02-19-2018, 03:19 PM
(02-19-2018, 03:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think anyone is suggesting any group that challenges the US military would completely cease to exist, but you attempted to use the Taliban as an example of how an under equipped force would present a major challenge to the US government.
Do you think the Taliban still exists because we haven't been bothered to finally finish them off?
Quote:I don't think comparing a local insurgency to a foreign government or a foreign insurgency is the best comparison, especially when they are armed with things like tanks. We went overseas and within a month overthrew a government with 1,300 troops. Sure, they can grab hold 10% of the country after the US reduces its troop levels from over 100,000 to 14,000, but this has more to do with the fact the US cannot maintain a presence in a foreign nation. How would that play out in the US?
Yet you think that a war against it's own citizens would play out better?
Quote:What "tyranny" of the government could be prevented by force or the threat of force?
There are literally millions of gun owners in the US. Let's say only 10% of those owners would fight back against US "tyranny". That would still be around 10 million people. You also assume US soldiers would have no qualms about firing on US civilians. Again, let me make this clear for our resident word twisters (not referring to you btw), I'm not saying such a scenario is likely, it's not. But to say that an armed civilian populace wouldn't prove to be an immense challenge for any military is asinine. Stop thinking about conventional warfare, an armed populace wouldn't fight that way. It would be guerrilla, partisan, warfare and it would be brutal. Such a fight nullifies many of the advantages a modern military has, as evidenced by Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq tried to fight a conventional war, they got their asses kicked. The Taliban went into insurgency mode, which is why they still exists and are a major pain in the ass. In Vietnam the VC proved far more challenging to deal with than the NVA. Unlike the French we beat the dog shit out of the NVA , we won every military engagement of significance.
Quote:On the flip side, this could also be an argument for expanding the 2nd Amendment. I don't have a dog in this argument other than to play devil's advocate.
Not really. Like I said, a infantryman and his rifle is the best combat system on the planet. If military body armor developed to the point that modern small arms are ineffectual against a soldier, then your point will become much more valid.
