a useful necessity.

As my brother likes to tell me, he only needs to be more armed than others in his neighborhood. Then during apocalypse times, he can take anything from the neighbors by force.

That thing your brother says I also joke about sometimes when people ask if I stockpile food and supplies like a lot of preppers do. I just laugh and say "nope, I just stockpile weapons and ammo so that if the shtf I can not only hang onto what I have, but re-stock as necessary".

 

[Terminator03]

One of the other interesting but unpleasant opportunities would be for a foreign nation to invade. If not the mainland then AK, HI or something not 'ours' but defended by us. Something I wonder if planners ever figure on, if you were an opposing nation going to land troops in America would you land them in North Carolina or Massachusetts? Other considerations apply but from problematic civilian population ie guns per household and the knowledge to use them it is no brainer.

This is a good point, and is certainly something that could backfire on EVERYONE if such a revolution were to take place. Civil unrest always creates a vacuum in defenses that an opportunistic country could exploit to their advantage.

 

[sieveboy]

You guys are retarded if you think cops and soldiers won't shoot Americans. How many cops resign after a wrong address no knock homeowner shoot? How many resign from the SWAT team? That's what I thought.

Shit has not yet hit the fan so I don't believe current attitudes are relevant. SWAT toughs don't quit because there is no response to the wrong address no knock situations you propose. I tend to believe that if they are crashing down doors and being met with a withering hail of gunfire, there may be a few resignations or "other" types of attrition...

 

[FreeWillie]

We've been in Afganistan for how long against how many?

Guerrilla warfare is nothing like real warfare. Soldiers called up to duty and obeying unconstitutional orders would have to deal with their own houses being burned to the ground and their families in danger.

The US military is not capable of winning such a war.

This! They would be a bigger target than the resistance. The first military man that drew down on a citizen would be target number one. A hunted man with no place to run. They may kill one of us but the rest would hunt him and his family down and there would be no mercy.

 

[Boston_Shooter]

Step 1: Use MSM to demonize the rebellion. Be sure to throw in some child abuse, sexual abuse of women, and senseless beating of the elderly in the propaganda.

Step 2: Watch the military gladly kill "child molesters" and "woman beaters".

Step 3: American Sheeple rejoice in order being restored in their sheltered little worlds.

Step 4: ????

Step 5: Profit.

 

[Terminator03]

Step 1: Use MSM to demonize the rebellion. Be sure to throw in some child abuse, sexual abuse of women, and senseless beating of the elderly in the propaganda.

Step 2: Watch the military gladly kill "child molesters" and "woman beaters".

Step 3: American Sheeple rejoice in order being restored in their sheltered little worlds.

Step 4: ????

Step 5: Profit.

Exactly! Then they can play videos like the James Yeager ones that make us look like a bunch of whack jobs to the main stream public, and there you go...

 

[Climbnsink]

Not shooting Americans because you think your odds off surviving(or not having negative repercussions) is different from the moral issue. Morally there won't be a problem, what you suggest would come true only if their side looked like it was going to lose and face repercussions for losing or if families were being successfully targeted on a large scale. But the shoot Americans first because you are told to is not an issue.

Shit has not yet hit the fan so I don't believe current attitudes are relevant. SWAT toughs don't quit because there is no response to the wrong address no knock situations you propose. I tend to believe that if they are crashing down doors and being met with a withering hail of gunfire, there may be a few resignations or "other" types of attrition...

 

[GunGrey]

For ****s sake

 

[FreeWillie]

I've met quite a few VERY left people - who were veterans of the US military - and fully believed that US military forces should be used for shoving "civilization" down people's throats.

They're the ones that get fraged.

