Varmint
NES Member
Well, they can if it's
Yeah though even for Tianenmen Square the CCP brought in troops from faraway regions since they weren’t sure local troops would fire on civilians.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Joe Biden Threatens Americans with Nukes and F15’s over 2A
- Thread starter stealth2600
- Start date
Yeah though even for Tianenmen Square the CCP brought in troops from faraway regions since they weren’t sure local troops would fire on civilians.
Buck F
NES Member
I see an updated screen name coming (I swore the last change was it...). Cannot believe I didn't think of that one after Buck Farack (my original name) & then Buck Faker...
Last edited:
The woke purge of the military is to establish a force not capable of reliably projecting power outward but inward.
The GDR and USSR collapsing had a lot to do with troops refusing to open fire or even leave their barracks.
AHM
NES Member
Don't rule out the possibility that
when Biden* goes away,
there will be a schism between close Harris* people,
and whoever's actually pulling the strings anyhow at present.
Glad I could help
Has he?
The piece of crap from CA Swallowell threatened the same thing a couple of years ago. Seems like the lefties have a strain of thought going on there that has creeped into more than a few leftie's heads.
Duke Nukem
coldfury.com
People keep saying shit that like and it's not really true.
Go read up on the Iraq War, all you have to do is go to Quora - there's plenty of info there.
An armored division WITH ATTACHMENTS - being the important statement. Because there was a number of cases of M1 Abrams being taken out in Iraq - when they went into an area with no troop coverage.
Pretty sure there were even some incidents of Apache helicopters getting taken out as well.
You haven't watched the movie "BlackHawk Down" ?? Because I don't think much has changed since then - a rocket propelled grenade up a helicopter's tailpipe is going to bring the thing down.
Oh yeah - and once you start fighting - you're not really a "civilian" any more.
And last time I checked - the US government is scooting out of Afghanistan - and didn't "win" there. Pretty sure the Taliban never had drones, tanks, or attack helicopters either.
I'm still trying to decide whether it's sad, stupid - or funny , that there's so many alleged conservative gun owners who cock block themselves into uselessness by constantly agreeing with leftie shitbags who tell them " you can't fight the government with your pea shooter".
I said open combat. Perhaps I should've been ultra specific and said an open field battle, or a set-piece battle. Read my comment dumbass. You are citing examples of asymmetric warfare, and I stated that the civilians would win in asymmetric warfare.
The thing that usually makes cops and soldier types tell their commanders to phuck off - is when their own families get threatened. This is how it has always been - and if the government kicks of festivities and starts threatening to REALLY use nukes and F15s against American citizens - you'd be really stupid to forget that fact and not USE IT to your own advantage.
That's why I've seen a number of commenters postulate that you'd see the government bring in foreign sources troops of some sort. Firstly because those troops wouldn't give a shit about the native populace - but also because they're not exposed via family ties and so forth - the way "native" troops are.
That's brings with it though - the seeds of it's own demise. If the government uses foreign troops - that's a tacit admission that it's A) losing , and B) illegitimate.
I would also refer back to the American Revolution - when the British brought in Hessian mercenary troops - who were hated by the colonists with a passion. They hated the redcoats , but they hated the Hessians more. American rebels *might* give mercy to native born troops - I doubt the same mercy would be extended to foreign mercenaries.
If you're fighting a guerilla war / insurrection you'd have to be a complete moron to fight a set piece battle. The goal is to win - not demonstrate who's dick is bigger.
Waving your dick around on the battlefield is a good way to get it shot off.Unless you're the one w/ the bigger dick...
how the first chechen war started - moscow moved in there, into grozny city an armored division to 'scare' the baddies, and chechens let the column in, then from rooftops burned the front and rear vehicles blocking the column and then burned all the rest alive. RPGs are awesome in the urban combat.
a tank is only viable when it is supported by ground troops and works as a shield and supply station, but if let alone it will be neutralized immediately.
One really important aspect of combat is this: 'My mind is the weapon. Everything else is just my environment.' Lefties can't cope with being vulnerable. The raw truth of fighting is that you don't have to be better or stronger to get a kill, you just have to be good enough and strong enough. We are all at each other's mercy, nothing can stop a determined attacker.
tuna
NES Member
That would be bad (or good?) enough. But remember that most troops live off base. Now, when Johnny Fighter Pilot goes off to fly his F-15, his wife and family are left for him to find when he comes back. Even Sam the Single Soldier won't want to find his apartment burned when he goes off on a deployment.
