quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
A few months ago I came across a thread that made me think. In it a poster said something to the effect that “there is no way an unorganized unit could fight and actually win against an oppressive government here in the US”. I cannot remember the exact reply but it went sort of like this: “for the past two decades we have been sending young Americans into the best asymmetrical training area in the world. In Iraq and Afghanistan they have trained for and fought against the exact same enemy tactics you are saying they themselves cannot do. The vast majority of these guys are home now living normal lives but don’t think for a second they forgot the lessons they learned over there”.

That seems to assume that “they” would be fighting “for” the oppressive government rather than “against”

quote:

Originally posted by UpTheIrons:

quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear:
The other thing to remember about a US guerilla war would be that there are a lot of people in this country who know exactly how the military fights, and the limitations of their equipment.

Bear in mind too, home field advantage.
People defending their land know it better than any government analysis will. Lots of hollers, swamps, forests, and mountains with people who have been on them for generations.

And as my Vietnam veteran dad would say, I learned some things from Charlie......

Exactly, I for one would not want to lead a squad, platoon or company sized element into the Appalachians or Louisiana or any of the more rural parts of the US.

And Texas....

Ya'll remember a movie called Southern comfort?

It's funny, since taking up hog hunting I have done more night movement and setting up live ambushes then I ever did in the Army. I would assume it's like that for many jaegers.

Hogs be wiley

On a serious note, we have been seeing the Balkanization of the US since Bush II, I do not see it slowing down in the next 4 years.

It will continue to infect parts of the country, mostly urban, but I would predict those gangs will not try to move into and hold the suburbs ( certainly not the rural areas)but will try more of a " flying column" punitive type tactic.

My real fear is when the bubbas / suburban dads /brothers, some who have help a rifle in anger and many who have held one to hunt, let their cold rage turn hot.

Sorry for the ramblings, this has been on my mind a lot lately.

Regardless of how strong air support is, they still have to land somewhere, get fuel from some where, get maintenance/parts some where, and sleep some where. The logistics chain would be long and pretty fragile.
And logistics is the name of the game, especially in wilderness areas out west.

Sadly, I would agree that you can't depend on military leadership to side with the rebels. Many high profile flags have proven this industry the last 3 years.

^in just the last 3 years.

quote:

Originally posted by AllenInWV:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
Fighting against a force that has good air support would be hard.

True, but how many pilots would do that? How many crew/maintenance chiefs would work on a/c whose pilots did that? How many people working on airfields would sit idly by watching a/c sortie without doing something? Lots of ways to ground a/c without even injuring anyone.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but in any sort of "hot" civil war, I'd like to think the military would be 1) busy with their own internal struggles, and 2) reluctant to start engaging civilians.

That's a key point, and a very old lesson in warfare. If there was a very popular armed resistance against the government, any soldiers that remained loyal to it would be largely indistinguishable from mercenaries. And as we learn from the Battle of Thermopylae, just a handful of passionate patriots defending their homeland can undo a literal sea of slaves and mercenaries.

This has been going on since the 1960's and it isn't the political right that has been waging war, it's been the left.

Antifa and it's tactics and strategy is nothing more than an evolution (or weak offshoot) of groups like Earth First. Tree spikers, monkey wrenching, etc are the foundations for these groups and the methods they use.

I'll also speculate that leftist groups are better oriented (not necessarily prepared) to fight a low level civil war than the right is. People on the right have homes, families, jobs and businesses that they'll be reluctant to leave. The other side is much, much more mobile and therefore, anonymous.

I spent 10 years in the infantry and I can't imagine being asked to fire upon U.S. citizens. There would be so much trouble associated with that.......

V.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
The article discusses advantages in firepower of the government as the theoretically significant advantage, and then the author discounts it, I think appropriately. But I think the REAL advantage that the government has is digital. Both Internet based surveillance, and also then direct satellite, drone, sensor based. Not to mention 50 million FaceBook-connected Karens working day-and-night to secure safety for the children.

It would not surprise me at all if Google working for the .gov, or a .gov analog to Google (American or foreign, or both) is crawling this very post at some point, and A.I. then categorizing and cataloging each sentence posted. Chilling yes, but not in the least far-fetched. There's enough digital breadcrumbs in the decades spent online. There is no longer a security through obscurity. Automation hath laid that to waste.

