02-23-2021, 12:27 PM
(02-23-2021, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, no offense to you, but it honestly hurts my head when people make this statement because it is so wholly grounded in ignorance of actual conflict that it's maddening. As Bel already correctly pointed out, if this schism, god forbid, ever happened a sizeable amount of the military and police would be on the side of the "rebels". But this also ignores a basic fact of warfare. In order to have a country you have to have infrastructure. In order to hold territory and maintain that infrastructure you need boots on the ground. A tank cannot stand at a crossroads and check papers. A drone can't kick in the door to a residence and search it. To occupy territory you need troops, and troops are as susceptible to bullets as a civilian. What you're advocating above would be Washington D.C. surrounded by a pile of rubble and nuclear wastelands, because that's the only scenario in which this overwhelming firepower is applicable in a civil war.
Ugh, no offense to you, but your reply hurts my head and is grounded in ignorance of actual new age conflict. The difference in capability would require a MASSIVE defection of troops, somewhere around 60-70%, not simply sizeable. As mentioned, in most resistances we have seen in a common era the resistance was supported by other nations and in this proposal, I don't see any acceptance of aid from China or Russia. With that lack of backing your strategically disadvantaged in a way, almost no other modern era resistance has ever been disadvantaged.
The technical advantage of the weaponry possed by the state makes this really a nonstarter. The fact you can vaporize people doesn't mean you need to only that you can. Like is the playbook here you go after the ability to organize first so the government would take down coms, but as I mentioned they could also use HEMP to not only take out standard coms but also wipe out unshielded short-range radios. Along with wiping out coms, you would disable a large majority of vehicles making movement by land nearly impossible. Since the government holds a MASSIVE air superiority position now, they would move troops through the air while using their sophisticated radar technologies to ensure anything that went up that wasn't government came down near instantaneously.
At this point the easiest way to end it is to take out leadership, we see the same thing in our missions abroad. This is where you will start seeing targeted drone strikes. With satellite imaging that can literally see people in buildings now, and with no way to communicate and warn other leaders around the country, they will be picked off one by one until the snake is dead without its head. Small infantry units in heavily armored vehicles can then sweep resistance areas and clear out as needed, but most will fold quickly with no power and organization.
Again, resistance is a fantasy. The technological edge that the United States has in most confrontations is massive but one in it's own country on its own infrastructure makes it even more insurmountable. What was the last rebellion that was successful that did not have support or backing from a foreign superpower? If "Winning" is just being annoying for a while then you have a shot, but if it's actually removing a rogue government there is 0.00% chance.