Then too, the "enemy" would already be "behind the lines". Hell, the F-15s (air dominance, not ground attack but a good example since we're talking F-15s) in Westfield take off right over the Mass Pike - even a Fudd lever gun could put a few .30 holes in the engines before it's out of range.
The Syrians used foreign troops recently. I assumed they were outnumbered by the opposition, but they won.
Saddam Hussein's Sunnis were outnumbered 4-1 by Shia and Kurd, but repeatedly decimated them until Western intervention. Hussein's troops had radically better weapons than the opposition, then we had radically better weapons than Hussein's troops. If you think anyone hated anyone more than Kurd and Shia hated Hussein...
Yeah - I saw a video on Youboob recently that went over how the Chechens torched the Russians really good the first time they moved into Grozny.
A long chain of bad decisions and stupid beliefs - many of them coming out of the right wing BTW.
You're talking about wars divided on racial / religious / ethnic lines.
Which is not what we have here - yet.
Seems like the left is trying their damndest to make it so though - so we shall see what develops out of that.
Pretty sure if they force whitey to self identify based on race - and it's blacks and trannies and some smattering of white liberals over on the other side ............ they're gonna lose and lose big. Even if they do have all the tanks running around flying rainbow flags.
No.... what history shows actually is that the better motivated force usually wins. Huge amounts of arms held by massive amounts of forces - doesn't always carry the day.
The Germans were handing the Russian's asses to them for years, with less troops, by having superior motivation and discipline and tactics.
Go look at the kill ratios of Germans lost to Russians lost during WW2. If the US hadn't given the Soviet Union lend lease aid - the Germans would have had a pretty good chance of winning on the Eastern front.
World War II casualties - Wikipedia
German military deaths from all causes: 4,440,000[50] to 5,318,000
Soviet military deaths from all causes: 8,668,000[111][112][113] to 11,400,000
Germans died on multiple fronts, the Eastern one, in France, in Eastern European countries, in the Atlantic submarine war, and in Africa. Even if you completely discount all of that - the Germans still killed Soviets at a ratio of 2 to 1 over their own losses. That's what being a superior military force will get you.
We lost in Afghanistan and in Vietnam - because the forces we fought were more motivated to win.
We lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam because what "winning" meant was never defined politically to get us out. The North Vietnamese admitted this after the war- they were on the ropes, and wondered why our politicians back home let off the gas.
Afghanistan went from "bringing bin Laden to justice" into some nebulous horseshit about Afghani "safety".
The men at the front never gave up. We simply let the politicians surrender. Neither conflict should have ever been about hearts and minds, but pure offensive body stacking until the opposition said "we surrender" or was dead. That's our fault back here.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
"We" as in the national we - weren't motivated to win.
If the US government goes to war against the American people - "they" meaning both the government and whichever idiots sign up to fight for them - won't be truly motivated to win either. Maybe the a-holes in the government will be , because if they lose it will be their heads. But whoever signs up to fight for them won't really truly be , especially when their family members start suffering for their actions.
The northerners like to portray the southerners they defeated in the Civil War as having "fought for slavery". That's total horseshit. WHITE Confederate soldiers didn't march into battle in bare feet so that rich landowners could continue to own darkies. If that's what the war had been TRULY about - it would have been over a lot sooner and cost a lot less lives.
The North lost more soldiers in the Civil War than the South did, despite having the advantage in manpower number and industrial capacity. The South just had better soldiers and generals - at least in the beginning years of the war. So the South had better soldiers, better commanders - and more motivation. Yeah - they lost , but it took 4 years.
Point here is: It's by no means a guaranteed outcome if the US government decides to go to war against it's own people.
Pretty sure they think they know who their enemy is - and it's Trump supporters. Last time I checked there's something like 75 million outright Trump supporters in this country, in a population of something like 330 million. Since a lot of those hundreds of millions are first generation Americans - or not even that , I'd be willing to bet a lot of them would hightail it wherever "home" was before they came here. That drags the population numbers down by quite a bit. Think ALL of the military would stay loyal to a government by Joe Biden and the Diversity and a smattering of trannies?
I doubt that.
Similar threads