 

[frenchman]

Guerilla warfare, huh? How many of you armchair commandos know the first thing about it? Who on here knows how to make an IED? Who on here knows about small unit tactics?
Have you guys seen that show with that "militia? A bunch of overweight wanabes, who think that going out in the woods and fire their AKs like it's getting out of style. That;s what you have to work with. THe Vietminh/vietcong had serious training from the NVA and the russians. The Afghanis are at war since what, 30 years? They are experienced in what they do. For some of them, they were born into it.
Of course you will have some ex military within your ranks. But you also will have the problem of distrust. The guy standing right next to you could be a spook sent or paid by the govWhere do you think you could have an edge? The only place could be small towns, that render their armor useless. Outside of towns, they will get you awfully quick. A drone to find you, and a heliported force would be there in no time. And those guys will bring mortars (that you don't have), grenades (that you don't have), supplies (that you don't have), nightvision (that you may have, but the next guy may not be able to afford).
I'm sorry to say, guys, you will have to go to terrorist tactics to move anything. Your best chance will be to stay low profile, hit a soft target, and move. Rinse and repeat.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Although Milgram's experiment is one of the best studies in sociology, it doesn't turn soldiers into super heroes. And shooting civilians?

 

[Infinite Jester]

Someone earlier mentioned the supply chain problem we have in this country. That would be a hindrance for sure. I'm in the transportation business. Most stores have about a 3 day supply of anything. I've been in countless supermarket stockrooms, and they're virtually empty. They get trucks several times a day, and product goes from truck top floor. Military bases are supplied by the surrounding communities. People like me don't go to work, and the supply chain crumbles.

 

[vipprimo]

Dumbest article I ever read and all it will do is stir a pot that isn't even on the same burner as the one they're talking about.

 

[01bmf]

Military units are set up to operate with a certain minimum number of people. You don't need everyone to refuse, just enough to make the wheels stop turning. The question I really want to see answered is who takes charge. Say, for the sake of playing along, there is a "rebellion" and it is successful. Who takes power? Meet the new boss...

 

[center442]

Guerilla warfare, huh? How many of you armchair commandos know the first thing about it? Who on here knows how to make an IED? Who on here knows about small unit tactics?
Have you guys seen that show with that "militia? A bunch of overweight wanabes, who think that going out in the woods and fire their AKs like it's getting out of style. That;s what you have to work with. THe Vietminh/vietcong had serious training from the NVA and the russians. The Afghanis are at war since what, 30 years? They are experienced in what they do. For some of them, they were born into it.
Of course you will have some ex military within your ranks. But you also will have the problem of distrust. The guy standing right next to you could be a spook sent or paid by the govWhere do you think you could have an edge? The only place could be small towns, that render their armor useless. Outside of towns, they will get you awfully quick. A drone to find you, and a heliported force would be there in no time. And those guys will bring mortars (that you don't have), grenades (that you don't have), supplies (that you don't have), nightvision (that you may have, but the next guy may not be able to afford).
I'm sorry to say, guys, you will have to go to terrorist tactics to move anything. Your best chance will be to stay low profile, hit a soft target, and move. Rinse and repeat.

The media will do an excellent job at painting any insurrectionists as terrorists. That might actually simplify things. If you're going to the wear the name, you may as well play the game.

 

[Infinite Jester]

Military units are set up to operate with a certain minimum number of people. You don't need everyone to refuse, just enough to make the wheels stop turning. The question I really want to see answered is who takes charge. Say, for the sake of playing along, there is a "rebellion" and it is successful. Who takes power? Meet the new boss...

That's always been my question. Out of the frying pan, perhaps?

 

[fivepak]

The media will do an excellent job at painting any insurrectionists as terrorists. That might actually simplify things. If you're going to the wear the name, you may as well play the game.

I'd rather lose. The point is restoring American. Not turning into the enemy.

 

[Pilgrim]

Maybe not initially, but you can bet that if the .gov realized they were in over their head, it would not be long before they called the UN in.

Since 95% of the UN is US forces, I doubt that the UN would ever send in 'their' (5%) troops. We'd have such a big mess here that none of them would want to get involved.