Topic: Muh armed resistance against the gubment
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #110,363
A single strafing run by an A-10 would quash your "rebellion"
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later[^] [v] #1,228,963
There's a lot of problems with this theory of yours.
Namely that people join militaries to kill foreigners they dehumanize, none of them want to attack their own compatriots. It voids their justification for violence, that they are doing it to protect those people. It also voids the respect they'd get from people back home when they were the ones attacking their own home.
Guerillas have fought off much more powerful armies, despite technological disadvantages because they blended in with the main population who supported them while occupiers have many constraints that put them on the defensive. No one thinks Afghanistan or The Vietcong were at an advantage at all, they weren't even in the same ballpark, but they fought off a strong military anyway.
Many American civilians *used to be* in the American military and still have connections and training that would make fighting them extremely difficult.
People would be attacking places and cultures they recognized. Even if they don't send you to your hometown, you might remember someone from basic that told you they were from there. That makes it psychologically very difficult, and can lead to mass defections that quickly balance out the war.
The most effective attacks are not on individual rebels, but on infrastructure that supports civilians. Each time the military did conduct one of those operations successfully, they'd be hitting their own revenue base and weakening themselves.
The moment the locals voted in someone against the war, the military's own command structure would be at the whim of the rebels. No foreign power can vote in a new Commander-in-Chief.
tl;dr no one enlists in the american military to attack english-speaking whites from areas they know, who can vote in the next military leader.
Namely that people join militaries to kill foreigners they dehumanize, none of them want to attack their own compatriots. It voids their justification for violence, that they are doing it to protect those people. It also voids the respect they'd get from people back home when they were the ones attacking their own home.
Guerillas have fought off much more powerful armies, despite technological disadvantages because they blended in with the main population who supported them while occupiers have many constraints that put them on the defensive. No one thinks Afghanistan or The Vietcong were at an advantage at all, they weren't even in the same ballpark, but they fought off a strong military anyway.
Many American civilians *used to be* in the American military and still have connections and training that would make fighting them extremely difficult.
People would be attacking places and cultures they recognized. Even if they don't send you to your hometown, you might remember someone from basic that told you they were from there. That makes it psychologically very difficult, and can lead to mass defections that quickly balance out the war.
The most effective attacks are not on individual rebels, but on infrastructure that supports civilians. Each time the military did conduct one of those operations successfully, they'd be hitting their own revenue base and weakening themselves.
The moment the locals voted in someone against the war, the military's own command structure would be at the whim of the rebels. No foreign power can vote in a new Commander-in-Chief.
tl;dr no one enlists in the american military to attack english-speaking whites from areas they know, who can vote in the next military leader.
