- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: US Military Vs Civilians
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:56 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:56 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
There is so much OT stupid in this thread.
2 million well armed soldiers are not defeating 300 million. You guys need to wrap your heads around logistics.
Basically the 2 million will need to fight plus pump oil, make fuel, grow and harvest food, etc.
Unless the armed forces are being supplied by foreign countries, there is no way they win.
The USA is huge and controlling the air is pointless and waterways is impossible.
2 million well armed soldiers are not defeating 300 million. You guys need to wrap your heads around logistics.
Basically the 2 million will need to fight plus pump oil, make fuel, grow and harvest food, etc.
Unless the armed forces are being supplied by foreign countries, there is no way they win.
The USA is huge and controlling the air is pointless and waterways is impossible.
1
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:58 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
I want you to imagine how that would go down in the press when a mother and her three kids were inadvertently mowed down by an A-10 while ground forces were attempting to take some guy's M-4. It's just not going to happen.
If they are really out there killing everybody I don't think they would care what the press would think.
quote:
This whole thing would be a PR nightmare they would have to endure every day, multiple times a day at that.
Again with how extreme (and unrealistic) this thread is, they would have to not give a shite of what anyone in the world would think of their inhumane actions in the first place.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 11:59 am to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
US Military Vs Civilians by StrongBackWeakMind
How do you plan on overcoming the lack of communication and GPS?
Well, they have to operate out of somewhere. Those somewheres are pretty well known for the most part. Hard to fight when you have to protect a position that is known from the outset
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:00 pm to 1BamaRTR
quote:
with how extreme (and unrealistic) this thread is, they would have to not give a shite of what anyone in the world would think of their inhumane actions in the first place.
Because it's never happened before, right?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:00 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:What kind of answer is that?
Well, they have to operate out of somewhere. Those somewheres are pretty well known for the most part. Hard to fight when you have to protect a position that is known from the outset
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:03 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
The citizens will more or less cancel each other out so the side which keeps the main force of the US military will ultimately win.
But the citizen split would pretty much be gun owners vs non-gun owners.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:04 pm to 1BamaRTR
quote:
If they are really out there killing everybody I don't think they would care what the press would think.
It's not the press, but the American people they would be concerned over what they thought
quote:
Again with how extreme (and unrealistic) this thread is, they would have to not give a shite of what anyone in the world would think of their inhumane actions in the first place.
If it came to that kind of barbarism, it would prove very difficult for them to retain their grasp on the military itself, especially those who were witnessing the carnage first hand.
Every bit of this would simply play into the hands of the general population who would be even more on fire to squash the Feds like a bug, and they would too.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:04 pm to colorchangintiger
and the gun owners live spread out while the non-gun owners live in consolidated, urban areas
we couldn't beat insurgencies in Iraq or Afghanistan. we ain't beating them in the US
we couldn't beat insurgencies in Iraq or Afghanistan. we ain't beating them in the US
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:04 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
What kind of answer is that?
It means you don't need GPS to find US military strongholds
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:05 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Because it's never happened before, right?
In the Civil War there were clearly two factions. One military versus an another. It was pretty much one country versus another. In this dumb scenario the military is turning onto the entire populace.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:05 pm to DarthRebel
If we are dealing in absolutes, the USAF has enough firepower to level ALL major US cities.
Who gives a shite about occupying them all.
Point of first contact will most def come from NOLA or TX as they are the biggest southern ports and have access to grain and oil.
Everything else will be leveled.
Who gives a shite about occupying them all.
Point of first contact will most def come from NOLA or TX as they are the biggest southern ports and have access to grain and oil.
Everything else will be leveled.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:06 pm to 1BamaRTR
quote:
was pretty much one country versus another. In this dumb scenario the military is turning onto the entire populace.
You should probably read a history book. It's never happened here. This country is in its infancy. There are literally hundreds of instances of government or ruling bodies enacting comply or die law on their citizens
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:07 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
As with every war, it depends on the military's means and ends. Are they trying to quell an uprising? Win hearts and minds? Total annihilation?
In an all out war, no one can stand up to the US military. Rooting out revolutionaries in an urban guerilla warfare scnario would be a fricking nightmare for everyone involved and tens of thousands would die on both sides with no winners.
In an all out war, no one can stand up to the US military. Rooting out revolutionaries in an urban guerilla warfare scnario would be a fricking nightmare for everyone involved and tens of thousands would die on both sides with no winners.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:07 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
It's not the press, but the American people they would be concerned over what they thought
If they were killing them why the hell would they care what they thought?
quote:
If it came to that kind of barbarism, it would prove very difficult for them to retain their grasp on the military itself, especially those who were witnessing the carnage first hand.
Which is why I said it's unrealistic that the military would turn on the vast majority of citizens. Many of them would refuse.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:09 pm to 1BamaRTR
quote:
If they were killing them why the hell would they care what they thought?
I was referencing the portion of the population that actually sided with their actions. They would turn them off quickly.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:13 pm to TigerDog83
quote:
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan all tend to lend evidence against your assertion. Afghanistan involves primitive cave dwelling insurgents with limited weapons and no air power and outside powers have yet to beat or control them.
the big question would be how would a modern day person be able to handle war with the government shutting off the supply chain. I agree with your premise, because the civilians would revert to guerrilla warfare just like in your examples... but your examples were all somewhat primitive and used to hardened living compared to modern day americans.
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:14 pm to diat150
quote:
supply chain. I agree with your premise, because the civilians would revert to guerrilla warfare just like in your examples... but your examples were all somewhat primitive and used to hardened living compared to modern day americans.
The government is well stocked, but don't you think their supply chain would take a hit as well?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:14 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Thib-a-doe Tiger
You and I have different scenarios in mind since OP didn't specify. Since OP mentioned the 300M+ (pretty much the entire US population) vs the military, I assumed the military is out to destroy everything. In that case the civilians stand 0 chance. Even in a scenario where the military is asked to turn on an extremely significant number of the population is unrealistic. Why would they turn on their families, friends, neighbors, etc? You really think they are a bunch of mindless robots that would follow every order?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:15 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Who wins?
Did you seriously just ask this?
Posted on 10/4/17 at 12:15 pm to Packer
See you would think this but they aren't exactly running rough shod over way less stone throwers.
Also a good chunk of the military wouldn't participate.
Also a good chunk of the military wouldn't participate.
Page 8 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News