Very True

Communication should revert to much more secure direct and less .gov managed/suveyable channels until tech comm assets are better matched.

In other words runners with a hand written message. 1860's tech age here we come.

...

quote:

Regardless of how strong air support is, they still have to land somewhere, get fuel from some where, get maintenance/parts some where, and sleep some where. The logistics chain would be long and pretty fragile.
And logistics is the name of the game, especially in wilderness areas out west.

Not to mention the grid. A big chunk of our electrical power is generated by plants out in the boonies. Operated by a lot of folks who would likely sympathize with those against an oppressive police state.

Another thing to consider....any conflict in the US would not happen in a vacuum. How many countries would be lining up to "provide aid" to one side or another when things like international commerce is impacted? Or major parts of the power grid go down? If our military is fighting amongst itself, what stops the UN from sending "peacekeepers"?

A second "hot" civil war would be a very very bad thing.

quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:

quote:

Originally posted by UpTheIrons:

quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear:
The other thing to remember about a US guerilla war would be that there are a lot of people in this country who know exactly how the military fights, and the limitations of their equipment.

Bear in mind too, home field advantage.
People defending their land know it better than any government analysis will. Lots of hollers, swamps, forests, and mountains with people who have been on them for generations.

And as my Vietnam veteran dad would say, I learned some things from Charlie......

Exactly, I for one would not want to lead a squad, platoon or company sized element into the Appalachians or Louisiana or any of the more rural parts of the US.

And Texas....

Ya'll remember a movie called Southern comfort?

Great movie!
I seriously doubt that the US Military would ever go after the "Bubbas" out there. Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee... Pretty rough, and well, probably related to A LOT of members of the US Military.

But what about Portland? (Including Chaz/chop/wherever) Seattle? Louisville? New York?
What about going after a bunch of black-clad, neck bearded, dickweeds that wear skull caps in the middle of summer?

quote:

what stops the UN from sending "peacekeepers"?

From where? The only 'peacekeepers' worth a shit aren't going to want to get involved in a US "Vietnam' style conflict, nor do they have anything like the numbers they'd need. The logistical problems alone would be insuperable.

Blue Helmets are not something anyone in the US needs to worry about.

quote:

If our military is fighting amongst itself, what stops the UN from sending "peacekeepers"?

The many Americans who would honored to display the powder blue steel pot helmet with a large caliber hole in it on our home mantels.

So we'd be fighting the various factions within the country AND still have the ability to deal with a foreign military presence? Somehow we all suddenly settle our differences and join forces to repel the interlopers?

As for numbers, they don't have to occupy the whole country, just enough to assist the faction they want to have control. One airport kept secure so <insertcountryhere> can fly in material goods/personnel. Start assisting the faction closely aligned with their goals, secure a foothold, then establish a "protected zone" or something.

Far-fetched, admittedly, but if you think the rest of the world would just sit back and watch...that's also pretty far-fetched.

quote:

Far-fetched

No, not at all. Britain, France, Russia, Japan and Germany all got up to some absolutely amazing shit when we squared up with Mexico, when we fought the Civil War and when we tried to hold down the Mexican Border during the never-ending revolutions of the early 1900's. Russia and China are getting up to some amazing shit in terms of recruitment of spies, manipulating communications systems and running elections now.

Hell, Rodrigo lost Spain because he fired a chatelaine.

A couple things to keep in mind about civil war:

1) Civil wars aren't civil. In Vietnam, Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia, prisoners weren't imprisoned for long, they were usually murdered and this included family members. Our civil war was brutal, but the level of reverence for human life (especially towards those who had recently been viewed as fellow Americans) was very different than what we've seen in places like those described and countries like Rwanda and Cambodia (under Pol Pot).

2) Those who initiate the violence have set a bar towards the level of "respect" for individual rights: None They want to trash the Constitutional of our nation, that established a delicate balance between the power of the state/masses and the God given RIGHTS of the individual. If they get power, it will be absolute.

3) Our government depends upon the support of the majority of the citizenry. Without it, it will fail. Look at the ratio of police officers in this country per capita of the areas they serve.

Los Angeles: 19 cops per 10,000 residents.

New York: 32 cops per 10,000 residents

Chicago: 44 cops per 10,000 residents

Sacramento and San Diego: About 14 cops per 10,000 residents.

https://www.governing.com/gov-...tals-for-cities.html

These small numbers exist because most of our citizenry recognize the importance of the rule of law. Without that and the expectation that conflicts will be handled in the courts rather than "on the street", a vacuum will be created. Something fills up a vacuum like this and that "something" is the security offered by militias, street gangs, and warlords. I dread the anarchy that's the actual result of what these Leftists are advocating, and would much rather see law enforcement strengthened by the use of military resources if necessary, but it bears repeating:

Those who are participating in the present insurrection attempts have little or no reason to create their own "rules of engagement", since they have no interest in or concern for the balances provided by our Constitution for the "Status Quo."

Personally I see the BLM types as "much sound and fury, signifying nothing". If they were 1/10th as tough as they act, the would work, have jobs, etc. Those living in their mother's or aunt's basements have no idea of what being tough is.

If they are so lazy as to not do something with their lives, it is very unlikely they would get far in an uphill battle against typical Americans. Trump is on the side of the people, the military, and working Americans. If Obama was in power, it would be patriots vs. a despised govenment and that is a completely different scenario from what we are currently facing.

Not sure if people here are fearing or wishing for insurrection vis-a-vis government pushback, but regarding foreign intervention:

- Peacekeepers in the UN sense presuppose a peace to keep, and agreement to have them by all sides to the conflict. Otherwise we're talking about peace enforcement. However, getting a mandate for the latter against the wishes of the recognized US government - a veto power in the UN Security Council - is right out.

- The government could of course invite allies in, though it's always a politically deligitimizing move in itself to bring in foreigners. The UK never asked for outside help to deal with The Troubles in Northern Ireland. The US did activate NATO's Article 5 for the first and so far only time in the alliance's history after 9/11, which was (and still is) the basis for joint operations in Afghanistan, securing the sealanes from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, and anti-terror missions all over the MENA-Central Asia region; NATO also deployed additional AWACS aircraft from Europe to secure US airspace after the terror attacks. Those were still conducted by outside, even if non-government actors though, not domestic enemies.

- If rival governments emerged like in the original American Civil War, I guess one could call in allies against the other. In the ACW, other powers had some interest in the conflict, but went only to the extent of recognizing the CSA's belligerency; i. e. that there were two sides fighting legitimately under the rules of warfare at the time. Nobody recognized their independence, in part because of inept Confederate diplomacy, in part because the Union made it clear that this would be considered a declaration of war against the US. Different interests also inhibited unilateral intervention. Generally, the international community is conservative in recognizing rebel governments and secessionists, out of its own interest.

- If the US descended into full-blown civil war, there would be a disruption of the global economy that might dwarve the impact of the subprime mortage, Euro and COVID crises. Most other nations would have better things to do than getting in on the fighting. As it is, the US externalizing its domestic conflicts already affects the rest of the Western world today. China, Russia, Iran etc. would love for that to increase and exploit the resulting power vacuum, but at least China would suffer economically since it's the US' biggest trading partner after the EU as a bloc; not to speak of secondary effects.

- Everybody in the West has had enough of intervening in partisan wars overseas with little to show for the losses after the last 30 years - Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Mali, etc.; NATO has steadfastly replied "fuck no" to Turkish attempts of enlisting help for fighting the Kurds on their border. Also, you don't usually intervene in the civil war of a nuclear power, because the party(s) in control of the nuclear weapons might take offense and fling some your way. The exception would be intervening to secure those weapons and prevent rogue use, something that has come up when people thought about civil war in the USSR/Russia or Pakistan.

I'm sure interested parties might consider covert operations, maybe "advisors", and definitely supplying any equipment necessary on top of the plentiful domestic American arsenal, if for no other reason than to keep the conflict going and neutralize the US as a global actor. I even guess the Chinese would consider it sweet historical payback to secure their markets by intervening in a US weakened by internal conflict, like Western powers did it with them in the late 19th/early 20th century. But for reasons outlined above, I'm not seeing that.

The biggest danger, IMO, would be if ANTIFA, stopped being idiots, and started going through chemistry, and engineering programs.

At least biochem, tends to have a filtering process, but we’ve had a rough time with savage terrorists without any education.

I also think some attitudes have changed, such that people may not see much difference between an air strike and bombing a political office.

(I think it’s why Russia slowed up on its dash to swallow Eastern Europe.)